[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: PC: Re: Re: PC MW Std. Plans
- Subject: Re: PC: Re: Re: PC MW Std. Plans
- From: Stephen Vargo <anthrax2525@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 09:46:20 -0800 (PST)
- Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; b=dqX49tgIsBPizNzv0dfDjkB8kC0UU07TK3ipz43+xhCCcI/hujiP2HqUnvhkKzk4ud2LsZMOehIYfATT9RwA1RbIaqHybGlCJsyrynVQXtriO43wXhjENQ1YZA0UxzjWmj2tNletq3WdNACl5Zbb2P+AN9dV+1Mw4X85vyuViTs= ;
I'd be inclined to agree with you, Patrick. In light of PC's travails in trying to hammer out commonality in terms of equipment, computer systems, etc., facilities that aren't falling apart or destroyed via uncontrollable acts don't seem to rate that high.
Growing up in the Calumet Region of Indiana presented evidence of lots of duplicates, many of which didn't survive past the first 10 years of the Con.
Patrick Harris <penngulf -AT- comcast.net> wrote:
Given that PC inherited its facilities from PRR, NYC and NH, that it possessed more facilities that it needed (including many duplicate sites), and only existed for a little under 8 years, I doubt that PC created a "standard" for buildings other than some new prefabs to replace truly outmoded buildings in critical areas.
I may be completely wrong, but since PC was more likely to abandon or tear down buildings than erect lots of new ones and was in crisis nearly from birth, I'd be hard pressed to believe they had 'standard' MOW plans.
Remember, I could be completely wrong.
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
Main Index |