kilroy wrote:I guess I needed some smiley thingies so eveyone would know my comment was tounge-in-cheek.
I caught it, but there are times when no one knows that I'm
In the past, rulings from governing bodies have been viewed as suggestions if they were not in line with the way Guilford/Pan Am saw the world.
I didn't completely read every document linked from the newspaper article, but I got the impression PAR's "Rule 138(e)" argument didn't cut any ice, so they fell back on an FRA regulation about backing/shoving moves. I'm not an expert on such stuff, but I don't think they're going to accomplish anything with that, either.
Seems kinda like someone who keeps saying "Yah, but--" when they know (or should know) they've lost the argument.
I'm still waiting to see what they try to pull with the DE extension to Brunswick.
Not to knock this thread off-topic or anything, but I think they've been pretty supportive of that project so far. Like the upgrades on other parts of the route, it benefits PAR, so I would think they'll continue to cooperate with NNEPRA.
Although there was that thing about 59 versus 79 MPH awhile back . . .