Re: Dorrigo Rolling Stock

["Trevor Edmonds" <tedmonds@tmx.com.au>]

Peter Ruxton wrote...

<<What about Bi Centenary Money (Grant)>>

As far as I know our share was exactly nil.

<<What about the Army Engineers and the time they did (Government Cost)>>

The Army exercise was going to happen anyway. Their original intention was
to do similar work on their own site and then demolish it. It was cheaper
(and more satisfying) for them to be able to leave their work standing.

>What about the last X years rent free

Prior to our lease of the line, it earned no income, and the PTC still had
to meet the costs such as maintaining the road overbridges. With our lease
they received a token rent, and the road overbridges became our problem.
When they cancelled the lease, they got responsibility for the expenses
back.

<<What about the time PTC (nsw), SRA, RAC then DOT and other Goverment
departments have invested in the the Dorrigo Line in what can only be
describeded as an on going saga of disputation>>

To say that their costs were "invested" in the Dorrigo line is stretching
it. Their costs of cancelling our lease, then having to enact legislation to
make the cancellation legal, and then spending years going through a
tendering process, which ultimately failed, was their choice. It was hardly
money spent for our benefit, and it has cost us an enormous amount of money
for legals not to mention time and deterioration of the line.

Trevor