Do the Trancon lines of BNSF and UP function a lot like the Trunk lines of PRR, NYC, B&O C&O & Erie of old did? The Transcons are hauling basically the same goods, from the same points-west coast- to the Chicago, etc.. The Trunk lines hauled the same goods from the East Coast to Chicago.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
PNWRMNM Murphy Siding Do the Trancon lines of BNSF and UP function a lot like the Trunk lines of PRR, NYC, B&O C&O & Erie of old did? The Transcons are hauling basically the same goods, from the same points-west coast- to the Chicago, etc.. The Trunk lines hauled the same goods from the East Coast to Chicago. Murphy, I do not know how this subject stirred up some of the usual suspects since it seems pretty tame to me. While I am not sure what you are really asking, I would offer that the Transcons of today are performing the same economic function that the trunk lines did in their heyday, that is being very important arteries of commerce. I would also offer that the CSX and NS routes between Chicago and NYC/and the ports of northern NJ are performing the same function they have since about 1860. Mac
Murphy Siding Do the Trancon lines of BNSF and UP function a lot like the Trunk lines of PRR, NYC, B&O C&O & Erie of old did? The Transcons are hauling basically the same goods, from the same points-west coast- to the Chicago, etc.. The Trunk lines hauled the same goods from the East Coast to Chicago.
Murphy,
I do not know how this subject stirred up some of the usual suspects since it seems pretty tame to me.
While I am not sure what you are really asking, I would offer that the Transcons of today are performing the same economic function that the trunk lines did in their heyday, that is being very important arteries of commerce. I would also offer that the CSX and NS routes between Chicago and NYC/and the ports of northern NJ are performing the same function they have since about 1860.
Mac
Check it out! I replied to Mac's post (above) before he made the post (below).
I think that the "Trunk" lines of old had more incidental competition from other, smaller, railroads ....than the big western roads do now.
For example, you could use the Alphabet route instead of one of the major trunks.
One obvious historical difference is that the eastern roads were built to serve economic needs. The only one that might be an exception is the Erie. Most of the transcontinentals were built with the aid of government grants. Often the grants were substantial. And they were built before an economic need existed.
The first transcons were built to meet the strategic needs of the US (as well as promoting economic development of the West), with possible greater emphasis after noting the usefulness of the USMRR in the great bloodbath of 1861-65.
A related story was a small company peddling samples of special transistors to various other companies wondering if there would be any outside market (the transistors were developed for internal needs). A group at Convair said they would like a few dozen - the company replied that they could only supply small samples lots - Convair told the Air Force of their desire for the new transistors - the Air Force said that this was for the highest priority project in the country (Atlas ICBM) and told the company to set up a production line and start cranking them out. The name of the then small company was Texas Instruments and I don't need to go into details of the economic benefits of silicon semiconductors.
- Erik
erikemThe first transcons were built to meet the strategic needs of the US (as well as promoting economic development of the West), with possible greater emphasis after noting the usefulness of the USMRR in the great bloodbath of 1861-65.
By "first transcons" I understand you to mean the Union Pacific and the Central Pacific, Erik.
After the Civil War was over I'm not sure exactly what strategic needs existed to justify the large Federal expenditures. Certainly the economic development of part of the west was promoted. However, part of the west was rather inhospitable to human settlement because it was dry, mountainous or both. The land suitable for agriculture might have been developed with regional railroads. Some of those were built without any Federal aid at all.
Many of the problems the early transcontinentals faced were caused by the fraudulent practices of their builders, practices that left the railroads with massive amount of debt. However, these were not problems inherent in railroading itself.
Finally, the transcontinentals were built in a very different time from our own. We today are not the society that existed in the 30 or so years following the Civil War. I am rather reluctant to apply the standards of our day to the people who lived back then.
John
John,
Strategic needs for transcons?
The Northern Pacific would have helped firm up the settlement of the land along the Canadian border, in addition to making Seattle as a convenient transfer port for traffic to Alaska. Keep in mind that the boundary between Canada and Alaska was not fully agreed on until the 1890's - with Kaiser Wilhelm doing the arbitration.
The Southern Pacific would have helped firm up the border with Mexico.
As for the CP and UP, a big impetus for taking the central route was to provide transportation to Virgina City. Keep in mind that Nevada was admitted to the Union in 1864 when the population was ridiculously small, mainly because of the wealth of silver being mined from the Comstock Lode. FWIW, Nevada Day is still a big event in Carson City.
I'm not saying that strategic needs were the only motive for pushing development of the transcons, but would have been an important consideration.
The UP was probably the worst transcon for the amount of fraud involved in construction, while the Central Pacific and Southern Pacific were built with operation in mind.
Generally, Erik, I agree that the transcontinental railroads did enable the settlement of the West. However, I think the question is whether or not the same thing might have been done using regional railroads with no need for federal subsidies.
The Northern Pacific was completed in `883. By `893 it was bankrupt for the second time. Meanwhile, the Great Northern was completed in 1893. If offered the same connections as the NP but was built without any Federal subsidy. Ao with a little patience we might have had all of the benefits of the NP without any Federal land grants.
I can understand that the NP brought economic benefits to settlers even while it was in bankruptcy. I do not see any strategic (in the sense of military) benefit. The border between the US and Canada was fixed by the Webster Ashburton Treaty and had been in place for many years. I have never heard of any real dispute about the border with Alaska. Even if there were Canada had no railroad to the Pacific until 1895, after both the NP and GN. The NP was chartered in 1866, shortly after the Pacific Railroad Acts. By 1872 Congress itself was fed up with the land grants and, as far as I know, did not authorize any more of them. So the strategic need is hard for me to understand.
(more on next post)
IMO, the western transcons were built to spur the economic development and settlement of the west. "Build it and they will come" sort of idea. And it worked. Eventually the lines turned a profit, huge numbers of settlers followed the rails west, and the economies developed. It also served the national/strategic purpose of binding the west to the rest of the nation.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Erik,
Is the Southern Pacific a land grant railroad? What I have read is that Collis Huntington built and assembled it without any Federal land grant.
I've never before encountered your argument about the Union Pacific and the Central Pacific being built to haul silver from the Comstock lode and other metals back east. Off the top of my head I would say this is an economic reason to build the road rather than a strategic one. However, your argument sure blasts my argument out of the water. I argued that the dry climate in the far west eliminated any real need for a transcontinental. But hauling ore is certainly a valid reason to build a railroad and the Federal Government had a special interest in precious metals.
I agree with your observation about the UP and the fraud in building it. I've also read there was a fair amount of fraud in building the CP but the SP prevented it from going bankrupt so all of the loans were paid off whether or not they were legitimate. I have read that all of the UP Federal bonds were paid off too but I've also read the opposite. I don't really know which is true.
Thanks for your interest in the question. It is one of the issues I enjoy.
schlimmMO, the western transcons were built to spur the economic development and settlement of the west.
Schlimm,
I agree with you. But I wonder if all of the Federal land grants were necessary.
1n 1850 there were about 9,000 miles of railroad in the country and most were in the northeast. Chicago had one single line, The Chicago and Aurora, which ran between those two cities. By 1860 there were over 30,000 miles of railroad in the country, much of it in the mid west. Chicago was the nation's railroad center with lines coming in from the north east and going out west. Iowa and Wisconsin both had a web of rails and the lines reached the Missouri River at St. Joseph, MO. The Illinois Central and The Chicago, Burlington and Quincy had both been built. You know far more about how railroads covered Illinois than I do. The CB&Q would ultimately reach as far west as Billings, Montana. So I think it is valid to ask if all that Federal land was really necessary to get the transcontinentals built. And the Union Pacific and Central Pacific got Federally guaranteed bonds to boot.
John WR And the Union Pacific and Central Pacific got Federally guaranteed bonds to boot. John
And the Union Pacific and Central Pacific got Federally guaranteed bonds to boot.
Just try to collect 'em from the late 19th century's version of today's dysfunctional Congress. Jay Gould blunted his lance, and finally gave up on U.P., trying to salvage the road's finances in the face of the government's broken promise. The road had to go into bankruptcy before E.H. Harriman could step in to pick up the pieces. Read "Empire Express," by Bain.
P.S. Another thing Bain discloses is the extent to which the so-called robber barons risked their personal wealth to keep the transcon abuilding while Congress dithered.
It's an interesting question. Ultimately, the land grants and guaranteed bonds probably cost the federal government very little. The Illinois Central (A. Lincoln did lawyering for it) was the first land-grant railroad in 1850. I believe the CB&Q (Burlington and Missouri River Railroad in Nebraska) received land grants.
The land grants probably made the federal government a fair amount of money from the increased value of the land intertwined with the land grants.
John WR . By "first transcons" I understand you to mean the Union Pacific and the Central Pacific, Erik. After the Civil War was over I'm not sure exactly what strategic needs existed to justify the large Federal expenditures. Certainly the economic development of part of the west was promoted. However, part of the west was rather inhospitable to human settlement because it was dry, mountainous or both. The land suitable for agriculture might have been developed with regional railroads. Some of those were built without any Federal aid at all. Many of the problems the early transcontinentals faced were caused by the fraudulent practices of their builders, practices that left the railroads with massive amount of debt. However, these were not problems inherent in railroading itself. Finally, the transcontinentals were built in a very different time from our own. We today are not the society that existed in the 30 or so years following the Civil War. I am rather reluctant to apply the standards of our day to the people who lived back then. John
.
Would you please be kind enough to point out some particular malfeasance by the men in charge of building the Central Pacific that burdened their creation? I know of no such thing, but maybe you can inform me. Or are you just slinging mud? Again.
My understanding was that the CP was bankrolled initially and organized by four SF businessmen primaily for the good of their city.
Financed in much the same way as the UP, minus the corrupt practices of the latter. (from Wiki):Construction of the road was financed primarily by 30-year, 6% U.S. government bondsauthorized by Sec. 5 of the Pacific Railroad Act of 1862. They were issued at the rate of $16,000 per mile of tracked grade completed west of the designated base of the Sierra range near Roseville, CA where California state geologist Josiah Whitney had determined were the geologic start of the Sierras' foothills. Sec. 11 of the Act also provided that the issuance of bonds "shall be treble the number per mile" (to $48,000) for tracked grade completed over and within the two mountain ranges (but limited to a total of 300 miles (480 km) at this rate), and "doubled" (to $32,000) per mile of completed grade laid between the two mountain ranges.] The U.S. Government Bonds, which constituted a lien upon the railroads and all their fixtures, were repaid in full (and with interest) by the company as and when they became due.
Sec. 10 of the 1864 amending Pacific Railroad Act (13 Statutes at Large, 356) additionally authorized the company to issue its own "First Mortgage Bonds"] in total amounts up to (but not exceeding) that of the bonds issued by the United States. Such company-issued securities had priority over the original Government Bonds.] (Local and state governments also aided the financing, although the City and County of San Francisco did not do so willingly. This materially slowed early construction efforts.) Sec. 3 of the 1862 Act granted the railroads 10 square miles (26 km2) of public land for every mile laid, except where railroads ran through cities and crossed rivers. This grant was apportioned in 5 sections on alternating sides of the railroad, with each section measuring 0.2 miles (320 m) by 10 miles (16 km).] These grants were later doubled to 20 square miles (52 km2) per mile of grade by the 1864 Act.
Greyhounds,
I am happy to have given you such pleasure in responding to my post. But it would be helpful if you would read it before responding. I made no reference to "the men in charge of building the Central Pacific."
I wrote of "builders." There is a difference, a big difference.
When all else fails try doing the reading.
There is an interesting aside about the Government guaranteed bonds. The original intent of the Congress was that the railroads (Union Pacific and Central Pacific) would pay the interest semi annually and the Government would not wind up paying any. But the law was badly written. Jay Gould, when he came to the Union Pacific in 1872 or 3, sued the Government. He argued that no part of the interest was due until the bonds matured. He won. So the interest did not fall due until 30 years later and when it did it was simple interest, not compound interest. Meanwhile the Federal Government had to pay the interest all those years. This is described in Maury Klein's book The Life and Legend of Jay Gould.
John WR Greyhounds, I am happy to have given you such pleasure in responding to my post. But it would be helpful if you would read it before responding. I made no reference to "the men in charge of building the Central Pacific." I wrote of "builders." There is a difference, a big difference. When all else fails try doing the reading. John
They were one in the same. The Big Four of the Central Pacific held their construction company closely. Crocker resigned from the CP to head the construction company.
The Big Four didn't want to get cheated. They were also aware of many early railroads falling into the hands of the construction companies. A repeated pattern was that a railroad would run out of funds and go into default owing the construction company money. The construction company would then go to court in an attempt to get the money it was due. But, since there was no money to be had, the construction company got the uncompleted railroad instead.
Since the Big Four had every intention of building a good railroad and then operating it they didn't want that to happen.
So they basically built it themselves using a closely held construction company headed by one of their own. As you mentioned, it pays to read about these things.
You did say that the Central Pacific was burdened by fraudulent actions on the part of its builders. I asked for some specifics. You don't seem to have any. Just more baseless accusations about some very accomplished men.
daveklepper My understanding was that the CP was bankrolled initially and organized by four SF businessmen primaily for the good of their city.
Four businessmen from Sack-of-tomatoes -er- Sacramento.
Crocker and Huntingdon were the major force behind the Big Four, Crocker for knowing how to organize the work force and Huntingdon for logistics.
To repeat myself for a third time, I said "builders." I did not say owners or stockholders or anything like that. And I did that deliberately to distinguish between the two. There is a difference between investing in a company, even in a closely held company, and actually working for that company. I suppose the difference escapes you but it is there.
Volumes have been written about the relationships of Crocker, Hopkins, Huntington and Stanford. I, however, did not discuss them and I am not inclined to go to that discussion now. You criticize a figment of your imagination that has nothing to do with me.
erikemCrocker and Huntingdon were the major force behind the Big Four
Erik, I agree with you. But I think we might also mention Theodore Judah. He had the original vision and was influential in writing the Pacific Railroad Acts. Ultimately he sold out to the big four and died of a disease contracted while crossing Panama.
Judah's grave: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=6299294
Judah's Practical Plan.... published in 1857: http://www.sfmuseum.net/hist4/practical.html
greyhounds John WR Greyhounds, I am happy to have given you such pleasure in responding to my post. But it would be helpful if you would read it before responding. I made no reference to "the men in charge of building the Central Pacific." I wrote of "builders." There is a difference, a big difference. When all else fails try doing the reading. John They were one in the same. The Big Four of the Central Pacific held their construction company closely. Crocker resigned from the CP to head the construction company. The Big Four didn't want to get cheated. They were also aware of many early railroads falling into the hands of the construction companies. A repeated pattern was that a railroad would run out of funds and go into default owing the construction company money. The construction company would then go to court in an attempt to get the money it was due. But, since there was no money to be had, the construction company got the uncompleted railroad instead. Since the Big Four had every intention of building a good railroad and then operating it they didn't want that to happen. So they basically built it themselves using a closely held construction company headed by one of their own. As you mentioned, it pays to read about these things. You did say that the Central Pacific was burdened by fraudulent actions on the part of its builders. I asked for some specifics. You don't seem to have any. Just more baseless accusations about some very accomplished men.
It would be very difficult to prove or disprove fraud on the part of the Big Four. It seems most of the financial records of the Central Pacific "mysteriously" burned shortly before they were to be turned over to the United States Congress for investigation. You might want to reread Empire Express or Nothing Like It In The World. The misdeeds of the Union Pacific were uncovered by the same investigation.
dmoore74It would be very difficult to prove or disprove fraud on the part of the Big Four
I agree with you. And, as I have said, I am not posting about the Big Four. Anyone who wishes to introduce that subject is free to do so.
A factual note. The CP was built by a wholly-owned subsidiary of it, Charles Crocker & Co., headed by Charles Crocker, one of the "Big Four.." He was not just a figurehead; he was personally involved with the construction.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.