Stock Not Being Built to Infrastructure

[Sorcerer]

Bringing discussions from the Progress on Avanti West Coast's 805/807s Hitachi AT300 sets, it seems that quite a few modern trains being built for the UK rail network aren't actually being built to the infrastructure that we have, but rather based on what we expect to have years ahead which ends up being shelved or underdelivered. Some examples brought up by me and other users include:

• Great Western Railway's Class 801 fleet being converted to Class 800/3 bi-mode units instead of all electric due to the delays with the Great Western Main Line's electrification.
• The early days of South West Trains having the Desiro fleet being too power hungry for the existing third rail infrastructure.
• The Southern/Southeastern Electrostar fleet also being too power hungry, albeit later rectified with rapid power supply upgrades.
• Most recently, the Class 807s for Avanti West Coast not being able to run north of Crewe due to power supply upgrades on the overhead lines that haven't been delivered.

On a speculative note I also believe this to be the case with HS2 in some way or another because the original order specified 200m long trains that could be coupled together for 400m long running. However, most of the infrastructure the trains will run over won't be able to accommodate 400m long trains since the Leeds and Manchester legs have been scrapped which means only Euston and Curzon Street will have space for a 400m long train, and so a single unit 200m long unit will have less capacity than a 265m eleven-coach Pendolino that is very much needed on most routes for capacity reasons.

Plus what's to say the HS2 stock won't have these power supply issues? If an Hitachi IET is too power hungry, a 400km/h capable high speed train will definitely be more power hungry even though the Zefiro can be built to draw power from overhead lines ranging from 15kv to 25kv AC power as well as 1.5kV to 3kV DC currents. However, the issue of HS2 stock is just speculation at best so we won't dwell on that too much if we don't need to. I also won't count the WCML modernisation in the early 2000s to accept the 390s because that line was in need of an upgrade anyway.

So I suppose the main question is why the UK seems to have problems ordering trains specified for infrastructure that practically doesn't exist? Is this also a problem in European countries, and if so to what extent is it an issue? I feel like at this point the UK needs to either improve it's approach to infrastructure upgrades to ensure sufficient power supply for new trains, or needs to specify new rolling stock orders to be compatible with existing infrastructure so we don't end up with situations such as the 807s which won't be doing half it's intended duties until Network Rail can deliver the infrastructure necessary.

 

[DaveyJones]

By the logic above you've missed 140mph Pendolinos

 

[poffle]

Bringing discussions from the Progress on Avanti West Coast's 805/807s Hitachi AT300 sets, it seems that quite a few modern trains being built for the UK rail network aren't actually being built to the infrastructure that we have, but rather based on what we expect to have years ahead which ends up being shelved or underdelivered. Some examples brought up by me and other users include:

• Great Western Railway's Class 801 fleet being converted to Class 800/3 bi-mode units instead of all electric due to the delays with the Great Western Main Line's electrification.
• The early days of South West Trains having the Desiro fleet being too power hungry for the existing third rail infrastructure.
• The Southern/Southeastern Electrostar fleet also being too power hungry, albeit later rectified with rapid power supply upgrades.
• Most recently, the Class 807s for Avanti West Coast not being able to run north of Crewe due to power supply upgrades on the overhead lines that haven't been delivered.

On a speculative note I also believe this to be the case with HS2 in some way or another because the original order specified 200m long trains that could be coupled together for 400m long running. However, most of the infrastructure the trains will run over won't be able to accommodate 400m long trains since the Leeds and Manchester legs have been scrapped which means only Euston and Curzon Street will have space for a 400m long train, and so a single unit 200m long unit will have less capacity than a 265m eleven-coach Pendolino that is very much needed on most routes for capacity reasons.

Plus what's to say the HS2 stock won't have these power supply issues? If an Hitachi IET is too power hungry, a 400km/h capable high speed train will definitely be more power hungry even though the Zefiro can be built to draw power from overhead lines ranging from 15kv to 25kv AC power as well as 1.5kV to 3kV DC currents. However, the issue of HS2 stock is just speculation at best so we won't dwell on that too much if we don't need to. I also won't count the WCML modernisation in the early 2000s to accept the 390s because that line was in need of an upgrade anyway.

So I suppose the main question is why the UK seems to have problems ordering trains specified for infrastructure that practically doesn't exist? Is this also a problem in European countries, and if so to what extent is it an issue? I feel like at this point the UK needs to either improve it's approach to infrastructure upgrades to ensure sufficient power supply for new trains, or needs to specify new rolling stock orders to be compatible with existing infrastructure so we don't end up with situations such as the 807s which won't be doing half it's intended duties until Network Rail can deliver the infrastructure necessary.

(Just a final mod note here by the way, if the thread title is too unclear for the subject matter I welcome a change to a more clear name. It was a bit tricky to come up with a clear and appropriate title, but if all is well then this note can be safely removed).

I had thought that the 897s couldn't run north of Crewe but that may have been a slight misunderstanding.

It was part of a discussion in a transport for the north meeting where it was reported that the second Liverpool train would have to be an 805 on diesel.

However the discussion was only about the second Liverpool service. I now suspect that the 807s could replace the Pendolinos on the current service.

There is nevertheless the issue of buying a fleet of trains to provide an additional service which can't be provided until the power supply is upgraded north of Crewe by Network Rail.

I suspect the Crewe power upgrades were coming out of HS2 budget. ( I've worked on big projects and seen the way that when big projects are coming down the line business as usual focus attention on other areas.)

And there seems to be a lot of micromanagement within DFT that isn't in any way joined up.

 

[Sorcerer]

However the discussion was only about the second Liverpool service. I now suspect that the 807s could replace the Pendolinos on the current service.

I doubt the 807s will be used to replace the Pendolino. There was similar discussion a while back where the general consensus was that if the service remained hourly that an 807 wouldn't provide sufficient capacity and that eleven coach Pendolinos were needed.

I suspect the Crewe power upgrades were coming out of HS2 budget. ( I've worked on big projects and seen the way that when big projects are coming down the line business as usual focus attention on other areas.)

And there seems to be a lot of micromanagement within DFT that isn't in any way joined up.

Does this mean that the power supplies were intended to be upgraded alongside HS2 to enable the future high speed trains to run north of Crewe after coming off the high speed line? It would make sense, as would the explanation for the lack of joined up thinking in the DfT being behind why so many projects either fail to get delivered or why trains are ordered with specifications too power hungry for current power supplies.

 

[Snow1964]

There is a certain amount of chicken and egg (which comes first) in this.

As an example the 807s being limited by power, on part of a route, so could easily change it around and ask why is power ok on most of route, but bit of route has been specified to lower standard.

Lot of history here, but ultimately comes down it inconsistent standards of upgrades in the past.

However there is a valid question, of why the 807s are not built to a common standard for 25kv lines so it could operate on any electrified line. But you end up going back to a circular debate, if they can do most of the main lines, why were bits of infrastructure not done (and usual answer is cost cutting, or only did parts that were needed at the time)

 

[DaveyJones]

However there is a valid question, of why the 807s are not built to a common standard for 25kv lines so it could operate on any electrified line.

The issue is not compatibility, but capacity. At risk of a dated reference, the reason why there used to be power dips during the FA Cup Final Half Time (as everyone switches their kettles on)

 

[skyhigh]

If you build stock with high power acceleration etc then if in the future infrastructure upgrades mean that ability can be used to full capacity it is a simple change, these days software and probably able to be done remotely.

If you build according to whatever power is currently available you are saving little on the initial build cost, but if the infrastructure were to be upgraded in future you would need expensive physical and compliance mods to be able to make use of the upgraded infrastructure.

Seems perfectly sensible to build in a bit of future proofing when it doesn't add much cost or complexity but there's a decent chance it'll be used in the 30+ year lifespan of the vehicle.

 

[Gaelan]

By the logic above you've missed 140mph Pendolinos

And 225s! And 800/801s are built for 140 too, no?

 

[Sorcerer]

And 225s! And 800/801s are built for 140 too, no?

I would argue that trains not operating at their maximum design speed doesn't count because a lot of trains are designed to go faster than they actually will in service. In the case of the Pendolinos they were adapted to not include the cab signalling when the 140mph running was never going to happen, and the 800/801s were at least built to modern infrastructure standards while having provisions for ETCS, whereas in the other scenarios it's a case of trains being built to standards that don't yet exist and cannot operate without them such as the overhead lines needing a power supply upgrade before the 807s can run the services they were intended to.

 

[norbitonflyer]

The 225s and other stock being built capable of running faster than the existing infrastructure allows is prudent future-proofing, if it is not too expensive and there are no dopwnsides (like the tilt-capable 9 ie narrower) bodysides of the mark 4s. But building stock which is not compatible with the existing infrastructure shows a lack of joined-up thinking.

But it's happened elsewhere as well, with new trains in France that didn't fit certain platforms.

 

[skyhigh]

But building stock which is not compatible with the existing infrastructure shows a lack of joined-up thinking.

Yes and no - from memory (I could well be wrong) infrastructure alterations were needed for 777s at some stations to allow them to fit - but the accessibility benefits made that worthwhile.

 

[MCR247]

Another example could be the Great Anglia Class 720s which needed platform extensions at some stations due to the change from 4/8/12 car operation to 5/10 car.

 

[The exile]

Surely any change / improvement is going have this as a (hopefully temporary) side effect as you can’t do everything at once.

 

[Fishandbananas]

The best example I can think of is InterCity 225 trains (class 91's) we never got the 140mph ECML upgrades in the end. Hopefully the 140mph capabilities get used on the Azumas at some point.

Edit: I realise this is future proofing rather than building to the current infrastructure now

 

[twpsaesneg]

The power capacity constraints North of Crewe relate to the capacity for additional electric services over what is currently timetabled. AIUI there would be nothing to stop Avanti substituting an 807 in a 390 diagram if they so wished from a power capacity point of view (I'm not sure if EMC has been modelled or tested North of Crewe though I would hope it has). Indeed, there is also the possibility of ad-hoc test runs being able to be accommodated providing there is no degraded electrical feeding in operation on the day.

 

[Trainbike46]

There is a certain amount of chicken and egg (which comes first) in this.

As an example the 807s being limited by power, on part of a route, so could easily change it around and ask why is power ok on most of route, but bit of route has been specified to lower standard.

Lot of history here, but ultimately comes down it inconsistent standards of upgrades in the past.

However there is a valid question, of why the 807s are not built to a common standard for 25kv lines so it could operate on any electrified line. But you end up going back to a circular debate, if they can do most of the main lines, why were bits of infrastructure not done (and usual answer is cost cutting, or only did parts that were needed at the time)

The 807s meet the standard, north of Crewe the OHLE can't take more frequent electric trains, so the second hourly avanti liverpool train, which is planned to use 807s, can't start using ANY electric stock unless another electric train with similar is removed from the section, which would of course defeat the point

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Jun 2024 ==

Bringing discussions from the Progress on Avanti West Coast's 805/807s Hitachi AT300 sets, it seems that quite a few modern trains being built for the UK rail network aren't actually being built to the infrastructure that we have, but rather based on what we expect to have years ahead which ends up being shelved or underdelivered. Some examples brought up by me and other users include:

• Great Western Railway's Class 801 fleet being converted to Class 800/3 bi-mode units instead of all electric due to the delays with the Great Western Main Line's electrification.
• The early days of South West Trains having the Desiro fleet being too power hungry for the existing third rail infrastructure.
• The Southern/Southeastern Electrostar fleet also being too power hungry, albeit later rectified with rapid power supply upgrades.
• Most recently, the Class 807s for Avanti West Coast not being able to run north of Crewe due to power supply upgrades on the overhead lines that haven't been delivered.

On a speculative note I also believe this to be the case with HS2 in some way or another because the original order specified 200m long trains that could be coupled together for 400m long running. However, most of the infrastructure the trains will run over won't be able to accommodate 400m long trains since the Leeds and Manchester legs have been scrapped which means only Euston and Curzon Street will have space for a 400m long train, and so a single unit 200m long unit will have less capacity than a 265m eleven-coach Pendolino that is very much needed on most routes for capacity reasons.

Plus what's to say the HS2 stock won't have these power supply issues? If an Hitachi IET is too power hungry, a 400km/h capable high speed train will definitely be more power hungry even though the Zefiro can be built to draw power from overhead lines ranging from 15kv to 25kv AC power as well as 1.5kV to 3kV DC currents. However, the issue of HS2 stock is just speculation at best so we won't dwell on that too much if we don't need to. I also won't count the WCML modernisation in the early 2000s to accept the 390s because that line was in need of an upgrade anyway.

