Railroad building had slowed down between 1855 and 1860.

wausaubob

Colonel
Member of the Month
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
The St. Louis Fed posted this graph:
1618175816313.png

https://alfred.stlouisfed.org/serie...tm_term=related_resources&utm_campaign=alfred
This is just part of the evidence that the southern leaders were not mistaken about the strength of their region. The northern economy had slowed relative to the south, because the 10 cotton states enjoyed strong international sales.
But its also true that a history of the US Civil War based on 1860 as the starting position ignores that the northern economy was in a recovery period and the cotton economy had reached one of its peaks and was likely to experience over production problems.
 
All this leads into the Tariff of 1857 and the Panic of 1857. With excess capacity after the War ended, the British started aggressively exporting to the US again (or dumping excess capacity). At the same time, the US shipping industry hit a bust: excess capacity because of the California Gold Rush ship-building boom, sail-vs-steam tech, and the general downturn in the US business. Also a financial crisis exacerbated by the bad-timing of the low Tariff of 1857, the Buchanan administrations' spending and opposition tothe government having cash, and the general financial downturn following years of expansion. The iron-and-steel interests, particularly in PA and parts of NJ, see the British as taking advantage of this and want protective tariffs to protect themselves-- remembering full well their grudge from 1837.

...those pesky economic downturns...

:wink:
USS ALASKA
 
"... (or dumping excess capacity)..." == Not really. The Brits were THE people to buy railroad equipment off since they had developed the technology first. The Germans were quick to follow. The best rails were BRITISH rails. We also exported locomotives too, but it has to be said that the railways in the USA developed their own locos very quickly to suit the climate, track and terrain to the extent that they were totally different to British locos by 1860 and well suited to the areas they served. The Brits mainly supplied the Empire as well as South America - including some very similar looking locos to those from the USA - from 1850 onwards, but not before they had perfected valves and regulation (speed/power) for most of the early locos in Europe. Patenting meant a wide variety of different systems often restricted to one company. Countries then went on to develop their own valve systems but usually started with one of the British systems.
 
"... (or dumping excess capacity)..." == Not really.

Sir, just because someone makes a quality, and in some cases superior, product doesn't mean they aren't dumping on foreign markets to keep their employees working and capitol equipment running...

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 
Sir, just because someone makes a quality, and in some cases superior, product doesn't mean they aren't dumping on foreign markets to keep their employees working and capitol equipment running...

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
It was DEMAND that prompted the export. The USA did not make rails of that quality at that time.
 
The argument about the quality of the rails is interesting. However the owners of the iron works in the US could contribute to US political parties and the workers in that industry in the US could vote, and their votes counted in Pennsylvania and NJ and other states. Pennsylvania was going to get a protective tariff from a Republican congress.
Other English investors tried other methods of making money on the US railroad boom, as in investing in the Illinois Central Railroad.
It looked pretty dicey as the US economy paused. But then Chicago and Illinois boomed during the war and subsequently.
There was a pause in the economy of the paid labor states. The cotton growing areas of the US did well until the price of cotton softened in 1860. When the British reserves hit about 400K bales, the English brokers began to subtract the storage cost from their offers.
 
The post war boom in railroad building, like the ante-bellum boom in ship building, is probably a better indication of what the US railroad industry was capable of in 1861. The numbers about miles of track that existed in 1860 are probably misleading.
 
Furthermore the railroads in the paid labor states were a different thing than RR miles in the southern areas of the US. It matters immensely how much of the right of way is double tracked, and how frequent are the sidings. To compare the systems an analyst would like to know the number of engines operated by each company, and the gross revenue of the companies. That information was probably closely guarded proprietary information. However one of the contributors here has attempted to count the engines operated on the southern railroads in 1861.
And as our Yorkshire friend has added, it matters how heavy were the rails used to build and maintain the system. Most railroads in the southern states did not need the best rails. The traffic on the railroad did not require the best iron.
I think the earliest experiments with expensive steel rails had been conducted in England at about the time the US Civil War began. The rails were an amazing success in reducing replacement costs.
 
The 1850s decline. These were the years of amalgamations of British railway companies and the resulting improvement of existing lines as well as building new connections. Demand for rail goods was high at home. My own part of Britain - Cleveland - had the discovery of iron ore and an orgy of track building - standard gauge and narrow gauge of all types as well as mine waggonways during that decade. Demand for coal also demanded the development of new mines and tracks were eeded the move it.

Why did US railroad building boom in the 1860s? Probably because the Civil War showed what those rails, locos and wagons could do - as well as the result of NOT having a good railroad network. The first transcontinental line - the Pacific Railroad was completed in 1868 - but started in 1863.

From 1867 to 1872, increased demand for rails was met mostly by increased imports. I suspect that the various local suppliers saw their profits increase and they wanted to continue that boom and so began to develop their own products to match the imported ones from Europe. That development takes time and money. In 1872 more steel rails were imported than were produced in America; together iron and steel imports constituted a third of the 6,000 miles of track laid that year. Then the USA started producing its own railroad products. Between 1870 and 1890, the amount of railroad track in the United States tripled.
 
