Wrong Side of the Tracks

[steve-in-kville]

The tracks through our area divides the zip code for the city.

[Gramp]

Murphy Siding

  

 

 

I think it varies somewhat, based on geography. East of the Mississippi, the town usually came first, west of the Mississippi, the railroad usually came first. As far as the egg & chicken, that's still up for debate.

 

 

Well, according to WC Fields, chickens have pretty legs in Kansas. That’s west of the Mississippi. 

[Murphy Siding]

Euclid

 

 

Convicted One

 

Euclid

Vice and urban problems certainly do pre-date the locomotive, but "Wrong side of the tracks" is a  term for a problem that was originated by the locomotive, and not by the vice and urban blight that resulted from that problem   

 

 

I believe the the historical tie breaker here on this forum has always been "who was there first?"...lol!

Certainly the "tracks" came along with the locomotive, but I believe their location was heavily influenced by social stratification well in advance of the first spike.

Urban interstates explioted that very same reality. They built the highways wherever cheapest, when that was an option. The resulting isolation only compounded the problem.

 

 

 

 

Well I was picturing the tracks being built first and towns springing up along them.  But you are right that in many cases, tracks were built into established towns.  And when the tracks arrived, the vice and blighted areas in those towns may have already been established by forces other than smoke nuisance. 

 

I think it varies somewhat, based on geography. East of the Mississippi, the town usually came first, west of the Mississippi, the railroad usually came first. As far as the egg & chicken, that's still up for debate.

[Euclid]

Convicted One

 

Euclid

Vice and urban problems certainly do pre-date the locomotive, but "Wrong side of the tracks" is a  term for a problem that was originated by the locomotive, and not by the vice and urban blight that resulted from that problem   

 

 

I believe the the historical tie breaker here on this forum has always been "who was there first?"...lol!

Certainly the "tracks" came along with the locomotive, but I believe their location was heavily influenced by social stratification well in advance of the first spike.

Urban interstates explioted that very same reality. They built the highways wherever cheapest, when that was an option. The resulting isolation only compounded the problem.

 

Well I was picturing the tracks being built first and towns springing up along them.  But you are right that in many cases, tracks were built into established towns.  And when the tracks arrived, the vice and blighted areas in those towns may have already been established by forces other than smoke nuisance. 

[Convicted One]

Euclid

Vice and urban problems certainly do pre-date the locomotive, but "Wrong side of the tracks" is a  term for a problem that was originated by the locomotive, and not by the vice and urban blight that resulted from that problem   

I believe the the historical tie breaker here on this forum has always been "who was there first?"...lol!

Certainly the "tracks" came along with the locomotive, but I believe their location was heavily influenced by social stratification well in advance of the first spike.

Urban interstates explioted that very same reality. They built the highways wherever cheapest, when that was an option. The resulting isolation only compounded the problem.

[Euclid]

Convicted One

 

Euclid

Naturally, in later times, the "wrong side" came to mean the bad side

 

 

I strongly suspect that vice and urban malaise pre-date the locomotive. 

 

Vice and urban problems certainly do pre-date the locomotive, but "Wrong side of the tracks" is a  term for a problem that was originated by the locomotive, and not by the vice and urban blight that resulted from that problem   

[rdamon]

The following link is an interesting read on RR and town planning.

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2671&context=greatplainsquarterly

 

[Convicted One]

Euclid

Naturally, in later times, the "wrong side" came to mean the bad side

I strongly suspect that vice and urban malaise pre-date the locomotive. 

[Euclid]

The "wrong side" was originated by the train smoke being carried in that direction by the prevailing winds.  So that smoky area had a depressed value because of that smoke annoyance.  Then all of the other problems from cheap land attracting low investment properties institutionalized that depressed value.  Naturally, in later times, the "wrong side" came to mean the bad side which included all the societal dangers of a depressed or slum area. 

[Convicted One]

So, are the wrong side of the tracks and the cheatin side of town anywhere near each other?

I always heard that this idiom had it's roots in the depressed land prices you could find in the decaying central core of towns, so the railroad (and later highways) were built right along the edge of the low rent district, and  once completed served to further stratify the community.

[zugmann]

rdamon

“Industries” such as drinking, gambling and fraternization set up shop out of the town limits on the other side of the line. Thus, earning the name.

Or were those industries set up to be conveniently close to the railroad's facilities?

