On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 18:58:52 +1200, cr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sunday 31 August 2003 14:04, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > > > The London Underground was originally designed to allow through > > > running from the mainline railways to stations more convenient for > > > central London than the mainline termini, which were very much on > > > the outskirts of the London of the time. There are several > > > connections between the two systems, and the "suburbs" end of > > > several Underground routes is reached over main line track, so > > > Underground drivers on such routes have to know two sets of > > > operating rules, Underground rules and national rules. > > > > ..this sounds like a _very_ good time to pour a shipload of concrete > > onto those wintendo-style dual rule tracks, to replace the nice hard > > rock that _should_ have separated those two track systems. > > Now that's nonsense. The operating rules are basically the same for > both systems, there's no major difference. And the trains are no > more different than, say, an express passenger and a slow goods, which > have always shared the tracks with a good degree of safety for 175 > years. > > It also makes all sorts of sense to extend Underground services on to > less-busy mainline branches where the traffic patterns justify it. On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 04:35:55 -0700, Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Why? Passenger and freight peacefully coexist on tracks worldwide. ...as does airliners and high rises. You both ignore how war criminals and terrorists work; they _break_ the rules. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
