greyhoundsapparently 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.
DeggestyThe 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
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
From [emphasis added - PDN]:
http://www.altamontpress.com/discussion/read.php?1,45888,45888,quote=1
"This day in Railroad History July 4, 1828 Charles Carroll, the last living signer of the Declaration of Independence and a director of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, laid the cornerstone of the Carrollton Viaduct. As he laid the first stone he said, "I consider this among the most important acts of my life, second only to my signing the Declaration of Independence."* The 312 ft bridge over Gwynns Falls near Carroll Park in Baltimore, Maryland was the first stone masonry bridge built for railroad use in the US. The Carrollton Viaduct has provided continual service to the B&O Railroad and its modern corporate successor, CSX Transportation. The bridge is currently the world's oldest railroad bridge still in use, carrying loads far greater than originally envisioned."
*i've seen another version, which ends with something like " . . . , if indeed it be second to that" or similar, but can't quickly confirm or cite that this morning.
- Paul North.
Nothing like a little historical common sense to deflate what was becoming an increasingly dysfunctional and pompous "discussion". Thank you.
schlimmOf course, in the case of the B&O in the 1830s, the railroad and that evil government were one and the same. It was chartered to benefit the public and 18 of the 30 board members were from state and local governments.
Euclid greyhounds It's when groups organize politically, as the farmers of Frederick, MD did, to gain advantage through the government instead of through the market that scarce resorses, such as capital, are misused. The politically connected group will gain from such an action, but "The Public" will end up with higher costs. So when folks start talking about "The Public Good" they are usually, especially in economic terms, blowing smoke. The term “public good” or “greater good” is always invoked as a justification by politicians when they propose that the government take something away from part of the public. What it says is that what you have may be good for you, but there is a greater good that is served if I take it from you and give it to someone who needs it more. Of course, this is a ruse that benefits neither the haves nor have-nots. The actual benefit flows to power and wealth of government. I think it is obvious that the flour shippers were complaining not to the railroads, but rather to the government that had the power to mandate a lower price in the name of the economic artifice known as the greater good. If you listen carefully, all of the creepy implications that surround the term “public good” are right there with the term “stakeholder.”
greyhounds It's when groups organize politically, as the farmers of Frederick, MD did, to gain advantage through the government instead of through the market that scarce resorses, such as capital, are misused. The politically connected group will gain from such an action, but "The Public" will end up with higher costs. So when folks start talking about "The Public Good" they are usually, especially in economic terms, blowing smoke.
So when folks start talking about "The Public Good" they are usually, especially in economic terms, blowing smoke.
Of course, in the case of the B&O in the 1830s, the railroad and that evil government were one and the same. It was chartered to benefit the public and 18 of the 30 board members were from state and local governments. But never let facts interfere with your memes.
greyhounds It's another one of those terms people throw around to advance their own arguments.
Ahh, you mean such as " and charging lower rates than any other U.S. railroad"?
Gotcha!!
greyhoundsIt's when groups organize politically, as the farmers of Frederick, MD did, to gain advantage through the government instead of through the market that scarce resorses, such as capital, are misused. The politically connected group will gain from such an action, but "The Public" will end up with higher costs. So when folks start talking about "The Public Good" they are usually, especially in economic terms, blowing smoke.
gardendanceI think I remember in grade school some stories about early railroads where passengers had to disembark and walk up hills to take some load off of the locomotive.
The story of the Fulton Chain Railroad (first iteration), often known as the "Peg Leg," includes that very concept, and goes it one better.
The Peg Leg ran on wooden rails and had only a small 0-4-0 locomotive, an open passenger car, and a box car. It was narrow guage. On the idea that "we'll make improvements later," little care was taken to level out the line. Instead, there were ricketty trestles and grades.
Not only were the passengers asked to step off the train when it was faced with slipping due to wet rails and grades, but they were sometimes asked to push as well...
Nothin' like a little thread creep...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Murphy Siding Perhaps the passenger rate is the same both ways, as one way may require passengers to supply the extra horsepower, if needed, going up the hill?
Perhaps the passenger rate is the same both ways, as one way may require passengers to supply the extra horsepower, if needed, going up the hill?
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
Convicted OneAs far as what motivated me to post that, well, I've concluded that a foundation stone of the main premise of this thread is grounded in absurdity, and I just wanted to "fit in"...lol!
A thread I started is "Grounded in Absurdity", eh. And you just wanted to "Fit In". You didn't have to try very hard. Your posts have been totally off the wall from the beginning.
It's obvious that you do not begin to understand economics. The following proves that.
Convicted OneWell, my good man, not every citizen is allowed to build their own railroad, if they did there would be diamonds everywhere and the cost of maintaining them would break the back of the industry, So instead ...that ability...that right... is reserved to the select few who OBTAIN PROPER APPROVAL for that privilege, and in so going the right of eminent domain is often affectionately attached, and especially in exchange for the latter an expectation to serve the public good is attendant.
Just what the Heck do you think the B&O did when it reduced the cost of moving food to the city of Baltimore. If that isn't serving the "Public Good", what is? (see note at end)
You don't understand, nor will you ever accept, that a market economy provides positive incentives for private capital to be used in the most efficient way to meet the various needs of "The Public". Positive incentives work better than government edicts.
It's when groups organize politically, as the farmers of Frederick, MD did, to gain advantage through the government instead of through the market that scarce resorses, such as capital, are misused. The politically connected group will gain from such an action, but "The Public" will end up with higher costs.
You neither understand, or want to understand, any of this. That's your privilege. But when you falsely say my writing is "Absurd" you are going to get called on it.
I never thought this topic would become controversial. But I apparently got into some peoples' cherished false beliefs. I've got a standing challenge. I have stated the challenge on this forum before. I challenge anyone to name two good things that ever resulted from the economic regulation of transportation in the US.
Note: As I've stated before, I'm convinced that there is no such thing as "The Public Interest" or "The Public Good". It's another one of those terms people throw around to advance their own arguments. Arguments that usually promote their own agenda at the expense of others.
As a specific example in this 1832 B&O case the railroad had reduced the cost of providing food in Baltimore. This was a good thing - except for the teamsters displaced by rail transport. Heck, they were part of "The Public", but they lost out while others gained.
There is no "The Public". We are not a monolith. We are a diverse lot of individuals each with our own wants and needs. What's good for one of us can be very bad for another one of us.
I do acknowledge we all benefit from clean air and water. (Somebody always brings up polution.) But those benefits do come with a cost in terms of jobs and opportunity for some Americans.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Geez, Mike/ wanswheel - thanks once again, that's a really interesting read !
For this thread, the 1st interesting point - aside from the flour rates and weights per barrel (216 lbs.avg.) and per car, and the number of horses and cars, etc. - is that the author felt that it was a "cheap rate, (26 cts. per barrel)".
The 2nd point is that even back then, there was a differential in rates to and from Baltimore. Specifically, $3.60 per ton from Baltimore "going" west, and $2.40 per ton "returning" east to Baltimore - a difference of either 50% more to go west, or 33% less to return east (depending on which way you look at it). Note that this would seem to beenfit the farmers - it's cheaper to send their goods to the east ($2.40 per ton is roughly comparable to the flour price of 26-1/4 cts. per barrel, I get 9.7 barrels to the ton and 24.7 cents per barrel). Perhaps that's because the horses and cars go faster to the east - 4 to 5 MPH descending, but only 3 MPH ascending to the west. But the passenger rate is the same both ways - 3 cents per mile.
Mind you I am not saying that there is a concrete SPECIFICATION for serving the public good, just that a failure to embrace that opportunity will most assuredly have consequences.
dakotafredBut first: Who, exactly, mandated this "significant responsibility" and "duty to serve the public good"?
Well, my good man, not every citizen is allowed to build their own railroad, if they did there would be diamonds everywhere and the cost of maintaining them would break the back of the industry, So instead ...that ability...that right... is reserved to the select few who OBTAIN PROPER APPROVAL for that privilege, and in so going the right of eminent domain is often affectionately attached, and especially in exchange for the latter an expectation to serve the public good is attendant.
dakotafredAs to your last, we've seen all too much of government that steps in to regulate or confiscate through taxation that which it has not built itself, does not understand or is simply ideologically opposed to. It's going on today.
It's always been that way. If ya can't lick 'em, and the thought of joining 'em is repugnant, then simply make the cost for them to continue doing as they wish prohibitively expensive.
