Caledonian Sleeper Class 92's

[AndrewE]

It's very sad - or just another example of the experience thrown away at privatisation.

Cooling fans can be quiet, and the class 60 was once described to me as "dangerously quiet!" Noisy fans are just wasting energy from inept design or specification.

I don't see why all the noisy fans on new locos are tolerated, the procurement specs should have prevented the problem in the first place and I bet a specialist fan/ventilation engineer could redesign the packages to be a lot quieter.

Mind you I caught the sleeper to Euston once - and couldn't sleep after arrival because of the trains of BRUTES roaring past on the platform! Now they were terrible: hard plastic wheels, no suspension and a huge steel cage which provided a diaphragm to make the vibration into noise.

 

[TimboM]

It's very sad - or just another example of the experience thrown away at privatisation.

Cooling fans can be quiet, and the class 60 was once described to me as "dangerously quiet!" Noisy fans are just wasting energy from inept design or specification.

I don't see why all the noisy fans on new locos are tolerated, the procurement specs should have prevented the problem in the first place and I bet a specialist fan/ventilation engineer could redesign the packages to be a lot quieter.

Mind you I caught the sleeper to Euston once - and couldn't sleep after arrival because of the trains of BRUTES roaring past on the platform! Now they were terrible: hard plastic wheels, no suspension and a huge steel cage which provided a diaphragm to make the vibration into noise.

The 92s are BR/pre-privatisation though? They're from the very same era as the 60s (same body-shell in fact, both Brush-built) - getting on 25 years old now.

They have stonking great big traction motors which get very hot in delivering their 6,760hp and hence need big fans to keep them cool (highly technical description there !!).

By contrast, the very lastest electric locos are pretty quiet - here's an 88 accelerating from a standstill with the fully loaded Tesco intermodal - quieter than my dishwasher...! https://youtu.be/TxJJCwU9D5k

 

[fgwrich]

Agreed - a couple of spells of 5 mins (at most) per day should be manageable.

I'm guessing you know 92018 was on full Dyson mode for nearly 5 minutes as you were stood approximately 2 feet from it for the duration soaking up the atmosphere?

Not really, but I did take a few detail phots of it and the Caley Sleeper for a modelling project of mine.

 

[AndrewE]

The 92s are BR/pre-privatisation though? They're from the very same era as the 60s (same body-shell in fact, both Brush-built) - getting on 25 years old now.

They have stonking great big traction motors which get very hot in delivering their 6,760hp and hence need big fans to keep them cool (highly technical description there !!).

Actually (acccording to Wikipedia they are a 5MW Co-Co) - A

By contrast, the very lastest electric locos are pretty quiet - here's an 88 accelerating from a standstill with the fully loaded Tesco intermodal - quieter than my dishwasher...! https://youtu.be/TxJJCwU9D5k

...and the 88s are 4 MW Bo-Bos, so each traction motor is lower powered on the 92 - assuming there are 6 of them! Makes my point that it's the detail of the design (or spec) that governs how noisy they are.

I don't know how much the 92s were a BR design, or whether they came from the era when the public sector was told to just ask industry for a solution and pay up, rather than do the design themselves.

 

[CosherB]

I don't know how much the 92s were a BR design, or whether they came from the era when the public sector was told to just ask industry for a solution and pay up, rather than do the design themselves.

A bit of 92 design info here ....

http://www.kentrail.org.uk/Class%2092.htm

 

[Mordac]

Anyone have a list of the locos that have gone through the mods?

 

[ac6000cw]

Modern traction (like the 68/88) tend to have variable speed fan drives, as modern electronics has made them cheap, both to save energy (especially important if you are burning diesel fuel to power the fans) and reduce noise. The computer systems will monitor the traction motor temperatures and control the fans to keep the temperatures below the allowed maximum. I suspect if the 88 had spent the last 30 minutes climbing Shap or Beattock with a full load it might be a bit noisier.

Although it's 'old' traction, to provide an idea of how much power can be required for cooling, a class 59 and an American SD40-2 are basically the same in power equipment terms. We rate diesels using power at the crankshaft, so the 59 is 3300hp, whereas the Americans rate them as 'power available for traction' so the SD40-2 is 3000hp, because they subtract the power can be used by the 'auxiliaries' (mostly cooling fans) first. That (up to) 300hp translates into a lot of expensive diesel fuel over the lifetime of the loco, hence the effort put into minimising the energy usage of the fans in modern designs.

 

[43096]

Anyone have a list of the locos that have gone through the mods?

92010/014/018/023/028/033 done, 92038/043 being done (at Brush), with 92032/044 still to go. 92006/020 also to come back.

 

[Scotrail84]

How on earth did they cope in the days of a "real" WCML with roarers roaring away at the buffer stops:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvZ1fITmDtc&list=PLJN19YiudCbwfdzPf-wW7GTPQgoaXOL9n

The 92s are way louder. Its their fan intakes that seem to be so loud and you literally can't hear each other when talking beside one thats running.

 

[Mordac]

92010/014/018/023/028/033 done, 92038/043 being done (at Brush), with 92032/044 still to go. 92006/020 also to come back.

Thanks! Are the remaining four too far gone, or is it just not worth doing more than those for the sleeper purposes?

 

[BRX]

Thanks! Are the remaining four too far gone, or is it just not worth doing more than those for the sleeper purposes?

If you read the last 5-10 pages of this thread all your questions will be answered.

 

[43096]

Thanks! Are the remaining four too far gone, or is it just not worth doing more than those for the sleeper purposes?

If you read the current Modern Railways, Ian Walmsley is of the opinion "never say never" with the other four.

 

[TimboM]

Thanks! Are the remaining four too far gone, or is it just not worth doing more than those for the sleeper purposes?

Here are 92045/046 - they're still there and have been in this position (on blocks in the Loughborough Brush car park) for a good few years now https://flic.kr/p/CsLtec
Heavily stripped of parts no doubt, you can draw your own conclusions as to whether too far gone or not.

92021/040 are in a siding somewhere in Coquelles - open storage I believe. Again, won't be in a good way.

That said as per Ian Walmsley's article (referenced by 43096), Brush have resurrected worse (have a look at some of the 73s before they were fixed up) - so if the demand's there and the finances stack up it's not an impossibility. 92045/046 were EPS (Nightstar) locos and hardly ever used I don't think (which is probably why they're good parts donors).

There's also another potential option - which before it was reported recently that GBRf/Brush are doing-up and hiring some stored 60s from DB I'd have thought a non-starter and not even worth mentioning. If GBRf really do have demand for more 92s (than the dozen quoted) and their remaining 4 are in a bad way, there may be the possibility of buying/hiring some of DB's stored at Crewe (assuming any of those are in better nick). I still think this is very unlikely.

In terms of current requirements, 6 or 7 are needed for the Sleeper services, a couple on the China Clay/Class 700 delivery tunnel workings and 1 is often used on the Dagenham-Garston cars. That pretty much accounts for the 10 in (recent) operational service - with the 2x Freightliner 90s making up the numbers whilst there's still ones going through the mods (+66s on the cars if needed).

If 92006 and 020 are sorted, they'd presumably be for additional work yet to be won/announced, or replacing 66s on workings where this is feasible (think there's been some talk of them going back on the Trafford Park-Felixstowe intermodals, or at least until the wires run out).

The priorities though are the workings that have to be a 92 - i.e. the tunnel and Sleeper following arrival of the new Mk5 stock.

 

[TimboM]

Modern traction (like the 68/88) tend to have variable speed fan drives, as modern electronics has made them cheap, both to save energy (especially important if you are burning diesel fuel to power the fans) and reduce noise. The computer systems will monitor the traction motor temperatures and control the fans to keep the temperatures below the allowed maximum. I suspect if the 88 had spent the last 30 minutes climbing Shap or Beattock with a full load it might be a bit noisier.

There's an interesting old/closed thread from 2011 on the fan noise topic:

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=53060

Key bit of info was from a DB Driver (post #10, will quote here for ease):

The actual level of Fan noise that you hear will vary depending on how hard the Loco has been working whilst under Power and Braking conditions.

The very low end is when only the Cooling Fans for the two Traction Convertors and Transformer are running at low speed or step 1!

After being worked for a while the Oil will start to get quite hot and so the Fans will kick into step 2.

Depending on the Train weight and Line characteristics, step 3 may be reached. At this point the 92 is running all Fans flat out to bring the Cooling levels back down to step 1.

Now to add to this when you start to use the Auto Brake you also have the Dynamic Braking which will run two sets of big Fans in the two Brake Resistors Units. These will run long after the Driver has completed the Braking cycle and contributes the most noise level.

...so, whilst the 92 does have six traction motors to an 88's four there's far more to the fan noise than just keeping these cool.

Completely agree that with modern technology/materials etc. all the cooling to be done more efficiently and quietly. However, looking at the article CosherB linked, the design requirements for the 92s have to be one of the most extensive for any loco ever... able to run off three different power supplies (tunnel/UK 25kv and third rail), able to haul 2,200 tonnes up steep gradients, able to haul ETS-guzzling sleepers, two different types of ETS supply (IIRC), different signalling systems, meeting all the extra Channel Tunnel safety requirements (2 of everything...), multiple braking systems etc. The list is huge.

The challenge was getting all this into one loco and to work (still is some days!). I don't think back in the late 80s that "oh, and quiet cooling fans too please" was very high up on the requirements list (if there at all) - just what was needed to enable all the equipment to stay within operating temperatures.

These days with all the environmental regs etc. I expect noise levels are a more prominent design consideration/requirement.

As the DB driver concludes in the post linked above:

The noise is the tradeoff for making these Locos do what they do best, hauling high tonnage

 

[Mordac]

Here are 92045/046 - they're still there and have been in this position (on blocks in the Loughborough Brush car park) for a good few years now https://flic.kr/p/CsLtec
Heavily stripped of parts no doubt, you can draw your own conclusions as to whether too far gone or not.

92021/040 are in a siding somewhere in Coquelles - open storage I believe. Again, won't be in a good way.

That said as per Ian Walmsley's article (referenced by 43096), Brush have resurrected worse (have a look at some of the 73s before they were fixed up) - so if the demand's there and the finances stack up it's not an impossibility. 92045/046 were EPS (Nightstar) locos and hardly ever used I don't think (which is probably why they're good parts donors).

There's also another potential option - which before it was reported recently that GBRf/Brush are doing-up and hiring some stored 60s from DB I'd have thought a non-starter and not even worth mentioning. If GBRf really do have demand for more 92s (than the dozen quoted) and their remaining 4 are in a bad way, there may be the possibility of buying/hiring some of DB's stored at Crewe (assuming any of those are in better nick). I still think this is very unlikely.

In terms of current requirements, 6 or 7 are needed for the Sleeper services, a couple on the China Clay/Class 700 delivery tunnel workings and 1 is often used on the Dagenham-Garston cars. That pretty much accounts for the 10 in (recent) operational service - with the 2x Freightliner 90s making up the numbers whilst there's still ones going through the mods (+66s on the cars if needed).

If 92006 and 020 are sorted, they'd presumably be for additional work yet to be won/announced, or replacing 66s on workings where this is feasible (think there's been some talk of them going back on the Trafford Park-Felixstowe intermodals, or at least until the wires run out).

The priorities though are the workings that have to be a 92 - i.e. the tunnel and Sleeper following arrival of the new Mk5 stock.

Thanks for that, fascinating. I know there had been some earlier discussion, but I just thought it would be easier to ask and get it all summarized in a convenient location. Thanks again!

 

[gsnedders]

There's also another potential option - which before it was reported recently that GBRf/Brush are doing-up and hiring some stored 60s from DB I'd have thought a non-starter and not even worth mentioning. If GBRf really do have demand for more 92s (than the dozen quoted) and their remaining 4 are in a bad way, there may be the possibility of buying/hiring some of DB's stored at Crewe (assuming any of those are in better nick). I still think this is very unlikely.

Still unlikely, but: they could also buy some of the DB ones and then restore those in best state of the four plus them (recognising they're all bad!), cannibalising others. Depends on relative cost of purchase v. getting parts made for the four, I'm sure.

 

[TimboM]

Still unlikely, but: they could also buy some of the DB ones and then restore those in best state of the four plus them (recognising they're all bad!), cannibalising others. Depends on relative cost of purchase v. getting parts made for the four, I'm sure.

The Ian Walmsley / Modern Railways article referred to suggests it's a mixture of buying some new parts, but as they're expensive and or unique/obsolete now, Brush are taking them off the locos and restoring a lot of them to "as-new" condition.

Either way, there's one freight company (DB Cargo) who evidently would rather not use 92s and only keep a bare minimum of six going in the Tunnel/HS1 on a restricted basis because that's their only option, with rest of theirs rotting in Crewe (or despatched to Eastern Europe), and then another FOC who (probably through necessity) have found a way of making them suitably reliable and getting good use out of what are after all impressive bits of kit with plenty of miles left in them.

GBRf also clearly have a close working relationship with Wabtec/Brush and appear to have a tried and trusted approach to overhauling/modifying the 92s now - DB's 92s on the other hand I don't think have been near Loughborough probably since they left factory gates brand new!

The issue is always going to be one freight company selling a competitor locos that inevitably will be used to compete with them for business - that and where the economics/demand for more 92s no longer stacks up for GBRf beyond the 12 it's suggested they will have in use eventually (which could well be enough as it is).

Maybe wishful 92-fan thinking, but it would be nice to think somewhere along the line the 92s that are left in Crewe could go to the GBRf who'll actually use them (or parts of them as you say), rather than stay with DB who'll most likely just let them deteriorate even more than they already are to the point they become razorblades. That or DB even twig that they've got some handy assets on their hands and ask Brush nicely (with a wad of cash) if they can give some of their 92s the same treatment (getting completely into fantasy land there I know...!)

Another angle is that at today's prices each one of DB's 92s cost the UK taxpayer £5.6 million, so would be good (as a taxpayer) to see them actually being used! Might write to my MP...

 

[Tim R-T-C]

For a while they seemed pretty common on the Tesco Express and WCML Intermodals, got a few shots from 2014 of them. What caused DB to stop using them and switch to the 90s?

 

[TimboM]

For a while they seemed pretty common on the Tesco Express and WCML Intermodals, got a few shots from 2014 of them. What caused DB to stop using them and switch to the 90s?

Unreliable/too expensive to maintain etc etc I believe was the reason - lots and lots of things to go wrong on them plus all the issues with reliability and funny currents north of Crewe (e.g. Weaver Junction) which made them trip out all the time.

I suspect they're locos that need lots of care and attention which isn't really DB's style. They had an abundance of cheaper-to-run locos so just used them instead. GBRf on the otherhand have no other A/C traction option so have had to put the effort in to getting them right - and funnily enough you do that and they work pretty well and reliably.

Some of the ones you saw in 2014 may well have been on hire to DRS - they hired a few at the beginning of winning the Tesco contract whilst they sorted longer term traction options.

DRS have of course since gone and acquired shiny new 88s which are now on this working, meanwhile 92s which arguably are more suited sit idle round the back of Crewe Electric depot...

 

[BRX]

Another angle is that at today's prices each one of DB's 92s cost the UK taxpayer £5.6 million, so would be good (as a taxpayer) to see them actually being used! Might write to my MP...

Do it!

I think (assuming they could be used) this is the kind of situation where there should be government intervention.

It's in the nation's interest for more freight to be moved to rail, and likewise for as much of that freight as possible to be moved by electric rather than diesel traction. If DB is taking actions which make these things less possible, simply to prevent their competitor from benefiting, then they should be told to stop it.

It's not like it would be unfair competition-wise: they have the option of doing them up, and putting them into service themselves, if they are worried about another operator doing the same. It's a bit like the rules applying to freight paths (as I understand it) - if a FOC doesn't use paths that it has reserved regularly enough, they have to let them go. Why not apply similar rules to assets like locomotives.

Another alternative might be to somehow increase, through general policy, incentive to use electric traction (or disincentivise diesel). Then the economics might stack up in such a way that DB would get their 92s working.

Not sure that the tax-payer funded asset argument really stacks up (much as I too find it annoying that these things are sitting going to waste) as presumably they were sold by "us" to DB's predecessors on privatisation. Whether a fair price was paid is another matter but not one we can do much about now, or blame DB for.

 

[TimboM]

Do it!

I think (assuming they could be used) this is the kind of situation where there should be government intervention.

It's in the nation's interest for more freight to be moved to rail, and likewise for as much of that freight as possible to be moved by electric rather than diesel traction. If DB is taking actions which make these things less possible, simply to prevent their competitor from benefiting, then they should be told to stop it.

It's not like it would be unfair competition-wise: they have the option of doing them up, and putting them into service themselves, if they are worried about another operator doing the same. It's a bit like the rules applying to freight paths (as I understand it) - if a FOC doesn't use paths that it has reserved regularly enough, they have to let them go. Why not apply similar rules to assets like locomotives.