So I suppose the main question is why the UK seems to have problems ordering trains specified for infrastructure that practically doesn't exist? Is this also a problem in European countries, and if so to what extent is it an issue? I feel like at this point the UK needs to either improve it's approach to infrastructure upgrades to ensure sufficient power supply for new trains, or needs to specify new rolling stock orders to be compatible with existing infrastructure so we don't end up with situations such as the 807s which won't be doing half it's intended duties until Network Rail can deliver the infrastructure necessary.

(Just a final mod note here by the way, if the thread title is too unclear for the subject matter I welcome a change to a more clear name. It was a bit tricky to come up with a clear and appropriate title, but if all is well then this note can be safely removed).

As I've said in the other thread, many of these examples are a case of:
- Trains are ordered to match the infrastructure that is planned to exist when they come into service
- Infrastructure upgrade is despecced, abandoned or delayed
- New train order is either changed, or presents an issue with infrastructure

I feel this isn't an issue with train ordering, but with infrastructue works. If you insisted on fixing this through train ordering it would lead to at least one of these issues:
- If you delay train ordering until the infrastructure upgrade is completed, there is a long period where the upgraded infrastructure isn't used, e.g. electric lines with only diesel trains, new lines without services, etc.
- If you specify your new order to match pre-upgrade infrastructure, you would defeat the point of the upgrade as it won't get used, or you make your new trains unnecesarily expensive and complex.
- There's also the chicken and egg problem to consider (no point upgrading infrastructure if there are no trains that would use it, and if you can't order trains as part of a package with infrastructure upgrades, you exacerbate that problem)

The issue that needs fixing here is that infrastructure projects get abandoned or despecced very late in the process, not anything with train procurement

 

[Sorcerer]

The 807s meet the standard, north of Crewe the OHLE can't take more frequent electric trains, so the second hourly avanti liverpool train, which is planned to use 807s, can't start using ANY electric stock unless another electric train with similar is removed from the section, which would of course defeat the point

I suppose on that basis the HS2 stock probably won't be too drastically affected since they'll be replacing electric trains running north of Crewe instead of running alongside them like the 807s were intended to with the 390s.

As I've said in the other thread, many of these examples are a case of:
- Trains are ordered to match the infrastructure that is planned to exist when they come into service
- Infrastructure upgrade is despecced, abandoned or delayed
- New train order is either changed, or presents an issue with infrastructure

I feel this isn't an issue with train ordering, but with infrastructue works. If you insisted on fixing this through train ordering it would lead to at least one of these issues:
- If you delay train ordering until the infrastructure upgrade is completed, there is a long period where the upgraded infrastructure isn't used, e.g. electric lines with only diesel trains, new lines without services, etc.
- If you specify your new order to match pre-upgrade infrastructure, you would defeat the point of the upgrade as it won't get used, or you make your new trains unnecesarily expensive and complex.
- There's also the chicken and egg problem to consider (no point upgrading infrastructure if there are no trains that would use it, and if you can't order trains as part of a package with infrastructure upgrades, you exacerbate that problem)

The issue that needs fixing here is that infrastructure projects get abandoned or despecced very late in the process, not anything with train procurement

So it still very much seems like the issue is lack joined-up thinking. I understand the need for modernisation and upgrades but if they are abandoned or downgraded then you will still have the same result. The 807s being ordered for a line where power supply upgrades are needed wouldn't be an issue if infrastructure upgrades were reliably rolled out, but this is obviously not the case because Network Rail have failed to deliver, and as a result, half the stock will not be used for it's intended purposes.

 

[iht]

Bringing discussions from the Progress on Avanti West Coast's 805/807s Hitachi AT300 sets, it seems that quite a few modern trains being built for the UK rail network aren't actually being built to the infrastructure that we have, but rather based on what we expect to have years ahead which ends up being shelved or underdelivered. Some examples brought up by me and other users include:

• Great Western Railway's Class 801 fleet being converted to Class 800/3 bi-mode units instead of all electric due to the delays with the Great Western Main Line's electrification.
• The early days of South West Trains having the Desiro fleet being too power hungry for the existing third rail infrastructure.
• The Southern/Southeastern Electrostar fleet also being too power hungry, albeit later rectified with rapid power supply upgrades.
• Most recently, the Class 807s for Avanti West Coast not being able to run north of Crewe due to power supply upgrades on the overhead lines that haven't been delivered.