Furthermore the railroads in the paid labor states were a different thing than RR miles in the southern areas of the US. It matters immensely how much of the right of way is double tracked, and how frequent are the sidings. To compare the systems an analyst would like to know the number of engines operated by each company, and the gross revenue of the companies. That information was probably closely guarded proprietary information.
This information was published each year by each RR in its annual report to the stockholders and in many states it was also reported to the state organ related to RR development (Bureau of Public Works in Va. and Public School Fund in Tx.) There were also several RR newspapers who printed excerpts from the ARs and news regarding future work.

I do not know if the analysis you want was conducted, but the raw data is available.
 
This information was published each year by each RR in its annual report to the stockholders and in many states it was also reported to the state organ related to RR development (Bureau of Public Works in Va. and Public School Fund in Tx.) There were also several RR newspapers who printed excerpts from the ARs and news regarding future work.

I do not know if the analysis you want was conducted, but the raw data is available.
I've never seen anyone who produced those numbers when writing about the period railroads. I know you had a count for the southern locomotives. The census counted the miles and the capital invested in the railroads. But the other information about the publicly traded railroads doesn't seem to have ever been compiled.
Southern railroads were different. There were few big cities in the south and nearly every city had steamboat service.
 
I've never seen anyone who produced those numbers when writing about the period railroads. I know you had a count for the southern locomotives. The census counted the miles and the capital invested in the railroads. But the other information about the publicly traded railroads doesn't seem to have ever been compiled.
It may not have been compiled, but it does exist.
 
The point is that the US railroad industry and the vendors for the industry were capable of much more than the 1860 census tabulated. Once the demand for repair and improvement increased during the Civil War, the industry came up with many innovations to speed up construction. It seems to me that that by the end of the Civil War the railroad industry in the US had reached a scale at which innovation accelerated. In the same way the railroads were able to dominate politics as most politicians concluded the RR interests and the public interests were nearly the same.
 
Something to bear in mind is the speed of the railroad traffic at this time. For long distances, roads were not useful Many railroads were not built to european standards, the US 'norm' for track being T-rail pinned to ties, often without support from ballast (small stone underlay). The locos and cars had developed to run on this rather uneven track, but even so speeds were often in the region of 30mph on the flat and often less than 15mph on inclined rail. However, given the state of the roads, a 4-7 hour rail journey covering 100 miles was still far better than the alternative - a road journey would usually be in the region of 5-10mph, a track just 1-5mph. European, especially British, trains would cover the same 100 miles in 2-3 hours, although this would be classed as as 'express'.

An example from Britain, 1860. London to Bristol = 118 miles. Broad gauge (7') Double track minimum, 4-track in many places. Journey time 2h20m.
 
Something to bear in mind is the speed of the railroad traffic at this time. For long distances, roads were not useful Many railroads were not built to european standards, the US 'norm' for track being T-rail pinned to ties, often without support from ballast (small stone underlay). The locos and cars had developed to run on this rather uneven track, but even so speeds were often in the region of 30mph on the flat and often less than 15mph on inclined rail. However, given the state of the roads, a 4-7 hour rail journey covering 100 miles was still far better than the alternative - a road journey would usually be in the region of 5-10mph, a track just 1-5mph. European, especially British, trains would cover the same 100 miles in 2-3 hours, although this would be classed as as 'express'.

An example from Britain, 1860. London to Bristol = 118 miles. Broad gauge (7') Double track minimum, 4-track in many places. Journey time 2h20m.
The British were ahead. Between the experiments with steel rails, the Bessemer process and the chemical correction required, and devices like car ferries for crossing rivers, up to the Civil War, the Brits were the innovators. But then the US came up with Westinghouse breaks, the Janey automatic coupler, and Pullman's sleeper cars, and the US pulled ahead. In addition, Carnegie eventually achieved the economies of scale that made the US steel industry dominant.
 
I won't claim to be an expert on this topic however I think it should be pointed out that the US had a well established system of canals and river boat routes. Congress was slow to jump on the "bandwagon" to invest heavily in rail. With the Cumberland, Ohio, Mississippi, Missouri and the Chesapeake bay and the river systems that feed into it, and the Great Lakes and associated freight canals including the Erie, combined with the many seaports between New England and New Orleans there was little incentive for politicians to pursue government investment in rail systems until the entry of California and Oregon into the Union.
River boats were operating on the Sacramento and Columbia river system, the Missouri, even before dams and locks allowed them year around water levels. Sail was king and America had a long established tradition of ship building and I would imagine those involved in that industry had a strong lobbying power.
Lincoln was a big supporter of rail, I can't speak for any of his predecessors, but the status quo post Civil War was pro water way transportation. Why fix it if it ain't broke.
Pretty much the same reason our rail system is lacking modernization today, trucks and the US Interstate system is competing with rail and Amtrac would be bankrupt if tax dollars were bailing it out.
 
