Central Pacific Railroad Photographic History Museum

---

Home Exhibits Chinese History FAQ's Links

CPRR Museum  Web Rights & Permissions; Homework

Choose Another Page  Museum HOMEPAGE  EXHIBITS Index  —Favorite CPRR Stereographs  —Hart Stereoviews  —New York Public Library  —Muybridge Stereoviews  —Union Pacific Railroad  —Unknowns  —Railroad Maps  —Engravings  —Ephemera and Collectibles  —Nelson's Guidebook, 1871  —Railroads Shipped by Sea  —Locomotive Falcon  Stereograph Catalogs  READ ABOUT  —Lewis M. Clement Biography  —Eastward to Promontory ...  Chinese Railroad Workers  Book List  Online Books  Hopkins RR Library Catalog  Links to other websites  Webrings  Frequently Asked Questions  How you can help / plans  What's New  Technical Notes  Special Requests  User Agreement  Site Map  CPRR.org Welcome  E-mail  Search Internet

---

© 2008 CPRR.org. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of the User Agreement which permits personal use web viewing only; no copying; arbitration; no warranty.

---

More (less) FAQ's (Page 2 of 2)
Also including infrequently asked questions and miscellaneous comments.

Back to FAQ's

Railroads and Manifest Destiny.
It is a cliche that railroads made America, and historians point to the Pacific Railroad of 1869 and its effect of binding the Pacific and Atlantic states. However, it recently occurred to me that the railroad truly made America in a deeper and more profound way. What first came to my attention with the effect of a light bulb switched on were the relative dates for two key events: Asa Whitney [first] submitted his plan for a Pacific railroad to Congress (through his representatives) in January 1845. The term "Manifest Destiny" did not first [appear] in print until six months later (erroneously attributed* to John L. Sullivan) – in an essay about Texas, but with reference to "the railroad".

["... the fulfilment of our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions. ... there can be no doubt that the population now fast streaming down upon California will both assert and maintain that independence. Whether they will then attach themselves to our Union or not, is not to be predicted with any certainty. Unless the projected rail-road across the continent to the Pacific be carried into effect, perhaps they may not; though even in that case, the day is not distant when the Empires of the Atlantic and Pacific would again flow together into one, as soon as their inland border should approach each other. But that great work, colossal as appears the plan on its first suggestion, cannot remain long unbuilt. Its necessity for this very purpose of binding and holding together in its iron clasp our fast settling Pacific region with that of the Mississippi valley—the natural facility of the route—the ease with which any amount of labor for the construction can be drawn in from the over-crowded populations of Europe, to be paid in the lands made valuable by the progress of the work itself—and its immense utility to the commerce of the world with the whole eastern coast of Asia, alone almost sufficient for the support of such a road ... "
"Annexation" The United States Democratic review. Volume 17(85):5-10, J.& H.G. Langley, New York, July, 1845. (unsigned editorial)]

It occurred to me that the very existence of railroad technology – even before actual construction – inspired westward expansion by promising a means of binding new territory to the Union. (The telegraph has to be part of it.) It is very difficult to asign motive to anyone, but I am convinced that there was essentially no interest in western expansion at the time of the Louisiana Purchase. The negotiations were only for New Orleans and west Florida. The French threw in that country west of the Mississippi at the last hour. But by 1843 when settlers began moving to Oregon by the wagonload, this clearly had changed. (Texas fits in here, too, but there seems to have been a mixed bag of expectations – whether it was really American expansion, or merely emigration). It does make me wonder how much – if any – a role did the desire to secure optional railroad routes for a Pacific railroad play in the Mexican War. Whitney's route was Great Lakes to Columbia River via South Pass – the only pass then believed practical then within the territory of the United States. Anyway, does this notion that the mere potential of the railroad opened [or played a previously unrecognized role in opening] the frontier deserve more research?
... we see a similar pattern in our own day. No sooner is the internet "invented" than people begin to imagine that the internet will do away with libraries, and the telephone, and yield all other kinds of marvelous things. That is the kind of thing I'm wondering about in regard to railroads. We – railroad historians – spend a lot of time recording the development of particular technological features and the construction of miles of track, but what about the expectations that railroads inspired? and how were those expectations manifest in daily living (manifest by people who had never seen a train)? There is a story – perhaps more myth than true – that Leland Stanford told his seasick wife on their way to California that he would build her a railroad for her return journey. I wonder if people really went to California thinking they could ride a train home someday. (Indeed, many did just that, whether they imagined it would happen or not.)
*Linda Hudson, "Mistress of Manifest Destiny: a biography of Jane McManus Storm Cazneau 1807-1878)" Austin: Texas State Historical Association, 2001, makes a strong case [based on statistical analysis of the writing styles of O'Sullivan and McManus using signed articles by each of them for comparison] that Jane McManus [a staff writer for John L. O'Sullivan, editor of the United States Magazine and Democratic Review, aka Cora Montgomery] was the real author of that editorial – as well as others. (McManus was from Troy, NY, likely a Mahican Indian, and likely, too, a one-time mistress of Aaron Burr.)
—Wendell Huffman, 9/24/2004 [in part from the R&LHS Newsgroup]
Currier & Ives: American Railroad Scene: Lightning Express Trains Leaving the Junction. Courtesy of Vanessa Rudisill Stern. Above, right.

It goes much deeper. The first voyages of discovery (on land after the [Louisiana] Purchase & Lewis & Clark) were made for the purpose of locating railroad and other transportation routes. Fremont, is one example, another is the Southern route. A good deal of political wrangling and compromise – and dead ends attended the railroad discussions. It is not coincidence that the railroad was approved after the Civil War started – the South was holding out for the Southern route – and held up all others. I don't think that the Mexican War was not railroad route related – but do think that the Gadsden purchase was, even though it was one of the odder purchases made. Certainly the railroad surveys opened much of the West and much of the subsequent history is based on them. From Hayden and Gunnison, Fremont, and others – the role these surveys played in no small part kept the thought of the West in the mind of the country, especially when partnered with the discovery of mineral wealth. —Bob Webber [from the R&LHS Newsgroup]

... Sometimes possibilies inspire and motivate people much more than realities. And we know that Southern Pacific's southwest route across the continent required the Gadsden Purchase in 1853. ... —Stuart A. Forsyth [from the R&LHS Newsgroup]

... In 1845, the railroad had been around for some 17-18 years, and those in the position to make a term like "manifest destiny" become a common term certainly would have been thinking about the potential the railroad provided. ... —Schuyler G. Larrabee [from the R&LHS Newsgroup]

... a rather intriguing thought. While I'm not sure that desired railroad routes played much of a roll in the US starting the Mexican War (although it is probably worth looking into a little further), we of course know that the Gadsden Purchase (which became the southern parts of Arizona and New Mexico) was specifically railroad inspired. It seems to me I have seen articles on transcontinental railroads as early as 1839, to Oregon, (in the Democratic Review, as I recall ...   Among other things, the Democratic Review published writings by the Existentialists grouped around Emerson. ...). I seem to recall Manifest Destiny showing up there, too, but I'd have to dig to find the date (it's been nearly 20 years since I wandered through those pages). It seems to me that the initial "use" of Manifest Destiny was in a sentence that included both words, but not in a unified phrase.

[" ... In its magnificent domain of space and time, the nation of many nations is destined to manifest to mankind the excellence of divine principles; to establish on earth the noblest temple ever dedicated to the worship of the Most High – the Sacred and the True. Its floor shall be a hemisphere – its roof the firmament of the star-studded heavens, and its congregation an Union of many Republics, comprising hundreds of happy millions, calling, owning no man master, but governed by God's natural and moral law of equality, the law of brotherhood – of "peace and good will amongst men.". . .
Yes, we are the nation of progress, of individual freedom, of universal enfranchisement. Equality of rights is the cynosure of our union of States, the grand exemplar of the correlative equality of individuals; and while truth sheds its effulgence, we cannot retrograde, without dissolving the one and subverting the other. We must onward to the fulfilment of our mission – to the entire development of the principle of our organization – freedom of conscience, freedom of person, freedom of trade and business pursuits, universality of freedom and equality. This is our high destiny, and in nature's eternal, inevitable decree of cause and effect we must accomplish it. ... "
"The Great Nation of Futurity," The United States Democratic Review, 6(23):426-430, 1839.]

Subsequently (but not all that long after) someone welded them into a phrase. As to idea that the mere potential that the railroad opened the frontier, we certainly know that settlement patterns West of, say, the Missouri River were very different from the earlier settlement patterns West of the Alleghenies. And I think the railroads played an important roll in bringing about the new pattern (along with the occasional precious metal mining frenzy). ... —Kyle Williams Wyatt, Curator of History & Technology, California State Railroad Museum [from the R&LHS Newsgroup]

The role was considerable as the U.S. failed to secure the southern route across New Mexico and Arizona by invasion and a treaty fouled by a faulty survey. So, instead of just taking the territory by force of arms, which we thought we already had done, we bought it a few years later through the Gadsden Purchase. I doubt Lewis & Clark suffered from railroad fever, but one of my relatives born at that time (1806) certainly did. He would have been aware of the Granite Railway in Massachusetts (1826) and rode the Allegheny Portage Railroad in 1835 when he emigrated to the Illinois country newly opened (i.e. cleared of Blackhawk et. al.) for settlement. I suspect his primary goal was capital accumulation, and railroads would have been part of his thinking although surviving records are moot on that point in choosing a homestead. Regardless he quickly became a railroad booster agitating for a branch from the Galena & Chicago Union (chartered 1836). When that failed, he and others formed a paper railroad early in the 1850s leading to a real railroad after the Civil War. His story is not unique and in it's broadest terms was quite common. I would think that at some point ... the public consciousness was so infused with railroad fever that separating it from Manifest Destiny would be difficult. The two were well-established and feeding off each other by the time Manifest Destiny got its name and Asa Whitney proposed his transcontinental railroad (1845). And don't forget a couple of important technological precursors: advances in steamboat technology turning the Mississippi, Missouri and Ohio Rivers into a trade and emigration arteries (starting in 1811) and canal fever spurred by the success of the Erie Canal (chartered 1817, opened 1825). ... —Bill Diven [from the R&LHS Newsgroup]

Stereograph Viewing.
When I was a kid, my dad who was a physician showed me one fascinating way to view stereographic images [a pair of pictures that simulate the distance between your two eyes].  The examples we used were three-dimensional depictions of molecules, but it works with any stereo image. You cross your eyes while staring at a spot between the two images, then while still crossing, let your eyes relax a bit until a third image begins to emerge between the two.  Your brain does the rest.  Suddenly, there's a 3-D image which you can actually study while holding your eyes crossed. Uncrossing is a bit uncomfortable, but there's a trick to that too.  You close your eyes for a couple of seconds while letting your eyes uncross (eyes closed), only opening them in the uncrossed state.  That's it. —Carlos Fernandez-Gray, Berkeley CA

Wasn't the actual completion of the railroad in September of 1869 with the opening of the San Joaquin River bridge making it possible to stay on the train (westbound) all the way to San Francisco via the ferry terminal at Alameda, California? —C.E. "Bear" Wilcox
You could say that – California State Historical Landmark "No. 780-7 First Transcontinental Railroad – Site of Completion of Pacific Railroad - The construction of the San Joaquin River bridge completed the last link of the transcontinental railroad. Building has proceeded simultaneously from the bay area and Sacramento to meet at the San Joaquin River. The first train crossed the bridge on September 8, 1869." on the original Western Pacific Railroad ... but how about the Missouri River railroad bridge from Council Bluffs to Omaha, not completed until the 25th of March, 1873 (see Omaha maps)? – for ferry crossing the Missouri River prior to that, see the Council Bluffs & Nebraska Ferry Company & Union Pacific Transfer Album 1864-1871; (Ron Goldfeder of the Museum of Transportation, St. Louis notes that "According to The Story of the Western Railroads by Riegel the C&NW [Chicago and North Western Railroad] was the first to Council Bluffs in 1867, and got the contract to carry the supplies for the UP to that point, and later the passenger connection for UP trains. W.B. Ogden was the president of both these lines in 1867."*) John C. Decker notes that "All Roger Grant reports, on page 30 of his history of the Chicago & North Western, is that, having built westward only, the railroad, using its franchise entitled Cedar Rapids and Missouri River Railroad, reached Council Bluffs on January 17, 1867. [Eugene Lewis notes that CNW "Passenger service began February 8, 1867."*] Then on February 8, 1867, there was a big gala with the usual events. That would have made any similar celebration regarding the opening of the bridge somewhat superfluous. In the meantime, the Rock Island arrived [at Council Bluffs] on June 5, 1869, and the [Chicago] Burlington [& Quincy] on January 18, 1870; so if a gala were to have taken place it would have involved four railroad companies plus a growing community."* Adrian Ettlinger notes that "Maury Klein's UP history, Volume 1, published 1987, has a whole chapter devoted to the bridge. Ironically, whoever indexed the book seemed to want to keep this chapter a secret; it is not included among many references to the bridge. Anyway, the idea that the UP was too financially strapped to build the bridge is probably an erroneous conclusion, drawing from the fact the Cities of Omaha and Council Bluffs provided aid to the tune of $250,000 and $200,000 respectively. But the reason they provided the aid was that the location of the crossing had become controversial, and an alternate proposal was to cross at Bellevue to the south, which would have left Omaha at the end of a stub line. As Klein puts it, the question was resolved by putting the location 'up for auction,' and the combined financial assistance of the two cities was the determining factor. But it was the UP who built the bridge. Klein also includes some interesting photos of the bridge under construction, and also one photo of tracks across the river on the ice."* Adrian Ettlinger notes that "Klein does not give anything more specific than 'March, 1872' for the opening of the bridge. Surprisingly, he seems not to have researched any story of whatever ceremonies may have accompanied the opening. But he does tell a somewhat surprising tale of how the bridge was grossly underutilized in its first years. A stalemate occurred as to whether the transfers of passengers and freight would be at Omaha or Council Bluffs. The eastern roads wanted the UP to pick up on their side, the UP wanted the eastern roads to cross the bridge. The UP was under pressure from the City of Omaha, which refused to make good on its pledge of bonds and real estate unless Omaha were made the transfer point. The "compromise" was the "infamous" Omaha Bridge Transfer. To quote Klein: '.....managed to negate most of the advantages offered by the bridge. Westbound freight and passengers were unloaded in Council Bluffs and run over the bridge in dummy trains to the 20th Street Depot in Omaha, where put aboard another train. The Transfer was treated as a branch with its accounts kept separate from the railroad. By this ingenious method the bridge became not a boon to faster schedules but an obstacle requiring the same number of transfers as the old ferry. The river had been conquered but not the old habit of bumbling policy.' ... It sounds as if car interchange may not have been all that common in those days."* Another contender is the completion of an alternate rail route via Colorado that bypassed the unfinished UPRR Missouri River bridge. There is a Transcontinental Railroad Comanche Crossing Museum and the Comanche Crossing Historical Society (56060 East Colfax Avenue, Strasburg, Colorado, 303/622-4322) writes that "If you think the transcontinental railroad was completed at Promontory [Summit], Utah, you've been had! While the Utah site is the place where the rails of the Union Pacific and Central Pacific Railroads met, the actual completion of the transcontinental line didn't occur until August 15, 1870 in Strasburg, Colorado." The Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation confirms that this was completed at "Comache Crossing, East of Strasburg, near railroad mile post 602 (National Register 08/10/1970, 5AH.163): At this site on August 15, 1870, the last spike was driven into the first continuous transcontinental railroad. The completion of railroad bridges over the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers allowed all rail transport over this route. An unpretentious white monument marks the spot which is named for a nearby creek crossed by the railroad." (Wendell Huffman notes that "15 August 1870 is considered by some to mark the true completion date of the first transcontinental railroad across the United States. I'm not even sure of the railroad completed on that date, but I suspect it was either the Union Pacific Eastern Division or the Kansas Pacific. The location was some 3812 feet east of the station at Comanche, Colorado (now Strasburg). The reason that this 'qualifies' is that those tracks connected eastward across the Chanute bridge at Kansas City (opened July 3 1869), while the Missouri River bridge at Omaha was not opened until March 1873. (I believe that cars were run across the ice before that at Omaha. Was there a car ferry?) I presume the railroad across the Chanute bridge connected to Chicago across the Rock Island bridge across the Mississippi (opened 1856), but I don't know this for a fact. Just for reference, the Eads Bridge at St. Louis opened July 1874."*) Kyle Williams Wyatt, Curator of History & Technology, California State Railroad Museum comments that "On the other hand, I believe the UP had a car ferry between Omaha and Council Bluffs (with tracks directly on ice during winter), and through cars traveled from coast to coast in 1869 using that route, so I think that constitutes a complete connection. Further I argue that most traffic did not travel via the Kansas route but instead traveled via Omaha, so certainly the railroads considered that the through route after 1869. If we are arguing that only solid rail connections count, then I observe that between 1879 and about 1936 the Southern Pacific routed much (most?) of its traffic west of Sacramento via the old California Pacific and a car ferry between Benicia and Port Costa (plus ferry connections between Oakland and San Francisco), so does that mean that the Transcontinental connection was severed for those years?"* Adrian Ettlinger responds that "... I don't think you can say the connection was 'severed' just because the SP's fastest route was via the Benecia-Port Costa Ferry. There were, after all, any number of direct rail routes that were in use at the same time, e.g., Niles Canyon. Furthermore, one might quibble and say that during the time of year when the tracks were across the ice at Omaha, there was a direct track connection. ... "* Kyle Williams Wyatt responds that " ... many through railroad routes included car ferries, and that the railroads considered these to be through routes. Therefore, we should, too. Just because a routing without a car ferry exists doesn't mean that the railroads customarily used it. I believe that most traffic in 1869-70 went via the Council Bluffs-Omaha route, not via the Kansas Pacific route. So I argue that the Bluffs-Omaha route, including the car ferry, constitutes the first through route, as demonstrated by the actual usage by the railroads. ... I'm not entirely sure about whether the May 11, 1869, excursionists changed cars at Promontory (and/or elsewhere on their trip). However the Boston Board of Trade's Boston-San Francisco Trans-Continental Excursion of June-July 1870 definitely used the same set of Pullman cars for the entire trip, so they certainly demonstrated a through route – via the Council Bluffs-Omaha car ferry, and also down Market Street in San Francisco to the front door of their hotel. ... I believe the first US railroad to touch both the Pacific and the Atlantic (at the Gulf of Mexico) was the Southern Pacific. The first North American railroad to truly span the major breadth of the continent would be the Canadian Pacific. Both these events occurred in the 1880s."* Others will contend that the Panama Railroad, completed circa January 28, 1855, was actually the first rail route to span the continent (Wendell Huffman comments that " ... I'd suggest that [the Panama Railroad] was not a North American railroad since at the time it was built it was wholly located in the South American country of Columbia. Now, I don't know where you chose to divide South American from North America, but if in the modern world you chose the canal itself as the line of demarcation, you still end up with the railroad in South America as the railroad is on the east–South American–side of the canal."*). But the national celebration on May 10th, 1869 corresponded to the end of the race between the CPRR and UPRR with the completion of the railroads as defined in the enabling legislation, the Pacific Railroad Act of 1862, so that is taken as the "official" completion date (more than seven years ahead of schedule!): "Section 17: ... {Main line to be finished ...} Provided, That if said roads are not completed, so as to form a continuous line of railroad, ready for use, from the Missouri river to the navigable waters of the Sacramento river in California, by the first day of July, eighteen hundred and seventy-six, the whole of all of said railroads before mentioned, and to be constructed under the provisions of this act, together with all their furniture, fixtures, rolling-stock, machine shops, lands, tenements, hereditaments, and property of every kind and character, shall be forfeited to and taken possession of by the United States." However, Bowman reports that "The question of completion was later raised by the Union Pacific, as it was related to the company's reception of federal subsidies and the payment of 5% interest on its net earnings until the bonds were repaid. In 1879 the U. S. supreme court decided for November 6, 1869, as the date of completion. The completion for legal and financial reasons does not affect the celebration of the completion of the tracks for traffic between the east and the west."
* [from the R&LHS Newsgroup]

In A Great and Shining Road John Hoyt Williams tells us liquid Nitroglycerine "was poured into holes drilled fifteen to eighteen inches into the granite, capped with a plug, and fired by a slow match or a percussion cap."  How exactly did the percussion cap work?  Was there a fuse involved? —Mara Levy
> There is running discussion of the use of nitroglycerin and the use of "electric batteries" for its ignition in the Collis P. Huntington Papers 1856-1901 during the year 1867.  John R. Gillis in his paper given before the ASCE in 1872 on the construction of tunnels on the CPRR describes the use of nitroglycerin but makes no mention of how it was ignited.  I have never found any source that mentions how the ignition was effected other than the use of "electric batteries" but just how it performed the ignition was never explained. —Edson T. Strobridge [great grand nephew of James Harvey Strobridge]
>In 1867 an awful lot of fuse was purchased, but I have not found any record of the purchase of batteries.  Also see the Nobel Museum. —G.J. "Chris" Graves, Newcastle, California

From the Southern Pacific Bulletin, July, 1927, page 13:

"A track gang working a curving rain in Ten-Mile Canyon along the Humbolt River in Nevada during the building of the original Central Pacific Lines ... The picture was probably taken during 1867.  Crude methods were used in curving the 56 pound to the yard  iron rail compared with modern machinery necessary to curve the 90 lb., 110 lb. and the latest 130 pound steel rails.  Two ties were placed on the tracks about twenty-five feet apart.  The thirty-two foot rail was laid on its side across the two ties.  Six or eight men stood on the rail.  Another man, as the one shown in the picture with the hammer, started at one of the rail wielding lusty swings with his hammer, the weight of the men standing on the rail adding the spring necessary to bend the rail.  One man would step off the rail to make room for the man with the hammer, and then would step back on the rail again.  The hammer men acquired great skill in their work.  The rail would be stood on end and by sighting along the rail or measuring with a string, the hammer man would know just where to give the rail a few more blows with the hammer to give the proper balanced curve.  White laborers were engaged in this class of work."  

In all  my wanderings along the grade, I have found but one such sledge, a 15 lb. sledge made by Thomas Nelson and Abner Doble, doing business as "Nelson and Doble," 135-137 Fremont St., San Francisco, in 1868.  This was found just east of Mormon Hill, Cobre, Nevada. —GJ Chris Graves, NewCastle, AltaCal'a.

Roger Brown, San Diego, California, writes: "From the photo it appears that the two stout wooden handles near each end of the rail are levers. The pressure on the rail can be adjusted by how far the men sit from the rail. The man in the foreground is about 2 ft. from the end. Pressure is applied by the lever and the rail bending occurs when the rail is struck by a heavy hammer. It means that the rails were relatively soft and malleable. The curve is more than required because the rail will likely spring back to less curve than with the lever pressure applied. The levers are over a tie and likely were hooked and driven under or into the tie similar to a hay fork or an ice tong."

What was the standard rail length used by the CPRR? I understand that 30 foot rails were usual for most railroads, but I saw a reference to a 32-foot rail in the answer to the question about on-site curving of rails. What was the standard number of ties per rail? Did they use "joint ties" i.e. closely spaced ties at the joint between two rail section? Did they lay the rails with even joints or broken joints? That is, did they have the joints for the left and right rails at the same point on a section of track or did they stagger them?
(1) Staggered rail joints – yes, abundant photographic evidence on construction era photographs show staggered joints. Standard rail construction practice in that period (my 1877 Roadmaster's Assistant Guide details this at pg. 9-10).
(2) No they didn't double tie in pairs (see #4 below) under the rail joints; just put a tie directly under the rail ends at the center of the fish plate. Again, photographic evidence of the construction era shows this although the double tie support was recommended (1877 Roadmaster's Assistant Guide, pg. 9, see #4 below).
(3) The standard rail joints was 30' BUT due to the joint staggering, one had to insert lengths of 24', 20', 18', and 15' depending on the degree of curvature. In the description of the 10 miles of rail laid the weight carried into 10 miles 56 ft comes out to 560#/rail or 10yds(30)/56# rail/yd (the writer could have assumed all rail was 30' but it would have been impossible to properly stagger the joints with only 30' rails – Ass't Roadmaster's Guide, pg. 25, gives as follows: 704 15' ft rails, 660 16 ft rails, 567 18ft rails, 503 21ft rails, 377 28ft rails, 352 30ft rails for 1 mile of track. (on pg. 9 of the Guide) uniform rails recommended except shorter ones for curves; laid on the INNER rail of the curve (Guide pg. 10) to maintain the joint stagger.
(4) The number of ties/mile varied as to the degree of curvature the spacing varied according to the curvature: 2' center to center is 2,641; 2 1/2' center to center is 2,113; 2 3/4 center to center is 1,931; and, 3' center to center is 1,761. Galloway in his book The First transcontinental Railroad (1950 on pg. 142 states the tie number/mile varied from 2,260/mile to 2,640/ mile implying a 2 1/2' spacing down to a (2,260 divided by 2,640 times 2 1/2) is about 2' spacing. The 1878 Guide recommends 16 ties/30' rail' (pg 9) not less than 2' spacing with 10" spacing tie edge to tie edge at the rail joints. —Charles N. Sweet

Clearly rail lengths were generally limited by the length of cars to haul them, but when the Central Pacific shipped rail to California via Panama starting in 1868, they were limited by the confines of the steamships – 20 feet lengths as I recall. The limitation was a combination of hatch size and space in holds, as rail had to be fed down through the hatch and laid secure in the hold. Locomotives shipped via Panama (as opposed to sail around Cape Horn) had to have their boilers cut in half for the same reason. —Wendell Huffman.[from the R&LHS Newsgroup]

Long after the CPRR was constructed, the length of flatcars which had been smaller and varied became standardized at about 40 feet, so subsequently, rail length became uniform at 39 feet ... about [the] 1900-1915 era. ... Previously the standard was 33 foot lengths (to fit in 34 foot cars). ... the earlier length was 29 feet (to fit in 30 foot cars) ... Civil War-era rails were 12' - 25' long. [from the R&LHS Newsgroup]

What were the standard colors of CPRR passenger cars and depots? 
I just came across an old newspaper article which referred to a depot roof being painted "regulation" red by CPRR painters, and the folks at the California State Railway Museum chose to paint the depot there two-toned green.  I've also seen a color photo of a preserved/restored car (reportedly in a park in Yuma AZ) purported to be an old CPRR passenger car ...and a green similar to one of those in the two toned scheme predominates with red trim, like the depot roof.  Could these have been the colors?  Doesn't anybody know, either from old lithos, work orders, or writings?  This might make a great topic for your website. I've been experimenting with my somewhat older videocam whose viewfinder renders a [black & white] image.  I'm mixing paints and viewing them side by side thru the viewfinder.  Findings so far: Red and Green look dark, yellow looks white.  Orange and light green come out identically medium.  Increasingly lighter shades of green become lighter. In the numerous photos on the CPRR Museum site, there appear to be two distinct shades of passenger cars, particularly evident in those photos when they appear in the same train.  My guess based on my simple experimenting is that the light cars were yellow while the somewhat darker cars were either orange or light green.  This suggests that there was a change at some point.  I'm thinking that maybe the CPRR started out with yellow cars (probably called "orange" by one of the Big Four), but since the Union Pacific colors were yellow and red, decided to go with something more distinctive.  Pure conjecture.  It's a wonder that nobody has analyzed the paint layers or traces of whatever old CPRR cars might remain. ... The article appears in the Berkeley Herald of April 5, 1894.  Review of my own records last evening indicates that the SP took over the operation of the Berkeley Branch Railroad from the Central Pacific in 1885, nine years before.  Thus, a question remains about whose "regulation" dictated the painting of the red roof.  SP's regulation roof color was moss green according to all the sources I've seen.  And there's a possibility that SP retained the "regulation" CPRR colors for the Berkeley branchline until it began constructing its own standard depots.  The old CP-built depot in Berkeley was replaced by an SP standard No.23 by about 1895-96, very close to the date of the article mentioned.  Oddly, no article seems to have appeared announcing the change, but it's obvious when comparing old photos and plats. I'm not sure this leaves us any closer to resolving the CPRR paint color mystery.  I'm astounded and mystified why nobody at the time–it seems–described the colors. ... —Carlos Fernandez-Gray, Berkeley CA
> Make sure that the spectral sensitivity of your videocamera matches that of collodion glass plate negatives before relying upon your color experiments. The 19th century photographs were blue/ultraviolet sensitive. So the green and red component of colors would likely register as grey with your black and white videocamera, but black in prints made from glass plate negatives with the late 1860's to early 1870's collodion emulsion. —CPRR.org
> The Sony Videocam (about 10 years old) shows red as the darkest shade, virtually black in the viewfinder.  Green is comparable, but visibly slightly lighter.  I tested for a darker green using evergreen tree foliage and a mature ivy leaf, and in the viewfinder, they're indistinguishable from red.  In the light, however, ivy leaves can appear whitish AND black, depending on which is in the sunlight.  An 1880s photo of the old Berkeley CP depot includes ivy in the foreground, and the same effect is apparent.   I found no difference between dull and lighted red, so in full sunlight, some difference between red and green would probably be apparent in old BW photos, except in the case of a dull, non-shiny dark green–such as a classic Pullman. Incidentally, in the photo mentioned above, the small depot appears to have a two-tone paint scheme on its walls with a horizontal dividing line exactly halfway up.  The tone above is very light, but not white, suggesting it's light green or yellow.  The color below is only slightly darker, but distinct, suggesting a darker light green or yellow.  I'm inclined to go with the two-toned light green in view of the way the restored Sacramento CP depot was painted although I have yet to discover why the restorers decided on those colors.  I'd like to check the BW appearance of the Sacramento depot with my videocam to compare the tones.  BTW, I understand that there are two other surviving CP depots, one in Auburn and the other in Chico–someone ought to analyze their paint layers, if they haven't already. —Carlos Fernandez-Gray Berkeley CA

What was the average rate of railroad construction?
The rate of progress varied greatly from about a foot a day when blasting through rock in the summit tunnel to the world's record of ten miles in one day.

An 1883 government reports provides some detail:

UPRR:
The number of miles of road constructed and accepted during each governmental fiscal year is as follows:

Year ending June 30, 1866 105
Year ending June 30, 1867 240
Year ending June 30, 1868 275
Year ending June 30, 1869 380
Year ending June 30, 1870 85.88 ...

CPRR:
The first map of definite location of this road, "from Sacramento, Cal., to a point 50 miles east thereof," was filed in the General Land Office October 20, 1864, and the last one, "from Monument Point to Echo Summit, head of Echo Canon, Utah," was filed October 20, 1868. Maps of construction have been filed, with affidavits of the chief engineer of the company, bearing the dates following:
Sacramento, Cal., to the 31st mile-post, October 19, 1865, and from the-

31st to 74th mile-post, September 28, 1866.
74th to 94th mile-post, October 1, 1867.
94th to 114th mile-post, June 16, 1868.
114th to 138th mile-post, November 14, 1867.
138th to 158th mile-post, May 2, 1868.
158th to 178th mile-post, July 2, 1868.
178th to 215th mile-post, July 28, 1868.
215th to 255th mile-post, August 8, 1868.
255th to 290th mile-post, August 29, 1868.
290th to 310th mile-post, September 7, 1868.
310th to 330th mile-post, September 10, 1868.
330th to 350th mile-post, September 26, 1868.
350th to 370th mile-post, October 16, 1868.
370th to 390th mile-post, October16, 1868.
390th to 410th mile-post, November 12 1868.
410th to 430th mile-pest, November 13, 1868
430th to 450th mile post, December 28, 1868
450th to 470th mile post December 24, 1868
470th to 490th mile post January 8 1869
490th to 510th mile post January 28, 1869
510th to 530th mile-post, February 6, 1869
530th to 550th mile-post, February 16, 1869
550th to 570th mile-post, March 12, 1869
570th to 610th mile post, March 30 1869
610th to 630th mile post April 5 1869
630th to 650th mile post, April 13 1869
650th to 670th mile post, April 28 1869
670th to 690th mile post May 6, 1869
From the 690.3th mile-post to Ogden, Utah, the road was constructed by the Union Pacific Railroad Company.

The number of miles constructed during each fiscal year was as follows:

Year ending June 30, 1866 31
Year ending June 30, 1867 43
Year ending June 30,1868 84
Year ending June 30, 1869 532.3
Total 690.3

You can also calculate averages from the lengths of the two railroads and the construction dates for the CPRR and UPRR.

