There's another "eclectic" railway somewhere is Yorkshire, built < 25 years ago...? am curious.... not hyperloop right ?

Faster trains, less noise pollution and better for the environment

eclectric, not electric. Read it properly!!!!@@xbx.trains2192

Please!, can't rush these things.

Okay in 2055 maybe then, slow Joe

the companies need to buy new trainsets first

My understanding is, in use by 2040 ish !

@@KingFinnch Transpennine express won’t have to As they already have Electric trains, 802 and the 397

Us kids spent many Sunday afternoons in the shed climbing up on locomotives, and even had a couple of footplate rides from the shed onto the turntable along to the coaling plant. Because the shed foreman was a really nice bloke. The last one was in 1966 (aged 14) on S15 30837 not long before it was scrapped. I remember Q1 Austerity 33018 was on shed as well. Wish I had a decent camera in those days, but us kids were always skint. Happy Days when Britain was still Britain !

They are used like this almost everywhere. It’s to do with regulations but they are useless.

They will if and when the Central Eastern leg from Bedford to Cambridge gets the go ahead by the Government.

No and it won't happen for sometime,

No, not with this government!

They will wait till line gets busy, then have lots of engineering closures for several years while the catenary is installed...

As per, penny wise, pound foolish.

Hydroflex trains are the future.

Hi Colin, offsite manufacturing such as pre cast concrete components allows for significant increases to safety/quality/emissions and performance efficiencies.

@@freegs Hi Tom, I am not a civil engineer but am a marine engineer of 45 years experience, I just cannot see how offsite manufacturing can be stronger or more efficient when you have so many pieces. All the joins between the various blocks will surely weaken any structure. Surely pouring a support as one composite piece rather that standing a number of Lego bricks on top of each other.is stronger and how can that possibly be cheaper. Plus you have all the transportation cost of bringing them to site. Those beams that have been used to make the box a bletchley would have surely been stronger if it was poured on site into forms thereby negating all the gaps between the beams. How will that ever be made watertight as they were just lifted and put next to each other. Plus all the rebar was exposed at the ends of each beam there by allowing rusting. I was always led to believe that rebar had to be buried a certain depth into a structure where these beams have exposed rebar. As an engineer I just see this as dumbing down of skilled work to labourers that would have been done by skilled construction teams.

@@cmclewee9518 Hi Colin, for background, I'm a construction materials engineer who's worked on some of the most complex reinforced concrete structures in the UK (including nuclear). Precast factories yield better quality and strength as they provide optimal manufacturing and curing conditions and relative to site works, massively more control. On site you're at the mercy of ready mix suppliers, the Great British weather and curing is often undervalued and imperfect (big determinant of concrete quality and durability). You mentioned the aggs could be transported into site via rail, where are they batched and under what controlled conditions? You're correct that a fundamental of reinforced concrete quality is nominal cover to reinforcement (mm) and this will be stipulated in the spec. All precast items would have to meet the same values as in-situ poured concrete except it's much better controlled in factory conditions. With regards to the gaps, this isn't an issue as they are primarily static joints which are only stressed in compression. The argument about pathway for water ingress is not true because of the equivalent cover as I've mentioned and the fact that durability (porosity and chloride migration) will be improved in factory precast items. Furthermore, excellent joint sealing products exist which are infinitely more protective than concrete and these may be employed if deeemed necessary by the designer. Design life for most heavy civils works is 100 years and more computational modelling, trial work and materials testing is done than ever before. Modern methods of manufacturing using modular items and BIM/computer modelling yields greater quality, cost, speed, safety and wastage otherwise contractors wouldn't do it. It's not all empty rhetoric in the industry regarding efficiency, it's the reality of modern construction 👍

Wanted to add that if it was the Dawlish sea wall or any structure in the marine environment (especially intertidal zone which experiences drying) your multiple joint argument would be much more important.

@@freegs Tom, thank you for your very informative reply, it just shows how different industries have evolved over recent years. I was mainly referring to the Dawlish sea wall project but equally to east west rail, where the majority of work appears to be precast. Your second reply was really relevant as the jointing between the precast panels has already failed after just one winter season and the panels are already covered in rust marks which leads me to believe that that structure will not last its supposed 120 year life. I also don't understand why the panels and wave units were made in Ireland for a job in Devon. That surely cannot be good use of taxpayers money. As a marine engineer we spent years trying to combat corrosion but it is not easy, but little attention seems to have been paid to this at Dawlish and after less than 12 months the corrosion either inside or behind those panels is obviously winning. There was logic why Brunel built the original structure in stone and cement, namely no steel was involved. Unfortunately Network Rail have chosen a material totally unsuitable for the task. No matter how well you protect the steel, steel and Saltwater are not good companions.