[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Why keep Clyde?

Subject: Re: Why keep Clyde?
From: dbromage@fang.omni.com.au (David Bromage)
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 01:06:10 GMT
Newsgroups: aus.rail
Organization: CWO Customer - reports relating to abuse should be sent to abuse@optus.net.au
References: <3A09EAF2.2F7C7EB1@dontspamme.au1.ibm.com> <3a09f794$0$19429$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au>
Xref: news1.unite.net.au aus.rail:22870

Tezza (tezza2000@dingoblue.net.au) wrote:

> "Peter Degotardi"
> > Having spent a lot of time standing on Granville station over the
> > last few weeks (Olympic Park, chg Lidcombe, chg Granville
> > for Windsor), it seems a bit bizarre to have 2 stations so close
> > together (how far apart are Granville/Clyde btw? )
> >
> > How about boning Clyde and making Lidcombe the interchange
> > station for the Carlingford line ? That way you have an interchange
> > for InnerWest, Western, South, Carlingford and Olympic Park in
> > one location.

> And which platform at Lidcombe would you block for the Carlo trains to sit on?

Carlingford trains won't go to Clyde if the Chatswood - Parramatta line is
built.

Cheers
David

References:
- Why keep Clyde?
  - From: Peter Degotardi <peterdeg@dontspamme.au1.ibm.com>
- Re: Why keep Clyde?
  - From: "Tezza" <tezza2000@dingoblue.net.au>

Prev by Date: Safety first in rail system's radical revamp
Next by Date: Re: Why keep Clyde?
Prev by thread: Re: Why keep Clyde?
Next by thread: Re: Why keep Clyde?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread