Trains.com

Confederate Railroads

42921 views
344 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: Toronto, Canada
  • 2,560 posts
Posted by 54light15 on Wednesday, January 23, 2013 10:34 AM

I am amazed at the depth of knowledge on the Civil War here. I'm learning so much of what I should have paid attention to back in high school. The best book I've ever read about the war is 'The Barefoot Brigade" by Douglas C. Jones. You sure get the impression that while the Rebs fought without boots, they fought with their hearts. Didn't Lee try to take Gettysburg because there was a warehouse full of boots sitting there? If you read Jones' book, it will lead you into his series originating with the novel "Elkhorn Tavern," being about the home front in Fort Smith, Arkansas. 

If you like alternative fiction, try "The Guns of the South," by Harry Turtledove. The confederates win the war thanks to using AK-47s!

  • Member since
    August 2012
  • 3,727 posts
Posted by John WR on Wednesday, January 23, 2013 4:50 PM

54light15
Didn't Lee try to take Gettysburg because there was a warehouse full of boots sitting there?

I've heard the Gettysburg boot factory story but I don't know whether or not it is true.  

Lee saw the whole of the whole of the Shenandoah Valley lay waste by all of the fighting and how it impoverished all of the people living there.  He believed that if he could march into the north and bring that kind of terror and destruction to the people they would demand that Lincoln make peace.  He had hoped to go to Harrisburg but somehow the battle wound up at Gettysburg.  The battle did not turn out as he planned.

  • Member since
    August 2010
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 8,955 posts
Posted by Firelock76 on Wednesday, January 23, 2013 5:13 PM

George and Martha Washington had different views of slavery as time went by.  Both were born into a world and society where slavery was an acccepted fact and didn't think much of it.  However, as George got older and saw more of the world he became more and more uneasy about it, especially after the Revolution where he'd seen black men in combat, many of whom performed better than some of their white counterparts.  Not knowing what else to do, at his death he broke up the Mount Vernon estate, what you see there now is only a fraction of what it was, and freed his slaves. Not a perfect solution to the problem, but it was the best George could come up with.  He hoped others would follow his example, but none of the prominent Founders did.  Maybe some folks who's names we don't and never will know did, but no big names did.

 

Martha on the other hand, really didn't see anything wrong with slavery, but here it gets complicated.  As her first husband died intestate all his property went to Martha, however on her death by law all the Custis assets were supposed to go to the living male heir, in this case George W. Custis. So it's unlikely she would have legally been able to free her slaves even if she wanted to

As far as R.E. Lee and slaves, as the executor of G.W. Custis' estate Lee was supposed to have educated and freed the Custis slaves within a five year period, which he did, and willingly too. Custis died in 1857, the Custis slaves were all free by 1862.  Lee himself only owned one slave in his life, it was an older man he purchased as a manservant when he was a young officer on his way to his first duty assignment.  He didn't have him long, the man died within a year, and Lee never replaced him.

Now here's a shocker:  did you know Ben Franklin owned slaves?  He did, and planned on freeing them at his death, but they all died before he did.  He never replaced them, but became a founding member of a Pennsylvania anti-slavery society.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013 6:31 PM

Deggesty

What would have been the result of immediately telling the slaves. "You're free?" I do not know how many slaves G.W. Custis had, but there would have been a number of unemployed men, women, and children wandering around, looking for shelter and sustenance. I do not know any of the details of what General Lee worked out, but he already had the responsibility of leading an army that was resisting the invading army (remember that most of the people in the Confederate States considered themselves to be in a country that was separate and distinct from the United States), and this task added to his load.

Incidentally, Genweral Robert E. Lee never had even one slave himself, and General Hiram Ulysses (those were his given names) Grant did have at least one slave.

I wasn't questioning the process, just your/their use of the term "manumit" instead of simply saying fre them.  Sounds like a bit of a dodge or euphemism to avoid dealing with the facts that folks in the South (primarily) engaged in the practice of owning and trading slaves for hundreds of years.  BTW, grant had one slave whom he bought from his wife's slave holding father, but freed him Did not sell him) within a few years.

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

  • Member since
    August 2010
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 8,955 posts
Posted by Firelock76 on Wednesday, January 23, 2013 7:07 PM

"Manumit"  and "manumission"  are essentially legal terms referring to the freeing of slaves.  It actually was a, well, not complicated process, but a legal process that couldn't be done  "one-two-three."   Why I don't know, but that's the way it was.

Oh, 54light15, don't feel bad about not paying attention in high school, I don't know any high school that goes into the depth that we've gone into here.  I didn't have a great interest in the Civil War until I moved to Virginia 25 years ago.  Oh, I knew the big names and the big battles and the weaponry but I was more interested in the Revolution and World War One at the time.  But it's hard to live here in "Civil War Central"  and NOT get interested!   I've actually moved on now to other things, like railroad history, and back to the Revolution.

Oh, I've read parts of "Guns of the South"  by Harry Turtledove, just to satisfy my curiosity.  Clever, very clever indeed!   "Civil War"  meets "Sci-Fi"!

  • Member since
    August 2012
  • 3,727 posts
Posted by John WR on Wednesday, January 23, 2013 8:01 PM

Firelock76
I've actually moved on now to other things, like railroad history, and back to the Revolution.

Have to ever gotten to Trenton, the Gettysburg of the Revolution?  If you do come you can go to First Presbyterian Church and visit the grave of the Hessian Commander Johann Ralls.  And you can go to Riverside Cemetary and visit the grave of George McClellan.  And of course take in the Swamp Angel.  And there are other things.  

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013 9:50 PM

As far as Robert E. Lee goes Reading the Man: A Portrait of Robert E. Lee Through His Private Letters, by historian Elizabeth Brown Pryor reveals his private thoughts as well as clarifies what he did with his slaves.  

"Lee really tells us how he feels. He saw slaves as property, that he owned them and their labor. Now you can say he wasn't worse than anyone; he was reflecting the values of the society that he lived in. I would say, he wasn't any better than anyone else, either.

Lee's wife inherited 196 slaves upon her father's death in 1857. The will stated that the slaves were to be freed within five years, and at the same time large legacies—raised from selling property—should be given to the Lee children. But as the executor of the will, Lee decided that instead of freeing the slaves right away—as they expected—he could continue to own and work them for five years in an effort to make the estates profitable and not have to sell the property.

Lee was considered a hard taskmaster. He also started hiring slaves to other families, sending them away, and breaking up families that had been together on the estate for generations. The slaves resented him, were terrified they would never be freed, and they lost all respect for him. There were many runaways, and at one point several slaves jumped him, claiming they were as free as he. Lee ordered these men to be severely whipped. He also petitioned the court to extend their servitude, but the court ruled against him and Lee did grant them their freedom on Jan. 1, 1863—ironically, the same day that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation went into effect."

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

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,669 posts
Posted by Overmod on Wednesday, January 23, 2013 10:28 PM

54light15
  If you like alternative fiction, try "The Guns of the South," by Harry Turtledove. The confederates win the war thanks to using AK-47s! 

Perhaps the great irony here is that the South had a 40-shot helical-magazine rifle available to it before the War began.  Much more utility to have that kind of instant reload capacity than a few avtomats -- it makes fun fiction to talk about hosing down the enemy, but not so easy to do hosing when the enemy has more accurate rifles with several of your clips' worth of ammo pre-loaded.  There's a reason modern automatic weapons default to the three-round burst!

What I was waiting for was a steam-driven chain gun -- all the technology for which was easily available and understood by 1862.  (Ironically enough the one thing not industrially available yet was the Morse roller chain for the drive -- but remember that Leonardo had actually invented the idea of the chain centuries earlier.  You can have fun with vehicles to carry those guns, too.  (I chuckled when I saw the scene in the remake of 'Wild Wild West' where Lovelace's 'tank' comes out of the water -- not as much science fiction as you might think!

A few AKs are fun, but scarcely game-changing in the way Harry thought.  And what would be truly interesting would be the actual Northern response upon recognizing what the AK47s were and how easily, even with contemporary technology, those things could be made.  I do not like to think of the effect on the South of hundreds of thousands of gas-operated quick-firers, especially if the knockoffs and compatible cartridges, New England specialties both, could have proceeded to production and distribution to the regiments by the time of the first battles toward Richmond...

RME

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: Toronto, Canada
  • 2,560 posts
Posted by 54light15 on Thursday, January 24, 2013 12:32 PM

The reason the Confederates won the war was because they figured out how to make their own AKs at the Tredegar works, enough to equip the soldiers who captured D.C. Another point in the book, ( I don't want to give too much away) is that they were planning to manumit the slaves as they realised what an economic drain they were. Read the book, it's a lot of fun!

  • Member since
    August 2012
  • 3,727 posts
Posted by John WR on Thursday, January 24, 2013 2:51 PM

schlimm
Lee's wife inherited 196 slaves upon her father's death in 1857.

In 1857 secession and slavery were burning issues in the country.  The Custis--Lee plantation was right next to Washington so Lee should have been aware of the debates in Congress.  A prudent decision, given the political discord, would have been to follow the terms of the will.  Had the estate been sold each of the heirs could have been put in position of his or her portion of the estate.  Instead Lee's decision led to the loss of the estate both for himself and his wife's family.  

  • Member since
    August 2012
  • 3,727 posts
Posted by John WR on Thursday, January 24, 2013 2:54 PM

54light15
The reason the Confederates won the war was because they figured out how to make their own AKs at the Tredegar works

If I can suspend belief enough to accept the Confederates making AK 47's I guess I can also accept the idea that Confederates believed plantation slavery was an economic drain.  

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: Toronto, Canada
  • 2,560 posts
Posted by 54light15 on Thursday, January 24, 2013 3:14 PM

Isn't that the point of speculative fiction? Suspension of belief? In the book, the main thing that impressed the Rebs was the smokeless powder that the "repeaters" used. Harry Turtledove also has a series about how aliens invade Earth at the beginning of World War two and the allies and axis have to unite to fight them. Speculative- not to be taken seriously!

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 1,486 posts
Posted by Victrola1 on Thursday, January 24, 2013 3:14 PM

The Union's naval blockade strangled the South. The blockade runners ran a sizable amount of military supplies to the Confederates. The strength of the Union blockade increased as the war continued. 

Military supplies such as Enfield rifles were a natural priority. Did the Confederate government order much manufactured railroad equipment from foreign suppliers to support its armies?

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,669 posts
Posted by Overmod on Thursday, January 24, 2013 3:33 PM

A much more interesting idea -- not for the Guns of the South mythos but an alternative way of thinking: what if the South had embraced industrialization with slaves.  Very few differences between how the mills in New England worked and slavery.  You can teach slaves language and make them intelligent enough even to do engineering, but use social control and ... what passes for citizenship education for the proles ... to keep them enthusiastically or at least 'willingly' "in their place" -- worked real well in the Soviet Union with engineers from the'20s to the '50s, didn't it?

Industrialization in the South would have vastly superior quality of natural resources than available to the Union (look at sources for metallurgical coal, and remember why Birmingham, Alabame is so called.  Recall also that Nickajack was perhaps the strongest of the political Southern 'states' to survive on its own.

Tredegar alone, in the runup to 1860, could (for instance, this being a railroad board) have rivalled or outdone Paterson as a locomotive-producing capital.  Cheap labor, relative immunity to financial panics... and Southern interests firmly in control of the national government (as they were from before passage of the Fugitive Slave Act all the way to the end of Buchanan's term).  Much abolitionist rhetoric has its feet cut out from under it when the issue of children's working conditions comes up.

Now assume for a moment that CSA secession comes with the South an established industrial power, equipping its troops with the aforementioned helical-feed rifles, and having the capacity both to keep its railroads in good condition (and to make good war damage or rail-twisting parties) and to build locomotives and car hardware on an extended basis,  Admittedly Richmond is close to the Union lines (compared, say, to Birmingham) .. but then prior to 1863 so was Pittsburgh close to Virginia.

I;d willingly accept the idea that the British would extend diplomatic recognition to the CSA after that.  In that framework much of the high-handed action Lincoln displayed to 'preserve the Union' would have been properly seen for what it was... and resulted in corresponding behavior from European powers.  Certainly the British had an established policy of divide-and-conquer in its approach to North American matters... to the extent that they winked at the construction of the Ramsbottom ironclads as late as 1862. 

P.S. I think the 'King Cotton' argument has been roundly and rightly drubbed; even if much of the British Industrial Revolution had been predicated on textiles, and the economics benefited by cheap Southern cotton... the experience with transplanting cotton to other places in the Empire had already eliminated that advantage by 1864 or so.  (At least so my sources indicated.)  On the other hand, an established arms-production capabillity, combined with the kind of American knowhow that was, shall we say, not exclusive to New England Yankees still in New England, would have been a STRONG disincentive for Great Britain to continue 'supporting' the Union.  (This being only a few years' more removed from the evil-to-British-pride memory of the Revolution than we are removed from WWII)  The only alternative history I have read concerning war with Britain involves an unindustrialized South -- take that out of the equation and results would have been different.  The South was essentially fighting only for its right to exist as a sovereign nation (and, as a 12th-generation Connecticut Yankee on both sides of my family, I think they had a right to be one ... what would we have said about Stalin had he objected to one of the states of the erstwhile Soviet Union offering to come over to the 'West'!).  With that established, and I doubt it would have taken more than British recognition of the Davis government, that would be achieved at a stroke.  (You then have the much more complex and nondeterminate issue of how 'states' rights' would have played out in a CSA with so very different a mix of strengths, interests, and attributes; poorly,, I think.)

I do think, though, that it might be better to redirect the argument back to Southern railroads.  We may even be able to tie this into the 'puppet control' discussion; anyone remember J. Edgar Thompson's significant role in what became the Southern Railway?  Imagine the fun with the Standard Railroad of the World extending to and developing the Southern ports... and sooner or later doing what Gould and Harriman couldn't quite manage...

RME

  • Member since
    August 2012
  • 3,727 posts
Posted by John WR on Thursday, January 24, 2013 7:12 PM

Overmod
A much more interesting idea -- not for the Guns of the South mythos but an alternative way of thinking: what if the South had embraced industrialization with slaves.

It certainly is an interesting idea but I've never read any suggestion that the south wanted to industrialize.    The planters were really pretty bright guys.  The cotton gin was invented in 1790 and once they saw how it could make short staple cotton profitable they began selective breeding.  By 1860 they had greatly improved the quality of the cotton they produced.  Britain did try importing cotton from Egypt and India but they could never get the combination of quality and quantity they got from the American south.  Of course cotton will not grow in Virginia.  Cotton is produced in the lower south.  And where cotton could be grown I just don't see any desire to industrialize except for Birmingham, Alabama.     

  • Member since
    June 2004
  • From: Orig: Tyler Texas. Lived in seven countries, now live in Sundown, Louisiana
  • 25,640 posts
Posted by jeffrey-wimberly on Friday, January 25, 2013 2:56 PM

OK, you all have been getting off topic here. Time to get back to the Confederate Railroad.

Running Bear, Sundown, Louisiana
          Joined June, 2004

Dr. Frankendiesel aka Scott Running Bear
Space Mouse for president!
15 year veteran fire fighter
Collector of Apple //e's
Running Bear Enterprises
History Channel Club life member.
beatus homo qui invenit sapientiam


  • Member since
    August 2010
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 8,955 posts
Posted by Firelock76 on Friday, January 25, 2013 5:38 PM

jeffrey-wimberly

OK, you all have been getting off topic here. Time to get back to the Confederate Railroad.

Aw, c'mon man, we're having fun here!  No-one's been offended to my knowledge.

  • Member since
    August 2012
  • 3,727 posts
Posted by John WR on Friday, January 25, 2013 5:51 PM

Victrola1
Did the Confederate government order much manufactured railroad equipment from foreign suppliers to support its armies?

Victrola,  

Thomas Boaz in Guns for Cotton gives a list of the supplies Britain had shipped to the CSA and which were found in warehouses in Wilmington, North Carolina at the end of the war.  One of the items on the list is railroad rails.  So the CSA did order railroad equipment from foreign suppliers along with a great many other things.  The rails were bought on credit and paid for with cotton bonds.  

John

  • Member since
    August 2012
  • 3,727 posts
Posted by John WR on Friday, January 25, 2013 5:59 PM

Overmod
what if the South had embraced industrialization with slaves.

Overmod,  

There is one aspect of industrialization that the south did embrace with slaves:  Railroads.  Planters rented their slaves to railroad companies who used then to build the road.  When a road passed a plantation often the planter would take back stock in the road as the rent for his slaves.  Also, some railroads brought and owned slaves.  I've read of slaves being used as brakemen and firemen and I imagine they were used for other purposes too.   

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,669 posts
Posted by Overmod on Friday, January 25, 2013 7:39 PM

John WR
There is one aspect of industrialization that the south did embrace with slaves:  Railroads.

Yes, but that doesn't count, any more than using slaves for roadbuilding or putting up buildings.  I'm talking about skilled participation in trades and machinery operation ... the equivalent of whast was being done for wages in the New England mill world. 

(By extension, this would have taken care of the reading-and-writing issue, and of most if not all the threat of servile insurrection that seems to have dominated so much of the South's paranoid attention in this era.  Teach the slaves the same kind of 'mind control' used in regular education to keep the proletariat in its place, and direct any rebellion to the kind of time-honored outlets that ordinary government police actions and connivance can smash...

BTW:  This IS a discussion of Confederate railroads, just not purely historical.  No difference beteen this and a 'did we scrap steam too soon' thread, or any other discussion of industrial alternate history,like the ways interurbans might not have kicked off this mortal coil if evil old GM/NCL had not done its wicked un-American work, or that bad old Judge had succeeded in getting rid of the Red Cars as part of his nefarious takeover of ToonTown. 

There are much better targets out there than this one, Mr. Wimberly.  See to those first.  We're having civil, informed discussion in this one.

RME

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Friday, January 25, 2013 8:06 PM

He apparently didn't like the discussion specifically concerning slavery and removed all of those posts.

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

  • Member since
    June 2004
  • From: Orig: Tyler Texas. Lived in seven countries, now live in Sundown, Louisiana
  • 25,640 posts
Posted by jeffrey-wimberly on Friday, January 25, 2013 8:35 PM

Overmod
There are much better targets out there than this one, Mr. Wimberly.  See to those first.  We're having civil, informed discussion in this one.

I was only doing as I was told.

Running Bear, Sundown, Louisiana
          Joined June, 2004

Dr. Frankendiesel aka Scott Running Bear
Space Mouse for president!
15 year veteran fire fighter
Collector of Apple //e's
Running Bear Enterprises
History Channel Club life member.
beatus homo qui invenit sapientiam


  • Member since
    August 2012
  • 3,727 posts
Posted by John WR on Friday, January 25, 2013 8:49 PM

Overmod
Yes, but that doesn't count, any more than using slaves for roadbuilding or putting up buildings.  I'm talking about skilled participation in trades and machinery operation ... the equivalent of whast was being done for wages in the New England mill world. 

I agree that the south was an agricultural society and wanted to stay that way rather than industrialize as the north did.  But in the north, including New England, there were people who built the railroads and who ran the railroads just as there were in the south.  It seems to me that should count for something.  

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Friday, January 25, 2013 10:39 PM

Differences I have observed between Northern and Southern railroads - from the viewpoint of the present day.

Northern railroads were engineered - they were constructed to minimize grades - they had cuts and fills built to maintain sustained grades.

Southern railroads were built upon the lay of the land with very minimal cuts and fills.  In the short trains of the day, the undulating of the right of way didn't present any train handling issues - today, those territories are a big problems andling 9000 foot trains. 

Additionally, when the Southern roads were constructed, they were built to the cheapest possible standards as it was difficult to secure investment capital in the South - most of the money available in the country came from the North.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Saturday, January 26, 2013 1:15 AM

John WR

54light15
Didn't Lee try to take Gettysburg because there was a warehouse full of boots sitting there?

I've heard the Gettysburg boot factory story but I don't know whether or not it is true.  

Lee saw the whole of the whole of the Shenandoah Valley lay waste by all of the fighting and how it impoverished all of the people living there.  He believed that if he could march into the north and bring that kind of terror and destruction to the people they would demand that Lincoln make peace.  He had hoped to go to Harrisburg but somehow the battle wound up at Gettysburg.  The battle did not turn out as he planned.

Emphasis mine - zug.

Here's a good reason (or at least part of it) for that "somehow":

http://www.pacivilwartrails.com/stories/tales/burning-the-wrightsville-bridge

From what I have read, Gordon's brigade then went up to Gettysburg to join other forces. 

It's been fun.  But it isn't much fun anymore.   Signing off for now. 


  

The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any

  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Allentown, PA
  • 9,810 posts
Posted by Paul_D_North_Jr on Saturday, January 26, 2013 6:01 AM

BaltACD
Differences I have observed between Northern and Southern railroads - from the viewpoint of the present day.

Northern railroads were engineered - they were constructed to minimize grades - they had cuts and fills built to maintain sustained grades.

Southern railroads were built upon the lay of the land with very minimal cuts and fills.  In the short trains of the day, the undulating of the right of way didn't present any train handling issues - today, those territories are a big problems andling 9000 foot trains. 

Additionally, when the Southern roads were constructed, they were built to the cheapest possible standards as it was difficult to secure investment capital in the South - most of the money available in the country came from the North.

 The differences depend on the specific line, and the local geography - some of which is very difficult for anyone (i.e., the Clinchfield's route).  Some of the lines which heavy traffic has migrated to today were only branch lines back in the day, and some high-quality main lines have been abandoned (SAL - ACL merger).

Interestingly, John Edgar Thomson - the guy who engineered Horseshoe Curve and ran the PRR for about 20 years during that time frame - spent about 10 years in Georgia practicing and perfecting his skills much earlier in the century before taking on that challenge.  See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edgar_Thomson#Developing_Georgia.27s_railroads 

- Paul North. 

"This Fascinating Railroad Business" (title of 1943 book by Robert Selph Henry of the AAR)
  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Allentown, PA
  • 9,810 posts
Posted by Paul_D_North_Jr on Saturday, January 26, 2013 6:20 AM

John WR
54light15
Didn't Lee try to take Gettysburg because there was a warehouse full of boots sitting there?
I've heard the Gettysburg boot factory story but I don't know whether or not it is true.  

Lee saw the whole of the whole of the Shenandoah Valley lay waste by all of the fighting and how it impoverished all of the people living there.  He believed that if he could march into the north and bring that kind of terror and destruction to the people they would demand that Lincoln make peace.  He had hoped to go to Harrisburg but somehow the battle wound up at Gettysburg.  The battle did not turn out as he planned.

Tom Clancy said "Bobby Lee hoped to get his men some shoes" in his 1996 book, Executive Orders.  He said the battle occurred there because Gettysburg was a crossroads (which is part of the plot).  He also said that "The Spencer carbines helped, but what Buford* did best was to remember his mission" - see "To Fight Like the Devil: John Buford and his Division in the Gettysburg Campaign" - Presentation by Larry Myers, July 10, 1995, at: http://www.roberteleecwrt.com/present/myers.html 

*Union calvary commander Major General John Buford. 

- Paul North. 

"This Fascinating Railroad Business" (title of 1943 book by Robert Selph Henry of the AAR)
  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: Toronto, Canada
  • 2,560 posts
Posted by 54light15 on Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:42 AM

Firelock, I totally agree with you. We are having a friendly intelligent discussion here. However, I notice that NOT ONE post has mentioned the crucial role that Buster Keaton played in the dramatic story of the Confederate railroads.

  • Member since
    August 2010
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 8,955 posts
Posted by Firelock76 on Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:55 AM

54light15

Firelock, I totally agree with you. We are having a friendly intelligent discussion here. However, I notice that NOT ONE post has mentioned the crucial role that Buster Keaton played in the dramatic story of the Confederate railroads.

Well, I can correct that right now.  Buster certainly saved the "General", but wrecking that bridge couldn't have helped very much.

On the other hand, he DID get a commission AND the girl! 

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Saturday, January 26, 2013 11:10 AM

Paul_D_North_Jr

BaltACD
Differences I have observed between Northern and Southern railroads - from the viewpoint of the present day.

Northern railroads were engineered - they were constructed to minimize grades - they had cuts and fills built to maintain sustained grades.

Southern railroads were built upon the lay of the land with very minimal cuts and fills.  In the short trains of the day, the undulating of the right of way didn't present any train handling issues - today, those territories are a big problems andling 9000 foot trains. 

Additionally, when the Southern roads were constructed, they were built to the cheapest possible standards as it was difficult to secure investment capital in the South - most of the money available in the country came from the North.

 The differences depend on the specific line, and the local geography - some of which is very difficult for anyone (i.e., the Clinchfield's route).  Some of the lines which heavy traffic has migrated to today were only branch lines back in the day, and some high-quality main lines have been abandoned (SAL - ACL merger).

Interestingly, John Edgar Thomson - the guy who engineered Horseshoe Curve and ran the PRR for about 20 years during that time frame - spent about 10 years in Georgia practicing and perfecting his skills much earlier in the century before taking on that challenge.  See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edgar_Thomson#Developing_Georgia.27s_railroads 

- Paul North. 

The Clinchfield wasn't built until the 1890's or very early 20th Century.  While engineers may have perfected their craft in the South, the lack of sustained financing on Southern roads prevented them from implementing what would have been their preferred solutions to their problems, therefore they had to implement the cheapest solutions and move the absolute least amount of dirt and construct the fewest and cheapest of bridges.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

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