On a speculative note I also believe this to be the case with HS2 in some way or another because the original order specified 200m long trains that could be coupled together for 400m long running. However, most of the infrastructure the trains will run over won't be able to accommodate 400m long trains since the Leeds and Manchester legs have been scrapped which means only Euston and Curzon Street will have space for a 400m long train, and so a single unit 200m long unit will have less capacity than a 265m eleven-coach Pendolino that is very much needed on most routes for capacity reasons.

Plus what's to say the HS2 stock won't have these power supply issues? If an Hitachi IET is too power hungry, a 400km/h capable high speed train will definitely be more power hungry even though the Zefiro can be built to draw power from overhead lines ranging from 15kv to 25kv AC power as well as 1.5kV to 3kV DC currents. However, the issue of HS2 stock is just speculation at best so we won't dwell on that too much if we don't need to. I also won't count the WCML modernisation in the early 2000s to accept the 390s because that line was in need of an upgrade anyway.

So I suppose the main question is why the UK seems to have problems ordering trains specified for infrastructure that practically doesn't exist? Is this also a problem in European countries, and if so to what extent is it an issue? I feel like at this point the UK needs to either improve it's approach to infrastructure upgrades to ensure sufficient power supply for new trains, or needs to specify new rolling stock orders to be compatible with existing infrastructure so we don't end up with situations such as the 807s which won't be doing half it's intended duties until Network Rail can deliver the infrastructure necessary.

Isn't it the case anyway, that there will be no point coupling the HS2 trains. There aren't that many people that want to go to Birmingham, and if you want to go further north, it will be equally as quick or quicker to just get a direct existing WCML train London/Crewe, London/Manchester train anyway!!

 

[Sorcerer]

Isn't it the case anyway, that there will be no point coupling the HS2 trains. There aren't that many people that want to go to Birmingham, and if you want to go further north, it will be equally as quick or quicker to just get a direct existing WCML train London/Crewe, London/Manchester train anyway!!

If the other HS2 sections won't be built then there won't be much point coupling two HS2 trains together, but in the case of going further north it'll still be faster to get a train via HS2 going onto Handsacre Junction and up to Manchester or Scotland. But in this case the 200m long units will be less ideal than a a 250/265/275m long unit. There is a lot of uncertainty with the project right now though so changing the specifications might not be the wisest choice.

 

[DM352]

Not major but 75mph class 465 stock is on some outer suburban lines and the lines are up to 90mph in some places. Not the end of the world!

 

[Peter Wilde]

Not just power supply, either. There is also the issue of passenger stock not fitting well against all the varying platform heights. Lot of people don’t understand how on the “new” Elizabeth Line, new-built trains can end up causing boarding-over-gaps injuries (Ealing, yesterday, reported on BBC News). Weird to many that this could not be sorted out at the design stage, given how long this very expensive project had in gestation.

 

[Trainman40083]

I recall a few years ago, Trans Pennine telling Network Rail they planned to use electric IEPs between York and Edinburgh. I think sections around Berwick needed a power upgrade, after they were introduced. Good job they were bimode.. Now on MML, you wonder if the 810s are being delayed 1) to upgrade the OHLE south of Bedford so they don't have to run on diesel to meet the timetable and 2) By the time they are introduced, maybe the digital signalling will be too.

 

[zwk500]

So I suppose the main question is why the UK seems to have problems ordering trains specified for infrastructure that practically doesn't exist?

Most of the problems you have flagged up are power supply issues rather than physical infrastructure compatibility. Infrastructure and rolling stock are 2 parts of the same system, so generally if you are upgrading one you'd upgrade the other. The UK's problem is delivering anything to a pre-agreed timescale. It's completely normal that introducing new trains involves needing to go around and upgrade ancilliary systems - you'd hope so as that means traffic is growing!

Is this also a problem in European countries, and if so to what extent is it an issue?

The French famously ordered a train that was too wide for the platforms! There have also been numerous issues introducing new trains in Germany (and possibly the Netherlands?) recently. The UK press is obviously far less interested in European railway unless it's taking them on holiday, so it doesn't get as widely reported.

I feel like at this point the UK needs to either improve it's approach to infrastructure upgrades to ensure sufficient power supply for new trains, or needs to specify new rolling stock orders to be compatible with existing infrastructure so we don't end up with situations such as the 807s which won't be doing half it's intended duties until Network Rail can deliver the infrastructure necessary.

