The real gap between the two railroad systems.

Which leads to the question of which distortion is likely to create the most harm, price increases due to tariffs, or temporary price reductions by producers not charging for a return on capital for a period of time, because they have very deep financial markets?
The Henry Clay position could well have been based on the view that the British were not nice guys. They were fully capable of undercutting US industry, preventing the US from reaching scale economies, and then jacking up the prices later. The whole US could have languished in the situation of the non industrial south, which would have been a very risky proposition for the US.
 
I remember having to write a paper some 50 years ago for my "History of Transportation" class. I chose to write about rail transportation during the American Civil War. The one thing that stuck with me was the that the Confederacy didn't "federalize" the railroads until the war was almost over, when it was too late to standardize the lines, equipment and system.
 
I remember having to write a paper some 50 years ago for my "History of Transportation" class. I chose to write about rail transportation during the American Civil War. The one thing that stuck with me was the that the Confederacy didn't "federalize" the railroads until the war was almost over, when it was too late to standardize the lines, equipment and system.

Sir, unfortunately for the Confederacy, that would have gone completely against the mantra of states rights and individual freedoms. A strong and powerful national government capable of such unilateral actions would have been the antithesis of her proclaimed end-state.

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 
There was a southern railroad association did it consider the issue of different gauges and different rails and the need to standardize.
 
There was a southern railroad association did it consider the issue of different gauges and different rails and the need to standardize.
I don't know what you mean by "southern railroad association," but changing the gauge of the Montgomery & West Point RR was seriously considered by Sims, head of the RR Bureau. However, the railroad in question refused to consider the change (they knew they would loose rolling stock to other railroads) and the Government was not willing to force the issue.

The gauge of the Piedmont RR was an issue that was still a point of contention when the war ended.

The future "standard" gauge of many North Carolina and Virginia RRs was not seriously considered for change because of the lack of manpower to make the change-over quickly enough to not harm Richmond and the army as the supplies carried by the railroads failed to arrive until various lines were changed.

BTW, the North did not force a standard gauge on its railroads and there were a dozen or so gauges in the North during the war.
 
The North had more different gauges and mismatched interchanges than the Confederacy...

1551545176283-png.png


A cropped view sourced from here - http://images.slideplayer.com/33/8180144/slides/slide_5.jpg

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 
The North had more different gauges and mismatched interchanges than the Confederacy...

View attachment 419951

A cropped view sourced from here - http://images.slideplayer.com/33/8180144/slides/slide_5.jpg

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
And that's what is misleading. Because the early railroad builders had many methods of creating a functioning line, while saving money on ballast, rails, culverts and bridges. Until a line had a proven revenue base, it did not make sense to build up to first class status. It would have been a waste of money.
If a railroad is built up to double track functioning, its evidence that it had revenue and was carrying heavier traffic. The first stage was adding many sidings and Y outs. Double tracking followed. By the time of the Civil War steel was a proven technology. The steel boom occurred after the US Civil War.
The point being that a mile of railroad track was not always the same thing. And in the southern states that joined the Confederacy, where almost all cities and towns were on the coast or a navigable river, railroads had a different function than in the northern states.
 
The British essentially owned the Southern rail system already.

Sir, my minor semantic quibble with this would be the word 'owned'. 'Owned' implies leadership and the power to be directive or give orders. I know of no southern antebellum railroad that British investors had that CEO type role. Once the ACW started, foreign investor's concerns would have been inconsequential. Afterwards would have been a matter of gaining return on investment by any means possible.

Happy Halloween! :bat:
USS ALASKA
 
I don't know what you mean by "southern railroad association," but changing the gauge of the Montgomery & West Point RR was seriously considered by Sims, head of the RR Bureau. However, the railroad in question refused to consider the change (they knew they would loose rolling stock to other railroads) and the Government was not willing to force the issue.

The gauge of the Piedmont RR was an issue that was still a point of contention when the war ended.

The future "standard" gauge of many North Carolina and Virginia RRs was not seriously considered for change because of the lack of manpower to make the change-over quickly enough to not harm Richmond and the army as the supplies carried by the railroads failed to arrive until various lines were changed.

BTW, the North did not force a standard gauge on its railroads and there were a dozen or so gauges in the North during the war.
But I think the railroads in Kentucky were changed to southern 5' gauge to eliminate a change of gauge at Nashville. But that was a critical line.
 
There was a southern railroad association did it consider the issue of different gauges and different rails and the need to standardize.

Sir, there were meetings of the minds. Please see ...



...but like the NTSB, just because the '20lb heads' make perfectly logical recommendations doesn't mean they are acknowledged or implemented.

Thanks to @DaveBrt for starting those threads.

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 
The last British locomotive that I see in the war-time lists was received in America about 1847. British locomotives were not suitable to the American railroads and were completely run out of the market by US manufacturers.

...to the point where US manufactures began exporting...even to Britain...

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 
But was that the result of free trade, or oligopolistic behavior by the British producers dumping product on the US market at the producers' marginal cost in order to drive the US producers out of business? They called it free trade, but how much of it was rent seeking behavior?

Sir, to give a modern day example - when music CDs first came on the market, a major record company exec gave an interview to either Spin or Rolling Stone, (my apologies, I forget which one), and stated that even though CDs only cost $1.50 to produce, the $15 to $18 price was warranted because that is what the market would bear and be the most profitable - for the record company. Caveat Emptor

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 
Sir, unfortunately for the Confederacy, that would have gone completely against the mantra of states rights and individual freedoms. A strong and powerful national government capable of such unilateral actions would have been the antithesis of her proclaimed end-state.

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
When did the confederacy ever support individual freedoms during the war, and even States' Rights become questionable due to conscription and use of State Troops? I know the mantra for what it is worth would be concerning the advent of peace, but during a time of war these railroads should have been taken control of. In essence this just points out all the more obviously how southern society was a club for the wealthy and those with means.
Lubliner.
 
...to the point where US manufactures began exporting...even to Britain...

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
Only because demand from the railway companies outstripped supply from the manufacturers. By and large the purchases from Amrican manufacturers were not a great success but filled a hole at the time. That's not to say some didn't have relatively long lives as they were refitted and modified over time.
 
When did the confederacy ever support individual freedoms during the war, and even States' Rights become questionable due to conscription and use of State Troops? I know the mantra for what it is worth would be concerning the advent of peace, but during a time of war these railroads should have been taken control of. In essence this just points out all the more obviously how southern society was a club for the wealthy and those with means.
Lubliner.
Solid points. The CSA and at least some of the states, such as Virginia, intruded on "property rights" in different ways.
 
Back
Top