Re: STEAM

You're right. For the purposes of negotiating the final contract, certain changes and concessions can be made. Like who pays for what first. And who is responsible for what, etc, etc. What cannot be (and was not) changed is the scope of work as set forth:"To operate primarily steam powered excursion trains, display historic and educational exhibits, provide public services, and make repairs and maintenance or improvements to the Railroad."
To change the scope of work to reflect the change of operating "primarily deisel" trains, a new RFP would have to be instituted -that's built into the State's competitive bidding process and regulations and a responsibility of the State Purchaing Office. Although, I'm not sure that the CHS, "charged with operating a historically accurate attraction", can allow that and still fulfill their duties to the state (and our Historic National Landmark designation).
In the Contract, the CHS states that it will provide equipment that it might acquire. However, the responsibility of showing up on May 28, 2005 with steam appears to fall on RailStar. Additionally, there is a laundry list of rights of termination built into the contract.
For the sake of the community I live in, I hope RailStar has a proverbial rabbit to pull out of the hat.Even if the #9 were put to operation in time for May 28, 2005, it would not be enough to fulfill the passenger requirements set forth in the contract, resulting in yet another default situation. A defaulted/null and void contract at the beginning of the operating season is not a positive outcome for anyone.
Unless, of course, there is a CHS Plan "B" that we don't know about yet.