27 ms·

> Done with muscle. Yes, Chinese muscle, many of whom died in the process. And I think we covered the 37 years of life expectancy during that time in the US, l

> Done with muscle. Yes, Chinese muscle, many of whom died in the process. And I think we covered the 37 years of life expectancy during that time in the US, let alone for a Chinese immigrant doing heavy labour at a fraction of white people's salaries. I for one would not have preferred being born in 1865 to work on this railroad. But feel free to voluntarily give up all your privileges at your current job, it's definitely easier to get things done at the labour standards of 1860, using underpaid immigrant labour to do dangerous work. Let's all just give up our rights! But my point was, the land was empty, i.e. not void of nature, but empty of people making political claims, e.g. like when building a transit line through Seattle. They're not remotely similar projects. The Seattle line of 22 miles you mentioned was built in the same 6 years, with need for far less 'muscle'. At least empty of political claims if we forget about the de facto genocide of the native Americans that had to go at some point to make the US what it is today. I'm not sharing any nostalgia you may have of construction in this time.

WalterBright 5y ago
> Chinese muscle, many of whom died in the process. There were many thousands of others. The eastern team did not employ any Chinese. > rights Nobody gave up any rights to work on the railroad. None were conscripts or forced labor. Any could walk away anytime they pleased. > They're not remotely similar projects. Nothing resembling the project had ever been done before. Lots of people thought it was infeasible. It was a triumph, exceeding even the wildest expectations. It arguably was the lynch pin that created the modern America. The railroad also saved lots of lives. Before the railroad, an estimated 65,000 people died on the Oregon Trail. After, they hopped on a train and arrived intact 3 days later.
- axiolite 5y ago
  > Before the railroad, an estimated 65,000 people died on the Oregon Trail. After, they hopped on a train and arrived intact 3 days later. "Railroad travel was dangerous in the early years. Train wrecks and derailments were common killing and injuring countless passengers and railroad men. Boilers blew up, bridges collapsed under the weight of trains, brittle iron tracks cracked, primitive breaks overheated and failed. The lack of a signal system sometimes caused two trains to be accidentally switched onto the same track and sent speeding into each other. The wood passenger car seemed almost to self-destruct on impact." "Passengers could be crushed and thrown out. Windows would shatter because there was no safety plate glass in that day. Stoves would overturn spilling hot coals through the crushed and broken wood and instantly trains were set on fire. Cars would fall into rivers off of bridges." "In the race to build the line there was naturally a long list of defects, unsafe bridges, tunnels too narrow, road bed not properly level. Poor rail alignment and carelessly laid cross ties. One government inspector declared it the worst railroad he had ever seen. But that didn't stop the railroaders." "More than six times as many railroad men as passengers were killed or injured in accidents during the early days of the transcontinental railroad. Railroading ranked as one of America's most dangerous jobs." "The technology was so dangerous that virtually every break man was maimed." Source: The Railroads That Tamed The West, Modern Marvels Season 2 Episode 9. 1996. https://search.alexanderstreet.com/preview/work/bibliographic_entity%7Cvideo_work%7C4101318#panel-transcript https://search.alexanderstreet.com/preview/work/bibliographi...
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    Nothing like the 65,000 deaths from the Oregon Trail.
- IkmoIkmo 5y ago
  > Nobody gave up any rights to work on the railroad. Because they didn't have any. Like the right for equal pay. The right to a safe working environment. The right to adequate breaks. The right to insurance etc. You think they had the same rights as you do today? I'm not saying the project was a bad project, it was amazing. I'm saying that the speed of its development isn't something we can long for, without also mentioning it requires conditions which completely suck for its workforce in 1865, just to mention one thing. > The railroad also saved lots of lives. Before the railroad, an estimated 65,000 people died on the Oregon Trail. After, they hopped on a train and arrived intact 3 days later. That's great, I'm happy it was built. You're missing the point. I'm not criticising the project, for its time it was amazing. I'm criticising the fact that it shouldn't be held as a standard for construction today. I'm not sure in what field of work you're in, but I'm sure if you give up half your salary, work twice as hard, take fewer breaks, give up your insurance and workplace safety, that the company could save money, hire more people, get things done faster. But while a project would get doen faster, actual society (i.e., the measure of your wellbeing, which is what much of life is about) would become worse. For example, we can probably build things faster if we took into Bangladeshi labourers and paid them a fraction of our salaries, let them sleep in barracks, give them no health insurance, no workplace safety, see tons of them die. Indeed, it's how Qatar is building out its infrastructure massively at the moment, at breakneck speeds. But it's no example to me of how we should look to construct things today, nor is the transcontinental railroad an example for today, however amazing it was to build in the 1860s.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    > Because they didn't have any. There were no guards to prevent the workers from dropping their tools and leaving. That is a fundamental right. > I'm criticising the fact that it shouldn't be held as a standard for construction today. A 100 times increase in distance in 10% of the time with no powered construction equipment cannot be explained as merely paying people half as much and not giving medical insurance (though I'm sure they had medical teams on site to do what they could, but medical practice in those days was a bit frightening to us today). There was no intent to grind up workers blood to use as lubricant, and in fact they did many things along the way to reduce worker deaths and injuries. See my other comment about how they cut down on the use of nitro as it was too dangerous, despite being twice as fast as black powder.

WalterBright 5y ago

> Chinese muscle, many of whom died in the process. There were many thousands of others. The eastern team did not employ any Chinese. > rights Nobody gave up any rights to work on the railroad. None were conscripts or forced labor. Any could walk away anytime they pleased. > They're not remotely similar projects. Nothing resembling the project had ever been done before. Lots of people thought it was infeasible. It was a triumph, exceeding even the wildest expectations. It arguably was the lynch pin that created the modern America. The railroad also saved lots of lives. Before the railroad, an estimated 65,000 people died on the Oregon Trail. After, they hopped on a train and arrived intact 3 days later.

axiolite 5y ago
> Before the railroad, an estimated 65,000 people died on the Oregon Trail. After, they hopped on a train and arrived intact 3 days later. "Railroad travel was dangerous in the early years. Train wrecks and derailments were common killing and injuring countless passengers and railroad men. Boilers blew up, bridges collapsed under the weight of trains, brittle iron tracks cracked, primitive breaks overheated and failed. The lack of a signal system sometimes caused two trains to be accidentally switched onto the same track and sent speeding into each other. The wood passenger car seemed almost to self-destruct on impact." "Passengers could be crushed and thrown out. Windows would shatter because there was no safety plate glass in that day. Stoves would overturn spilling hot coals through the crushed and broken wood and instantly trains were set on fire. Cars would fall into rivers off of bridges." "In the race to build the line there was naturally a long list of defects, unsafe bridges, tunnels too narrow, road bed not properly level. Poor rail alignment and carelessly laid cross ties. One government inspector declared it the worst railroad he had ever seen. But that didn't stop the railroaders." "More than six times as many railroad men as passengers were killed or injured in accidents during the early days of the transcontinental railroad. Railroading ranked as one of America's most dangerous jobs." "The technology was so dangerous that virtually every break man was maimed." Source: The Railroads That Tamed The West, Modern Marvels Season 2 Episode 9. 1996. https://search.alexanderstreet.com/preview/work/bibliographic_entity%7Cvideo_work%7C4101318#panel-transcript https://search.alexanderstreet.com/preview/work/bibliographi...
- WalterBright 5y ago
  Nothing like the 65,000 deaths from the Oregon Trail.
IkmoIkmo 5y ago
> Nobody gave up any rights to work on the railroad. Because they didn't have any. Like the right for equal pay. The right to a safe working environment. The right to adequate breaks. The right to insurance etc. You think they had the same rights as you do today? I'm not saying the project was a bad project, it was amazing. I'm saying that the speed of its development isn't something we can long for, without also mentioning it requires conditions which completely suck for its workforce in 1865, just to mention one thing. > The railroad also saved lots of lives. Before the railroad, an estimated 65,000 people died on the Oregon Trail. After, they hopped on a train and arrived intact 3 days later. That's great, I'm happy it was built. You're missing the point. I'm not criticising the project, for its time it was amazing. I'm criticising the fact that it shouldn't be held as a standard for construction today. I'm not sure in what field of work you're in, but I'm sure if you give up half your salary, work twice as hard, take fewer breaks, give up your insurance and workplace safety, that the company could save money, hire more people, get things done faster. But while a project would get doen faster, actual society (i.e., the measure of your wellbeing, which is what much of life is about) would become worse. For example, we can probably build things faster if we took into Bangladeshi labourers and paid them a fraction of our salaries, let them sleep in barracks, give them no health insurance, no workplace safety, see tons of them die. Indeed, it's how Qatar is building out its infrastructure massively at the moment, at breakneck speeds. But it's no example to me of how we should look to construct things today, nor is the transcontinental railroad an example for today, however amazing it was to build in the 1860s.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  > Because they didn't have any. There were no guards to prevent the workers from dropping their tools and leaving. That is a fundamental right. > I'm criticising the fact that it shouldn't be held as a standard for construction today. A 100 times increase in distance in 10% of the time with no powered construction equipment cannot be explained as merely paying people half as much and not giving medical insurance (though I'm sure they had medical teams on site to do what they could, but medical practice in those days was a bit frightening to us today). There was no intent to grind up workers blood to use as lubricant, and in fact they did many things along the way to reduce worker deaths and injuries. See my other comment about how they cut down on the use of nitro as it was too dangerous, despite being twice as fast as black powder.