Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CBQ\]\s+Question\s+on\s+expansion\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CBQ\]\s+Question\s+on\s+expansion\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. [CBQ] Question on expansion (score: 1): Author: dhartman@mchsi.com; Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 19:38:18 +0000; Does anyone have knowledge or an opinion: why didn't either Q or BN make a play for DRGW/WP to get California access, and to keep UP from monopoly? Doug Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -- Ya; /archives/BRHSLIST/2012-07/msg00225.html (10,230 bytes)
2. Re: [CBQ] Question on expansion (score: 1): Author: Bob Webber <rgz17@comcast.net>; Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 14:56:25 -0500; The simple answer is that, just as the UP has found, the D&RGW & WP were never conducive to high traffic density, and it was much more efficient (not to mention cost-effective) to grab rights (as a r; /archives/BRHSLIST/2012-07/msg00226.html (14,132 bytes)
3. Re: [CBQ] Question on expansion (score: 1): Author: "Rupert & Maureen" <gamlenz@ihug.co.nz>; Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 20:20:06 +1200; The idea of the Burlington gaining its own connection to the Pacific coast was frequently mooted in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. For example, in 1878 the Engineering News reported - It a c; /archives/BRHSLIST/2012-07/msg00242.html (13,152 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]