Electrification and existing signals
Greg Gritton
be replaced? What about existing signals?
If existing track signals and/or signals have to be replaced, does
anyone know how much that would cost per mile or kilometer?
Sincerely,
Greg Gritton
Joachim Schmid
>
> > When a track is electrified do existing track circuits generally have to
> > be replaced?
>
> have any track circuits.
Track circuits are considered an obsolete technology and since about 30
years the German Railways prefer axle counters, instead.
Even if track circuits are in use, it is not necessary to replace them.
They usually work with electrification, too, maybe with some minor
modifications. We have many lines where old signal technology works
properly under later installed electrification.
Regards
Joachim
Brian Williams
--
"Joachim Schmid" <prof_joac...@yahoo.de> wrote in message
news:3FF6B3BE...@yahoo.de...
Likewise in France, there remain enclaves of mechanical signalling in
electrified areas. A lot of the problems with track circuits and
electrification relate more to changes of traction packages, such as the
development of thyristor controls and three-phase and AC drives, rather than
electrification per se. Resignalling and track upgrading often accompany
electrification simply as part of a general 'modernisation' of a line.
There is a cautionary tale relating to track circuits and new traction. When
87101 'Stephenson', which was fitted with a thyristor traction control
package, was first sent down the West Coast main line (which had been
electrified for ten or more years at the time), it was reported that
'wrong-side' track circuit failures occurred in a broad swathe around it.
Subsequent introductions of innovative traction packages have generally been
trialled under total track possessions before being allowed anywhere near
track carrying commercial services.
Brian
Joern Pachl
<prof_joac...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>Even if track circuits are in use, it is not necessary to replace them.
>They usually work with electrification, too, maybe with some minor
>modifications.
That is only true for AC track circuits. Electric traction requires
impedance bonds that do not work with DC track circuits. On an existing
line with DC track circuits, electrification will require both to
replace them by AC track circuits and to install quite expensive
impedance bonds at insulated rail joints. So far as I know, most North
American lines have DC track circuits.
Joern
Joachim Schmid
>
> That is only true for AC track circuits. Electric traction requires
> impedance bonds that do not work with DC track circuits. On an existing
> line with DC track circuits, electrification will require both to
> replace them by AC track circuits and to install quite expensive
> impedance bonds at insulated rail joints. So far as I know, most North
> American lines have DC track circuits.
Yes, I was only talking of the situation in Germany.
Joachim
Philip Nasadowski
Greg Gritton <gritton.N...@AMverizon.net> wrote:
> When a track is electrified do existing track circuits generally have to
> be replaced? What about existing signals?
At least on the LIRR, the most visable changes are the addition of
impeadence bonds in lots of places, and installation of ASC, if it's not
there (ASC == LIRR's cab signal/stop system). The bonds come fron US&S
or Twinco, the latter being LI based. I suspect the LIRR's their big
market.
> If existing track signals and/or signals have to be replaced, does
> anyone know how much that would cost per mile or kilometer?
Generaly, at least around NY, the trend is toward removal of wayside
signals (witness the Port Washington line, with them in only 3 places
along it's length), so those get cut down and removed.
The bonds go either between the rails, or next to, depending on location
- Mineola's an example of the latter. I think the LIRR stole this idea
from Metro-North.
I'm not sure, but I think the NYCTA uses a totally different type of
signalling that doesn't really have bonds on them, and the CTA in
Chicago uses a type that has no insulated joints at all, though it's
supposedly not friendly to AC propulsion systems (yet).
James Robinson
>
> When a track is electrified do existing track circuits generally
> have to be replaced?
In general, yes. There are a number of different types of track
circuits. Basic DC circuits would have to be replaced with some type of
AC circuit. AC circuits or coded circuits would have to be modified to
be compatible with the power frequency being used, and to allow the
power to return through the rails. In addition, the circuits around
grade crossings would have to be replaced with AC circuits of a
different frequency than all the others to remain independent.
> What about existing signals?
Generally, if a track is to be electrified, it becomes an opportunity to
upgrade the signal circuits and adjust signal placement, so you should
plan on a complete replacement.
> If existing track signals and/or signals have to be replaced, does
> anyone know how much that would cost per mile or kilometer?
It depends to a large extent on how complicated the circuits are, and
how close the rail line might be to any other electronic equipment. The
railroad is responsible to ensure that the electrification does not
interfere with other electronics, like the telephone system, or
television reception, and they have to ensure that the return current
won't increase the corrosion of sewer and water lines. To some extent,
that is why urban electrification can be so expensive.
Kevingr
> >
> > > When a track is electrified do existing track circuits generally have to
> > > be replaced?
> >
> > A considerable amount of trackage in Europe, notably in Germany, does not
> > have any track circuits.
>
> Track circuits are considered an obsolete technology and since about 30
> years the German Railways prefer axle counters, instead.
>
>
> Regards
>
> Joachim
Does the use of axle counters explain why in Germany the signal
usually goes to red only after the entire train has completely passed,
while in Britain the signal goes red right after the first few
vehicles have passed? (Based on my very limited observations and
experience.)
K
David Hansen
kevi...@my-deja.com (Kevingr) wrote this:-
>Does the use of axle counters explain why in Germany the signal
>usually goes to red only after the entire train has completely passed,
>while in Britain the signal goes red right after the first few
>vehicles have passed?
In Britain many signals are replaced to danger when the first wheels
of a train reach an appropriate place. This will usually mean the
signal goes to danger after the first few coaches have passed it.
However, there are some situations where the signal is replaced to
danger when the last wheels have reached an appropriate place, in
which case the train will pass the signal before it is replaced.
This sort of operation can be arranged by the signalling system, no
matter how trains are detected.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
Joachim Schmid
>
> Does the use of axle counters explain why in Germany the signal
> usually goes to red only after the entire train has completely passed,
This is not correct. The signal goes to red, when the train's first axle
reaches the next counter or track circuit behind the signal. There is of
course some delay until this point is reached, but not a full train's
length.
Joachim
Steve Kraus
> Track circuits are considered an obsolete technology and since about
> 30 years the German Railways prefer axle counters, instead.
I take it that this is a system that counts axles entering and leaving a
block to determine occupancy. How reliable is this? What if a train stops
with an axle right on the point of detection? Does it make assumptions
like if 78 axles entered but 77 counted leaving 78 are presumed to have
left reset to zero since there cannot be just one?
David Hansen
<scr...@SPAMBLOCKfilmteknik.com> wrote this:-
>I take it that this is a system that counts axles entering and leaving a
>block to determine occupancy.
Correct.
>How reliable is this?
At least as reliable as track circuits, provided the right equipment
is selected and maintained. Track circuits can fail in various ways
and are not perfect either.
>What if a train stops
>with an axle right on the point of detection?
Then the detector has been put in the wrong place if this happens
regularly. However, it should not affect detection. The exception is
if the train rolls back (with some counters), but all that then
happens is that the signal will remain at danger when the train
continues.
>Does it make assumptions
>like if 78 axles entered but 77 counted leaving 78 are presumed to have
>left reset to zero since there cannot be just one?
No.
William JONES
What about train protection, with track short-circuiting clips ?
--
A+
William.
*****************************
"Parler pour ne rien dire et ne rien dire pour parler sont les deux principes majeurs et rigoureux
de tous ceux qui feraient mieux de la fermer avant de l'ouvrir".
(Pierre Dac)
Joern Pachl
<SENDdavi...@spidacom.co.uk> wrote:
>Then the detector has been put in the wrong place if this happens
>regularly. However, it should not affect detection. The exception is
>if the train rolls back (with some counters), but all that then
>happens is that the signal will remain at danger when the train
>continues.
Since axle counters work with double contacts that can detect the
direction of movement running back and forth on a countact point will
always lead to correct counting results.
>>Does it make assumptions
>>like if 78 axles entered but 77 counted leaving 78 are presumed to have
>>left reset to zero since there cannot be just one?
>
>No.
But there are some developments of axle counters with a self correcting
counting logic that follows the principle of comparing counting results
of more than two counting points. If one counting point counts 78 axles
and the next 77 axles the section between these two points will remain
in an occupied state. But if a third counting behind that section has
again 78 axles the control logic will know that the train must have been
cleared both sections. So the counting result of the second counting
point will be corrected from 77 to 78 axles.
Joern
David Hansen
<j.p...@tu-bs.de> wrote this:-
>Since axle counters work with double contacts that can detect the
>direction of movement running back and forth on a countact point will
>always lead to correct counting results.
