HOVERCRAFT DEVELOPMENT (Hansard, 20 March 1967)

§ Mr. John H. Osborn (Sheffield, Hallam)

If this debate had taken place twelve hours ago, I am quite certain that the Parliamentary Secretary and I would have been much happier and it would not have been necessary for me to address my mind to this subject—I will not say late at night but in the early hours of the morning as the light is coming through the windows. We have both had to forgo our sleep.

This is an important subject, and this debate gives us an opportunity to review progress and report on the hovercraft, its development and trade. I shall refer to the work of Mr. Christopher Cockerell, the work of the N.R.D.C., Hovercraft Development Ltd. and the British Hovercraft Corporation. I shall refer to the original work of Saunders-Roe and, more recently, Westlands.

The whole question of the development of hovercraft and the air-cushioned vehicle, or ACV as it is sometimes called, for high speed transport on land on an inter-city basis, using a propeller or linear induction motor, or across oceans using sophisticated developments of the hovercraft already in production, and perhaps successful exploitation of the new sidewall hovercraft put forward by Hovermarine—all these catch the imagination. Will Britain exploit this great breakthrough to the full? Much of the success of that depends upon the right decisions in Government as well as the right decisions in industry.

Great Britain is undoubtedly in the lead in this field at the moment, and the original idea of Mr. C. S. Cockerell, who can be given very great credit for this invention, has been exploited by this country in a number of ways. I well remember the visit of Mr. Cockerell to 1362 the House of Commons in the early days of his invention when he outlined his ideas to Conservative members at a time when there was a Conservative Government. We regretted the difference in February, 1966 with Hovercraft Developments Ltd, and I will refer to a recent article in the Financial Times by him. But much credit must be given to the previous Administration for the successes which have been achieved in the early 1960's and the strong support given by it to the N.R.D.C.

The hovercraft is a new method of transportation, whether over land, sea or swamp. It has civil and military applications, and Britain has a world lead. Our concern on this side of the House is that we in Westminster, in Whitehall and in Government, should ensure that we keep this lead.

Whatever may have happened in past years, success is now dependent upon the Ministry of Technology, through the N.R.D.C. and its subsidiary companies, and through the extension of the work of the National Physical Laboratory, and the Ministry of Technology has great responsibility for administering Government encouragement, drive and financial help to this new industry.

The Conservative Opposition have quite rightly asked questions from time to time as to the progress that is being made. We have been somewhat limited in the type of questions we have asked for a number of reasons. One is that exploitation of this form of transport must be left to those who have technical and commercial interests in this field, and in this connection the minimum rather than the maximum interference is required not only from Government but also from the Opposition at this time.

But are those with commercial interests being given the maximum help they deserve, and are they suffering the minimum of interference? Is Government direction being given with foresight and imagination? Is not the problem now one of development and application rather than of invention?

Secondly, our probing has been limited because we have not known officially what has been going on. Some of my hon. Friends have made visits to Hythe to see Hovercraft Development Ltd. They have been to factories where hovercraft are being built, but there is not 1363 enough knowledge here of what is going on. The issues are complex and technologies are changing. Ministers, let alone the Opposition, cannot grasp the real potentialities and issues. They are very much dependent upon their advisers, and we on this side are very much dependent upon accurate technical reporting.

On Monday, 30th January, there was a comprehensive article by Michael Donne, the Financial Times air correspondent, on the development of the SRN-4, and this was very encouraging. The SRN-4 is a 160-ton vehicle which could carry cars, or up to 700 passengers. It is in an advanced state of preparation; it should go down the slipway on the Medina in September, and it should not be long before it is in service with Swedish Hoverlloyd, which is a subsidiary of Swedish American and Swedish Lloyd. It set a pattern which subsequently was followed by British Railways, but while British Railways may be experts in operating railway trains, their performance on the Southampton—Cherbourg—Le Havre run did not match that of Thorenson and one wonders whether they are the right organisation in this field of transport. British Railways have been late-corners, spurred on by Hoverlloyd, but however belated, their interest is welcome.

We learn that companies such as Hovertravel, Hoverlloyd and British Rail Hovercraft and other groups are all contributing to the current total of more than 20,000 hours of running and 600,000 passengers carried. It is optimistically expected that 1 million passengers will have been carried by the end of 1967. The industrial structure has been changing as well. Total investment in hovercraft construction is of the order of £10 million, in the British Hovercraft Corporation £5 million, consisting of Westlands 65 per cent., Vickers 25 per cent., backed by N.R.D.C. with 10 per cent. This has a 20 per cent. interest in the Britten Norman Hovercraft group. This was announced by the Minister of Technology, then the right hon. Member for Nuneaton, on 3rd March, 1966. The creation of a larger unit is to be welcomed. It has been in operation for some time now and the country will look forward to progress reports on how 1364 things are going. There is a production line of 40 craft on order. The only other production line is that of Bell-Aerosystems in the United States of America.

