Trains.com

Priceless, absolutely priceless. Farmers vs. “The Railroad”

8562 views
63 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Monday, January 12, 2015 9:55 AM

It is quite fitting that the two bridge structures named for the layer of the cornerstone of the Carrollton Viaduct and for the man behind the B&O are still in use.

The Washington Monument for which Mr. Thomas contributed a large amount of money is in Baltimore; it was completed in 1829. I have not only seen it, I have climbed the steps inside it.

Johnny

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Monday, January 12, 2015 10:19 AM

Deggesty
The Washington Monument for which Mr. Thomas contributed a large amount of money is in Baltimore; it was completed in 1829.

It was the first monument to GW.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • 4,557 posts
Posted by Convicted One on Monday, January 12, 2015 4:36 PM

greyhounds
apparently got into some peoples' cherished false beliefs.

 

I see, ....well Mr Greyhounds, isn't it true that you originated this thread by identifying the B&O as "the first large commercial railroad in the U.S."?

 

Isn't it true that you went on to describe the B&O as operating within an industry that was so new at the time that precedent was non existent? (These guys had to invent about everything.  There was little, if any, prior experience.  They had to figure out how to locate a rail line, what type of rails to use)

And wasn't it part of a passage you quoted that "was this the B&O's reward for spending $70,000 on the Frederick Branch and charging lower rates than any other U.S. railroad?"?

 

And, when called upon to qualify that claim with comparable rates from competing shippers, isn't it true that the nearest competitor you could identify was  an entity hundreds of miles away that in no way  connected with  the farmers that are the subject of this story?

 

And isn't it  also true that the ONLY reason that the rate charged by the B&O as  was claimed by your source "lower than any other US railroad" was because there was no other US railroad  capable of offering them comparable service ?

 

And isn't it  just as true that the rates charged these farmers by the B&O were HIGHER than the rates any competing railroad could have charged for comparable service?

I withdraw my earlier comment that the premise suggested in your example was absurd. The self congratulatory claim identifying the rate B&O did  charge as  being lower than any other US railroad ...was  actually specious and casuistic.

 

  • Member since
    November 2005
  • 4,190 posts
Posted by wanswheel on Monday, January 12, 2015 6:41 PM

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy