Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[BRHSlist\]\s+Detour\s+Rules\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[BRHSlist\]\s+Detour\s+Rules\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [BRHSlist] Detour Rules (score: 1): Author: "Karl L Rethwisch" <karlre@r...>; Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 21:48:12 -0600; Every situation is different. If a RR has special, locomotive mounted signaling equipment requirements they must be met before the train is operated over the host RR. An example was the local between; /archives/BRHSLIST/2001-05/msg00105.html (9,189 bytes)
2. Re: [BRHSlist] Detour Rules (score: 1): Author: "Ewinger" <ewinger@l...>; Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 07:18:36 -0500; HI ALL one of the reroutes from the CB&Q days i know of was in 1954 I believe when kansas city had some bad flooding and my dad has color slides of the Santa Fe passenger trains came through burlingt; /archives/BRHSLIST/2001-05/msg00106.html (8,103 bytes)
3. Re: [BRHSlist] Detour Rules (score: 1): Author: John Mitchell <cbqrr47@y...>; Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 12:58:07 -0700 (PDT); No, absolutely not! There was a Federal lawsuit over that one. The Q got for big bucks. There are a lot of legal "loopholes" to that AAR agreement. John D. Mitchell, Jr. Attorney at Law _____________; /archives/BRHSLIST/2001-05/msg00132.html (7,765 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]