There are other technical developments which are being circulated in the technical Press and we are being informed of them. In Engineering on 3rd March there was a comprehensive study of the sidewall hovercraft design by Hovermarine. It spoke in terms of 45 knots and a weight of 125 tons and the craft would go through three-foot waves at that speed. It is confined to operation in water. It is a natural development of the Denny type hoverbus in which I and other hon. Members had the privilege to ride up the Thames some years ago.

Hovercraft Development Ltd., the N.R.D.C., subsidiary has granted Hover-marine a licence to develop this kind of vehicle. The first to be developed will be a 60 passenger craft and that prototype is under construction by Halmatic. Can the Minister confirm that my information is correct and to what extent is there Government support for this project?

I come to a subject of much greater interest, the use of hovercraft as a means of speedy inter-city transport. Here we are talking of 200 m.p.h. or 250 m.p.h. although, judged by French experiments, it is possible to go at 280 m.p.h. or slightly faster. There were some interesting technical articles about the Bertin Aerotrain which at Breuguets Villacoublay works for preliminary testing.

This was reported in the Helicopter and Hovercraft World in February, 1966. The New Scientist, on 5th January, 1967, had a very good article about Aerotrains for commuters by Mr. Kahn. This prompted some interest on the opposition back benches and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) asked the Minister of Technology what steps he is taking with a view to constructing a full-scale prototype of a hover train incorporating linear induction and through whose agency this will be promoted. My hon. Friend was right when he said in a supplementary question: Bearing in mind the very big impact which, if its potentialities are realised, it could have on the investment programmes of road, rail 1365 and air, will he ensure that no time is wasted in deciding to go ahead with a full-scale prototype?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 252.] If the hovertrain is technically possible for fast inter-city transport, how can it best be developed? There are many variables which challenge the imagination. Are the economics being studied? Has there been a study of the application of this high speed craft, whether it be on a hovercraft principle or on a similar principle? What routes should be made available for it? Have any feasibility studies been made using existing British Rail routes or routes alongside existing motorways?

When driving up the M.1 recently, I looked at the centre lane and the side to find out whether I could justify such construction in the centre or on either side of the motorway. There are difficulties, but this would provide a route which is not in the hands of British Rail. Should the operators of this new form of transport be British Rail or British Rail with some other body providing an alternative service? These are things about which the House and the Government should think.

There is some useful knowledge to be gained from the Bertin experiments. Nearly four miles of track have been laid. The prototype is a six-seater, although I believe that the production type will be a 70 to 80-seater. The track is 5 ft. 11 in. wide overall of and "T" section. The "T" section is 1 ft. 10 in. high and laid in 21 ft. sections.

Reports about the experiments stimulate the imagination. An article in the Helicopter and Hovercraft World said: The performance of the Aerotrain places it in the category between conventional modes of surface travel and the fixed wing aircraft. Travelling between large towns up to 300 miles apart it is claimed to be superior to all other forms of transportation although no direct comparison with a scheduled helicopter system appears to have been made so far. Over distances greater than 300 miles it would still be competitive with fixed wing air transport since there would be no loss of time in travel between city centres and airports. Today, in France, the 250-mile journey from Paris to Lyon by the fastest train The Mistral' takes 4 hours. An Aerotrain operating over the same route would take between 1 hour 10 minutes and 1 hour 30 minutes. In the New Scientist of 5th January, 1967, it is stated that the French are going ahead with this development if 1366 it does not exceed a centime per kilometre per passenger seat. Referring to a commuter service between New Orleans and Paris, it states that passengers would be swept along in the aerotrain at several hundred miles an hour and cover such long distances in as little as 15 minutes.

Meanwhile, the article concludes, the British hovercraft is in an administrative muddle and dependent on Hovercraft Development Ltd. at Hythe. It ends by stating: One wonders to what extent we are making progress in this field. Dr. Cockerell, writing about the future of Hovercraft in The Financial Times on 1st June, 1966, said The danger, therefore, is that the Ministry of Technology and the National Research Development Corporation may feel content with what they have achieved, and will now sit back throwing financial feed to BHC and leaving it at that, instead of deliberately setting out to broaden the base of the industry, so that in some five years' time there are the makings of three new embryo 'BHCs', each with its own design team and its own independent policy. Without such action Britain will be buying American designs and American engines inside 10 years and will once again have failed at the exploitation stage of a new industry. Likewise, British Rail and other operators will have to buy BHC hovercraft or buy foreign hovercraft,… Thus we have a word of warning that complacency is not justified.

The purpose of the debate is to elicit information. The various factors must be borne in mind. First, British Railways is a large organisation and the work they have done on bringing in diesel trains and on electrification is praiseworthy and to their credit, but they have proved that they have lacked some imagination and commercial expertise on the Southampton—Cherbourg service. Perhaps they can do only one thing well. Perhaps this is a sideline which they neglected and that is why experts in other fields have come in and do the job better.

We must learn whether British Railways are good operators of the Channel service, which is where the lead is being taken by Hoverlloyd. Are British Railways necessarily the best people to be given the monopoly of operating this new fast 250 m.p.h. inter-city type of transport when suitably developed technically.

1367 In another connection I was talking about spray steel making and I pointed out that it was not the big companies which achieved the break-through but a small firm, Millom Hematite & Iron Ore. In an article I said this: If the stage coach had been nationalised, we would never have had railways. This was in connection with spray steel making. It is equally logical to ask this question, which some people might ask in 50 years' time: because British Railways were nationalised, is that why Britain never had the hovertrain? It is not a question of a nationalised industry doing it, but the railways have expertise in running trains on conventional track. Are they the best organisation to go into this new form of transport? I suppose that in many ways it is as logical for British Railways to go into developing hovertrains as it would have been for them to go into the airline business. It is vital that the Government should give some thought to the administrative arrangements which would have to be faced in developing this inter-city travel, whether by hovertrain or some similar development.

There was also the announcement on 24th January, which we on this side welcomed. The Minister circulated information which contained the statement that a section of the separate hovercraft unit would be set up by the National Phyhical Laboratory. The words were: The Hovercraft Technical Group at Hythe of Hovercraft Development Ltd., a subsidiary body of the National Research Development Corporation, will come under the control of a separate Hovercraft Unit to be set up by the National Physical Laboratory."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th January, 1967; Vol. 729, c. 1248.] We asked questions at that time.

I have spoken to persons associated with hovercraft. They welcome the fact that there is this Hovercraft Technical Group and that it will have better facilities for theoretical and applied study to learn more about the unknown of this type of travel. They welcome a more systematic acadamic and theoretical approach to scientific problems.

The French have also shown initiative in going further and achieving practical development, namely, the Bertin aerotrain. There is a need to install special 1368 track to carry out trials. In France this has been done at a cost of about £200,000.

We come back to the Question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Ely on 28th February and which has prompted this debate: what steps is the Minister taking with a view to constructing a full-scale prototype of a hovertrain… My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) asked this supplementary question: That is not a satisfactory answer. Does the hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that the National Physical Laboratory has the resources or the authority to take this development through the pilot stage which is now extremely urgent? Will he undertake to report to the House within the next few months, or suffer severe censure?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 252.] We want an elaboration of that interchange. This is a development which I believe must be done by an industrial organisation, and who better than the British Hovercraft Corporation, Ltd.? But this leads me to certain conclusions. I imagine that the Government will develop hovertrains in their own way. Therefore, I ask them to differentiate between scientific investigation, the pursuit of knowledge—including pure research which could most suitably be carried out by the National Physical Laboratory—and development.

I would next urge the Government to consider whether there ought not to be a research and development contract placed with a company; and, as I have said, who better than the British Hovercraft Corporation? If they are appalled by the cost, then why not make this a joint Anglo-French venture with the French SECA—the Societe 1'Exploitation et de Construction Aeronautique?

Next, I urge the Government to give some thought to the kind of organisation which would be best for exploiting successful developments and a technological break-through in this field. Events of the past seven or eight years have clearly shown that hovercraft development has depended on a working arrangement between the Government, the NRDC, and British Industry. Sir Eric Mensforth, a constituent of mine, and chairman of Westland, was quick to take up hovercraft with Saunders Roe when Westland took 1369 over that organisation, and the Westland Company is achieving considerable breakthroughs.

It is also encouraging to note that the patent field is well covered, and it is largely due to his initiative that we are about to have a break-through in marine propulsion. Whatever happens, we shall have the SRN 4 launching this summer. It will have its operating trials next year, and there are ambitious development projects for 300, 400 and even 4,000 ton ocean freighters. This is a success story which the nation will follow with interest. I believe we are on the verge of an ambitious break-through in fast ocean transportation.

There is another aspect of this type of transport. We hear much now about the Channel tunnel, but it will be of little advantage to the manufacturers of the North. A hover freighter from the Humber and the East Coast ports to the continent, and especially if consisting of the larger vehicles, would have the opportunity for taking produce quickly from manufacturer to user across the North Sea. This would have advantage over the tunnel when that is built. This sea-freighter idea would be watched with interest by manufacturers in the North and Midlands.

There is the development project for a hoverport at Ramsgate—at Rich-borough or Pegwell. This has been raised with me by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies). Has authority been given for this work to go ahead, because the SRN 4 will soon be in operation. Swedish Lloyd are a progressive company and I hope the Minister will give this consideration.

This has been the first opportunity in this Parliament to raise the issue of hovercraft and hovertrains. Firstly I ask the Minister to remember that private enterprise has an important role to play. Secondly, I ask him to fill in the gaps in our knowledge about what his Ministry is doing. Thirdly, I remind him that we in the Opposition are not happy about the National Physical Laboratory being a suitable organisation for sponsoring practical development. We think that another organisation should be set up to develop, manufacture, and operate the hovertrain. Fourthly, I ask him to give urgent attention to the development of the 1370 hovertrain as a means of fast inter-city transport.