GWML Electification

[Titan]

Uh, how is running the same number of longer trains increasing the frequency?

two short trains an hour is the same frequency as two longer trains an hour, to increase the frequency they would need to run more trains, ask Cross Country about Operation Priceless back in 2000, Oh actually lets not!

Because once the trains get past the congested bit from London, they split and go to two different destinations. Thus each destination gets its frequency doubled by having a longer train departing from London.

[D854_Tiger]

Because once the trains get past the congested bit from London, they split and go to two different destinations. Thus each destination gets its frequency doubled by having a longer train departing from London.I

 

I suspect there won't be a lot of splitting going on, apart from off-peak at Cardiff (for Swansea) and Bristol (for the West Country), every hour, most Cardiff and Bristol services should be nine car sets.

 

The five car sets being mostly reserved for the Cheltenham, Worcester and Oxford routes where, if they need extra capacity, they can double up during the peaks.

[Coryton]

Because once the trains get past the congested bit from London, they split and go to two different destinations. Thus each destination gets its frequency doubled by having a longer train departing from London.

 

That's not how the trains to Bristol and South Wales work. So far the IETs haven't resulted in any increase in frequency.

 

I'm not sure if there's anywhere that IETs are planned to do that - the plans I'm aware of for splitting trains are where part of the train is left behind for the less busy parts of the journey (e.g. Cardiff to Swansea, Edinburgh to Aberdeen).

[D854_Tiger]

That's not how the trains to Bristol and South Wales work. So far the IETs haven't resulted in any increase in frequency.

 

I'm not sure if there's anywhere that IETs are planned to do that - the plans I'm aware of for splitting trains are where part of the train is left behind for the less busy parts of the journey (e.g. Cardiff to Swansea, Edinburgh to Aberdeen).

 

I believe VTEC were planning it to serve parts of Yorkshire and the North that other trains cannot reach.

[david.hill64]

All of this talk of splitting/joining trains brings a wry smile to my face when I remember that the sensible option of loco and coaches was rejected due to the time taking for splitting/joining the motive power.

[St. Simon]

All of this talk of splitting/joining trains brings a wry smile to my face when I remember that the sensible option of loco and coaches was rejected due to the time taking for splitting/joining the motive power.

 

Yes, but actually nowadays, a loco-change will take much longer than people think, as approaching locking, approach control and route release timers (that weren't around in the periods that we use as comparisons for loco-changes, or at least weren't as widely applied as they are now) will make the whole process slower. Plus the fact that a light loco move would cause significant numbers of conflicting routes to be locked out of use (particularly around Bristol or Plymouth) for a period as well, which all add delays.

 

Having a unit split in the platform is much quicker, in the days of the Turbos it could be done very fast (sub one minute I've seen before at Reading), once everyone is confident of the procedure and any problems ironed out, it won't be too long a process.

 

Simon

[Ron Ron Ron]

All of this talk of splitting/joining trains brings a wry smile to my face when I remember that the sensible option of loco and coaches was rejected due to the time taking for splitting/joining the motive power.

The use of locos and coaches was rejected because it's a vastly more expensive option.

Even BR worked that out at the end.

 

In the case of train services that run under the wires for the larger part of the journey and continue on off the wires for the remainder; 4 options were considered by the IEP.

1. Self-powered (e.g. Diesel) train for the whole journey (e.g. HST )

2. Change of motive power where the wires end (e.g. Loco change)

3. A train that can run in two modes, both electric and self-powered ( bi-mode)

4. A change of trains en-route (i.e. connecting services)

 

Option 4 was ruled out as being undesirable and even unacceptable in certain quarters.

Of the remaining options, option 2, the change of locos, was considered far more expensive than options 1 and 3.

Option 2 also failed to meet several of the key objectives of the IEP.

 

Option 3 won out over option 1 for what are fairly obvious reasons.

Also bear in mind a key objective was to save money overall, which the DaFT then completely bu**ered up by interfering and micromanaging the project specification and procurement, to end up the trains being the complete opposite of their own original objective.... instead ending up more expensive.

 

Two subsequent independent reviews of the IEP concluded that the option of loco changes was indeed the most expensive and operationally worst option.

Edited February 20, 2018 by Ron Ron Ron

[david.hill64]

The use of locos and coaches was rejected because it's a vastly more expensive option.

Even BR worked that out at the end.

 

In the case of train services that run under the wires for the larger part of the journey and continue on off the wires for the remainder; 4 options were considered by the IEP.

1. Self-powered (e.g. Diesel) train for the whole journey (e.g. HST )

2. Change of motive power where the wires end (e.g. Loco change)

3. A train that can run in two modes, both electric and self-powered ( bi-mode)

4. A change of trains en-route (i.e. connecting services)

 

Option 4 was ruled out as being undesirable and even unacceptable in certain quarters.

Of the remaining options, option 2, the change of locos, was considered far more expensive than options 1 and 3.

Option 2 also failed to meet several of the key objectives of the IEP.

 

Option 3 won out over option 1 for what are fairly obvious reasons.

Also bear in mind a key objective was to save money overall, which the DaFT then completely bu**ered up by interfering and micromanaging the project specification and procurement, to end up the trains being the complete opposite of their own original objective.... instead ending up more expensive.

 

Two subsequent independent reviews of the IEP concluded that the option of loco changes was indeed the most expensive and operationally worst option.

Not sure that you can claim that 'BR worked it out in the end' given that the last BR Intercity project was IC250 which was loco hauled. When I was in a Rosco the sums for bimodes didn't add up and it was close between distributed power - with its operational reliability effects and locos - cheaper first cost and lower whole of life maintenance costs.

 

Independent reviews with what remit - consultants supporting their sponsor's brief perhaps (been there, done that, no T shirt issued).

 

How it can be a cheaper option to drag several tonnes of unused diesel engine and its fuel under the wires for the next 30 years will take a lot of explaining, but in the parallel world inhabited by the DfT it would not surprise me. You obviously have a great deal of knowledge of the stock, so what will the weights of a comparable set of bimodes and a straight electric set be?

 

As it happens with the electrification cock up then bimode is a nice way out and allows the DfT to bask in its prescience. But two wrongs don't make a right.

 

It would surely have been possible to have a common fleet of coaches and DVTs (possibly with hotel power and get you somewhere else facility). If things had gone to plan then a loco change would be required only at Edinburgh and perhaps Cardiff/Bristol. Operationally not as convenient as flicking a switch in the platform but going continental and having a lengthy station stop for the changeover (longer than the time required for a loco change) would help recovery from degraded modes. Admittedly if you have made such a mess of upgrading the infrastructure then switching modes in the middle of nowhere brings obvious advantages to the bimode.

[Gwiwer]

The greatest source of delay in the current environment when it comes to splitting and attaching seems to be getting the on-board computers to recognise the changed configuration.  That and the apparently necessary approach-controlled signalling slowing the rear portion down somewhat as it nears the station.

 

Loco-and-coaches splits / attaches were far more complex.  A split required somewhere to stand a second loco before it shunted back onto its part of the train while an attach move typically required the leading train to draw forward clear of the station and to stop between starter and section signals before the second portion arrived, the loco was uncoupled and disposed of whence the leading portion could gently (one hoped!) be reversed onto the tail.  I experienced that when the Brighton / Portsmouth portions of the through Plymouth train were joined at Fareham; it seemed to take forever.

 

Another thing the operators might be looking at is the use of station dwell time required for splits / attaches to make use of any available capacity for faster trains to overtake.  This happens on Southern at Haywards Heath four times every hour (two up, two down) where the East / West Sussex coastal trains are looped for up to 10 minutes and the fast Brightons run through.  

 

It should only take 2 minutes to couple / uncouple.  It could be done in very much less depending on the stock and location.  Again on the Southern where such things were (and still are) commonplace the 1963-type units could be split in 20 seconds and coupled in 30-40 although the current generation of Electrostars and safety requirements mean 2 - 3 minutes is required.  

 

Is that progress?

[The Stationmaster]

Yes, but actually nowadays, a loco-change will take much longer than people think, as approaching locking, approach control and route release timers (that weren't around in the periods that we use as comparisons for loco-changes, or at least weren't as widely applied as they are now) will make the whole process slower. Plus the fact that a light loco move would cause significant numbers of conflicting routes to be locked out of use (particularly around Bristol or Plymouth) for a period as well, which all add delays.

 

Having a unit split in the platform is much quicker, in the days of the Turbos it could be done very fast (sub one minute I've seen before at Reading), once everyone is confident of the procedure and any problems ironed out, it won't be too long a process.

 

Simon

 

Actually all you need is a track layout and signalling designed to facilitate loco changes, just as you need one designed to facilitate trains splitting and joining.  Route release timers have been around for a very long time of course, flank locking has obviously got more onerous, and standing running signals further back from splitting pointwork can have a critical effect (perhaps more so than anything else) but that apart all it is really about is wanting to do it and pay for it.

[Titan]

How it can be a cheaper option to drag several tonnes of unused diesel engine and its fuel under the wires for the next 30 years will take a lot of explaining, but in the parallel world inhabited by the DfT it would not surprise me. You obviously have a great deal of knowledge of the stock, so what will the weights of a comparable set of bimodes and a straight electric set be?

 

There are costs that are much more significant than the extra fuel (diesel or electric) required for lugging a few extra tonnes about. Rail is the most efficient form of transport for moving heavy loads overland. So the few extra pence per mile, even over 30 years would be as nothing compared to the cost of building extra vehicles, and the facilities required to do all the train splitting and loco changing required, not to mention the on going costs of the extra time taken and additional staffing!

[Zomboid]

As far as traction changes go, the way to do it was demonstrated in 1967 at Bournemouth.

As I understand that, your electric loco (high powered EMU in that case) drives the trailer cars onto the back of the diesel locomotive. That couples up and the electric traction uncouples, and away we go. I guess the electric traction then shunts to await the next diesel arrival, but actually that isn't necessary if the changeover platforms are bi directional. No need for any signalling that isn't identical to that used to allow MUs to join in the platform, and very little in the way of light engine moves.

That was introduced 51 years ago, and now thanks to "progress" we're doing the equivalent of dragging the REP to Weymouth and the 33 to Waterloo.

[david.hill64]

There are costs that are much more significant than the extra fuel (diesel or electric) required for lugging a few extra tonnes about. Rail is the most efficient form of transport for moving heavy loads overland. So the few extra pence per mile, even over 30 years would be as nothing compared to the cost of building extra vehicles, and the facilities required to do all the train splitting and loco changing required, not to mention the on going costs of the extra time taken and additional staffing!

 

If you think about there would be very few extra vehicles required. Nothing in terms of trailer cars. Possibly one extra diesel loco and one extra electric loco per route where there is a change and maybe not even that. Accordingly there may be one extra driver per route as well.

[Titan]

If you think about there would be very few extra vehicles required. Nothing in terms of trailer cars. Possibly one extra diesel loco and one extra electric loco per route where there is a change and maybe not even that. Accordingly there may be one extra driver per route as well.

 

But the current system requires no locos, so all of the locos required to run the service should be counted as extra vehicles. Now I am not sure how much it costs to build at least an extra vehicle per train in the form of a locomotive, compared to slinging the equipment under the floors, but it still illustrates the point that the cost of fuel is not going to be top of the list when it comes to overall expenditure, and other factors have much more influence.

[Ron Ron Ron]

.....now thanks to "progress" we're doing the equivalent of dragging the REP to Weymouth and the 33 to Waterloo.

 

 

Playing devil's advocate here, but have you stopped to consider, that might actually have been the more cost effective way to operate?

 

...or to consider that rather than using the 33, had the engine, or engines been installed in the trailers that it might have ended up being more efficient than using a dedicated loco?

 

I don't know the answer to that, but the Bi-mode concept wasn't adopted because some bright sparks dreamt it up over a long Friday afternoon pub lunch.

The concept didn't originate with the members of the IEP or from within Whitehall.

In addition, various loco options were all in the original HST2 and IEP melting pot and the DafT were being driven to search for cost savings over the whole life of the train operation.

If loco haulage had been cheaper, they would have grabbed it.

 

But there's something that must take on board to help understand why this course of action was initiated.

 

Using the 60's/70's  Waterloo - Bournemouth - Weymouth example as an analogy.

Assume your diesel loco (the 33 in this case) was purchased specifically for this one and only role (the Bournemouth - Weymouth portion).

Factor in that there is an intention from the very beginning, to gradually extend the electrification further towards Weymouth.

Subsequently the electrification is extended to Poole; then to Wareham.

Each time the amount of work that the diesel loco has to do is reduced and could be done with fewer locos.

The operation becomes more and more inefficient in cost terms and surplus locos lie idle.

If electrification is then completed, the diesel locos will be redundant long before they have paid for themselves and if there was no other role for them, they will have to be disposed of.

