Chris Webster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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
Thanks, I have read it a couple of times and I also sent a link to Georgetown
>
> 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."
If I had to choose no question I would believe Mark
>
> 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.
My guess is all parties would be sued
>
> 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 "?
> (After all, slavery was outlawed over a century
> ago.)
I have no idea what they are doing to try and get some changes in the works. I have not asked and have no intention of asking.
>
> 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?"
I haven't read the contract. They may be 100% as far as performance is concerned if the contract reads the equipment and equipment problems are that of the owner not the contractor. The fact is even if I had read it I wouldn't try to do anything about it until I had my attorney read it and advise me.
>
> In short, I look forward to reading "Letters to
> the Editor" in the "Courant" from your friends in
> Georgetown.
I will repeat: I have no idea what they are doing to try and get some changes in the works. I have not asked and have no intention of asking.
I will say that if I was working on getting some changes I would make sure I had things in place before I started a war in the press. Letters and articles before your ready and are pretty sure about what is happening is NOT in my opinion very smart. To go off half cocked because your angry is the fastest way to go backwards.
> Chris Webster
> [
www.speakeasy.org]
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/08/2007 02:14PM by Roger Hogan.
