Railroad Forums 

  • High Points of how railroads and locomotives came to be?

  • General discussion about locomotives, rolling stock, and equipment
General discussion about locomotives, rolling stock, and equipment

Moderator: John_Perkowski

 #1532400  by HighAndMightyColor
 
Hi guys, new member here with his very first post. I have always been interested in engineering history and sometimes ask oddly specific questions in order to expand upon things that people tend to not consciously think about.

In this thread, I just want to confirm if my understanding of the historical development of the railway is mostly correct. Please note that I am not implying that all civilizations followed the phases in the exact order; however, I do believe that my outline below is the ultimate logic that describes the emergent advantages of the locomotive.

Phase 1: Railroads from Mines
It seems that most engineering historians agree that railroads were developed because they were practically required in mines. But why railroads instead of other, marvelously efficient weight-distributing machines such as the wheelbarrow? There are two distinct reasons I can think of:
1. Tunneling through rocks requires tremendous amounts of energy; therefore, feasible mines tend to be narrow in space and steep slopes are ubiquitous. Imagine the inconvenience created when one accidentally tipped wheelbarrows inside the scarce exit tunnels. On the other hand, rail type systems (whether wooden railings or grooves on the ground), are much more stable. With the peace of mind, the greater stability ensures that one can pull the mine carts remotely via rope or with relatively untrained animals.
2. Underground structures tend to accumulate water and wheelbarrows can get easily stuck in the mud. With rails (whether wooden railings or grooved, flat stones), the weight on the wheels is more evenly distributed and the mine carts essentially became 'unsinkable'.

Phase 2: Outside the Mines
Transferring raw materials from mine carts to wagons was/is an inefficient process. By extending the guidance system of the railway beyond the mines, one can more confidently distribute the heavy materials to the countryside using the same, relatively untrained animals.

Phase 3: Make Way for the Powerful Engines
Beginning with the steam engine, locomotives can transport large quantities of material and people at high speed. The high speed would be for naught, however, if it could not be predictable. Even before computers, train schedules are more easily accounted for than cars on roads.

Have I missed any other distinct, pertinent reasons that made rail so historically indispensable? Is there anything that I have listed that, while true, could be considered more myth than reality?
 #1532550  by TrainDetainer
 
For Phase 1 - Wheelbarrows? I would imagine they were used in many cases early on, but if you've ever worked a hard-wheeled wheelbarrow over uneven ground you know how exhausting and literally backbreaking they can be. Really limits how much work can actually be done, even with the cheap labor of the time. Think more along the lines of economics, and realize that some of the earliest 'railroads' were in quarries - not just shaft mines. Under the best circumstances a human powered wheelbarrow might move 200 lbs. A small mine cart could easily handle 2-3 times that amount, meaning fewer trips per product unit, meaning more efficient logistics with fewer workers, fewer animals and greater capacity. A quarry would need to move stone weighing as much as any known mechanical advantage could work, far more than any wheelbarrow. Put it on a railcart that moves far easier than any other known form of transportation (unless you've got a harbor/barges in your quarry) and you've got yourself a moneymaker. It follows that you overlooked one of the prime reasons for RAIL roads - the efficiency of hard wheels running on hard smooth surfaces. You have to tie that with fixed guideways and pure capacity to find the success of/reason for railroads.

Phase 2 - While a few mines in the UK had longer distance transportation railroads than just on the mine property proper, most mines transferred product to the mainline railroads at property edge as soon as they came about. Before conveyor belts came around there where any number of methods of dumping mine carts into wagons or mainline railcars, so transfer was probably rather efficient very early on. But don't forget that men were still unloading boxcars, gons and hoppers by shoveling product into wheelbarrows and dumping it into waiting dump trucks at the boxcar door well into the 20th century. All depends on economic feasibility. And there's the capacity/gauge issue too. Most mine railways are/were very narrow gauge (you noted the shaft size constraints) and even larger mine carts were limited to a few tons, whereas mainline capacity very quickly ran up to 7.5 tons for jimmies and 15 to 20 tons per car for 8-wheel cars. Today's mine might use 3-foot gauge trams hauling 10-15 ton cars and mainline hoppers are upwards of 120 ton capacity.

Phase 3 - Railroads would have remained a niche for things like mines and factories were it not for the steam locomotive, and the development of the locomotive and it's ability to haul bigger and bigger loads were what made the mainline railroads. Yes it was faster than horsedrawn wagons, but the capacity/efficiency was what made them so important. You can't produce everything needed to rapidly develop/maintain a civilization without transportation capacity. Locomotive development centered around capacity and reliability until the late 1990s, when the railroads realized that 6000HP AC locomotives were too much to be practical - development now is mostly about emissions. Average train speed was very low (and still is today), although the advantage of regular 25MPH train speeds over heavy 2-3MPH wagons was more than enough of a selling point. Transportation of heavy/bulk goods isn't really about speed. Speed is a thrill and more necessary in today's world but was more of a convenience in the early days. You could easily argue that it was the railroads/locomotives that first put 'urgency' into the modern world, because all of a sudden it was possible. As for reliably predictable transportation of freight, we had it in this country until the 1950s/1960s, before computers, but government regulation stifled rail transportation innovation long after it was impacted by trucks and planes, so for the last 50 years (and with deregulation in the 1980s) RR management has been trying to figure out how to do it on a regular and wide-spread basis, but has stifled itself by hiring way too many non-railroad managers and not paying attention to the basics, and by trying to satisfy short term return numbers instead of long term investment. Customers want reliability, and all the computers in the world won't satisfy a customer if it's telling him his shipment is late. The current Precision Scheduled Railroading movement is that mostly in name only - the buzzword-of-the-day for railroading. It's really about cost cutting, again to satisfy short term investment and the robber barons of today.
 #1532584  by HighAndMightyColor
 
TrainDetainer wrote: Sat Feb 01, 2020 7:15 pm For Phase 1 - Wheelbarrows? I would imagine they were used in many cases early on, but if you've ever worked a hard-wheeled wheelbarrow over uneven ground you know how exhausting and literally backbreaking they can be. Really limits how much work can actually be done, even with the cheap labor of the time. Think more along the lines of economics, and realize that some of the earliest 'railroads' were in quarries - not just shaft mines. Under the best circumstances a human powered wheelbarrow might move 200 lbs. A small mine cart could easily handle 2-3 times that amount, meaning fewer trips per product unit, meaning more efficient logistics with fewer workers, fewer animals and greater capacity. A quarry would need to move stone weighing as much as any known mechanical advantage could work, far more than any wheelbarrow. Put it on a railcart that moves far easier than any other known form of transportation (unless you've got a harbor/barges in your quarry) and you've got yourself a moneymaker. It follows that you overlooked one of the prime reasons for RAIL roads - the efficiency of hard wheels running on hard smooth surfaces. You have to tie that with fixed guideways and pure capacity to find the success of/reason for railroads.

Phase 2 - While a few mines in the UK had longer distance transportation railroads than just on the mine property proper, most mines transferred product to the mainline railroads at property edge as soon as they came about. Before conveyor belts came around there where any number of methods of dumping mine carts into wagons or mainline railcars, so transfer was probably rather efficient very early on. But don't forget that men were still unloading boxcars, gons and hoppers by shoveling product into wheelbarrows and dumping it into waiting dump trucks at the boxcar door well into the 20th century. All depends on economic feasibility. And there's the capacity/gauge issue too. Most mine railways are/were very narrow gauge (you noted the shaft size constraints) and even larger mine carts were limited to a few tons, whereas mainline capacity very quickly ran up to 7.5 tons for jimmies and 15 to 20 tons per car for 8-wheel cars. Today's mine might use 3-foot gauge trams hauling 10-15 ton cars and mainline hoppers are upwards of 120 ton capacity.

Phase 3 - Railroads would have remained a niche for things like mines and factories were it not for the steam locomotive, and the development of the locomotive and it's ability to haul bigger and bigger loads were what made the mainline railroads. Yes it was faster than horsedrawn wagons, but the capacity/efficiency was what made them so important. You can't produce everything needed to rapidly develop/maintain a civilization without transportation capacity. Locomotive development centered around capacity and reliability until the late 1990s, when the railroads realized that 6000HP AC locomotives were too much to be practical - development now is mostly about emissions. Average train speed was very low (and still is today), although the advantage of regular 25MPH train speeds over heavy 2-3MPH wagons was more than enough of a selling point. Transportation of heavy/bulk goods isn't really about speed. Speed is a thrill and more necessary in today's world but was more of a convenience in the early days. You could easily argue that it was the railroads/locomotives that first put 'urgency' into the modern world, because all of a sudden it was possible. As for reliably predictable transportation of freight, we had it in this country until the 1950s/1960s, before computers, but government regulation stifled rail transportation innovation long after it was impacted by trucks and planes, so for the last 50 years (and with deregulation in the 1980s) RR management has been trying to figure out how to do it on a regular and wide-spread basis, but has stifled itself by hiring way too many non-railroad managers and not paying attention to the basics, and by trying to satisfy short term return numbers instead of long term investment. Customers want reliability, and all the computers in the world won't satisfy a customer if it's telling him his shipment is late. The current Precision Scheduled Railroading movement is that mostly in name only - the buzzword-of-the-day for railroading. It's really about cost cutting, again to satisfy short term investment and the robber barons of today.
I did not realize that rolling resistance was essential to such a degree; instead, I'd thought that rolling resistance was only appreciably considered when the ground gets wet and muddy (which I'd considered having occurred often enough for rail to be much preferred).

Thank you for your incredibly comprehensive correction and addition of information!