Letter to the Editor: In Response to Insurance Problems at Chehalis-Centralia Railroad

Posted

People don’t just crash into trains on purpose.

Two crashes in two years?

An unprecedented insurance denial from four different providers in 2022?

Surprisingly, Chehalis-Centralia Railroad and Museum (CCRM) insurance broker Tripp Salisbury (a CCRM ally) reported that the two dark stain crashes were a secondary reason to canceling insurance services. He shared that the poor general operating procedures of CCRM were the main reasons the railroad was flatly refused even a quote for an insurance renewal. Shockingly, Mr. Salisbury went on to say that he believes significant changes must take place in the organization if they are to ever be considered for future coverage. His perfect example of what he means is that, “The days of a bunch of friends getting together and playing trains is beyond us now.”

My father-in-law, Jerry Mullins, is no longer with us today due to the 2017 crash. This is partially because a bunch of friends got together to play with trains.

CCRM also has a current wrongful conduct lawsuit against them for backing into a crash (2019). This, too, is partially because a bunch of friends got together to play with trains.

Also in the article, I would have to agree with CCRM member Daryl Lund comments: “That it is time to start running the railroad as a business and not a toy.” It seems that this should have been a priority from the beginning. He went on to say it is sad the railroad has been run so poorly that it has cost hundreds of thousands of tourism dollars to the area.



Although that is sad, I think the more alarming issue is the safety of Lewis County residents being overlooked.

The steam train line crossings are dangerous with numerous other close calls in the past. This is because of limited visibility, high speed crossings and also that none of the crossings along the route have crossing arms to stop motorists from crossing the tracks of intermittent seasonal trains. The two crashes mentioned in the article almost certainly would not have happened with standard mechanical crossing arms in place to stop the vehicles from entering the track area.

Finally, Mr. Salisbury said he is confident the insurance denial is only a temporary inconvenience for CCRM and that it would not be a death blow to them, like it was for my father-in-law. My hope is that safety for local residents who navigate the rails' roadways won’t be looked upon as an inconvenience, but as a priority. I believe a legitimate safety committee and crossing arms should be a minimum standard and part of the significant change that all agree must take place. CCRM’s denial of insurance is unprecedented justice for wrongful actions. It should become more than an inconvenience for them to ever get back online again in the future.

 

Chris Johnson

Curtis