3 ms·

It isn't crappy, it was necessary. The 200-foot right of way was so that construction materials could be gathered from either side of the route of the track, t

It isn't crappy, it was necessary. The 200-foot right of way was so that construction materials could be gathered from either side of the route of the track, to build the track itself. In 1862, the midwest was practically empty and most of the land was federal land. The construction crews may have been hundreds, if not thousands, of miles from the nearest quarry or gravel pit. >SEC. 2 . And be it further enacted, {Right of way granted.} That the right of way through the public lands be, and the same is hereby, granted to said company for the construction of said railroad and telegraph line; and the right, power, and authority is hereby given to said company to take from the public lands adjacent to the line of said road, {See Sec. 3, 1864 .} earth, stone, timber, and other materials for the construction thereof; said right of way is granted to said railroad to the extent of’ two hundred feet in width on each side of said railroad, where it may pass over the public lands, including all necessary grounds for stations, buildings, workshops and depots, machine shops, switches, side tracks, turn-tables, and water stations. {U. S. to extinguish Indian titles. sec. 18, 1864 .} The United States shall extinguish as rapidly as may be, the Indian titles to all lands falling under the operation of this act, and required for the said right of way and grants hereinafter made. Also, in the early days of steam locomotives a train had to stop every seven miles for water. That meant that every seven miles a water tower and the equipment to fill the water tower had to be built. If right of way, and all of that free land hadn't been granted, there would have been no transcontinental railroad. One of the first "real" railroads, the B&O railroad, was created by the governments of Maryland, Virginia, and Ohio and had a very similar legislative deal (though that didn't prevent years of litigation by canal companies to stop the railroad) to deal given to the companies covered by the 1862 Act the because it is impossible to build a railroad unless the land is given to the constructor for free. Looking forward, if the government gets behind the colonization of Mars or some other place, the deals will be the same "Hey Company X, build all of this crap on Mars and we'll give you the entire northern hemisphere" and then 200 years later people will be upset about the fact that Company X was given half of Mars.

Aloha 7y ago
I think that 7 mile number is low, I think its more like at least 50 if not 100 miles, by the time the transcon line existed.
ska 7y ago
> It isn't crappy, it was necessary. You've explained why it was necessary to give access and rights to build. It doesn't explain why that included secondary rights (i.e. the ability to monetize other uses of the land) exclusively, or perpetually, Which is what I think the poster you replied to was trying to say. It may be true that the deals couldn't be made another way, but it certainly isn't obviously true.
gumby 7y ago
> Also, in the early days of steam locomotives a train had to stop every seven miles for water. That meant that every seven miles a water tower and the equipment to fill the water tower had to be built. I don't know that it was seven miles, but it wasn't a huge distance. And those sites either had to have local water or the water had to be shipped in by train. Often these depots were whistle stops, though of course they were an opportunity for a small community to form. My grandfather was born (over a century ago) and grew up on one of these stations in the middle of nowhere in the South Australian bush. He ended up working for the SA railway his entire working life. My Uncle showed me some pictures -- even the water was brought in by rail. Nobody would have lived there if the train had not needed an outpost.

Aloha 7y ago

I think that 7 mile number is low, I think its more like at least 50 if not 100 miles, by the time the transcon line existed.

ska 7y ago

> It isn't crappy, it was necessary. You've explained why it was necessary to give access and rights to build. It doesn't explain why that included secondary rights (i.e. the ability to monetize other uses of the land) exclusively, or perpetually, Which is what I think the poster you replied to was trying to say. It may be true that the deals couldn't be made another way, but it certainly isn't obviously true.

gumby 7y ago

> Also, in the early days of steam locomotives a train had to stop every seven miles for water. That meant that every seven miles a water tower and the equipment to fill the water tower had to be built. I don't know that it was seven miles, but it wasn't a huge distance. And those sites either had to have local water or the water had to be shipped in by train. Often these depots were whistle stops, though of course they were an opportunity for a small community to form. My grandfather was born (over a century ago) and grew up on one of these stations in the middle of nowhere in the South Australian bush. He ended up working for the SA railway his entire working life. My Uncle showed me some pictures -- even the water was brought in by rail. Nobody would have lived there if the train had not needed an outpost.