*This is a Copy*
-- David Johnson CityRail Guard trainman@ozemail.com.au http://www.ozemail.com.au/~trainman/
--------------D4E8F8ECD0563C354F8D4A9A Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline
Message-ID: <352AEA04.550F1D34@ozemail.com.au> Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 13:07:48 +1000 From: David Johnson <trainman@ozemail.com.au> Reply-To: trainman@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: aus.rail Subject: Re: Tram guage v s Rail guage References: <352891BE.18FF@tbsa.com.au> <3528BF48.CF808B3E@klever.net.au> <VA.0000016d.001b45bd@bigone> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Ron Stodden wrote:
> Eben Levy wrote: > > > Rails pulled in from broad guage to standard. ... <etc> > > Also rail platforms are far too high for trams, so existing platform > infrastructure must be demolished and rebuilt lower, and new 'platforms' > (aka 'stops') must be built at rail-head level.
Or put the LRV stop adjacent to the high level platform, as was done at Port Melbourne.
-- David Johnson CityRail Guard trainman@ozemail.com.au http://www.ozemail.com.au/~trainman/
--------------D4E8F8ECD0563C354F8D4A9A--