The saga in Colorado continues:

http://www.ngdiscussion.net/cgi-bin/NGDFcook.pl?noframes;read=45814
ryarger@rypn.org

> The saga in Colorado continues:
So Trottier is the only one not worried about getting equipment. What does he own?
M.Nix


2rivers@upstel.net

> The saga in Colorado continues:

This to me is a peeing contest between the two organizations that have been involved since this lines rebirth. It goes to show that neither the Historical Society (if I dare would call them that) and the operator of the railroad itself, care nothing about the HISTORY of the railroad, or the equipment but rather their own pockets. For both, if you want to make money, you have to spend it. I laugh at this whole situation with disgust as the outcome of this will just pan out to be another Edaville. A true loss to the communities that surround it, the State and the general public who have put that glorious money you are now fighting over, in your pockets to begin with. Shame on YOU all!

ieishalle23@aol.com

Fingers can be pointed in many directions on this one. I have seen more static which leads me to believe that there's a lot more than a simple business based difference of opinions leading to a simple business decision not to agree to a renewed contract going on. Just what the entire truth may be is probably never to be entirely clear, even to those caught up in the midst of it.

Against pretty impresive odds, it seems that three potential operators have been vetted and qualified to at least some extent as having some realistic ability to continue to operate the railroad. While I lament the loss of the Ashby involvement based on a valued friendship, I am gratified to see that the line has a good chance of survival despite the change.

The current operators have made definitive statements about leaving. Let's thank them for decades of running a class operation, and wish them well. Let us also welcome whoever may be chosen to continue, and give them the support they will require to build another class operation.

The battle was fought and nobody won. The hole is deep enough. Time to stop digging and move on.

dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

> This to me is a peeing contest between the
> two organizations that have been involved
> since this lines rebirth. It goes to show
> that neither the Historical Society (if I
> dare would call them that) and the operator
> of the railroad itself, care nothing about
> the HISTORY of the railroad, or the
> equipment but rather their own pockets. For
> both, if you want to make money, you have to
> spend it. I laugh at this whole situation
> with disgust as the outcome of this will
> just pan out to be another Edaville. A true
> loss to the communities that surround it,
> the State and the general public who have
> put that glorious money you are now fighting
> over, in your pockets to begin with. Shame
> on YOU all!

I have to admit to being somewhat baffled by this post. The Colorado Historical Society, which has demonstrated a lifelong, quantifiable commitment to mediocrity decides it needs more money from the operator of the GLRR and the operator finds itself unable to provide it. The operator, which owns the trains, and has invested considerable time and money in them, was entirely justified in taking a hike.

If there's fault here at all, lay it on the CHS, not the folks who owned and operated the trains.

Doug


Steam Locomotive Info
dougb@sunserver.com

Doug,

What is equally baffling is that the reported amount of the disagreement between the parties ($100,000) is less than 1/20 the amount that the Colorado Historical Society is going to have to spend providing replacement equipment for the new operator. The current operator (GLRR) has provided their own equipment. The CHS has claimed that they have several steam engines undergoing restoration, and have located passenger cars and other equipment, which they will provide to the new operator. This is going to cost the CHS well in excess of $2 million. If this were about money, the CHS could drop the demand for increased payments by the current operator, settle on the prior agreement and they would save money. This is either about politics, personality or more than likely, both.



trainrider47@aol.com