PDF file--Very interesting reading. Draw your own conclusions.

CHS Geo. Loop RFI
eledbetter@rypn.org

> PDF file--Very interesting reading. Draw
> your own conclusions.

In summary:

oh, man, did we screw up.

JAC

> In summary:

> oh, man, did we screw up.

> JAC

That's for sure!

What happens when they fail to get any qualified bidders? The #9 which they indicate is "available for restoration" couldn't conceivably be restored in time for next year. Where exactly are the items of rolling stock that the CHS has located for use? Outside of the current operator, I can't think of anyone who has an available collection of equipment that wouldn't require total rebuilding, and I can't image Lindsey Ashby selling or leasing his equipment to someone who plans on replacing him!

Also, if Lindsey Ashby was unwilling to agree to the CHS contract demands, who will, apart from fools and fly by night operators? For those who thought this was all just part of hard ball bargaining, I'm hearing through the grapevine that there is no going back. 2004 is the end of the line and then the Ashby's and their equipment are gone for good!

The CHS hasn't just screwed up, they jumped off a cliff without a parachute!


trainrider47@aol.com

> What happens when they fail to get any
> qualified bidders? The #9 which they
> indicate is "available for
> restoration" couldn't conceivably be
> restored in time for next year. Where
> exactly are the items of rolling stock that
> the CHS has located for use? Outside of the
> current operator, I can't think of anyone
> who has an available collection of equipment
> that wouldn't require total rebuilding, and
> I can't image Lindsey Ashby selling or
> leasing his equipment to someone who plans
> on replacing him!

> The CHS hasn't just screwed up, they jumped
> off a cliff without a parachute!

Wait till when the news media starts to ask questions about the use of Colorado Taxpayers to creat a park and then close it. How about the passenger car shelter that is not connected to the mainline. The ex-C&S 2-6-0 #9 that will take truck loads of money to repair and more time. Maybe a reporter will be asking this summer "what do we do with this railroad now". He may ask "where are the qualified operators".

This looks to be a major meltdown and embaressment to the CHS.

Dale Brown


dwbrown1@fuse.net

If nobody other than foamers and wannabees with insuffucient qualification send in responses to the RFI presumably all parties may return to the bargaining table. It seems to me that CHS wishes to see if there are any reasonable options open to them. I wonder if they lack an appreciation of how different this situation is from that faced at CATS a couple years ago due to the diligence of the operators?

dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

> If nobody other than foamers and wannabees
> with insuffucient qualification send in
> responses to the RFI presumably all parties
> may return to the bargaining table.
> dave

Quite true, this is not a RFP. However we will probably not see the public notice of these RFP ever published. This will be not like the C&TS where all the concerned parties and supporters of the C&TS will be able to analize and discuss the merits of one proposal over another.

I think we will only see a list of accepted candidates for the RFI. The RFP process will undoubiably be kept private to the CHS. However one month to go for candidates to respond will be very short time to get a RFI together. The next deadline will be when a RFP is due?

I don't think the fat lady has been given her que.

Dale Brown


dwbrown1@fuse.net

ItÂ’s doubtful that any central or western state has as many historical rail lines operating today to serve resident and and out-of-state tourists as does Colorado. Consider this list, for starters, and by all means please add any more you can think of as well as correcting any of the dates IÂ’ve listed that arenÂ’t accurate.

Cumbres & Toltec Scenic Railroad - dating from 1880
Royal Gorge Route Railroad - dating from 1880
Durango & Silverton Narrow Gauge Railroad - in continuous operation since 1882
Georgetown Loop Railroad - dating from 1883
Manitou & PikeÂ’s Peak Cog Railway - in continuous operation since 1891
Leadville, Colorado & Southern Railroad - dating from 1894
Cripple Creek & Victor Railroad - dating from the 1890s
The Ski Train - route dating from 1905 and Moffat Tunnel dating from 1927
Tiny Town Railroad - dating from 1915
Fort Collins Municipal Railway - dating from 1919

The prime agency that should be proudly proclaiming such a rich heritage and doing everything it can to serve the state and the country in supporting the success of all of these operations is the Colorado Historical Society. It is appalling beyond belief that instead, this organization seems determined to destroy one of these which is known far and wide as one of the most successful representations of the stateÂ’s history with an outstanding record of good will toward the public.

Commentary on this and other discussion boards makes it abundantly clear that itÂ’s virtually impossible that any other operator could be found that would have the ability, commitment, expertise, and integrity as do the Ashbys and their team, to operate the Georgetown Loop Railroad.

If this railroad ceases to operate, it will be one of the most significant losses ever known in Colorado. And the loss will be doubly tragic because there appears to be no demonstrable, sound reason for it!

In all fairness, CHS only owns the track and land under GLRR. They have no interest or authority over any of the other operations mentioned. It is beyond the scope of their mission to involve themselves in the privately owned and operated railroads, and there is a strong probability that the owners of those lines would prefer to be allowed to continue to do their work unimpeded by the state bureaucracy to the greatest extent permissible.

The point of the RFI is to determine whether or not there are any other qualified potential operators from the CHS POV. If in fact there are none, hopefully reason will prevail and some renegotiation could occur. Perhaps some reinvention as well? The only thing obvious to me is that after 30 years, the old model didn't work well enough in todays environment to satisfy both parties.

It would not do CHS credit ethically or politically to preside over a failure of their own bureaucracy which forces the line to be shut down. Probably nobody is more anxious to see it continue to operate successfully. Having worked for CHS, I can attest to a basic lack of understanding in that institution of the realities of operating a tourist railroad, which is why they need an outside operating entity in the first place. Can't fault them for doing some exploring when talks have proven unsuccessful.

This isn't a good guys and bad guys thing - let's give the situation some time and dispassionate consideration and see what evolves.

dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

Actually the Fort Collins Municipal Railway goes back to 1907 if you include it's Denver and Interurban Railway history.
Roger Mitchell
Master Mechanic
Fort Collins Municipal Railway

n0mcr@netzero.net

> The point of the RFI is to determine whether
> or not there are any other qualified
> potential operators from the CHS POV. If in
> fact there are none, hopefully reason will
> prevail and some renegotiation could occur.

If that was all that was involved, I would not be worried, but when the CHS has informed the current operator that the CHS's final unrealistic contract demand is non negotiable, then there is more to it than just exploring.

> The only
> thing obvious to me is that after 30 years,
> the old model didn't work well enough in
> todays environment to satisfy both parties.

I think it worked just fine for both parties until now, but with the State of Colorado in a fiscal crunch, the CHS would like to squeeze more revenue out of the operator. That's not the old model, that's a new model.

> It would not do CHS credit ethically or
> politically to preside over a failure of
> their own bureaucracy which forces the line
> to be shut down. Probably nobody is more
> anxious to see it continue to operate
> successfully.

That seems unlikely, given the fact that they have not bothered to restore the C&S #9 and have built a car storage facility that doesn't work, isn't connected to the railroad and isn't open to the public to view the CHS collection. Failure seems to suit them just fine.

> Having worked for CHS, I can
> attest to a basic lack of understanding in
> that institution of the realities of
> operating a tourist railroad, which is why
> they need an outside operating entity in the
> first place.

This is thunderingly obvious!

> Can't fault them for doing some
> exploring when talks have proven
> unsuccessful.

If all they were doing was "exploring" none of us in the rail preservation community would be concerned. Their actions have gone well past exploring, as the current operator has stated that he is done at the end of the season and the CHS has virtually no chance of finding a suitable replacement.

> This isn't a good guys and bad guys thing -
> let's give the situation some time and
> dispassionate consideration and see what
> evolves.

It's kind of hard not to see the CHS as bad guys, when they drive out the current operator under the guise of trying to squeeze out more revenue, then start to explore spending large sums to restore their own C&S #9 so that they will have equipment in place to tempt another operator to move in.

They will have to spend a fortune trying to acquire equipment and restore it in a hurry, when they already have an operator in place with equipment. This will turn out to be a massive waste of taxpayer dollars, all because the CHS director miscalculated and is unwilling to admit to a mistake and back down.

Michael Allen


trainrider47@aol.com

You may be privy to documentation I don't have at hand, all I have read is the RFI and a press release from Mark Greksa. In neither are the points of contention spelled out. Please post links to whatever you are using that will provide more detail - I would like very much to know the particulars. I may simply be badly informed.

dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

> You may be privy to documentation I don't
> have at hand, all I have read is the RFI and
> a press release from Mark Greksa. In neither
> are the points of contention spelled out.
> Please post links to whatever you are using
> that will provide more detail - I would like
> very much to know the particulars.

There was a Denver Post article on March 12 which mentioned some of the issues, one being "The historical society's asking for Greska's help to maintain buildings in the 949-acre Georgetown Loop Historic Mining & Railroad Park on the south side of Interstate 70, between Georgetown and Silver Plume." Sure looks like an attempt to squeeze more revenue out of the operator to me!

There were a number of other issues as well. Follow the link below to read the article.

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,141 ... 31,00.html

There have also been a number of posts on the Narrow Gauge Discussion board by employees and other interested parties. Start with the link below. You will have to sift through a lot of chaff, but a picture does eventually emerge.

http://www.ngdiscussion.net/cgi-bin/NGD ... read=40467

Hope this helps.

Michael

trainrider47@aol.com

> Not defending Steamtown per say, but the
> concept of a CIP isn't necessarily a bad
> thing. I think many museums need to look
> inward, decide what works, what doesn't,
> what they need to accomplish etc...

I don't think anyone is questioning the concept of a CIP. It's something that Steamtown has sorely lacked since the days of F. Nelson Blount. That's not to say that Steamtowm didn't try during its earlier years because there were several "Master Plans" over the years. The book "The Man From Steamtown" contains an artist's sketch of Blount's original plan--expected to be completed at a cost of $2 million by 1970! There were several others after that, and each met the same fate: a lack of funding to carry them forward. However, there was always one constant in the plans that remained over the years: the operation of mainline steam in the manner that F. Nelson Blount had envisioned. Working with a very limited budget, Steamtown Foundation was able to keep the mainline excursion program running from mid-1971 through 1987--admittedly with a few bumps along the way.

Now, the NPS comes along with a plan which seemingly takes the constant all but out of the picture. Perhaps they have realized something that all previous Steamtown managements never did (i. e. it is too expensive to keep mainline steam alive today). On the other hand, they may be totally overlooking the one thing that kept Steamtown alive for so many years. Granted, Steamtown didn't have an $80 million dollar facility in Vermont, but when it tried a season there without excursions (1981) patronage dropped drastically--to the point where the Board of Directors almost shut it down permanently.

> I haven't read the CIP myself. I talked to
> many people when it was being developed
> though. Seems Steamtown wisely included many
> of the "partners" in the process,
> as well as many outside sources. Very few
> were complimentary to the site or its
> operation during the process, but I don't
> know if this was whitewashed in the final
> report or not, as I said, I haven't seen it.

Yes, it is wise to consider the views of "partners" and outside consultants in developing the CIP. If indeed very few of these folks were complimentary to the site or its operations, it would indicate that the NPS definitely has some problems to work out. The big question is: does the new CIP solve these problems or does it create more?

Now that the CIP is supposedly "public information" (there should be a copy in the Steamtown library for interested parties to look over), let's take a look at it and see what's in store for the future. As we were reminded in another forum recently (in a slightly different wording): Steamtown NHS is America's steam railroad museum, owned by the people of the USA under the stewardship of the National Park Service. It's up to us, the citizens of this great country, to review what the NPS bureaucrats, their partners and consultants have decided as to what the future of Steamtown NHS is going to be. If you don't like what you see in the CIP, now is the time to make your voice heard. Don't wait a couple of years to say "I wish the Steamtown excursions of old were still around".

fred.gracebailey@earthlink.net

Excursions are a huge part of Steamtown and it shows what Railroading in the 40's and 50's was all about, but it is only one part of the big picture at Steamtown. What Steamtown dose have, that is unique and a important tool of telling the Steam Railroading Story is a steam era roundhouse and yard.

-Justin Franz

qcmrs18@yahoo.com

Let's face it folks--the Department of Interior/NPS is in a severe financial crunch and must make some hard decisions about the overall budget. Steamtown is near the bottom of the list politically-speaking compared to, say, the Grand Canyon or Gettysburg, in terms of historical significance. If they need to cut steam excursions to keep the budget in check, so be it--this is not about satisfying the minority foamer railfan audience but it's about making realistic budgetary decisions when financial times are tough. We all are expected to make sacrifices in such instances for the good of the order, and not everybody is going to be happy with the decisions that are made. It doesn't mean that cuts in programs are permanent; they are likely to be restored when times get better. Running steam in the yard limits is better than no steam at all. Just be happy with what we've got and stop griping about this. I'm sure the Steamtown folks are trying to do the best they can in light of the circumstances and there are a lot more issues at play than what we know about, going on behind the scenes, that factor into this decision. I know it is trendy to criticize the government when times are tough, especially when sounding off on an anonymous internet message board, but show some sympathy toward Steamtown's management. I'm sure they too are concerned about the best interests of the park but must make some hard decisions in the interim.