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

Re: Why not just the TGV?

To: ausrail@railpage.org.au
Subject: Re: Why not just the TGV?
From: David Johnson <trainman@ozemail.com.au>
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 23:10:14 +1000
Newsgroups: aus.rail
References: <35AD5E36.7B4984A3@ozemail.com.au> <1998071621564100.RAA22730@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6om6rj$9h1$1@nswpull.telstra.net> <35AF3D0D.5F5F9EB5@ozemail.com.au> <6onoan$rvs$3@nswpull.telstra.net> <35AF6CE9.FBA7A01C@ozemail.com.au> <35b167ac.11802185@news.ocean.com.au> <6osm3s$5di$1@reader1.reader.news.ozemail.net>
Reply-To: trainman@ozemail.com.au

Paul Jones wrote:

> yes, if two trains are on it at the same time, it will colapse, resulting in
> no trains at a time. mabey that will give them a good excuse to rebuild it!

I see no smiley on this false posting, and I'm wondering what gives you this
idea?  This is completely inaccurate.  There is no protection against having two
trains at a time, and I have crossed other trains on the bridge on numerous
occasions.

--
David Johnson
CityRail Guard
trainman@ozemail.com.au
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~trainman/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why not just the TGV?
  - From: "Paul Jones" <dj_argon@geocities.com>

References:
- Re: Why not just the TGV?
  - From: David Johnson <trainman@ozemail.com.au>
- Re: Why not just the TGV?
  - From: markbau1@aol.com (MarkBau1)
- Re: Why not just the TGV?
  - From: David Johnson <trainman@ozemail.com.au>
- Re: Why not just the TGV?
  - From: "Tezza" <tezza@atinet.com.au>
- Re: Why not just the TGV?
  - From: David Johnson <trainman@ozemail.com.au>
- Re: Why not just the TGV?
  - From: pcc@ocean.com.au (Les Brown)
- Re: Why not just the TGV?
  - From: "Paul Jones" <dj_argon@geocities.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Steamfreight 98
Next by Date: Re: RE: MOTIVE POWER MAGAZINE
Prev by thread: Re: Why not just the TGV?
Next by thread: Re: Why not just the TGV?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread