Re: Georgetown Loop Lease Option

Roger Hogan Wrote:

> Thanks for the up-date Mark.

Roger,

Mr. Greska's version of his conversation with the CHS seems to contradict what the CHS told the "Clear Creek Courant", according to Courant's September 5 article "Loop shuts down again: Problem fixed Friday; train operated during holiday weekend". For your convenience, here's the link again: Clear Creek Courant: Loop shuts down again: Problem fixed Friday; train operated during holiday weekend

In his post above, Mr. Greska said "The CHS is only interested in leasing equipment only and wish to run it themselves."

Meanwhile, the Courant article says "The former operators offered to sell the society one of their engines, but Bell said it was contingent on the current crew staying with the train and was not economically feasible."

A sale is very different than a lease. Mr. Greska would be foolish to do what Mr. Greska said the CHS wants them to do. Leasing his equpment to the CHS and letting the CHS operate it would subject Mr. Greska to a lot of liability. If Mr. Greska's equipment were involved in a crash while being leased, he and his company would be sued. Please note that I am *not* not saying I think the current operator is unsafe. (I'm no Jason.) Rather, what I am saying is that if there were a crash, the parties with the most assets would be sued. I think it is clear that Mr. Greska's company has more assets than does the current operator.

If my business and livelihood depended on the Loop drawing visitors to my town, I would be asking the "Courant" why their description of a negotiation about the Loop was very different than how one of the parties to the negotation described it. I might also ask how the sale of a locomotive could be "contingent on the current crew staying with [it]"? (After all, slavery was outlawed over a century ago.)

The Courant article also gives the CHS's reason for not negotiating with Mr. Greska as “To have two different sets of employees from two different vendors, contractually, would be somewhat of a problem.

Again, if my business and livelihood depended on the Loop drawing visitors to my town, then I would be demanding to know why the CHS is not able to simply terminate the current contract for non-performance and rebid it.

Furthermore, if I was told that the current operator is actually performing, then my follow-up question would be "Just how many days does the train have to be shutdown before the contractor is shown to be non-performing?"

In short, I look forward to reading "Letters to the Editor" in the "Courant" from your friends in Georgetown.

--
Chris Webster
[www.speakeasy.org]