The Engineer archive: 'Machine tool census' from 12 January 1962

Some interesting figures about the age of machine tools used in British industry have been brought to light by the survey carried out by Metalworking Production at the request of the Machine Tool Trades Association, notes on which were given in our issue of 5 Jan. This survey, it is stated, showed that more than 59 per cent of the 1,234,000 machine tools in service in this country are more than 10 years old and no less than 20 per cent more than 20 years old. Discussing these figures, Sir Steuart Mitchell, who headed the sub-committee of the Machine Tool Advisory Council that recommended such a census should be made, pointed out that the fact that three-fifths of all machine tools in use in this country are more than 10 years old should make all concerned think. Although for some makes of machines 10 years is not an excessive age, in the case of many others this age certainly means obsolescence. No one surely can dispute Sir Steuart’s contention that the overall proportion of machines more than 10 years old needs examination in a country that has to live largely on its exports.

Of those who study the report few will disagree with Mr JC Snow, president of the Machine Tool Trades Association, in his comment that the government itself might well have some lesson to learn and that it should introduce fiscal arrangements that will enable easier and more rapid writing-off of capital costs and induce a greater readiness on the part of industry to reinvest in more productive equipment. But should there be introduced a greater measure of tax relief on machine tools, some overall plan of machine tool replacement by degrees should be prepared jointly by the machine tool makers and user industries. For if such a plan were not prepared, there might be a chance that British makers would not be able to cope with a sudden onrush of orders with their existing capacity, so that imports from overseas would soar. The outcome of such a plan would, no doubt, be delay in modernising the machine tools in use if it would ensure a more stable demand on the machine tool industry in this country, as well as justifying the increasing amount of money now beginning to be spent on research and development.

The survey is giving rise to comment and some criticism, both by and between the machine tool manufacturing and user industries; and it will doubtless continue to do so for some time to come. Possibly there is some justification for the contention that the way in which the results were arrived at, by averaging out the replies to the questionnaires, left margins for appreciable error. It is also unfortunate that no indication is given of the percentage of the actual number of firms in each of the 19 sections of industry listed that gave details of their machine tools in use. Doubtless in many instances, firms only guessed at the ages of their machines — and such guesses can be very wide of the mark at times, as we well know from experience. Despite these and other criticisms, which are so easy to make with a pioneer project of this nature, the results, though probably not fully accurate, provide some sort of yardstick not previously available. If it is considered that the survey is of the value that is implied by the discussions to which it has given rise, we hope that all firms will be glad to co-operate in the preparation of the next census, despite the time and effort entailed. How often should there be such a census? The present suggestion seems to be once every five years. Once every four might be more appropriate, so as to link in some way the publication of the figures with the holding of the Machine Tool Exhibition.