3 ms·
Probably the locomotives had to be scrapped regardless. But putting down the rail sounds expensive, could it be that this was cheaper back then?
by jopsen 7y ago
Probably the locomotives had to be scrapped regardless.
But putting down the rail sounds expensive, could it be that this was cheaper back then?
- jl6 7y agoProbably the track they laid would have needed to meet only the most basic requirements, with minimal consideration of reliability, safety, longevity, etc.
- bluGill 7y agoPutting down rail would have been cheap. Since it was one time use they could take a lot of shortcuts - who cares if the next frost will twist the rails when you will be done before the next frost.
- ataturk 7y agoPeople labored 16hrs a day for pennies. There was no OSHA and no governing bodies because there was nobody to complain about where the tracks were laid, etc.