Rail in the Americas was not capable of carrying the amount of goods that water-borne transport could at that time. The track could not take the weights of European freight trains hence the rather light, small locos and trains in America. Some, in the industrial areas and ore/fuel extraction locations were designed for that purpose, but generally, there was not a local network. As Ihave claimed before, the Confederate rail system was not a rail network as such. Rail was mainly used to take cotton to loading stages on waterways as part of a transport network, but perhaps the largest part of that network was by water rather than rail.

Westinghouse air brakes - These were not fully developed until the 1870s at about the same time as Eames vaccuum brakes in the USA. Air brakes were also used in Europe and Britaim, however they already had viable steam (loco) and vacuum (train) brake systems which were patented as early as 1844. The Westinghouse brakes were mainly used on slower suburban and stopping trains.
*George Westinghouse enlisted in the New York National Guard in 1862, at the age of 15 and served until his parents urged him to return home. In 1863 he joined the 16th New York Cavalry (Company M) and rose to corporal. In December 1864 he resigned from the Army to join the Navy, serving as Acting Third Assistant Engineer on the gunboat USS Muscoota through the end of the war. He was discharged in August 1865.

Janey automatic coupler - These 'knuckle couplers' were not generally adopted in the USA until 1893 after the federal Railroad Safety Appliance Act was passed. They were not needed so much in Europe mainly because of the clearances and procedures used for coupling and uncoupling.
*Eli H. Janney was a former Confederate Army officer from Alexandria, Virginia (1875 patent)


Sleeper cars - In Britain, they started in 1833 with overnight services. but, were not really needed due to the distances involved in normal rail travel. They became popular due to the travel times between London and Northern Scotland and overnight, direct services. Before this is was quite common overnight in a hotel in Edinburgh. Europe used a similar system with sleeper cars on overnight services - Wagons-lites. Pullman coaches (First class & Dining, steward service) were adopted in Britain from 1874, mainly by the Midland railway company and the name 'Pullman' usually refers to this type of 'luxury' service over here.
 
Good discussion. The scale of US railroad industry made it different than the British railroads. By the time the US industry had built a road across the Isthmus of Panama, bridged the Mississippi at Rock Island and built the Illinois Central RR with help from English investors, the scale of management and engineering problems involved in the US industry was different than the experience in Britain and Europe. I think in New England and in the Mid-Atlantic states where the population density justified it, the US industry was building better track and running faster trains.
It would be a mistake to underestimate the amount of technical exchange between the British industry and the RRs in the paid labor states. By the 1850s it was fairly safe to travel to the US and return to Britain.
The US industry may have been trailing the British industry, as our commentator states, but the capacity to build and run railroads is not fully reflected in the 1860 census.
 
Rail in the Americas was not capable of carrying the amount of goods that water-borne transport could at that time. The track could not take the weights of European freight trains hence the rather light, small locos and trains in America. Some, in the industrial areas and ore/fuel extraction locations were designed for that purpose, but generally, there was not a local network. As Ihave claimed before, the Confederate rail system was not a rail network as such. Rail was mainly used to take cotton to loading stages on waterways as part of a transport network, but perhaps the largest part of that network was by water rather than rail.

Westinghouse air brakes - These were not fully developed until the 1870s at about the same time as Eames vaccuum brakes in the USA. Air brakes were also used in Europe and Britaim, however they already had viable steam (loco) and vacuum (train) brake systems which were patented as early as 1844. The Westinghouse brakes were mainly used on slower suburban and stopping trains.
*George Westinghouse enlisted in the New York National Guard in 1862, at the age of 15 and served until his parents urged him to return home. In 1863 he joined the 16th New York Cavalry (Company M) and rose to corporal. In December 1864 he resigned from the Army to join the Navy, serving as Acting Third Assistant Engineer on the gunboat USS Muscoota through the end of the war. He was discharged in August 1865.

Janey automatic coupler - These 'knuckle couplers' were not generally adopted in the USA until 1893 after the federal Railroad Safety Appliance Act was passed. They were not needed so much in Europe mainly because of the clearances and procedures used for coupling and uncoupling.
*Eli H. Janney was a former Confederate Army officer from Alexandria, Virginia (1875 patent)


Sleeper cars - In Britain, they started in 1833 with overnight services. but, were not really needed due to the distances involved in normal rail travel. They became popular due to the travel times between London and Northern Scotland and overnight, direct services. Before this is was quite common overnight in a hotel in Edinburgh. Europe used a similar system with sleeper cars on overnight services - Wagons-lites. Pullman coaches (First class & Dining, steward service) were adopted in Britain from 1874, mainly by the Midland railway company and the name 'Pullman' usually refers to this type of 'luxury' service over here.
There were several coupler designs competing in the US market, I think. It took awhile for the Janey coupler to become the standard device.
 
Back
Top