 

IEP had to take into account, the prevailing electrification plans, during it's gestation period.

Let's take a look at the chronology.

At first there was going to be no further electrification, not of the GWML or any other large scale scheme. 

The trains were specified, the tender was let and the winning contractor produced a train design to meet the specification.

Diesel trains for the GWML, Electric trains for the ECML and Bi-Mode trains for the ECML extensions beyond the wires.

 

Then everything was turned on its head.

Suddenly a U-turn and electrification was going to go everywhere, starting with the NW scheme and the GWML.

The IEP train requirement was altered due to the changing circumstances and the DafT wanted a different format and set of configurations for the trains.

The original design which had the diesel/battery (hybrid) power unit located in a driving trailer vehicle (class 43 style without the traction motors) was dropped in favour of a switch to underfloor diesel power packs.

One of the various reasons driving that change, was the fact that a programme of rolling electrification, would render a reduced roll for the driving vehicles containing the diesel generator power plant. (Class 33 analogy above)

The prospect of prematurely retiring these vehicles before they had been in service long enough to have paid for themselves, damaged the whole life business case.

The possibility of converting some or all of them to passenger vehicles when their original role was reduced, was deemed to be a financial uncertainty, when looking 8, 10, 15 or 20 years down the road.

Plus, being steel bodied and more heavily constructed, because of the extra weight and stresses of housing the power plant etc, it was feared that conversion might have resulted in too heavy a passenger carrying vehicle.

 

Hence, underfloor engine packs, that can be removed when no longer required.

Diesel engines that can be sold or reused elsewhere and passenger vehicles that continue operating, just as before.

No surplus driving cars, or dedicated (and probably specialised) diesel locos, that can't be reused elsewhere on a non-loco passenger railway.

 

How badly things have turned out.

The GWML electrification debacle and political (mis)management of the situation are why, we are where we are today.

 

 

.

[Coryton]

But the current system requires no locos, so all of the locos required to run the service should be counted as extra vehicles. Now I am not sure how much it costs to build at least an extra vehicle per train in the form of a locomotive, compared to slinging the equipment under the floors, but it still illustrates the point that the cost of fuel is not going to be top of the list when it comes to overall expenditure, and other factors have much more influence.

 

I'm not sure it does demonstrate that. The extra fuel might be small per trip....but over 30 years there's a very large number of trips.

 

And it is quite likely that over 30 years the cost of that extra fuel is going to go up, quite possibly by a lot more than the costs of constructing extra vehicles and staffing them.

[Ron Ron Ron]

If you think about there would be very few extra vehicles required. Nothing in terms of trailer cars. Possibly one extra diesel loco and one extra electric loco per route where there is a change and maybe not even that. Accordingly there may be one extra driver per route as well.

 

I can't point to any specific piece of work, but there was quite a bit of detail published, or reported about this, several years ago.

It was interesting reading and quite illuminating.

That information outlined that the overheads in adopting loco changes would be significantly greater than you are suggesting.

 

The brand new locos needed would have to be procured and built for the task.

They would have comprised of an expensive, specialised fleet, with additional leasing costs, requiring separate depot facilities, a wider maintenance requirement, extra maintenance staffing, extra operational staffing, more drivers, additional track access charges for loco positioning (paths) and shunting moves.

Waiting locos also gobble up cost, rather than earning money.

 

NR and the DafT also had a high priority requirement, or ambition, with regard to reducing or limiting the weight of the new trains and with the implication for track maintenance and wear, heavy locos didn't sit very well with that.

(n.b. That's why Hitachi's original design for the diesel power cars, did without traction motors, to save vehicle axle weight).

 

Then there are other significant infrastructure costs involved.

In some of the locations where loco changes might have been performed, the track layout would have to be redesigned and reconstructed to accommodate shunting moves and stabling.

Add the complication of re-signalling to support the method of operation.

£££££ all having to be factored into the business case and whole life costs of the programme.

 

IIRC, there was quite a bit more.

 

Ron

 

 

.

[The Stationmaster]

One thing which never seems to get much consideration with all this business of slinging diesel engines and associated fittings under passenger coaches is the divergence it produces between maintenance requirements and the simpler (allegedly) tasks such as cleaning.  if the mechanical maintainers are maintaining it often means that the cleaners can't get onto a train or, at n best, their access to do so is through a workshop area which even in the best kept circumstances will present dirt hazards and much to trail onto the train they are about to clean.  Cleaning work requires lights on (it's mainly done at night of course) and onboard power suppliers for such things as vacuum cleaners - which might be at odds with powering down the train for various technical inspections and work.

 

With hauled coaches the job is simple - once on depot they can be done once the staff reach them.  With trains coming on require fuelling the whole process depends on how quickly that can be done on the incoming fleet and how quickly any scheduled exams and work arising cab be dealt with.  If the technical work overruns than the cleaning suffers as could so often be the case with First Generation dmus and whatever else the work progress can become inefficient.    Even HSTs suffer this problem to some extent although at least with them if major work is needed you can swap the power car, assuming you have a spare of course.  and if you start hitting unreliability problems with engines etc then cleaning is the first thing to go as time is used for the mechanical etc work.

 

Not so bad with electric trains - generally their day-to-day maintenance needs are significantly less than with diesels and they are usually massively cleaner.  Thus there is inevitably a hidden, and usually completely overlooked, potential cost when you start shoving diesel power underneath passenger vehicles and I suspect it could also get rather interesting when you have catering fitments in driving trailer vehicles which although they lack the engine problem will have the added complication of the catering fit having to be taken apart at regular intervals for heavy hygienic cleaning.  I hope the 80X series trains have very modular kitchen areas and that the depots will have spare modules they can swap in if stuff is taken out for heavy cleaning. (assuming such cleans are still done of course?)

[Ron Ron Ron]

I'm not sure it does demonstrate that. The extra fuel might be small per trip....but over 30 years there's a very large number of trips.

 

And it is quite likely that over 30 years the cost of that extra fuel is going to go up, quite possibly by a lot more than the costs of constructing extra vehicles and staffing them.

 

Remember, the intention was that the Diesel engines would gradually be removed over time.

 

Whatever the plans are now (if there are any), or however they will change in the future, the diesels in the Bi-Mode vehicles are not a permanent fixture.

 

 

.

[Zomboid]

If the REPs had been dragged to Weymouth, and the 33s to Waterloo, then more of both would have been needed. That would have been rather wasteful particularly in regards to the 33s, though not so much the REPs (though the need for 12 cars past Bournemouth would be debatable at best).

 

The characteristics of the route made what happened a particularly ideal solution, but to me it still stands up for situations where a bit at the end needs less capacity and the trunk is electrified.

 

Maybe the economics tell a different story, I was more making the point that there is no need for lots of special signalling and light engine moves to enable traction changes in that fashion, fundamentally it's exactly the same as what you'll see happening many times a day at Haywards Heath and Salisbury, to name two.

[Coryton]

Remember, the intention was that the Diesel engines would gradually be removed over time.

 

Whatever the plans are now (if there are any), or however they will change in the future, the diesels in the Bi-Mode vehicles are not a permanent fixture..

 

I think that's what I'm missing.

 

When the IETs were specified, what lines were expected to be diesel at the start of their lives, but become electrified during them?

 

Not north of Edinburgh, I presume.

 

Officially so far as I know Cardiff-Swansea was supposed to be done before they started. Maybe people were taking in account the fact that it might not happen in time....but I don't think there are or have been serious plans to extend the wires further west than that at any point.

 

I'm not so sure about the plans for Bristol and beyond.

 

Certainly now the bimodes are being used as stop-gaps during rolling  (delayed) electrification, but was that really the plan at the start?

[The Stationmaster]

I can't point to any specific piece of work, but there was quite a bit of detail published, or reported about this, several years ago.

It was interesting reading and quite illuminating.

That information outlined that the overheads in adopting loco changes would be significantly greater than you are suggesting.

 

The brand new locos needed would have to be procured and built for the task.

They would have comprised of an expensive, specialised fleet, with additional leasing costs, requiring separate depot facilities, a wider maintenance requirement, extra maintenance staffing, extra operational staffing, more drivers, additional track access charges for loco positioning (paths) and shunting moves.

Waiting locos also gobble up cost, rather than earning money.

 

NR and the DafT also had a high priority requirement, or ambition, with regard to reducing or limiting the weight of the new trains and with the implication for track maintenance and wear, heavy locos didn't sit very well with that.

(n.b. That's why Hitachi's original design for the diesel power cars, did without traction motors, to save vehicle axle weight).

 

Then there are other significant infrastructure costs involved.

In some of the locations where loco changes might have been performed, the track layout would have to be redesigned and reconstructed to accommodate shunting moves and stabling.

Add the complication of re-signalling to support the method of operation.

£££££ all having to be factored into the business case and whole life costs of the programme.

 

IIRC, there was quite a bit more.

 

Ron

 

 

.

What would happen, for example, on the GWML, is that little or no additional infrastructure would be required for loco changes at the most likely changeover stations BUT what is/was there would have to be reproduced, to some extent, at times of infrastructure renewal.  

 

The dwell time element is, incidentally, very largely a red herring as some of the logical locations for traction changeover sit quite happily with slighty  extended dwell times already and a loco change, especially at opposite ends of a train  need take no longer than 4 or 5 minutes with modern couplings (in fact it ought to be even quicker with modern couplings).

 

The thing which has always fascinated me on the railway is that if you wish to prove a particular contention - such as traction unit changeover instead of bi-mode trains - you can usually find the numbers to justify your case, it all depends what you take into consideration.  Chris Green was, so I understand from one of his past investment people, a past master at this as very often in his case the justification and investment case for something he had done had to be produced after it had happened.

[Ron Ron Ron]

One thing which never seems to get much consideration with all this business of slinging diesel engines and associated fittings under passenger coaches is the divergence it produces between maintenance requirements and the simpler (allegedly) tasks such as cleaning.  if the mechanical maintainers are maintaining it often means that the cleaners can't get onto a train or, at n best, their access to do so is through a workshop area which even in the best kept circumstances will present dirt hazards and much to trail onto the train they are about to clean.  Cleaning work requires lights on (it's mainly done at night of course) and onboard power suppliers for such things as vacuum cleaners - which might be at odds with powering down the train for various technical inspections and work.

 

With hauled coaches the job is simple - once on depot they can be done once the staff reach them.  With trains coming on require fuelling the whole process depends on how quickly that can be done on the incoming fleet and how quickly any scheduled exams and work arising cab be dealt with.  If the technical work overruns than the cleaning suffers as could so often be the case with First Generation dmus and whatever else the work progress can become inefficient.    Even HSTs suffer this problem to some extent although at least with them if major work is needed you can swap the power car, assuming you have a spare of course.  and if you start hitting unreliability problems with engines etc then cleaning is the first thing to go as time is used for the mechanical etc work.

 

Not so bad with electric trains - generally their day-to-day maintenance needs are significantly less than with diesels and they are usually massively cleaner.  Thus there is inevitably a hidden, and usually completely overlooked, potential cost when you start shoving diesel power underneath passenger vehicles and I suspect it could also get rather interesting when you have catering fitments in driving trailer vehicles which although they lack the engine problem will have the added complication of the catering fit having to be taken apart at regular intervals for heavy hygienic cleaning.  I hope the 80X series trains have very modular kitchen areas and that the depots will have spare modules they can swap in if stuff is taken out for heavy cleaning. (assuming such cleans are still done of course?)

 

That's all Agility Trains problem Mike.

They are contracted to supply the diagrams, with serviceable, clean, presentable trains.

How they achieve that and what it costs is entirely up to them.

 

Incidentally, I had a glance at the supply contracts, which are very lengthy, in heavy lawyer speak and contain a myriad of definitions and cross referencing.

Virtually impenetrable to mere mortals and swamp dwellers like myself.

However I spotted plenty of tough talk when it comes to meeting the daily service requirements.

Mind you, I suppose it all depends on the implementation and how closely the TOC's and DafT hold Agility to the task.

 

 

.

 

 

.

[The Stationmaster]

Remember, the intention was that the Diesel engines would gradually be removed over time.

 

Whatever the plans are now (if there are any), or however they will change in the future, the diesels in the Bi-Mode vehicles are not a permanent fixture.

 

 

.

Noting the way you have carefully phrased that Ron I think it's now a pretty firm conclusion that on many most of the 80X series trains the full fit of engines will become an extremely permanent fixture and the NAO will never get the chance to question the additional costs that result.

[Ron Ron Ron]

Noting the way you have carefully phrased that Ron I think it's now a pretty firm conclusion that on many most of the 80X series trains the full fit of engines will become an extremely permanent fixture and the NAO will never get the chance to question the additional costs that result.

 

 

Sadly, it might be the case Mike.

However, the world might be unrecognisable in a few years down the line.