Roger Hogan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JoeK Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > A key point:
> >
> > Commission made a decision. (At that time)
> >
> > The commission was changed due to that
> decision.
> > The new commissioner after that decision and
> > successor would likely approve a mutually
> > beneficial trade.
> >
> > That only leaves one commissioner in question??
> >
> > Its simply bad business to not trade a working
> > locomotive or one needing normal work vs a
> massive
> > amount(at tax payer's expense). As well, adding
> a
> > missing piece of equipment to complete a museum
> > function isn't good business. It's simply bad
> > business to disregard the hard work and
> expertise
> > of the in house expert of steam locomotives
> who's
> > the commission's key employee. More bad
> business
> > means more new commissions needed.
> >
> > An idea for any future trades, swaps on 483?
> > Unless one has spent time down in the railyard
> > working in 483 they have no skin in the game.
> > Therefore no voice in the game.
> > Anyone can volunteer to work on 483.
> >
> > One railroad will likely in the future need a
> > mixed fleet of oil/coal burners. One's likely
> to
> > remain all coal. Things like the 478/483 trade
> > might likely happen again due to changes in
> both
> > railroad's business plans.
>
> I respectfully disagree Joe. "Unless one has spent
> time down in the railyard working in 483 they have
> no skin in the game. Therefore no voice in the
> game."
>
> There are a lot of people that have spent time,
> money and effort trying to help the C&TSRR and
> they have never worked on #483. IMHO they have
> skin in the game.
>
> No disrespect intended towards Joe. We disagree
> and that IMHO is OK.
We disagreed on the trade too.
