Laserfiche WebLink
question. Rathern than crossing where they;re hauling some materials so I have som <br /> sympathy to but the rest of it I have t come back to whereyou are and say that <br /> it is really not our problem there may be other entities that are in a better <br /> position to deal with this than I but I , but the Board, what is the response, <br /> you've gotten no respone from Nottingham, that ' s what you' re say ing <br /> K: We have had response from Nottingha, up to a point we've had some hearing in <br /> Eagle County and so on but there hasn' t been anything concrete yet that ;s been <br /> determined about this particular crossing. they have upgraded the crossing as <br /> I said and we' re going to bill Nottingham for the expense of updating this <br /> crossing. <br /> JS: To a degree then if you' re going to bill them for the expense and if they pay <br /> this then you ae acknowledging to a degree certainly their right to cross that , <br /> K: No, sir, we are not acknowledging to cross there at all we just are realizing <br /> that if this crossing wasn't upgraded and they continue to use it as they have <br /> been we could have maybe some of our tracks misaligned or something like that <br /> torn apart by one of these trucks, because they were not , this crossing was <br /> not in a condition at all to carry these heavy trucks and as a result we could have <br /> a serious accident so we decided to tak action on our own , <br /> JS: Now, where this is a private crossing asyou suggest what is to prevent you from <br /> just refusing Nottingham the right to cross it? say they' re going to have <br /> to make arrangements . . . <br /> K: refuse Nottingham to the right to cross it , into this particular <br /> cattle company, we could refuse to him if he would be willing to pay for this <br /> type of protection that we would be willing to enter into an agreement <br /> RW: But the company fundamentally would retain the right of access to cross its tracks <br /> K: Are you referring to Nottingham <br /> RW: No, to you Rio Grande, you would retain regardless of, wel you' re not going to <br /> contract then there would be some sort of agreement that yes they could use <br /> Why don' t we hear from the Nottingham, go ahead <br /> K: Like you say, the protection that would be required would be subject to the BBC?? <br /> RW: I think that the Board could encourage this it might be useful but on this <br /> question and have you responded to this part of it , yes <br /> BN: Yes, he <br /> RW: Why don' t you identify yourself for the record <br /> BN: I did earlier, I 'm Bill Nottingha, of Nottingham S b G our correspondence <br /> went as far as where they wanted me to spend $100,000 for a signal lines <br /> crossing and I feel that sure the Denver Rio Grande would like to have all their <br /> crossing signalized. at somebody else's expense and that ' s where our correspondenc <br /> dropped off is where they would put in the crossing and I 'd pay for it. <br /> another thing is how far did you say the visibility is there? <br /> K: About a 1/3 of a mile <br /> BN: I hate to dispute your word but it is at least 2 miles up the track and <br /> farther going down the track <br /> K: From one direction --------- <br /> RW: Okay, well <br /> K: Anyway, I 'd like to have my remakrs . <br /> RW: WEII , they certainly are here and if there' s a problem its just exactly not <br /> just the province of the Board how far it extends and it doesn ' t appear that we <br />