Another alternative might be to somehow increase, through general policy, incentive to use electric traction (or disincentivise diesel). Then the economics might stack up in such a way that DB would get their 92s working.

Not sure that the tax-payer funded asset argument really stacks up (much as I too find it annoying that these things are sitting going to waste) as presumably they were sold by "us" to DB's predecessors on privatisation. Whether a fair price was paid is another matter but not one we can do much about now, or blame DB for.

I'm not sure of the exact figure, but it was a fraction of what they cost and of what they were probably really worth at the time as fairly-new state-of-the-art locos with c.35 years of design life left on them.

As you say, not EWS/DB's fault as such and much more to do with the politics of the time. I'm pretty sure that's contributed to their lack of use in that they didn't cost them a great deal so less incentive to try and make the assets work vs just going and buying a shed load of new cheap easy-to-maintain, go (almost) anywhere diesels.

It will be interesting down the line if there's an increased crack-down on diesels/particulate emissions in general - and the fact 66s can't be bought anymore, whether that will give any of the stored electrics a new lease of life. I fear a lot DB's are too far gone though (60s, 90s, 92s).

Anyhow, this is a Caledonian Sleeper (GBRf) 92 thread, so let's just be thankful that a least one company is using a decent number of these and the whole lot aren't rotting away

I'm off to write that letter to my MP now...

 

[43096]

Do it!

I think (assuming they could be used) this is the kind of situation where there should be government intervention.

It's in the nation's interest for more freight to be moved to rail, and likewise for as much of that freight as possible to be moved by electric rather than diesel traction. If DB is taking actions which make these things less possible, simply to prevent their competitor from benefiting, then they should be told to stop it.

It's not like it would be unfair competition-wise: they have the option of doing them up, and putting them into service themselves, if they are worried about another operator doing the same. It's a bit like the rules applying to freight paths (as I understand it) - if a FOC doesn't use paths that it has reserved regularly enough, they have to let them go. Why not apply similar rules to assets like locomotives.

Another alternative might be to somehow increase, through general policy, incentive to use electric traction (or disincentivise diesel). Then the economics might stack up in such a way that DB would get their 92s working.

Not sure that the tax-payer funded asset argument really stacks up (much as I too find it annoying that these things are sitting going to waste) as presumably they were sold by "us" to DB's predecessors on privatisation. Whether a fair price was paid is another matter but not one we can do much about now, or blame DB for.

As I have said before, there is a huge difference between the valuation a company puts on an asset and the value of a business. Ultimately the "real" value of something is only what someone is willing to pay for it.

You cannot really go round telling companies that they should use an asset they bought or lose it (who to?). What would you think if someone decided you didn't use your car enough and took it off you for someone else to use?

There is certainly an argument that some of the assets that went to EWS (e.g. classes 56/58/60/90/92) should have gone to the RSOCOs and leased out to EWS, but of course the original intention was to privatise Loadhaul, Mainline and Transrail separately. That is a debate for elsewhere though...

 

[BRX]

You cannot really go round telling companies that they should use an asset they bought or lose it (who to?). What would you think if someone decided you didn't use your car enough and took it off you for someone else to use?

Who says? We could if we wanted. There is precedent in the various legal measures that can be taken against owners who leave housing vacant - ranging from forcing them to let it out, to compulsory purchase.

The car analogy is not a very good one because (if I owned one) my car would not be (1) something of which there's a limited supply, (2) something which I was preventing others from using in order to give myself a business advantage and (3) which could be of general benefit to the country if someone else could have use of it.

Taking such action regarding mothballed locos is something that would only happen under a government with a firm determination to move freight from road to rail, and that's not what we have, so I don't expect to see it happen in reality.

 

[43096]

Who says? We could if we wanted. There is precedent in the various legal measures that can be taken against owners who leave housing vacant - ranging from forcing them to let it out, to compulsory purchase.



The car analogy is not a very good one because (if I owned one) my car would not be (1) something of which there's a limited supply, (2) something which I was preventing others from using in order to give myself a business advantage and (3) which could be of general benefit to the country if someone else could have use of it.



Taking such action regarding mothballed locos is something that would only happen under a government with a firm determination to move freight from road to rail, and that's not what we have, so I don't expect to see it happen in reality.

Sounds dangerously like a very left-wing/communist attitude towards businesses. Next step is a five year plan for tractor production!!!

DB does not have a monopoly on second hand loco ownership though - EWS as was did pretty much at privatisation, hence the code of conduct on disposals put in place. But there is plenty of choice now: if you have a suitable business plan the ROSCOs will lease you the kit.

 

[BRX]

No-one can lease you a third rail capable heavy freight loco though.

*If* the stored 92s are potentially serviceable and *if* there are operators who would put them into use if they could get their hands on them it does seem a waste, and it would be in the wider interest for more freight running in the south east under electric power. To have them rotting away, *if* this is because DB don't want competitors using them, then that's a failure of a free market approach to produce outcomes that are positive in a wider sense.

There are lots of "ifs" in there, of course. It might be that those 92s are currently of no interest to any potential operator. That could change if we incentivised electric traction though, and that's actually a measure that I think would be more realistic than seizing assets. I don't know if that would take us into "dangerous commie" territory.

 

[AndrewE]

Who says? We could if we wanted. There is precedent in the various legal measures that can be taken against owners who leave housing vacant - ranging from forcing them to let it out, to compulsory purchase.

The car analogy is not a very good one because (if I owned one) my car would not be (1) something of which there's a limited supply, (2) something which I was preventing others from using in order to give myself a business advantage and (3) which could be of general benefit to the country if someone else could have use of it.

In a way you are incentivised to use your car, (or at least forced to do something if you are not going to use it) because you can't leave on the road un-taxed: you either tax it or SORN it and take it off the public highway completely. It stops you wasting road/parking space - which is "of general benefit to the country if someone else could have use of it"

 

[AndrewE]

Sounds dangerously like a very left-wing/communist attitude towards businesses.

...and a deregulation/hands-off business agenda has really served [the rest of us] well hasn't it?
We could suggest that the banking crisis and the probable root causes of the Grenfell tower fire (plus lots of other things that we used to like about living in the UK not being done) are the consequence of the obsession with "small government."
Can anyone think of a single industry where its regulator is not forever playing "catch-up?"

 

[CosherB]

No-one can lease you a third rail capable heavy freight loco though.

*If* the stored 92s are potentially serviceable and *if* there are operators who would put them into use if they could get their hands on them it does seem a waste, and it would be in the wider interest for more freight running in the south east under electric power. To have them rotting away, *if* this is because DB don't want competitors using them, then that's a failure of a free market approach to produce outcomes that are positive in a wider sense.

There are lots of "ifs" in there, of course. It might be that those 92s are currently of no interest to any potential operator. That could change if we incentivised electric traction though, and that's actually a measure that I think would be more realistic than seizing assets. I don't know if that would take us into "dangerous commie" territory.

I'd rather we focused on getting all 48(?) Class 90s in operation first, then have a go at the 92s.

 

[TimboM]

I'd rather we focused on getting all 48(?) Class 90s in operation first, then have a go at the 92s.

There were 50 90s - still are technically, but a few are surely way beyond use (90050 springs to mind and a couple in Crewe IEMD).

https://flic.kr/p/VmAZFW (Freightliner 90050 in Crewe Basford Hall courtesy D5341Mcrat beginning of this month. Total wreck, including some fire damage.)

https://flic.kr/p/V4cHkc (DB 90025 in Crewe IEMD courtesy Gordon Edgar - been there 12 years apparently...!)

 

[TimboM]

In practice I doubt many, if any, of the stored DB 92s will see action in this country again. Government could have an influence in changing this - not by walking into Crewe IEMD and seizing a private company's assets clearly - but (as they do in so many areas) use sticks (taxes/fines etc.) and carrots (incentives/grants etc.) to make diesel traction increasingly costly/uneconomical and electric traction more favourable. The knives certainly seem to be out for diesel engines in general.

But even then, it may still be more cost effective for DB to go and lease something new along the lines of a Class 88, and/or use more of their 90s etc.

As has already been mentioned, it's also evident that getting more freight on the rails is not even on the political radar at the moment, let alone what type of traction might be hauling it. And with all that's going on in the county/Europe/world I cannot see it getting any political airtime in the foreseeable future.

The positive is that GBRf's sixteen were in a not dissimilar position a couple of years back and could easily have gone the same way as DB's, but at least they look like they'll keep a dirty dozen of the class in action for a good few years yet.

So plenty more Dyson action to come yet - as demonstrated by 92023 this morning on the cars https://youtu.be/_LVBBEIwoTA