Not according to the signalling expert on uk.railway, from my
recollection of his posting.
David Hansen
<william.j...@pandora.be> wrote this:-
>What about train protection, with track short-circuiting clips ?
One needs to use alternative means.
Greg Gritton
> Steve Kraus schrieb:
>
>
>
>>Does it make assumptions
>>like if 78 axles entered but 77 counted leaving 78 are presumed to have
>>left reset to zero since there cannot be just one?
>
>
> railroads.
>
> Hans-Joachim
>
>
For example, Talgo cars are single axle, and they are even used in the
U.S. as well as Europe.
Greg Gritton
Joachim Schmid
>
> >Since axle counters work with double contacts that can detect the
> >direction of movement running back and forth on a countact point will
> >always lead to correct counting results.
>
> Not according to the signalling expert on uk.railway, from my
> recollection of his posting.
Signalling technology in UK is usually not the reference for
state-of-the-art.
Believe me: Joern is a real expert in this field and knows, what he is
talking of.
Joachim
Joachim Schmid
>
> There have been single-axle and three-axle cars in the history of
> railroads.
And 5-axle cars, too. Not to forget the many locos with uneven numbers
of axes.
Regards
Joachim
David Hansen
<prof_joac...@yahoo.de> wrote this:-
>> >Since axle counters work with double contacts that can detect the
>> >direction of movement running back and forth on a countact point will
>> >always lead to correct counting results.
>>
>> Not according to the signalling expert on uk.railway, from my
>> recollection of his posting.
>
>Signalling technology in UK is usually not the reference for
>state-of-the-art.
That depends on precisely what one is talking about. In some areas
it has led the world, though there have been problems since the
politicians came up with the idea of privatisation. Two examples
from the 1980s are solid state interlocking and radio electronic
tokenless block, both world beating.
>Believe me: Joern is a real expert in this field and knows, what he is
>talking of.
The issue is not what the axle counters do. The issue is what the
equipment they are connected to does.
William JONES
"David Hansen" <SENDdavi...@spidacom.co.uk> a écrit dans le message de
news:nuenvv4brv20kaij3...@4ax.com...
| On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 20:46:56 GMT someone who may be "William JONES"
| <william.j...@pandora.be> wrote this:-
|
| >What about train protection, with track short-circuiting clips ?
|
| One needs to use alternative means.
Yes, quite obvious !
But what means ? Radio ?
Clips are quicker in use : jump on the opposite track, clip - clip and in 10 sec. you are protected
!
Philip Nasadowski
Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
> Doesn't Metro North use 5-axle locos?
The all but gone FL-9s used them, being Bo Ao-1-Ao (I think that's the
notation - B truck up front, A1A in back, sepperate motor per powered
axle). AFAIK, these were the ONLY units made by EMD like this. The
LIRR's old C Liners were the same, but might have had 5 motors. It's
not a common arrangement in the US, at all. The replacement GE ones are
4 axle.
David Hansen
<william.j...@pandora.be> wrote this:-
>| >What about train protection, with track short-circuiting clips ?
>|
>| One needs to use alternative means.
>
>Yes, quite obvious !
>But what means ? Radio ?
That is what railways have put their faith in.
>Clips are quicker in use : jump on the opposite track,
>clip - clip and in 10 sec. you are protected
In theory a radio message can be sent at least as quickly. In
Britain, which we are told is not state-of-the-art, in those places
with cab secure radio the driver can send a few pre-programmed short
messages of this sort to the signalman by pressing a button I
gather. I imagine similar facilities are present in all the
state-of-the-art countries that are not Britain, where things like
the crash in Norway a few years ago and the use of telephone block
are figments of my imagination.
The new train control systems being developed at the moment will
undoubtedly include such features as well.
John R Cambron
The bonds used by WMATA sound similar to the CTA jointless track
circuit bonds. They are called Wee-Z bonds and are a product of
GRS. They use audio frequencies in the track circuits. WMATA has
solved the DC chopper and AC traction problem.
--
======================================================================
Ever wanted one of these John R Cambron
http://205.130.220.18/~cambronj/wmata/ or >>>Hebron<<< MD USA
http://www.chesapeake.net/~cambronj/wmata/ camb...@chesapeake.net
======================================================================
Marc Van Dyck
> William JONES schrieb:
>
>
>> What about train protection, with track short-circuiting clips ?
>
> "train protection"?
>
> Hans-Joachim
Track circuits detect presence of trains by setting a voltage
difference between the two rails of a track. When a train is
in the section, the axles short the circuit and that makes the
protecting signals fall to red. If for example your train derails
on a double track line, and the loading gauge of the adjacent track
is engaged, there is a danger of collision. You can easily protect
your derailed train by shorting the rails of the adjacent track,
that will make the signalling system believe that there is a train
present and the signals will go red. All locos, driver cabs, and
guard vans have such cables with the right length and a clip at
each end, allowing to short the rails in a matter of minutes; and
all train personnel are trained to do exactly that if there is
even a minuscule doubt that a collision might occur.
This is a kind of protection that you loose with axle counters,
and one of the reason why many railway companies chose to keep
their track circuits. Those also offer an automatic protection
against broken rail (cold snaps, and so on), which you also loose
with track circuits.
Marc.
--
Marc Van Dyck
James Robinson
>
> > Not familiar with track circuits, I have to ask: What do you
> > mean with "train protection"?
>
> right length and a clip at each end, allowing to short the rails
> in a matter of minutes;
Since this was cross-posted to MTRM, it should be noted that the use of
such cables is not at all common on North American railroads, since they
aren't considered reliable enough to be relied upon. The only people
who have such cables and clips are the signal maintainers.
Ross
<slrnbvrj2p.9o8...@odysseus.Zierke.com>, seen in
misc.transport.rail.europe:
>Marc Van Dyck schrieb:
>
>> You can easily protect
>> your derailed train by shorting the rails of the adjacent track,
>> that will make the signalling system believe that there is a train
>> present and the signals will go red.
>
>instead.
In respect of the UK, you are wrong.
UK cab radio, the south-eastern area of the country mostly excepted,
is a cab-to-shore radio-phone set up called the "National Radio
Network" (NRN), which allows drivers to dial numbers on the railway
telephone network. There is a limited capability for contact in the
other direction (i.e. shore-to-cab).
Radio coverage is poor in some areas and it's also quite regular to
get an engaged tone as someone else is already making a call through
the base station you are trying to access.
Oh, and we won't mention the "deep rural" areas which don't even have
telephones on the railway network but use the public phone network -
which can't be accessed using the NRN.
>While rural lines are sometimes outside of cab radio coverage -
>how many _doubletrack_ is there outside of cabradioland?
Double track? As in one track each way, or are you referring to four
track (two tracks each way)?
If the former, the Peterborough - Lincoln line is double track, but
there is a stretch (between Spalding and Sleaford) of approximately 12
miles (roughly 20km) where there is no railway telephone network and
thus the NRN cab radio is useless.
--
Ross Hamilton, in Lincoln (UK)
From address *will* bounce
Mark Townend
news:n55ovv0m59gtktlea...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 09:36:28 +0100 someone who may be Joachim Schmid
> <prof_joac...@yahoo.de> wrote this:-
>
> >> >Since axle counters work with double contacts that can detect the
> >> >direction of movement running back and forth on a countact point will
> >> >always lead to correct counting results.
> >>
> >> Not according to the signalling expert on uk.railway, from my
> >> recollection of his posting.
> >
> >Signalling technology in UK is usually not the reference for
> >state-of-the-art.
>
> That depends on precisely what one is talking about. In some areas
> it has led the world, though there have been problems since the
> politicians came up with the idea of privatisation. Two examples
> from the 1980s are solid state interlocking and radio electronic
> tokenless block, both world beating.
>
> >Believe me: Joern is a real expert in this field and knows, what he is
> >talking of.
>
> The issue is not what the axle counters do. The issue is what the
> equipment they are connected to does.
>
Axle counters do correctly resolve the count in these cases. The units I
know have 2 inductive sensors and the logic looks for a particular sequence
of events to determine a count in a particular direction to increment or
decrement counters for the block sections either side of the head. If a
wheel stops at any point whilst traversing the head, the intermediate logic
state is preserved and there is no change in count until the wheel resumes
movement in the same direction and completes the sequence. If the wheel
reverses direction, the intermediate state is undone and there is no count
change.
--
Mark
http://www.maprail.com/
Ross
<slrnbvvpof.1v0...@odysseus.Zierke.com>, seen in
misc.transport.rail.europe:
>Ross schrieb:
>
>> Double track? As in one track each way,
>
>
>> If the former, the Peterborough - Lincoln line is double track, but
>> there is a stretch (between Spalding and Sleaford) of approximately 12
>> miles (roughly 20km) where there is no railway telephone network and
>> thus the NRN cab radio is useless.
>
>me.
That's 12 miles on that route alone, not 12 miles for the whole of the
UK.
We also won't mention the RETB (Radio Electronic Token Block)
controlled routes where radio coverage in places is best described as
"dodgy".
David H Wild
Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
> > You may wish to think that, but it is very common practice on European
> > networks using track circuits to have just such a track-circuit clip,
> > or a shunt-bar, installed in the driving cabs of their rolling stock.
> Might be, but there is the question, wether there is any necessity for it
> in future.
> I was just irritated by the original posting, which advertised it as a
> super-important functionality.
One very important feature is that using a track-circuit clip works
immediately, without needing anyone to respond to the radio or phone.
--
__ __ __ __ __ ___ _____________________________________________
|__||__)/ __/ \|\ ||_ | / Acorn StrongArm Risc_PC
| || \\__/\__/| \||__ | /...Internet access for all Acorn RISC machines
___________________________/ dhw...@argonet.co.uk
Buss Error
news:r29mvvoor9lcg2e3a...@4ax.com:
snip
>
> But there are some developments of axle counters with a self
> correcting counting logic that follows the principle of comparing
> counting results of more than two counting points. If one counting
> point counts 78 axles and the next 77 axles the section between these
> two points will remain in an occupied state. But if a third counting
> behind that section has again 78 axles the control logic will know
> that the train must have been cleared both sections. So the counting
> result of the second counting point will be corrected from 77 to 78
> axles.
What about setouts along the route? Are counters placed anywhere you can
divirge from the main, or is this taken account of by hand?
What if a car is taken off the main by crane (such as a caboose being
purchased by a railfan and shipped by truck to the home)? And
counterwise too, shipped from off live rail and placed on the main for
shipping?
David Hansen
Wild <dhw...@argonet.co.uk> wrote this:-
>One very important feature is that using a track-circuit clip works
>immediately,
That depends. In the UK it will work immediately in many
circumstances. However, such a clip will not replace semaphore
signals to danger (unless there are some left that are controlled in
a particular way) and in an Absolute Block area, if it does
anything, it will just place or maintain the block indicator at the
Train on Line position. The signalman then has to react to it.
Mark Townend
news:Xns946CE035195EAbu...@130.133.1.4...
> Joern Pachl <j.p...@tu-bs.de> wrote in
> news:r29mvvoor9lcg2e3a...@4ax.com:
>
> snip
>
> >
> > But there are some developments of axle counters with a self
> > correcting counting logic that follows the principle of comparing
> > counting results of more than two counting points. If one counting
> > point counts 78 axles and the next 77 axles the section between these
> > two points will remain in an occupied state. But if a third counting
> > behind that section has again 78 axles the control logic will know
> > that the train must have been cleared both sections. So the counting
> > result of the second counting point will be corrected from 77 to 78
> > axles.
>
> What about setouts along the route? Are counters placed anywhere you can
> divirge from the main, or is this taken account of by hand?
Yes, a counter sensor is used anywhere you would put an equivalent insulated
rail joint
for a track circuit system. The sensors or joints form the boudaries of the
train detection blocks. Usually there are fewer heads than equivalent
joints, because with track circuits length restrictions usually result in
multiple sections from one signal to the next, whereas an axle counter
section can be any reasonable length. In junctions there are extra joint
pairs to swap polarity and ensure every section of rail is bonded into a
continuous series circuit. For axle counters, these are not required.
> What if a car is taken off the main by crane (such as a caboose being
> purchased by a railfan and shipped by truck to the home)? And
> counterwise too, shipped from off live rail and placed on the main for
> shipping?
