Laserfiche WebLink
1 and if they pay this then you are acknowledging, to a degree <br /> 2 certainly, their right to cross there. <br /> 3C: No, sir, we are not acknowledging their right to cross there <br /> 4 at all, we just are realizing that if this crossing wasn't <br /> 5 upgraded and they continue to use it, as. they have been, we <br /> 6 could have some of our tracks misaligned or something like <br /> 7 that--torn apart by one of these trucks. This. crossing was <br /> 8 not in a condition at all to carry these heavy trucks and as <br /> 9 a result we could have a serious accident so we decided to <br /> 10 take action on our own. <br /> 11JS : Now, were this a private crossing as you suggest, what is to <br /> 12 prevent you from just refusing Nottingham the right to cross <br /> 13 it? Say they're going to have to make arrangements . . . <br /> 14 [unintelligible] . <br /> 15C: [Unintelligible] refuse Nottingham to the right to cross it, <br /> 16 into this particular cattle company, we could refuse to him <br /> 17 if he would be willing to pay for this type of protection <br /> 18 that we would be willing to enter into an agreement. <br /> 19RW: But the company fundamentally would retain the right of <br /> 20 access to cross its tracks. <br /> 21C: Are you referring to Nottingham? <br /> 22 RW: No, to you Rio Grande. You should retain regardless of, well <br /> 23 you' re not going to contract then there would be some of <br /> 24 agreement that yes they could use. Why don' t we hear from <br /> 25 the Nottingham, go ahead '. . . . <br /> 26 C: Like you say, the protection that would be required would be <br /> 27 subject to the ICC. <br /> 28 RW: I think that the Board could encourage this. It might be <br /> 29 useful, but on this question and have you responded to this <br /> -13- <br />