As far as what motivated me to post that, well, I've concluded that a foundation stone of the main premise of this thread is grounded in absurdity, and I just wanted to "fit in"...lol!
dakotafredBut first: Who, exactly, mandated this "significant responsibility" and "duty to serve the public good"? I hope it was the same people who put up the money to build the thing. As for the "pursuit of self-service," I have never heard of a good capitalist who went into business for any other reason. Furthermore, I think most people who go into so-called public service are also pursuing interests of their own. When they're not money interests -- and sometimes they are -- they're other personal interests that the pursuer places above money ... but still personal interests. As to your last, we've seen all too much of government that steps in to regulate or confiscate through taxation that which it has not built itself, does not understand or is simply ideologically opposed to. It's going on today.
Fred: You might want to reread an earlier post and get the facts. The government was vital in the founding of the B&O and had board members for years.
greyhounds schlimm Great!! You found an operational railroad in South Carolina. So now you need to back up the book's author's claim(and yours) that the rate the B&O charged those farmers or millers (which is it?) in Frederick and compare that to the rate charged by the South Carolina Railroad to transport flour. Does the author give that information? If he does, that is economic history. If not, it is merely repeating an unverified claim of the B&O's first CEO. As to your last statement that the "B&O's rates were lower which was what was stated" in reference to who set rates in England, where is the evidence for that? What were the rates in England? Or do you mean the B&O's rates were simply lower than everyone elses, even though there is no evidence cited to support that claim? Did you have some kind of job in the past that involved moving goal posts? You sure are good at it. You wanted me to name one, just one, other railroad of the early 1830's, ANYWHERE. I did that and now you move the goal posts. You want me to check 180 year old freight rates! I am not going to fact check that book. It's good, well researched, history of a very important railroad. I quoted accurately and fully from the book. The author did provided a footnote citing his source as a B&O annual report. (B&O pioneered the moder annual report, and much of the accounting that backs it up.) Now you don't believe it. I do not care what you do not believe. This isn't the first time you've rejected economic reality, and it probably will not be the last. If reality doesn't fit your political beliefs, you reject reality. If you dispute the numbers, go find some basis for your dispute. You have presented no such basis so far.
schlimm Great!! You found an operational railroad in South Carolina. So now you need to back up the book's author's claim(and yours) that the rate the B&O charged those farmers or millers (which is it?) in Frederick and compare that to the rate charged by the South Carolina Railroad to transport flour. Does the author give that information? If he does, that is economic history. If not, it is merely repeating an unverified claim of the B&O's first CEO. As to your last statement that the "B&O's rates were lower which was what was stated" in reference to who set rates in England, where is the evidence for that? What were the rates in England? Or do you mean the B&O's rates were simply lower than everyone elses, even though there is no evidence cited to support that claim?
Did you have some kind of job in the past that involved moving goal posts? You sure are good at it.
You wanted me to name one, just one, other railroad of the early 1830's, ANYWHERE. I did that and now you move the goal posts. You want me to check 180 year old freight rates!
I am not going to fact check that book. It's good, well researched, history of a very important railroad. I quoted accurately and fully from the book. The author did provided a footnote citing his source as a B&O annual report. (B&O pioneered the moder annual report, and much of the accounting that backs it up.)
Now you don't believe it. I do not care what you do not believe. This isn't the first time you've rejected economic reality, and it probably will not be the last. If reality doesn't fit your political beliefs, you reject reality.
If you dispute the numbers, go find some basis for your dispute. You have presented no such basis so far.
My request was entirely reasonable within the realm of scholarship. Sorry you feel the need to take it personally and make an ad hominem attack. Have a pleasant night.
schlimmGreat!! You found an operational railroad in South Carolina. So now you need to back up the book's author's claim(and yours) that the rate the B&O charged those farmers or millers (which is it?) in Frederick and compare that to the rate charged by the South Carolina Railroad to transport flour. Does the author give that information? If he does, that is economic history. If not, it is merely repeating an unverified claim of the B&O's first CEO. As to your last statement that the "B&O's rates were lower which was what was stated" in reference to who set rates in England, where is the evidence for that? What were the rates in England? Or do you mean the B&O's rates were simply lower than everyone elses, even though there is no evidence cited to support that claim?
Convicted One Of course significant responsibility accompanies the privilege of being the first U.S. railway chartered for commercial transport of passengers and freight, there is an implied duty to serve the public good. And if an entity enjoying such empowerment chooses shrug off that responsibility in pursuit of self service, then regulate them into oblivion and build public corridors in their place!
