I'll make two points, if I may.
The first point is that I'd be very careful on how I defined confidential contracts. What we experience is a strong creep, albeit the latter is perhaps an insufficient word to describe it. Would you consider an email from the railways telling you that this is your confidential contract to actually be a contract between two willing parties, or a product of the monopolistic situation we're facing? When you ask that question, it is a loaded question. Some may characterize us as being under contract, but we do not accept the railway's definition of contract.
The second point is on the point of operational—thank you for asking that. I've given a description of the implications of that, but if you're interested I'll hand over to Allan to give just a few words on the legalistic perspective.