Can anyone help me understand why Judah chose the Donner Pass route instead of modifying the existing, well used wagon road from Placerville to Virginia City?  I understand there are two summits to cross with the southern route, but was that really enough reason to use that horrible northern route?  It's interesting that even though Judah had crossed the summit dozens of times looking for a good route, and undoubtedly knew of the Donner Trail, that Doc Strong was able to convince him that the route from Dutch Flat to Donner Pass was the best route across the Sierras. —Doug Gilbertson
> A single ascent and descent across the Sierra Nevada summit was indeed essential. —CPRR.org
> Judah did not recklessly choose the location he did but with all the considerations he had to make he chose the one he did for good reasons. Actually he performed barometric surveys on at least five routes which he briefly describes in his Chief Engineers Report. Modern day railroad engineers continue to proclaim that if the route was to be selected today it would essentially be in the same location as it is now as it is still the most practical crossing of the Sierras from Sacramento.   Doc Strong did not have to convince Judah of the benefits of the Donner route after he showed him the ridge he could cross from the south side at Emigrants gap to the north side with no deep canyons or major rivers to cross to reach the summit. It was and still is considered by many engineers as a brilliant piece of location engineering especially when one considers it was made over 140 years ago.   I would suggest your correspondent read and study Judah's Chief Engineer's Report as it may help his understanding of the problems and conditions that were considered and the reasons Judah made the decisions he did. —Edson T. Strobridge
> Well, there were two advantages to the Placerville route. It remains at a lower altitude for much of the distance as it crosses the Pacific Crest, so the significant problems resulting from heavy snowfall would have been lessened. They would have had snow, but less of it. And it is likely Judah did not realize the extent of the problems caused by snow, and thus did not make it a consideration in his decision making process. Additionally, the SVRR was already in Folsom, so they would have been off to a good start. However, despite the advantages, the overwhelming obstacle to the Placerville Route was the double summits. I believe this was of paramount importance to Judah, and for good reason. Moving a heavy train up and over the summit of the Sierras is a time consuming and expensive task. Doing it twice, when it is not necessary, would be unthinkable.  I am not sure that Placerville would be a good second choice. Astute railroad historian Wendell Huffman suggests the Henness Pass route may have been more practical than the Donner Route. Certainly the second summit (Dog Valley around Crystal Peak) would have been much less of an obstacle than that the second summit on the Placerville Route. And had one been willing to add more mileage to the Henness Pass route, they could have looped southward and followed the same Truckee River Canyon. More northern routes, like Honey Lake and Madaline Plains offered  much easier crossings, but would have been much longer. So, there were other alignments that may have been better than the Placerville Route.  The natural ramp up the western slope of the Sierra, via Dutch Flat, provides a "practical" route to the Pacific Crest. And once the grade reaches Truckee, the descent down the Truckee River Canyon into Nevada is an easy one. Once there, the alignment is perfect to progress east. The most amazing engineering in my opinion, is the alignment that took place between Summit Valley and Horseshoe Bend. The current alignment is one of the most direct, and passes within the immediate area of the Nevada mines, an important concern at the time. So, do I think the Donner Route is the best? Probably. Was there a better route? Maybe, but I doubt it. Do I think the Placerville Route was a better choice? No, no chance. I think it was Mead Kibbey that relayed a statement made by the Chief Engineer of the Southern Pacific Railroad "with a few minor changes, the current route is the best known." —Dana Scanlon [historian in Sacramento]
> I suspect the primary reason for the selection of Donner (more properly Stephens) Pass is that all the other known practical routes (and all were known well before Judah ever saw California in 1854) were encumbered by state franchises to wagon toll roads, and Judah recognized from the very beginning that a wagon road had to proceed the railroad. It was said that Judah never even examined the Placerville route and traveled it only once on his way back to Sacramento from Virginia City. The Donner route itself had already been surveyed for a wagon road AND RAILROAD before Strong ever showed it to Judah in October 1860. From August 1854 until July 1860, Judah expected (and advocated) the route through either Nobles Pass or the Madeline Plains for the railroad. This was the route surveyed by Edward G. Beckwith for the US Army. The discovery of the Comstock–while Judah was in Washington DC–made the high cost of a route directly through the central Sierra appear financially feasible. Remember–engineers could put a railroad almost anywhere–Mt. Washington, Pikes Peak, etc. Engineers spoke of practicality, but but the ultimate measure of practicality was money. Engineers in general–and Judah in particular–looked upon railroads as tools to move money from other people's pockets into their own. Despite their expectations, the Huntington-Stanford-Hopkins-Crocker brothers-controlled Dutch Flat and Donner Lake Wagon Road attracted very little business and the connecting/parallel Central Pacific carried very little of the San Francisco-Virginia City commerce. The business they did secure was bound for Idaho. It is my contention that the CP would have been more profitable had they followed Judah's original route up the Sacramento Valley and around the north end of the Sierra Nevada. They would have avoided the very expensive construction in the mountains, would have accumulated federal bonds faster, would have carried even more of the Idaho traffic, and would not have generated the opposition of the other parties engaged in the Virginia City trade. And, had they done that, they would probably have been well east of the Watsatch Mountains when they finally met the Union Pacific. Sadly, the principals of the Central Pacific RR knew no more of their future than we know of ours. —Wendell Huffman, Carson City

> In the 1850s the Lassen Trail and the Nobles trail followed the same path into California for a few miles along the east side of Lassen Peak. Lassen's trail (used first by emigrants to California in 1848) connected the Applegate road (which ran from the California trail near modern Lovelock, Nv to southwest Oregon) at Goose Lake in northeastern California and wandered southward until it hit the headwaters of the Feather River and then turned west toward the Sacramento Valley. The Nobles Trail ran westward from the site of modern Lovelock through the site of modern Susanville, to Hat Creek (north of Lassen Peak) and then down to Redding/Reading (depending upon your year of reference and whomever it happened to be named for at the time). So, for about five or ten miles, these two routes into California followed the same trace, with emigrants using the Lassen trail going south and those on the Nobles trail going the opposite direction. Who went which way depended upon point of origin and point of destination- -and what ignorance of topography any particular traveler subscribed to. The point being that California's mix of roads and confusion is nothing new. And, to bring this back to railroads: the first Pacific railroad would most likely have followed a combination of Lassen trail (from the upper Sacramento Valley to the headwaters of the Feather) and the Nobles trail (from the Feather, past site of Susanville and on to the Humboldt River at or near Lovelock) had it not been for the discovery of the Comstock Lode in 1859 and the attraction of that commerce to those who organized and financed the Central Pacific. Their interest in the Comstock cost the company the animosity of those already engaged in the Comstock trade (which translated into lost income and lost local financing) and the high cost of building and operating a railroad across the Sierra at 7000 feet. Had they stuck with Judah's pre-1859 plan, they would have crossed the mountains over a thousand feet lower over less rugged terrain, they would have likely received more local funding, have built track faster (and received federal bonds for track built faster), have carried more of the Idaho commerce (which was essentially all they carried into 1868), and probably would have reached the eastern side of the Sierra a couple years earlier (which would have netted them the Comstock trade sooner). And, they may have met the Union Pacific near Cheyenne rather than Promontory (which, if nothing else) would have gotten them coal (but may actually have kept the UP out of Oregon and Southern California). ... —Wendell Huffman, Carson City [from the R&LHS Newsgroup]

Did the CPRR actually own the land "granted" or did they have to patent it to gain ownership?
There were different Congressional Grants made to allow construction of the transcontinental railroad.  Much of the main line right of way granted under the Congressional Grants [the original land grant is at §3 of the 1862 Act], such as the right of way in Reno for instance, is reversionary and can only be used for railroad/transportation purposes.  The railroad can lease portions of the right of  way under short term leases or longer term leases that have 90 day termination provisions.  The railroad cannot sell any of the main line right of way.  If the railroad (now UPRR) was ever to abandon any right of way, it would revert back to the government.   The "Section Lands" are a different matter.  In order to encourage the building of the transcontinental railroad, Congress granted (in fee) CP alternating Sections of land (20 alternate Sections per mile) out from the main line corridor.  The government kept the other alternating Sections of land, thereby benefiting, as the construction of the railroad increased the value of the railroad's Section Lands and the Government's.  Thus, the main line operating right of way (varies in width) is not patented in the railroad and reverts to the Government on cessation of use.  ...  The Section Lands are patented in the railroad (fee title).  For each 40 miles of railroad built, the Section Lands were patented to the railroad.  The patents to the land were not recorded in the County recorders office, but in the U.S. Land Office.  This created some subsequent confusion for title companies in their issuance of title to purchasers who had no idea that it was grant land.  The 1862 Act of Congress [§4: "... patents shall issue conveying the right and title to said lands to said company, on each side of the road, as far as the same is completed, to the amount aforesaid; and patents shall in like manner issue as each forty miles of said railroad and telegraph line are completed, upon certificate of said commissioners ... "] corresponds to my understanding.  The 1862 Act granted alternating Sections 10 miles out from the main line right of way, and the 1864 Act amended that to 20 miles on each side of the right of way.  I understand that location maps had to be filed before the land was granted, and that the granted properties could not contain minerals except for iron or coal.  ...  I found in my personal experience that many of the deeds conveying land to SPRR for instance, were deeds from private individuals. Many of those properties were not only for the right of way itself, but for other property holdings adjoining the right of way in excess of what was need for railroad operations. In other words, if the railroad needed a 60 foot wide right of way for instance, they would acquire the lands in the path the railroad was to traverse and not just acquire a 60 foot wide strip of property, but all of a land parcel owned by someone if that is what was needed to get the railroad built. The Federal land grants to CPRR/SPRR were generally for properties in the middle of nowhere, which was most of the western United States in those days! The land grants to CPRR/SPRR were 7/1/1862, 7/25/1866, 7/27/1866, 3/3/1871 and 3/3/1875. These land grants covered a portion of the right of way that was owned by SPRR. Much of the property I sold for SPRR (and UPRR after the takeover) came into the railroad's ownership by private individuals.  ...  Looks like Nevada Land and Resource Company, LLC purchased the SP Section lands in Nevada.  As info, during the failed merger of the SP and ATSF in the mid 1980's, all of the non-operating land assets of the SP were absorbed into Santa Fe Southern Pacific Corps'. subsidiary Santa Fe Pacific Realty–I worked for them at the time.  The non-railroad land holding companies were not subject to ICC scrutiny and could be merged into the parent company, whereas the SP (as a railroad operating company) needed the ICC's blessing to be merged with the ATSF.  SP was held in a voting trust during the merger proceedings, its plant slowly decaying as little or no money was put into the SP during this time.  Ultimately, the protective conditions placed on the merger by the ICC made the merger infeasible, thus Santa Fe Southern Pacific Corp. decided to spin off the SP.  The lands absorbed by Santa Fe Southern Pacific included all of the Section lands, industrial parks, forest, desert and agricultural properties held under Southern Pacific Land Company, Southern Pacific Industrial Development Company (SPIDCO) and any other non-railroad holding companies.  Thus, when Santa Fe Southern Pacific Corp sold the SP to Phil Anschutz in 1988, they kept the non-railroad land assets mentioned above, however, the core railroad lands (the rights of way, station grounds, switching yards) went with the SP to Anschutz.  Anyway, a brief synopsis of the huge sucking sound that started the decimation of the SP. ... the railroad's property maps (called property valuation maps or "val maps") generally designated the company's holdings ... via heavy dotted and dashed lines and railroad parcel numbers located within the specific parcel of land that designated the incoming acquisition deed. On the val map itself or on a separate map, there would be a "Schedule of Property" that would show each parcel and provide the specifics of who sold the property to the railroad and the specific date and recording information.  —Robert M. Krantz (formerly of the SPRR Land Department.
[Disclaimer: For informational purposes only. This website does not offer legal advice, and the above information may not apply to your real estate situation. It is imperative that you seek the services of a qualified real estate attorney if the need arises.]

Lest you think that anything legal is ever clear, simple, or final, also see the Railroad Right-of-Way Conveyance Validation Act of 1994 (Private Law 103-2; 108 Stat. 5061) which required amendment in 2003. Links courtesy Bruce C. Cooper.

Two questions about FALSE RUMORS claiming the slaughter of Chinese Central Pacific Railroad workers, an event which never happened!
> A library patron heard a rumor that Chinese workers had been brought to America to work on building railroads, and that as soon as the work was completed the workers were murdered.
> I am unable to find a particular photo.  It is of an extreme atrocity perpetrated by the railroad.  It was in the late 1800's and shows a very large pile of slaughtered Chinese workers who after completing the task of building the railroad, the railroad, in cold blood, shot them rather than pay them.  This photo shows several men with their rifles posing in front of the dead pile as someone who'd just shot and killed a trophy buck. I know that I saw this photo.  It has been years ago, though.
The rumor that your library patron heard is totally incorrect. The Chinese who built the transcontinental railroad were not murdered. Instead they mostly continued building railroads, for example, the line from northern to southern California via the San Joaquin Valley. Some returned to China. Regrettably, there certainly was virulent anti-Chinese sentiment in 19th century California, and there were some riots in which Chinese were killed, but not related to the railroad or its workers. Nineteen Chinese died in an 1871 riot in Los Angeles' Chinatown at Calle de los Negros, near the Plaza (which is four hundred miles south of the first transcontinental railroad). In the 1885 Rock Springs Massacre, an Anti-Chinese riot in Rock Springs, Wyoming, had 28 Chinese killed, and others run out of town. There is also a commonly repeated myth that large numbers of Chinese died building the Central Pacific Railroad. Claims that thousands were killed appear to be wildly inaccurate – we have not been able to find documentation of more than about 50 casualties resulting from the CPRR construction. It is unfortunate that such rumors abound, but perhaps this results in part from the paucity of information, as no first hand accounts of the Chinese railroad workers' experiences are known to exist.
The reason that you have not been able to find such an image on the CPRR Museum website is that this rumored event never happened on the Central Pacific Railroad! (But see below.) To the contrary, a reporter for the San Francisco Newsletter, May 15th, 1869, described the final moments of the celebration at Promontory:
" J.H. Strobridge, when the work was all over, invited the Chinese who had been brought over from Victory for that purpose, to dine at his boarding car. When they entered, all the guests and officers present cheered them as the chosen representatives of the race which have greatly helped to build the road....a tribute they well deserved and which evidently gave them much pleasure."
After the completion of the transcontinental railroad, many of the same Chinese workers continued working for the railroad as the Southern Pacific RR built south to Los Angeles.
Perhaps you are mistakenly thinking of the "The Massacre of the Chinese at Rock Springs, Wyoming," an actual massacre of Chinese miners, not railroad workers, which was illustrated in Harper’s Weekly, 26 September 1885, p. 637, by artist T. de Thul from photographs by C.A. Booth. "This coal mining town was the site of the 'Rock Springs Massacre' in 1885, a savage labor riot in which white miners killed at least 25 Chinese immigrants and chased hundreds more into the countryside. Federal troops restored order and remained in Rock Springs until 1898." Or perhaps you are thinking of the southern California Los Angeles Chinese Massacre of 1871 which was the first riot in Los Angeles, but also not related to northern California CPRR railroad workers. One website reports (quoting Colonel George M. Totten) that in 1854 there was a mass suicide of Chinese Coolie laborers on the Panama Railroad following a tropical fever outbreak and an ill advised decision to abruptly cut off the workers' opium supply, but primary sources would need to be verified.

Where there railroad price wars?
"The expansion of railways through Southern California in the 1880s prompted the calculated promotion of the region as a healthy, comfortable place to make a home. In the middle of the decade, there was even a price war for passenger travel, and fare for a ticket from the Mississippi Valley to the Pacific dropped to $25.00." [California: Magnet for Tourists and Home Buyers, Library of Congress]
"During the 1870s the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central Railroad engaged in a bitter price war, each trying to drive the other out of business. To that end, William Vanderbilt, the president of the New York Central, decided to invade the Pennsylvania Railroad's territory by building an alternate route to Pittsburgh." The construction of a second rail line to Pittsburgh was ultimately abandoned and became part of the Pennsylvania Turnpike which uses some of its tunnels. [William Vanderbilt's Folly - Origins of the Pennsylvania Turnpike]
Also see Re-Assessing Tom Scott, the 'Railroad Prince.'
There is also apparently a railroad game which includes price wars
However, anti-competitive behavior was also an issue.

If someone was travelling from New York City to San Francisco in 1871, what station would they leave from? What is known about Emigrant Trains?
The only depot in Manhattan in 1871 was Grand Central (New York Central) which opened that year. All others were in located in Jersey City, Hobeken, and Weehawken. Passengers took ferries across the Hudson River to to New Jersey to reach them. —Bruce C. Cooper

The New York City Camden and Amboy Railroad Dock and Pennsylvania Railroad Ticket Office at Pier No. 1, is illustrated in the stereoview detail, left.

The 1873 Wood's Illustrated Hand-Book to New York includes ferry information as follows:

For Hoboken, New Jersey, foot of Barclay street, North River. Barclay street runs out of Broadway westerly. Take Broadway and 7th Avenue cars.
Also for Hoboken, foot of Christopher street, from 5 A.M. to 8 P.M. every 15 minutes. From 8 to 12 P.M. every 20 minutes. ...
For Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington, Jersey City Ferry foot of Cortlandt street, North River.

Robert Louis Stevenson's description of his 1879 transcontinental railroad trip, Across the Plains, documents his departure from New York via ferry to Jersey City as follows:

"MONDAY. - It was, if I remember rightly, five o'clock when we were all signalled to be present at the Ferry Depot of the railroad. An emigrant ship had arrived at New York on the Saturday night, another on the Sunday morning, our own on Sunday afternoon, a fourth early on Monday; and as there is no emigrant train on Sunday a great part of the passengers from these four ships was concentrated on the train by which I was to travel. There was a babel of bewildered men, women, and children. The wretched little booking-office, and the baggage-room, which was not much larger, were crowded thick with emigrants, and were heavy and rank with the atmosphere of dripping clothes. Open carts full of bedding stood by the half-hour in the rain. The officials loaded each other with recriminations. A bearded, mildewed little man, whom I take to have been an emigrant agent, was all over the place, his mouth full of brimstone, blustering and interfering. It was plain that the whole system, if system there was, had utterly broken down under the strain of so many passengers.

My own ticket was given me at once, and an oldish man, who preserved his head in the midst of this turmoil, got my baggage registered, and counselled me to stay quietly where I was till he should give me the word to move. I had taken along with me a small valise, a knapsack, which I carried on my shoulders, and in the bag of my railway rug the whole of Bancroft's History of the United States, in six fat volumes. It was as much as I could carry with convenience even for short distances, but it insured me plenty of clothing, and the valise was at that moment, and often after, useful for a stool. I am sure I sat for an hour in the baggage- room, and wretched enough it was; yet, when at last the word was passed to me and I picked up my bundles and got under way, it was only to exchange discomfort for downright misery and danger.

I followed the porters into a long shed reaching downhill from West Street to the river. It was dark, the wind blew clean through it from end to end; and here I found a great block of passengers and baggage, hundreds of one and tons of the other. I feel I shall have a difficulty to make myself believed; and certainly the scene must have been exceptional, for it was too dangerous for daily repetition. It was a tight jam; there was no fair way through the mingled mass of brute and living obstruction. Into the upper skirts of the crowd porters, infuriated by hurry and overwork, clove their way with shouts. I may say that we stood like sheep, and that the porters charged among us like so many maddened sheep- dogs; and I believe these men were no longer answerable for their acts. It mattered not what they were carrying, they drove straight into the press, and when they could get no farther, blindly discharged their barrowful. With my own hand, for instance, I saved the life of a child as it sat upon its mother's knee, she sitting on a box; and since I heard of no accident, I must suppose that there were many similar interpositions in the course of the evening. It will give some idea of the state of mind to which we were reduced if I tell you that neither the porter nor the mother of the child paid the least attention to my act. It was not till some time after that I understood what I had done myself, for to ward off heavy boxes seemed at the moment a natural incident of human life. Cold, wet, clamour, dead opposition to progress, such as one encounters in an evil dream, had utterly daunted the spirits. We had accepted this purgatory as a child accepts the conditions of the world. For my part, I shivered a little, and my back ached wearily; but I believe I had neither a hope nor a fear, and all the activities of my nature had become tributary to one massive sensation of discomfort.

At length, and after how long an interval I hesitate to guess, the crowd began to move, heavily straining through itself. About the same time some lamps were lighted, and threw a sudden flare over the shed. We were being filtered out into the river boat for Jersey City. You may imagine how slowly this filtering proceeded, through the dense, choking crush, every one overladen with packages or children, and yet under the necessity of fishing out his ticket by the way; but it ended at length for me, and I found myself on deck under a flimsy awning and with a trifle of elbow-room to stretch and breathe in. This was on the starboard; for the bulk of the emigrants stuck hopelessly on the port side, by which we had entered. In vain the seamen shouted to them to move on, and threatened them with shipwreck. These poor people were under a spell of stupor, and did not stir a foot. It rained as heavily as ever, but the wind now came in sudden claps and capfuls, not without danger to a boat so badly ballasted as ours; and we crept over the river in the darkness, trailing one paddle in the water like a wounded duck, and passed ever and again by huge, illuminated steamers running many knots, and heralding their approach by strains of music. The contrast between these pleasure embarkations and our own grim vessel, with her list to port and her freight of wet and silent emigrants, was of that glaring description which we count too obvious for the purposes of art.

The landing at Jersey City was done in a stampede. I had a fixed sense of calamity, and to judge by conduct, the same persuasion was common to us all. A panic selfishness, like that produced by fear, presided over the disorder of our landing. People pushed, and elbowed, and ran, their families following how they could. Children fell, and were picked up to be rewarded by a blow. One child, who had lost her parents, screamed steadily and with increasing shrillness, as though verging towards a fit; an official kept her by him, but no one else seemed so much as to remark her distress; and I am ashamed to say that I ran among the rest. I was so weary that I had twice to make a halt and set down my bundles in the hundred yards or so between the pier and the railway station, so that I was quite wet by the time that I got under cover. There was no waiting-room, no refreshment room; the cars were locked; and for at least another hour, or so it seemed, we had to camp upon the draughty, gaslit platform. I sat on my valise, too crushed to observe my neighbours; but as they were all cold, and wet, and weary, and driven stupidly crazy by the mismanagement to which we had been subjected, I believe they can have been no happier than myself. I bought half-a-dozen oranges from a boy, for oranges and nuts were the only refection to be had. As only two of them had even a pretence of juice, I threw the other four under the cars, and beheld, as in a dream, grown people and children groping on the track after my leavings.
At last we were admitted into the cars, utterly dejected, and far from dry. For my own part, I got out a clothes-brush, and brushed my trousers as hard as I could till I had dried them and warmed my blood into the bargain; but no one else, except my next neighbour to whom I lent the brush, appeared to take the least precaution. As they wer