Railroad capacity?

[Pat Answer]

A general question sparked by the very interesting 'supplies through Vicksburg' thread:

Can anyone point me to an estimate of the total carrying capacity by rail for each side in 1861?

Michael Leavy's Railroads of the Civil War: An Illustrated History was excellent especially on how railroads were used for logistics and on construction and maintenance of locomotives, cars, and roads (and problems doing so). I forget the page number, but he stated there were "1,500" locomotives in what would be the Confederate states and at least 3,000 built in the North in the previous decades. But how many were operational? How many cars could each pull on average?
Is it OK to just say that basically (leaving aside the gauge problems and general industrial shortages of the South for a moment) Union capacity was "twice" that of the Confederacy based on the above and the famous Sept 1863 transfers of Longstreet (~10,000 men/equipment) and Hooker (~20,000 men/equipment) each in about two to three weeks?
Is there any in-depth study of this?

Thanks for any input.

 

[Barrycdog]

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/gabel4.pdf

 

[Pat Answer]

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/gabel4.pdf

View attachment 43931

Thanks for the link!

 

[Elennsar]

It does, however, vary considerably with specifics(of locomotives and infrastructure) - I don't think the available data, or at least the level of organization its at, can lead to a generalization like "twice the capacity of" across the board.

Numbers below are per the revised and expanded edition of American Locomotives: An Engineering History, 1830-1880 by John H. White Jr.
(Total) Locomotives in service in 1860: 8,500 (9,000 per American Railway Review, 1861)
(Total) Locomotives in service in 1865: 9,500.

You'd probably have to check railroad by railroad so far as data is available to determine how many were in the North and how many were in the South, though - even before allowing for things like Jackson stealing B&O locomotives.

 

[Barrycdog]

Do you think that railroad gauge played a part too. I know they may have gotten most of those issues worked out before the war but still a possibility.

 

[Elennsar]

It might have made some difference - larger gauge potentially means bigger and more powerful locomotives hauling larger cars capable of carrying more - but nothing I've read indicates a useful superiority of 5' or 5'6" over 4'8.5" (aka standard) in practice in the antebellum US.

Or do you mean as far as issues with different gauges?

 

[rebelatsea]

Try "The Railroads of the Confederacy" by Robert C Black III.

 

[Elennsar]

This report talking about the state of the Orange and Alexandria Railroad is, I think, useful:

http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/c...o0048:3;view=image;seq=245;size=100;page=root

Note the mention of sidings and other improvements, above and beyond repairs.

Try "The Railroads of the Confederacy" by Robert C Black III.

This a thousand times over. Its fifty years old, but no one has come out with a better book.

I don't recall (and don't know where my copy is) if it goes into specifics on how many engines and cars overall, but it gives very useful information.

 

[DaveBrt]

Please try my site: www.csa-railroads.com Confederate Railroads. I think I answer most of your questions on the Confederate side. For example, there were 1,161 locomotives in the eastern Confederacy and 59 in the Trans-Mississippi. For cars, the numbers are 12,562 and 720.

The gauge issue was a problem, but hardly the worst thing the CSA RR system had to deal with. In my opinion, more serious were: insufficient rolling stock, lack of manpower in the CSA such that the railroads (and their supporting infrastructure -- mines, foundries, etc) could not get the manpower they needed, and the inability to replace anything that was lost (rails, rolling stock, depots, etc).

 

[Elennsar]

I haven't read everything there or even close, but I trust what I've seen so far. Didn't think to check if you gave statistics for number of engines and cars.

 

[DaveBrt]

A general question sparked by the very interesting 'supplies through Vicksburg' thread:

Can anyone point me to an estimate of the total carrying capacity by rail for each side in 1861?

Michael Leavy's Railroads of the Civil War: An Illustrated History was excellent especially on how railroads were used for logistics and on construction and maintenance of locomotives, cars, and roads (and problems doing so). I forget the page number, but he stated there were "1,500" locomotives in what would be the Confederate states and at least 3,000 built in the North in the previous decades. But how many were operational? How many cars could each pull on average?
Is it OK to just say that basically (leaving aside the gauge problems and general industrial shortages of the South for a moment) Union capacity was "twice" that of the Confederacy based on the above and the famous Sept 1863 transfers of Longstreet (~10,000 men/equipment) and Hooker (~20,000 men/equipment) each in about two to three weeks?
Is there any in-depth study of this?

Thanks for any input.

I know of no detailed study on the Northern capacity, but from a couple of sources' material, I'd say the North had the ability to move about 10 times what the South could in a given time. I put it this way because the North was more efficient in the use of its roads and had many of the most important double-tracked, something not found in the South at all.

 

[Pat Answer]

Awesome! Thank you everyone, especially for the numbers in posts #4 and #9. I've got some good reading tonight.

It does, however, vary considerably with specifics(of locomotives and infrastructure) - I don't think the available data, or at least the level of organization its at, can lead to a generalization like "twice the capacity of" across the board.

Gotcha. All the factors mentioned in this thread, of course, but with say 1200 locomotives in the CSA out of 8500 total in 1860, we're already closer to 5 or 6 : 1. And DaveBrt's point in #11 above is well-taken, and probably does make the effective ratio even greater.

 

[Elennsar]

Awesome! Thank you everyone, especially for the numbers in posts #4 and #9. I've got some good reading tonight.

Yeah. There's very little that directly relates to your question in White's book, but I heartily recommend it if you want to understand American locomotives of the era. It's not the most exciting and colorful book, but it's not dull.

Gotcha. All the factors mentioned in this thread, of course, but with say 1200 locomotives in the CSA out of 8500 total in 1860, we're already closer to 5 or 6 : 1. And DaveBrt's point in #11 above is well-taken, and probably does make the effective ratio even greater.

Indeed. It sounds high to me, but I think if we're estimating total traffic ability and not per railroad mile or in any given more limited situation (the B&O versus the Western and Atlantic, say), its probably closer to right than not.

Add in the superior ability of the Union to maintain its rail lines - to levels that get just plain silly after considering the use of railroad iron for ironclads in the Confederacy, for example - and it might be even more so by the midpoint of the war.

 

[28thNewYork]

While it will not answer your questions about capacity, etc. , Edwin P. Alexander's CIVIL WAR RAILROADS AND MODELS does provide a great general history of ACW railroads; with a supportive historical research thread. If you look for it, count on getting a well-used copy. This is a real collector's item.

 

[rbasin]

It does, however, vary considerably with specifics(of locomotives and infrastructure) - I don't think the available data, or at least the level of organization its at, can lead to a generalization like "twice the capacity of" across the board.

Numbers below are per the revised and expanded edition of American Locomotives: An Engineering History, 1830-1880 by John H. White Jr.
(Total) Locomotives in service in 1860: 8,500 (9,000 per American Railway Review, 1861)
(Total) Locomotives in service in 1865: 9,500.

You'd probably have to check railroad by railroad so far as data is available to determine how many were in the North and how many were in the South, though - even before allowing for things like Jackson stealing B&O locomotives.

Are these number railroad cars or engines? I read somewhere lately that the North had a fairly limited number of engines, or at least a lot less than what I thought they'd have.

 

[Elennsar]

Are these number railroad cars or engines? I read somewhere lately that the North had a fairly limited number of engines, or at least a lot less than what I thought they'd have.

Engines. White discusses railroad cars in a different book, which I do not own a copy of.

 

[rbasin]

Engines. White discusses railroad cars in a different book, which I do not own a copy of.

Ok. Thanks. Then what I read was either wrong, I read it wrong, or, perhaps the author didn't explain himself properly.

 

[Elennsar]

Ok. Thanks. Then what I read was either wrong, I read it wrong, or, perhaps the author didn't explain himself properly.

If you find it I'd like to see it to see if his number comes from a different source than White's - per his note for the 1855 number, calculations range from Railroad Record estimating 6,000 to the State Engineers Report (New york) in 1856 stating only 4,115.

So I'd suspect the 1860 figures are also subject to different counts and estimates - even before getting into things like "modern engines" or "locomotives by the major builders" or some other nuance.

 

[rbasin]

If you find it I'd like to see it to see if his number comes from a different source than White's - per his note for the 1855 number, calculations range from Railroad Record estimating 6,000 to the State Engineers Report (New york) in 1856 stating only 4,115.

So I'd suspect the 1860 figures are also subject to different counts and estimates - even before getting into things like "modern engines" or "locomotives by the major builders" or some other nuance.

I'll find it. I just read it, but not sure where. Just happened upon it. the article had much lower numbers, But based on your numbers, I have a feeling he may have been referring to engines in use, perhaps for military needs. The article did state that military RRs had a different gauge than the privately held ones in the North.

As soon as I find it, I'll either post it here or start a new thread. Likely in the morning.

 

[ole]

So we know that, at one point in time, The Confederacy had X miles of track, Y units of rolling stock and Z locomotives. What we haven't considered is the Confederacy's ability to maintain X, Y, and Z at a later point in time.

The stats didn't remain the same.