I am reading Stephen Ambrose’s Nothing Like it in the World for the second or third time.
Ambrose states that the number of ties for one portion of the construction was 2,250 per mile. In another sentence he says it was 2,500 ties per mile. I believe modern mainline track has 3,000 ties per mile.
Is Ambrose correct regarding the number of ties that were laid for at least portions of the first transcontinental railroad?
24 inch center spacing would give 2640 ties per mile. 20 inch spacing would give 3168 ties per mile. 30 inch spacing would give 2112 ties per mile.
(As an aside: original construction in the 1860s appears to have put a tie directly under each rail joint, as opposed to the 1878 construction. This changes the count somewhat.)
you may want to consider Factual errors and disputed characterizations
I assume many historians may unintentionally color what they write which shouldn’t diminish an enjoyable read.
A far better, more balanced history of the first transcontinental railroad is David Bain’s Empire Express. Mac
Does it really, really, matter how many ties per mile were laid on the Transcontinental Railroad? Look at the accomplishment, not the inconsequentials.
We could wind up like medieval monks arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
All things considered, no. Certainly not something that needs an in depth discussion running to several pages.
As a waypoint along the way to modern railroading, it’s an interesting footnote. The loading was a lot lighter then, too.
I’ve noticed before when looking at images of rail construction during that period that the ties were spread out a lot more than we’re used to today. Economically, it probably made sense to do so. Saving even 100-200 ties per mile would be a significant cost reduction, and even if the standard of the day were closer to 3000 ties per mile, they could always go back later (if the line were profitable) and upgrade.
Consider, too, that those ties had to be hauled to where they were needed - in some cases a good number of miles. Think, too, of the logistics involved in putting 10 miles of track on the ground in one day…
And if you’re getting paid by the mile by the government…
In many places it was lightly built (enough to get by), with the track section getting beefed-up later when it was easier to get the track material, especially untreated ties which had a very short life, to the site.
It was a simple fact seeking question. There was no hidden agenda. I appreciate the factual answers posted by several participants.
Keep in mind that Ambrose is a good writer, but is NOT an academic (professional) historian. Real historians are specialists, even those who write broader intro. texts. Ambrose writes about almost everything.
Some rail lines were initially built as cheaply as possible, making their money on wholly-owned construction companies who got paid by the mile as land grants.
As noted by Wikipedia, Ambrose was a long standing professor of history at the University of New Orleans. He had a PhD in history from the University of Wisconsin at Madison, which has an excellent history program.
I have read many of Dr. Ambrose’s works. He writes in a clear, concise style that is easy to read. Maybe that is why many of his books continue to sell so well among general readers.
Dr. Ambrose was accused of using other writer’s work for his publications. Apparently there is considerable controversy as to the extent that he did so. Nevertheless, I have enjoyed his writings and will continue to do so.
I am mindful that history is an interpretation of events drawn from limited sources and subject to various interpretations.
Crawfordsville Weekly Review, Nov. 10, 1866
https://newspapers.library.in.gov/cgi-bin/indiana?a=d&d=CWJ18661110.1.2
The Pacific Railroad (page 2)
…When Dr. Durant announced, one year ago, that he wanted one million of cross ties for immediate use, and three millions in two years, everybody laughed at the idea. “They must be had,” he replied, “I will have them.” Every source was applied to. Soon one party agreed to furnish a large lot, and another a lot, but they were bringing in cotton-wood, a species of timber like unto a pumpkin or a cucumber, which looked well enough, but had a reputation for not being reliable over night; but the resources of man are as endless as his desires are boundless. “Bring on your cotton-wood,” said Durant, and up the Missouri, out of a thousand ravines and gulches, rang the sound of the invader’s ax, and soon came a perfect torrent of ties, ties of oak, of cedar and of cotton-wood.
To make the latter available, an iron boiler a hundred feet long and five feet in diameter was brought into requisition. It was filled with ties, and the apertures being closed, a steam engine exhausted the air, which emptied the pores of the wood, when a solution of zinc was ejected, which, permeating the fibers, hardens the wood, and in drying gives it well nigh a metallic appearance and weight, which guarantee its durability for about twelve years.
Eight hundred and fifty thousand ties and telegraph poles already h
Not taking a shot at you JPS1, not in the least, and my sincere apologies if you took it that way.
The thing is while I enjoy the “fun stuff” of history as much as anyone, i.e how many ties per mile, how many rivets in the tender of “Jupiter,” what was General Jack Casement’s favorite dish, I always try to keep in mind the greatness of the accomplishment and not the minutia.
Anyway, here’s a little more minutia. Jack Casement wasn’t really a general, he held the rank by brevet, which in the Civil War period was an honorary promotion given for outstanding service. A man so honored could be addressed as “General,” and could wear a generals uniform for special occasions, but for day-to-day service operated at and wore the uniform of his regular rank, whatever that was.
I was not offended. And I did not think that you were taking a shot at me.
White’s* Law of Scholarship: “The amount of publication on a subject is in inverse proportion to its importance.”
*Former curator of Land Transportation (and later some other posts) at the Smithsonian Institution.
Perhaps from one of these:
“Turntable: A little information can be a . . . not having the whole story” by White, John H., Jr., from Trains April 1983, pg. 66
“Turntable: The why in history - the reasons for technical advance or regression” by White, John H. from Trains September 1977 pg. 66
Dad (who flew three support missions that day) is listed as a contributor or correspondent in Ambrose’s “D-Day”. He was rather put out by the short shrift that was given to the AAF and RAF (they are barely mentioned) for their support of the invasion.
Samuel Eliot Morison was a much better historian and a better writer.
He is more respected. Morison earned his Ph.D. in history from Harvard and was a professor there 40 years. He served in the Navy in WWII, as a lt. commander. He did front-line research for his multi-volume The Rising Sun in the Pacfic, eventually becoming a rear admiral.
Stephen Ambrose also had a distinguished career as a biographer and popular historian. He earned his Ph.D. from UW-Madison, and was a professor at several universities. Although he wrote many fine works, he also had a pattern of inaccuracies, boastful claims about his relationship with Ike that were fabrications and many instances of plagiarism.
As an aside, over the course of several years, one volume at a time, I received a complete set of “History of United States Naval Operations in World War II” as a gift from my girlfriend/fiance/wife for birthday, anniversary, Christmas, etc.
Excerpt from NY Times, May 16, 1976
Samuel Eliot Morison, the undisputed Grand Old Man of American historians, died yesterday in the Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, from the effects of a stroke. He was 88 years old and lived in Boston during the winter and in Maine in the summer.
A prodigiously productive writer, Admiral Morison published “The European Discovery of America” when he was 80 years old, and a book on Samuel de Champlain when he was 82. A master narrative historian, he was a pleasure to read for his figure of phrase and for his enthusiasm. These were characteristics of his prose that suffused virtually every page of his books.
Last year, Professor Morison was described by Archibald MacLeish in a Bicentennial poem as “our Yankee Admiral of the Ocean Sea. . . . You know better, none better how the Bay wind blows fierce in the soul.” It was an apt description, for Professor Morison was the author of a biography of Christopher Columbus under the title “Admiral of the Ocean Sea,” and he himself was often addressed as Admiral because he was a retired rear admiral in the Naval Reserve…
Initially the route was not all on Russian territory: the Chinese Eastern Railway was constructed to provide a shorter route to Vladivostock via Harbin, where Russian staff were based. Now known as the Trans-Manchurian line, it is still the route of a train from Moscow to Beijing. An all-Russian Trans-Siberian route was finally completed in 1916.
The folly of building the railway on the cheap became apparent during the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-5, when the railway could not cope with the demands made upon it, and it was not until well into the Twenties that all the deficiencies were rectified and civil war damage repaired. Electrification began in 1929 but was not completed until 2002.
Another transcontiental railroad done quickly to knit a nation together.