On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 05:08:46 -0700 (PDT), Jamie Thompson
wrote:
On 14 July, 12:44, Bruce wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:41:17 -0700 (PDT), Jamie Thompson

wrote:
I was led to believe that the point of the loop would be that you
could have two trains on the line at once, and due to them needing to
be 377s (or as you suggest 350s - like I say, I don't really care
about the trains themselves!), the economics didn't add up. More
juice, heavier, higher leasing...can't say I remember or indeed ever
knew the details.

If the economics of a loop and new rolling stick "don't add up", let's
see you try to justify the cost of constructing a flyover/flyunder,
which would be orders of magnitude higher!

Should be quite a laugh.

I didn't say I could justify it, just that it'd be a useful thing to
have as an investment for the future. Sorry if that's not quite the
laugh you envisioned.


On the contrary, it was hilarious!

You appear to have quite a bizarre (mis)understanding of the term
"investment". ;-)