Of course significant responsibility accompanies the privilege of being the first U.S. railway chartered for commercial transport of passengers and freight, there is an implied duty to serve the public good.
And if an entity enjoying such empowerment chooses shrug off that responsibility in pursuit of self service, then regulate them into oblivion and build public corridors in their place!
Today I read an article about HSR between Los Angeles and San Francisco and the hope is to operate trains between the two cities in less than three hours. Well guess what, one of the more vocal opponents of HSR in California is agribusiness( farmers) who will have the HSR right of way built across their land.
Transportation, rail or otherwise, has always been built to offer service that is cheaper,faster,more efficient, less costly and a myriad of other reasons. Americans always talk about unregulated private enterprise up until the time someone is treated unfairly. In the opening paragraph of John Rehor's Nickel Plate Story introduction Mr. Rehor points out that it cost more to ship a barrel of flour from Columbus Ohio to New York than it did from Minneapolis in 1881, hence the creation of the ICC. Government and free enterprise are so intertwined even after the end of the ICC and airline de-regulation. I'm sure the construction lobby will be active in Sacremento wanting both HSR and highway contracts.
PNWRMNMNo one has claimed to know the rate and it is not really relevant.
Well, the original poster claimed " 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?"
So he CLEARLY felt it WAS relevant, and he represented that the rate WAS lower than any other US railroad, now to me if someone is representing that a figure is greater than, less than or equal to any relative standard, I think that it's fair to say that he is trying to make it look as though he possesses the knowledge required to make that assertion, or otherwise he's clearly talking out his......hat (lol).
Which of course, in context with my original observation it is now abundently clear that the latter is the case. This focus of this thread is more an exercise of the straw man flaunting his straw, than it is anything else. The first LARGE COMMERCIAL straw man in American railroading, that is.
Schlimm,
You are making this way, way more complicated than it is.
Before the B&O built their branch to Fredrick millers transported their flour to Baltimore by road. No one has claimed to know the rate and it is not really relevant.
The B&O comes to town, offers a lower rate than the wagon guys, got the business, and saved the millers $2,000 (multiply by at least 100 to convert to today's dollars). After having saved the customers some serious money they complained that the rate they paid, which was LOWER than they had ever paid before, was too HIGH. Sounds pretty ungrateful to me which was the point of the original post.
You will not find flour rates on C&H of the time since there is no grain in that country. That is irrelevant, as are rates in England, as are modern bleatings about captive shippers.
The concept of 'captive shippers', invented by another group as a cover for their claims that their rates are TOO HIGH is a red herring but since someone did, lets examine it without all the regulatory mumbo jumbo, that is on a common sense basis.
The flour millers were not "captive" to the B&O. That is proved by the fact that they were doing just fine before the B&O came along and made them better off than they were before. The B&O had modal competition, the mule skinners.
Mac
greyhoundsOK, here's one. http://www.teachingushistory.org/lessons/chasrrmap.htm And it does not matter who set the rates in England. The B&O's rates were lower which was what was stated.
Great!! You found an operational railroad in South Carolina. So now you need to back up the book's author's claim(and yours) that the rate the B&O charged those farmers or millers (which is it?) in Frederick and compare that to the rate charged by the South Carolina Railroad to transport flour. Does the author give that information? If he does, that is economic history. If not, it is merely repeating an unverified claim of the B&O's first CEO. As to your last statement that the "B&O's rates were lower which was what was stated" in reference to who set rates in England, where is the evidence for that? What were the rates in England?
Or do you mean the B&O's rates were simply lower than everyone elses, even though there is no evidence cited to support that claim?
schlimm In the early 1830's, what other operational common carrier railroad existed in the US - anywhere? Name it. In Maryland? None. So there really were no rates for wheat to compare the B&O rate with. Railway tariffs in England were set by the mile by Parliament and thus not really germane to carrying wheat from Frederick, MD to Baltimore.
In the early 1830's, what other operational common carrier railroad existed in the US - anywhere? Name it. In Maryland? None. So there really were no rates for wheat to compare the B&O rate with. Railway tariffs in England were set by the mile by Parliament and thus not really germane to carrying wheat from Frederick, MD to Baltimore.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.