[rdamon]

I remember hearing/seeing the origins of the term dated back from the western expansion. As the RR built towns, they had a cookie cutter plan that was built on one side of the tracks to eliminate grade crossings.

“Industries” such as drinking, gambling and fraternization set up shop out of the town limits on the other side of the line. Thus, earning the name.

[BaltACD]

tree68

I would suspect that the "wrong side" of the airport would depend on the prevailing wind (as it did regarding the railroads - laundry hung out might be dirtier after than before it was washed), due to the upwind takeoff/landing patterns.  

Situations such as you describe notwithstanding, in most cases that same argument we use for complaints about crossing noise also applies to airports.  If you don't like the noise, don't buy the house.  

What usually happens, though, is even though a new airport may be built "way out in the country," (see:  Denver) over time business and residences tend to grow up near said airport.

Lucky is the airport that is able to control the land surrounding the facility, especially on the flight paths.

Having been stationed at several air force bases, I'm used to it.  You think a modern passenger jet is loud, try a B-52.  When I was at Tinker, some of the older prop jobs were still flying - they lent credence to the term applied to some jets:  WhisperJet.  You heard those four piston engines loud and clear...

Of course, either end (approach or departure) can be equally hazardous.  There was a great hue and cry when a fighter on approach to Tinker dropped in short of the runway - near a school.  

My Jacksonville residence is about 2-3 miles from the East end of Runway 28 at NAS Jacksonville.  There is a constant stream of aircraft - piston, turbo-jet and jet, fighters and transport aircraft.  They are at 1500-2000 feet when they pass over my location - I don't find the noise objectionable.  The prevailing wind is West to East, most of the time.  The aircraft that ran off the end of the runway at NAS Jax earlier this year was landing on Runway 10-28 West to East when it ended up in the St. Johns River.

Now, when the Blue Angels are in town (one year at NAS Jacksonville and the next at NAS Mayport), then the noise can be startling as their FA18's pass over my location at about 500 feet at Mach 0.99 - that will wake you out of a sound sleep.  Having experienced the Blue Angels, I can only imagine what Baghdad sounded like at the start of the Gulf War.  

The FEC's Bowden Yard is about 1 mile East of my condo, when outside I can hear the engines accelerate, decellerate, ring the bell and sound the horn - it is there but not objectionable, although I have had a neighbor comment about them 'ringing that damn bell'.

[tree68]

I would suspect that the "wrong side" of the airport would depend on the prevailing wind (as it did regarding the railroads - laundry hung out might be dirtier after than before it was washed), due to the upwind takeoff/landing patterns.  

Situations such as you describe notwithstanding, in most cases that same argument we use for complaints about crossing noise also applies to airports.  If you don't like the noise, don't buy the house.  

What usually happens, though, is even though a new airport may be built "way out in the country," (see:  Denver) over time business and residences tend to grow up near said airport.

Lucky is the airport that is able to control the land surrounding the facility, especially on the flight paths.

Having been stationed at several air force bases, I'm used to it.  You think a modern passenger jet is loud, try a B-52.  When I was at Tinker, some of the older prop jobs were still flying - they lent credence to the term applied to some jets:  WhisperJet.  You heard those four piston engines loud and clear...

Of course, either end (approach or departure) can be equally hazardous.  There was a great hue and cry when a fighter on approach to Tinker dropped in short of the runway - near a school.  

 

[BaltACD]

The wrong side of the tracks is figure of speech that has been around since railroad and steam locomotives were invented as the smoke and cinders from the locomotives would normally be carried to a location by the prevailing winds in the area.  The downwind side was 'the wrong side of the tracks' - as the smoke and cinders would follow the wind.

In the late 20th and early 21st Centuries air travel has been the primary means of commercial passenger travel.  We know airports have been located and designed to take advantage of the prevailing winds in an area.  Landing planes are generally operating at reduced power levels, while planes taking off are using near maximum power levels - with more power equalling more noise.  And yet I have yet to hear people say the live on the wrong side of the runway.

BWI airport outside Baltimore had the FAA change the patterns of take offs and landings 'in order to increase efficiency' which has had virtually all residents in the area near the airport in all directions up in arms about continual incessant noise.

Note - I do not live near BWI.  A former residence of my was in line with the normal landing pattern - my community was about 8 miles from the East end of Runway 28.  At that distance, planes were high enough that you rarely paid any attention to them.  When returning home by air, I was normally able to spot my house as we began the landing procedure.