|
|
| Re: ''Why The PATH Train Never Grew'' (1616670) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: ''Why The PATH Train Never Grew'' |
|
|
Posted by VictorM on Tue Feb 21 22:11:33 2023, in response to Re: ''Why The PATH Train Never Grew'', posted by Allan on Tue Feb 21 14:11:57 2023. That 48 foot length could be referring to internal length, not end-to-end length. Why should a design that's worked for nearly sixty years be replaced with a smaller one? Almost all the sources I've found such as this one refer to a 51 foot length. |
|
|
|