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

Re: RTM and steam? In the same sentence?

Subject: Re: RTM and steam? In the same sentence?
From: usenet.spam@gunzel.net (Michael)
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 07:05:49 GMT
Newsgroups: aus.rail
Organization: bleah
References: <3aada5e6@occy.pnc.com.au> <98n5vh$42l$1@news.netmar.com> <98nel3$apa$1@spacebar.ucc.usyd.edu.au> <98ovp5$c46$1@gossamer.itmel.bhp.com.au> <3ab0659e@fl.net.au>
User-Agent: Xnews/03.08.04
Xref: bclass.spectrum.com.au aus.rail:33457

Chris <chrisc@fl.net.au> wrote in article <3ab0659e@fl.net.au>:

>I don't think the EPA will be impressed with an oil burning steam
>locomotive. If they do go ahead and convert it expect it to be banned in
>Sydney or any other large city or town. Weren't oil burners banned in some
>areas of Sydney in the 50's and 60's?

R711 and R766 both burn oil.  Not sure what 711 was before, but 766 was 
definately a coal burner in it's past life.

M.


-- 
(To email me just remove ".spam" off my email address).

Whip me, Beat me, just don't Windows ME

References:
- Re: RTM and steam? In the same sentence?
  - From: patrick@trafficgiant.net
- Re: RTM and steam? In the same sentence?
  - From: matthew@mail.usyd.edu.au (Matthew Geier)
- Re: RTM and steam? In the same sentence?
  - From: "Chris Stratton" <stratton.chris.cp@NOSPAMbhp.com>
- Re: RTM and steam? In the same sentence?
  - From: "Chris" <chrisc@fl.net.au>

Prev by Date: Re: Another example of lack of thought in MetCard
Next by Date: Re: [NSW] CityRail Figure Fudging Results
Prev by thread: Re: RTM and steam? In the same sentence?
Next by thread: Re: RTM and steam? In the same sentence?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread