It is currently Fri May 23, 2025 4:52 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: RGRPC Exercises Option to End C&TS Contract
PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2002 2:28 pm 

The Rio Grande Railroad Preservation Corporation, a nonprofit subsidiary of the Friends of the Cumbres &Toltec Scenic Railroad, notified the C&TS Commission on Thursday that it was exercising an option to end its contract to operate the RR at the end of this season. The escape clause allows the RGRPC to cease running the RR after three years rather than five.

The RGRPC has basically been rendered financially unable to continue to meet the terms of the existing contract after the events of this year.

The Commission will now seek a new operator to take over the railroad next year. THey may select an entirely new operator if a qualified bid is received, or may negotiate a new contract with the RGRPC or a successor organization sponsored by the Friends for them to continue operating the RR next year under new financial terms.

Meanwhile, the USFS has not yet responded to the RR's request to resume operations on the 16th. At this time the closure order has not been lifted, and only one of the two national forests invovled has stipulated any conditions or timeline for lifting it.

Arcticles relating to these affairs from the Colorado and New Mexico press are avialalble in Flimsies (for the moment at least... :-) )

eledbetter@rypn.org


  
 
 Post subject: Is it realistic
PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2002 5:33 pm 

to think that a private, for profit company can run this railroad? While I don't claim to be an expert on this line and it's finances, it is time to have the states themselves operate it like other state parks?

Private companies have to make a profit. It's a long way to anywhere from Chama.

I love this line and hopes my grandkids and ride steam up over the pass.


  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is it realistic
PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2002 8:14 pm 

> to think that a private, for profit company
> can run this railroad? While I don't claim
> to be an expert on this line and it's
> finances, it is time to have the states
> themselves operate it like other state
> parks?

> Private companies have to make a profit.
> It's a long way to anywhere from Chama.

I agree-- you will get no responsible bids from qaulified, well-financed, competent for-profit operators. Too much deferred maintenance to support the pace of operations necessary to haul 60,000+ heads a year, which is the estimated breakeven point. There's no profit in it without really massive capital reinvestment, far more than could ever be earned back on a cost-of-capital basis.

That said, there is a middle way. I'm not sure direct state operation is the way to go; I think a recapitalized nonprofit operator might be the ticket. The RGRPC itself is not a for-profit; it is a nonprofit arm of of the Friends.

In return for getting a comitted, qualified nonprofit operator, the States ought to allow that operator to apply the lease payments directly to reversing deferred maintenance on the property. A substantial infusion of cash will also be needed. Get those two things lined up and you have the outlines of a deal that would continue the work RGRPC started on stabilizing and rebuilding the RR...

> I love this line and hopes my grandkids and
> ride steam up over the pass.

Me, too!


eledbetter@rypn.org


  
 
 Post subject: Confusion *PIC*
PostPosted: Sat Jul 13, 2002 9:29 am 

Erik said.
In return for getting a comitted, qualified nonprofit operator, the States ought to allow that operator to apply the lease payments directly to reversing deferred maintenance on the property. A substantial infusion of cash will also be needed. Get those two things lined up and you have the outlines of a deal that would continue the work RGRPC started on stabilizing and rebuilding the RR...

I say.
I think you misunderstand the situation as it is now. The lease payments do go to the Commission, who then applies the money to needed capitol improvements, like water tanks, etc, etc.
So, the money paid in Lease is not lost by any means. What you propose would simply put more money into track and less someplace else. Most of the track work has come from EDA money, and it was coming along pretty well on a several year plan.
All that said, I don't know what the answer is for the C&TS long term, and like you I hope we see more steam on Cumbres for years to come. I am growing old worrying about all these changes in management every few years,. :)
Greg Scholl

videos
Image
sales@gregschollvideo.com


  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


 Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 129 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: