Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[BRHSlist\]\s+Re\:\s+Standard\s+Gauge\,\s+and\s+Suspicions\s+Confirmed\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[BRHSlist\]\s+Re\:\s+Standard\s+Gauge\,\s+and\s+Suspicions\s+Confirmed\s*$/: 2 ]

Total 2 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [BRHSlist] Re: Standard Gauge, and Suspicions Confirmed (score: 1): Author: TOM KOCH <tom.koch@a...>; Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 15:56:50 -0600; Just why the Darlington Collery line was originally built to 4' 8-1/2" is of course totally lost to history. Denny, The reason isn't as lost in history as you might think. The Darlington had what the; /archives/BRHSLIST/2002-02/msg00093.html (7,092 bytes)
2. Re: [BRHSlist] Re: Standard Gauge, and Suspicions Confirmed (score: 1): Author: "D. Gabe Gabriel" <signaling@r...>; Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 01:27:44 -0500; This reply below is incorrect. It is a re-hash of an assumption put forth by others (it's posted on various websites claiming the Brits did this). However, it is incorrect. The British engineers did; /archives/BRHSLIST/2002-02/msg00130.html (8,614 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 2
Page: [1]