Mr. Boulware:
Fortunately many of us will never forget the underhanded dealings that the CHS has perpetrated in its handling of the Georgetown Loop RR in regards to its ouster of the former operator in 2004. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by people like yourself and the CHS who like to conveniently sweep all the dirt under the rug and rewrite the history of the restored Loop that was virtually recreated by the former operators. I will continue to work behind the scenes to bring the officials of the CHS, starting at the top, to task for their inept, mismanaged and fiscal debacle of this changeover. I can also hope that a change in the Statehouse in the next several weeks will add momentum to these efforts to bring the individuals accountable for this mess to task.
While all the folks on the board are patting the CHS on the back for restoring the C&S #9 I ask at what cost was this done? We went from having one of the most successful NG operations in the US to having the tax payers underwrite a multimillion dollar fix to something that was never broken. Just read RailStar’s GM Trottier’s year end report on operations from last year and you will see just how poorly the CHS handled the finances and accounting. And speaking of accounting just try and piece together what the taxpayer cost has been for this changeover. What has been the lost revenue and tax dollars during the past two years of operation to the community? How many more millions of dollars are going to be spent to restore other non historic engines like the #111 & 12 when the CHS complained about the former operator not using historic equipment? Why are private contractors employed for virtually every service that the former operator provided as part of the previous contract?
The “history” Mr. Boulware that you and others want to push aside of this disaster would show us if we look back now at what prevented the former operator and CHS from coming to terms; it was insurance (and level of which the new operator didn’t even meet to my knowledge), maintenance costs (which the CHS now is beginning to understand first hand) and contract duration. All these and more favorable terms were given to the new operator. The question historians and hopefully soon state auditors should be asking is why? Playing politics is a funny business, as the old saying goes “what goes around comes around” and I suspect for some in the CHS their time may be coming soon. We can’t rewrite the history Mr. Boulware, but we sure as hell can try to learn from past mistakes and hold those individuals accountable for their actions in this matter.
Rod Jensen
