From: stephen@sprunk.org   
      
   On 10-Jun-14 14:13, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   > Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
   >> On 10-Jun-14 12:24, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   >>> I prefer the idea of routing railroads through airports; it makes   
   >>> so much more sense.   
   >>   
   >> Or, presumably, building airport terminals on top of railroads.   
   >> That makes a lot more sense to me than moving the railroad, where   
   >> the two are already in reasonably close proximity as in this case   
   >> and many others.   
   >   
   > You don't want to look at the geography? In this case, you know, what   
   > we've been discussing if you could be bothered to take context into   
   > account, it sounds like the airport campus was to one side of the   
   > railroad.   
      
   ... and I already explained, when this came up a few months ago, how to   
   handle that case.  The rail line is fine where it is; you can build the   
   terminal to the side of the campus rather than building it in the middle   
   and then moving the rail line to go through it.   
      
   > In the case of both of Chicago's airports, railroads ran   
   > down the middle.   
      
   If so, they should have put the terminals on top of the tracks, as was   
   done for Oslo's airport, rather than moving the railroads to go around   
   the airfield.   
      
   S   
      
   --   
   Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein   
   CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the   
   K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)