Vital hardware that keeps machines humming
Mechanical seals are crucial for many machines with rotating parts, such as pumps. The business of making them is dominated by three large companies: Flowserve of the US; John Crane, part of the UK-based Smiths Group; and EagleBurgmann, a joint venture between Germany’s Freudenberg and EKK of Japan. The UK’s AESSEAL is number four.
Mechanical seals are crucial for many machines with rotating parts, such as pumps. The business of making them is dominated by three large companies: Flowserve of the US; John Crane, part of the UK-based Smiths Group; and EagleBurgmann, a joint venture between Germany’s Freudenberg and EKK of Japan. The UK’s AESSEAL is number four.
- Carl Johann Freudenberg starts the Freudenberg tannery in Germany with its leather providing a base for the company’s move into sealing technology.
- Feodor Burgmann forms Burgmann in Germany, which later becomes EagleBurgmann.
- George Cook invents the mechanical seal in the US and starts the Cook Seal Company to make assemblies of metal and textile-based parts to ensure liquid stays trapped in machines such as pumps.
- Crane Packing Company starts in Chicago as a seals producer and later moves into mechanical seals. The company subsequently becomes John Crane and is acquired by Smiths Group of the UK.
- Nihon Sealol, now called Eagle Industry Company (EKK), is founded in Japan.
- Chris Rea starts AESSEAL in the UK, after learning about mechanical seals while distributing products made by a US supplier
- Flowserve formed in the US through the merger of two leading fluid motion and control companies – BW/IP and Durco.
- Freudenberg and EKK acquire EagleBurgmann – now operated as a joint venture.
- Rea’s company reaches £100m of annual sales for the first time.
- Rotherham United’s new football stadium is named after the company in a sponsorship deal
- AESSEAL opens its Asia HQ in Kuala Lumpur
The accidental route to starting a company
Chris Rea was drawn into manufacturing by accident. Working as a distributor of engineering seals in Northern Ireland during the late 1970s, he found that the US company supplying them had suddenly pulled out, leaving him to find a new source for these products if he wanted to stay in a job.
He decided to try to make the items himself – and he succeeded, after a struggle. “After I got dumped I invested two years of my life moving into manufacturing, mainly driven by a desire to get my own back”.
In the early days he was greatly helped by the decision of Rotherham council in South Yorkshire to let him start up a factory on some land it owned “for virtually nothing”. The local authority’s move was part of an effort to attract new businesses to a region ravaged by the decline of the steel and coal industries.
As well as retaining Rotherham as its headquarters, Rea’s interest in the town is underlined by the sponsorship deal with the local football club which has meant Rotherham United’s stadium carries his company’s name.
The benefits of staying private
While Chris Rea owns just over half of AESSEAL, most of the remaining shares are held by 3i, the investment group. He sees being privately owned – as opposed to seeking a stockmarket listing – as an advantage.
It has greatly reduced the need to sound out shareholders about areas such as investment plans and dividend payments.
This form of ownership gives entrepreneurs the opportunity to “forego short-term profit generation and generate over a long period a large and sustainable business”, Rea says.
Good vibrations from the internet of things
A new area of activity for Chris Rea’s company – and one that fits in well with its service culture – centres on generating income from monitoring customers’ equipment using handheld instruments that measure vibration.
The process relies on machines and sensors transmitting information between each other in a way expected to become increasingly common as part of the so-called internet of things.
Industrial applications of the internet of things will become important both for big and small manufacturers, as well as a large group of companies selling key elements such as software and electronic components required to make the concept work.
Collecting the data thrown generated all these connected objects should make it possible to monitor them more closely, optimise their performance and anticipate problems before they occur. It could also support new business ideas such as charging a subscription for hardware based on the amount it is used.
In the new business, AESSEAL’s plant in Warrington, near Manchester, is making small instruments incorporating digital processing hardware plus sensors for measuring vibration.
Operators equipped with these devices will visit industrial plants to check on vibration – a ubiquitous by-product of rotating machinery. Working out the amount of vibration and how it varies indicates how well the machines are operating –and what sort of maintenance they need – but requires a lot of very precise data and sophisticated processing techniques.
The company aims to start using its monitors – which it calls machine sentry devices – to begin a service to UK customers before extending it to other countries. The project will mean the UK business comes up against strong competitors such as the US’s Emerson and Prüftechnik of Germany that already offer services based on monitoring vibration.
The article appeared in made Here Now in 2016



Encouraging young people to develop an interest in creative applications of engineering and manufacturing is vital to providing the skills the UK needs
The High Value Manufacturing Catapult brings together several research centres helping industry develop new thinking – in this case involving research into powder-based materialsThe pandemic has coincided with a new interest in making things at home. Consumers – both in the UK and overseas – have shown more signs of being positively influenced by the “British-made” brand. Domestically, it seems that stronger consumer interest has been fuelled by a combination of economic partisanship and a sense that the country has become too dependent on other nations for certain goods such as protective clothing for health workers (from which the UK suffered dire shortages in the early stages of the crisis).
Toray’s factory in Mansfield would have played a key part in the projectAt the peak of the pandemic protective gowns were required in enormous numbers in hospitals yet were in short supply. Deficiencies across all types of personal protective equipment are regarded as one reason for Britain’s high death rate.
The David Nieper clothes maker – a champion of “green manufacturing” in textiles – started its own project on reusable gowns“























Mike Bradley of Greenwich University demonstrates a prototype of his group’s protective hood.
Insufficient Poor protection for health workers may be among the factors behind Britain’s slow progress in checking Covid-19.
Staff and old people in care homes are among the high-risk groups.
The Greenwich device could be made in the UK to supplement protective equipment produced mainly in other countries
Engineer Mike Bradley believes the invention could become an important weapon in combating coronavirus
Health workers have emerged as key actors in what may turn out the biggest global crisis since the second world war




How a green manufacturing model fell apart
The government’s discussions over reusable protective gowns started out as an impressive attempt to combine two ideas – shifting the emphasis in a key area of personal protective equipment from disposable to renewable and boosting domestic manufacturing at a time of economic stress.
In the end neither goal was met, leaving industry figures who took part in the discussions disappointed.
David Stevens, chief executive of the Textiles Services Association, representing laundries that would have played a big part in recycling the gowns by washing each one 40-100 times, said the centralised plan would have made “a lot of sense from both an environmental and economic perspective”. It was “disappointing and frustrating” that so little progress had been made.
According to people involved with the talks, the cost of the project would have been about £75m. Online retailer Asos – best known for its fashion clothing and with no plants of its own but a good reputation for manufacturing knowhow – would have acted as project manager.
The conversations between the Cabinet Office and industry representatives followed criticism in March and April that the government had failed to build up stocks of PPE.
Shortages of gowns and related items in hospitals and care homes have been widely blamed for the rapid early spread of the virus, leading to a high official death rate of more than 41,000. This makes the UK the fifth-worst on this measure in the world, behind the US, Brazil, Mexico and India.
The effort to set up a UK-wide scheme for reusable gowns was handed to Lord Paul Deighton, a former Goldman Sachs banker and head of the organising committee for the 2012 London Olympics. Deighton was appointed in April to take charge of PPE purchasing, operating from the Cabinet Office – the government’s central policy body.
Deighton and Moira Ford, a procurement specialist who was part of his team, modelled the reusables project on a related government scheme on protective gowns organised in March, prior to his appointment.
Under this scheme roughly 6m single-use gowns are being made by five UK textiles makers using material supplied by a plant in Forfar, Scotland, run by Don & Low, a Greek-owned textiles firm. The cost of this programme is put at about £50m.
