Re: Rail plan angers residents

["Goldie" <goldicom@powerup.com.au>]

Didn't the Pomms once try an air driven railway, big pipe underground and
piston on the train - didn't work too well 'cos sealing was a problem.

Now for the modern adaptation - power feed in split pipe between the tracks,
pantograph of novel design thru top of pipe contacting internal electric
cable.

I can just see all the greenies lining up to contribute to the research and
development fund - then financing construction!!!!!!!!!!

Goldie


"Rob Kearey" <mammal@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
3A00E8BB.A1CDA145@optushome.com.au">news:3A00E8BB.A1CDA145@optushome.com.au...
> Matthew Geier wrote:
>
> > >http://www.illnews.com.au/today/2069332.htm
>
> Upon further reflection, it does seem that the residents are complaining
> about the proposed construction of railway catenary.
>
> >  Umm how does one electrify a railway with underground cables.... :-)
>
> You don't.
>
> >  I assume they are complaining about the feeder transmission lines, but
> > compared to the catenary, they would have minimal visual impact, you
would
> > have trouble noticing any thing other than the heavy DC catenary
wires....
>
> Here's an extract from the article:
>
> > Bombo resident Ron Lyons, whose home overlooks Bombo Beach, said he was
> > ropeable at the decision, which would spoil one of the area's most
> > spectacular views.
>
> Hah. No more than the roads do, I should say.
>
> > "I think that when they're planning these things and the environment
report
> > says they should go underground then they should just cost that in," he
> > said.
>
> I think Ron is confusing "substation feeders" with "railway catenary".
>
> > "In 50 years people will look at that railway line in disgust.
>
> No, Ron, they won't.
>
> > They'll
> > understand why the line had to be right on the coast but they won't
> > understand why there had to be big ugly towers over the line."
>
> Yes, Ron, thy will.
>
> The mind, it boggles. What on earth did he expect from electrification?
>
> There's a feedback link on the webpage - it may behoove some of our more
> knoweledage people to outline the folly of the article in question.
>
> --
> Rob K