Taking a car off is safe, as the system will still register occupied (unlike
track circuits). Rules and procedures are all that protects the converse,
but it's highly unlikely anyone would want to lift a car straight onto a
main line without first talking to the dispatcher/signaller/controller
first, though this has happened with road-rail maintenance vehicles (some of
the these don't operate track circuits reliably either!)
--
Mark
http://www.maprail.com/
Mark Townend
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 20:46:00 +0000 (GMT) someone who may be David H
> Wild <dhw...@argonet.co.uk> wrote this:-
> >One very important feature is that using a track-circuit clip works
> >immediately,
> That depends. In the UK it will work immediately in many
> circumstances. However, such a clip will not replace semaphore
> signals to danger (unless there are some left that are controlled in
> a particular way) and in an Absolute Block area, if it does
> anything, it will just place or maintain the block indicator at the
> Train on Line position. The signalman then has to react to it.
In a notional future system with full radio coverage, there's no reason why
the 'mayday' could not immediately and automatically withdraw movement
authority on all adjacent lines. Also, crew could send the message as soon
as it was obvious the train was in trouble, rather than having to wait until
stationary before applying the clips - vital seconds possibly.
--
Mark
Buss Error
news:btrj15$agtk7$1...@ID-178858.news.uni-berlin.de:
> first, though this has happened with road-rail maintenance vehicles
> (some of the these don't operate track circuits reliably either!)
>
Many are specifically designed not to operate track circuits.
Matthew Beasley
Some have a switch on the dash to allow the operator to select whether
to operate the track circuit or not.
Matthew Beasley
> Joachim Schmid <prof_joac...@yahoo.de> wrote:
> Track circuits are considered an obsolete technology and since about
> 30 years the German Railways prefer axle counters, instead.
>
So how are automatic crossing gates operated?
Mark Townend
news:wciMb.4632$1e....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
By axle counters sections arranged at the usual 'strike-in' positions,
conventional track circuits (often backed up with inductive or mechanical
treadle sensors at the strike-ins), or 'predictors' (clever track circuits
that look at change of resistence as a train approaches to gauge speed and
determine when to start the sequence for a consistent warning time).
If the block signalling uses axle counters, any of these solutions can be
overlaid for the crossing.
--
Mark
Matthew Beasley
"Mark Townend" <mark_t...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:btss6o$apvkl$1...@ID-178858.news.uni-berlin.de...
Thanks for the answer!
I am not going to jump in and say that one side of the pond is doing it
better than the other. Interesting that crossing gates are done the
same way on both sides.
Matthew
Hans-Joachim Zierke
Matthew Beasley schrieb:
> I am not going to jump in and say that one side of the pond is doing it
> better than the other.
You are in misunderstanding mode here. While the border in passenger
train operation is indeed the pond, the borders in signaling practice are
located all over Europe. There is no European signaling system, with the
exception of a few test tracks.
European railroads have been domestic operations of single countries, and
have developed a wealth of signal systems. The differences aren't just
only in the signals or in track circuits versus axle counters, there are
as well differences in the fundamental logic of operation. Some countries
have made "station" and "open track" an important difference, which rules
what actions are allowed or not. Other countries aren't aware of such a
difference. Some signal systems are based on signaling speed, while other
systems signal paths, and make the speed a part of the route knowledge.
These differences are one of the reasons, why it is so difficult, to have
an integrated railroad network for the EU. On the roads, the attempts in
favour of standardization began in the 1950s. Railroads lag behind by
about 40 years.
If freight trains from France to Germany and back are supposed to operate
non-stop between the major shunting yards, as it is currently undertaken,
this requires a major educational effort by the railroads and the crews.
I think that it would be quite difficult, to qualify for more than 3 or 4
national signaling systems, because they follow such different logic.
Practical example, some months back in a German railroad newsgroup: A
teacher for the French/German qualification program asks, how to
translate the German "Sperrfahrt" in the best way. Answer: Best
translation is "le Sperrfahrt", because such thing does not exist in the
logic of French railroad operation. Just one example of many.
So don't look at the pond for differences. Instead, we have plenty of
these in Europe, and while you will have problems in some years, to
find the location of some European borders, if traveling by road, the
differences in railroad operation are going to survive some decades from
now - sadly. It's a major disadvantage especially on the freight market.
Hans-Joachim
--
Greifst du in ein Wespennest, so fasse zu und stehe fest.
Christa Wolf