The individual manufacturers involved with the Don & Low project include Preston-based BB Workwear; Keela, based in Glenrothes, Scotland; Private White VC, a known mainly for its fashion clothing with a factory in Manchester; Survitec, in Birkenhead; and Redwood TTM which has several plants in Lancashire.
Samantha Fernando, sales director at Keela, which is making more than 500,000 gowns under the Don & Low scheme, said it was “fantastic” that officials had organised this “to support British manufacturing”.
Also participating in the cabinet office talks on the reusables programme were officials from the public purchasing agency Crown Commercial Service, the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and NHS Improvement (responsible for mapping long-term health policy).
A vital part of the new project involved laundry companies, which would be required to stick to rigorous standards when cleaning the gowns between uses. Large laundries including those run by two big companies, Elis and Synergy, would have played a central role.
Unlike in the Don & Low project, where the DHSC and the Scottish government between them organised the production of gowns by individual businesses, for the new scheme Deighton and Ford wanted to find one big company to which they could entrust the project management.
In the absence of any large suitable UK manufacturer they identified Asos. The clothing retailer relies on a global network of contractors to make its garments. It is well regarded for its record on sustainability and ensuring suppliers treat workers fairly. Out of its 173 suppliers in 24 countries, 24 are in the UK.
Working with the cabinet office, Simon Platts, Asos’s sourcing director, organised a group of its UK suppliers that could make the gowns. Mick Cheema, general manager of Basic Premier, an Asos supplier based in Leicester which worked on the scheme, said he had high hopes for the programme as creating a “new focus for UK manufacturing” in health-related procurement.
But efforts to finalise the scheme petered out after the cabinet office baulked at the likely costs of the project. Asos would have received about £15 a gown. This is considerably more (ignoring any benefits related to sustainability) than the unit costs of comparable disposable items bought from overseas. Asos would have made little profit on its involvement, say people involved.
It appears officials had trouble coming to terms with the distributed model of manufacturing that Asos was suggesting – with production spread out around the country – and would rather have had manufacturing concentrated in just a few places.
But the most compelling factor was that while the talks were dragging on – with no sign that the government officials were close to a decision – many of the more than 200 individual health trusts around the UK opted not to wait for the outcome. Many decided to go “off piste”, as one participant in the talks put it, and place their own orders to top up supplies.
MIP – a big Canadian company which makes its gowns mostly in Asia – said it had committed to supply of 2m reusable gowns to UK health trusts in the first six months of 2020.
Alexandra, a UK based supplier of uniforms and other items of “workwear”, said that that at the peak of the Covid crisis it was selling as many as 2m gowns a month to trusts, split between reusable and single-use garments. In June it was selling around 500,000 a month in the UK, nearly all of which were made overseas.
Several other schemes to source gowns involving individual health trusts and local manufacturers also started up.
Among the most prominent has been a scheme organised by the Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust which led to the establishment of the Northumbria Manufacturing and Distribution Hub, led by Sarah Rose, a textiles executive. The hub, based in Cramlington, has made more than 650,000 disposable gowns for health trusts in north-east England using a network of factories.
From now on, individual trusts will be left to procure gowns themselves, with some guidance from central government on specifications, along with encouragement to work with local industry partners where possible. It will be up to each trust to decide on the mix between throw-away and multi-use gowns.
The fall-out from the project’s messy end has been bruised feelings in industry. While Asos has not wanted to comment, its sourcing director Simon Platts is said by someone who knows him “not to be best pleased”.
Japanese textile maker Toray – which would have made most of the material for the project in a plant in Mansfield – said the cabinet office had been “slow and indecisive”. Had the government committed to the project Toray said it would have been ready to increase investment in its UK plant.
Supporting roles could have been played by other UK-based makers of the specialised fabrics required for reusable gowns, such as Heathcoat Fabrics, which has a factory in Devon employing more than 400 people.
Heathcoat said the failure of the talks was “a huge opportunity missed to not only eliminate any future supply issues but to also help the domestic textile industry at a time when jobs and unemployment are going to be a key issue”.