 |
Re: John Bruce and other dips
Author: OPRRMS
Date: 12-08-2008 - 19:39
John Bruce Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Harry Bruce, ICG/IC. When he took over, it was
> anticipated ICG would be the next Rock Island.
Harry Bruce. Now's there's a name I haven't heard in years. I don't recall anyone saying the ICG was going to be the next Rock Island, but if you say so.
> He
> left when the whole system was sold intact to
> MidSouth.
I'm no Harry Bruce historian, but my recollection was that he was involved in line sales and selling off assets, and that after the parent holding company spun-off the railroad, what remained was sold to the Prospect Group for less that what its stock was worth. Wait; I'll Google Harry and see what I can find.
OK, here are a couple of articles from the New York Times:
[query.nytimes.com]
and
[query.nytimes.com]
And, of course, we all know what happened to IC after that, don't we?
> My wife, an attorney, suggests that if there are
> grownups on the Metrolink board, as there appear
> to be, there will be (and probably is already
> underway) an independent investigation, probably
> by Metrolink's outside law firm. If so, it will
> go beyond NTSB type technical issues and walk back
> the cat over how Metrolink and Veolia got where
> they are. It will certainly name names, on an
> internal/confidential basis. How could you expect
> otherwise?
You should offer them your (and your wife's, if she'll fall for it) services.
> My wife thinks it would take a little lawyering,
> but you could certainly make up a list of those
> names and demand that no futre contractor hire
> them.
Who would demand that no one hire them? The railbuffs?
In any event, you're overlooking one obvious problem with your theory: What about all the other employees? How will you prevent other employees from having collisions? Simply preventing the three employees involved in the Chatsworth and Rialto incidents from ever working in the railroad industry again isn't going to stop accident from happening.
> Worried?
Naw. Fascinated.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Harry Bruce, ICG/IC. When he took over, it was
> anticipated ICG would be the next Rock Island.
Harry Bruce. Now's there's a name I haven't heard in years. I don't recall anyone saying the ICG was going to be the next Rock Island, but if you say so.
> He
> left when the whole system was sold intact to
> MidSouth.
I'm no Harry Bruce historian, but my recollection was that he was involved in line sales and selling off assets, and that after the parent holding company spun-off the railroad, what remained was sold to the Prospect Group for less that what its stock was worth. Wait; I'll Google Harry and see what I can find.
OK, here are a couple of articles from the New York Times:
[query.nytimes.com]
and
[query.nytimes.com]
And, of course, we all know what happened to IC after that, don't we?
> My wife, an attorney, suggests that if there are
> grownups on the Metrolink board, as there appear
> to be, there will be (and probably is already
> underway) an independent investigation, probably
> by Metrolink's outside law firm. If so, it will
> go beyond NTSB type technical issues and walk back
> the cat over how Metrolink and Veolia got where
> they are. It will certainly name names, on an
> internal/confidential basis. How could you expect
> otherwise?
You should offer them your (and your wife's, if she'll fall for it) services.
> My wife thinks it would take a little lawyering,
> but you could certainly make up a list of those
> names and demand that no futre contractor hire
> them.
Who would demand that no one hire them? The railbuffs?
In any event, you're overlooking one obvious problem with your theory: What about all the other employees? How will you prevent other employees from having collisions? Simply preventing the three employees involved in the Chatsworth and Rialto incidents from ever working in the railroad industry again isn't going to stop accident from happening.
> Worried?
Naw. Fascinated.