Going for the second option is effectively just giving up completely, and the infrastructure will then simply stagnate and then degrade. No, the answer is to work out whatever causes the general malaise infecting british infrastructure. It's not unique to trains either, btw - roads, energy grids, ports and so on have all had problems with major upgrade programmes.

 

[eldomtom2]

- Infrastructure upgrade is despecced, abandoned or delayed

Which gets to the real problem - that rail construction projects in the UK take too long and cost too much.

 

[themiller]

If I remember correctly, the 155s were built at Workington but there were restrictions on the line to and from Carlisle where they were tested due to them being 23metres long. I believe that the line north from Maryport had to be treated as a single line if a 23metre vehicle was on that section.
Also, when Sellafield purchased new wagons for traffic to Barrow docks, platforms at Seascale and Bootle had to have sections rebuilt to clear them.

 

[Boodiggy]

Not just power supply, either. There is also the issue of passenger stock not fitting well against all the varying platform heights. Lot of people don’t understand how on the “new” Elizabeth Line, new-built trains can end up causing boarding-over-gaps injuries (Ealing, yesterday, reported on BBC News). Weird to many that this could not be sorted out at the design stage, given how long this very expensive project had in gestation.

Ealing Broadway is not a new construction. It is only being highlighted now due to the Elizabeth Line calling there…
It has been like that for years.

 

[poffle]

Ealing Broadway is not a new construction. It is only being highlighted now due to the Elizabeth Line calling there…
It has been like that for years.

Old Oak Common will have the same problem with Elizabeth Line trains as the platforms are being built to GWML height rather than the platform height on the central section. And it was envisaged that most passengers transferring from GWML to Elizabeth Line would do so at OOC rather than Paddington. But I can imagine if they have to board EL trains with ramps that would increase the dwell times on a high frequency service.

 

[Sorcerer]

Most of the problems you have flagged up are power supply issues rather than physical infrastructure compatibility. Infrastructure and rolling stock are 2 parts of the same system, so generally if you are upgrading one you'd upgrade the other. The UK's problem is delivering anything to a pre-agreed timescale. It's completely normal that introducing new trains involves needing to go around and upgrade ancilliary systems - you'd hope so as that means traffic is growing!

Then it definitely is a lack of joined-up within the rail transport industry that needs to be addressed because of issues like the 807s not being able to run to Liverpool under their own power. Not doing so will end up holding back traffic growth rather than enable it as I'm sure you understand.

The French famously ordered a train that was too wide for the platforms! There have also been numerous issues introducing new trains in Germany (and possibly the Netherlands?) recently. The UK press is obviously far less interested in European railway unless it's taking them on holiday, so it doesn't get as widely reported.

I was aware of the French famously ordering trains too wide for the platforms, but not so much with Germany and the Netherlands. The only one I knew of with the Dutch railway was what are now the ETR 700s being unreliable but that was an issue of just a faulty train by itself. Of course the common denominator between the problems I raised and the French one is the lack of joined-up thinking and co-operation between the relevant bodies.

Going for the second option is effectively just giving up completely, and the infrastructure will then simply stagnate and then degrade. No, the answer is to work out whatever causes the general malaise infecting british infrastructure. It's not unique to trains either, btw - roads, energy grids, ports and so on have all had problems with major upgrade programmes.

I wasn't strictly advocating the second option rather than just putting it forward as an option. For what it's worth I appreciate the need for infrastructure upgrades and modernisation to improve the railway and make it as efficient as we can, but unfortunately as it stands there seems to be an issue actually doing that in some areas which leaves us with new stock that can't fulfil half of it's intended duties in the case of the 807s. But maybe I'm also just a little salty that Liverpool isn't getting it's second London service as soon as it should, there is that as well.

 

[Rail Quest]

The French famously ordered a train that was too wide for the platforms!

I believe Spain had a similar issue as well last year with a new order of trains being too wide for tunnels...

Link to BBC article on the topic: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64717605.amp

 

[sh24]

South Africa too. However that was out and out corruption rather than incompetence

The European company that profited from corruption at PRASA

Vossloh made R1.8-billion from a dodgy deal and has not paid back a cent

groundup.org.za