Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

sintaur t1_iyil2t3 wrote

Reply to comment by 1859 in TIL that the southern United States converted all 11,500+ miles of its railroads from broad gauge (5 ft/1.524 m) to nearly-standard gauge (4 ft 9 in/​1.448 m) in just 36 hours, starting on May 31, 1886 by 1859

> Over a period of 36 hours, tens of thousands of workers pulled the spikes from the west rail of all the broad gauge lines in the South, moved them 3 in (76 mm) east and spiked them back in place.[6] The new gauge was close enough that standard gauge equipment could run on it without problem. By June 1886, all major railroads in North America, an estimated 11,500 miles (18,500 km), were using approximately the same gauge. To facilitate the change, the inside spikes had been hammered into place at the new gauge in advance of the change.

258

aarhus t1_iyk9x0s wrote

This excerpt would suggest OP's title is misleading. 11,500 is how many miles there were total, not how many the South switched in 36 hours.

130

I_am_10_squirrels t1_iykrxpr wrote

From the source, it was started on May 31st 1886, so it should read "after just 36 hours" instead of "by June 1886"

26

aarhus t1_iykt1vm wrote

Yes, I see now the article does a poor job of referencing the source.

The source claims in the South they were preparing to change 11,500 miles of track.

The article says all the track in North America, 11,500 miles, was on the new gauge.

Clearly, unless all the track in North America was located in the South, one of these is wrong.

24

I_am_10_squirrels t1_iymah81 wrote

>The article says all the track in North America, 11,500 miles, was on the new gauge.

I couldn't find any references with a quick minute of Google fu, so let's assume a five person team could reposition 1 mile of track in an hour. They were moving just one side, so doesn't seem unreasonable given 1886 tools.

That would mean 320 five person teams, 1600 people working 36 hours straight. So, again, surprisingly not unreasonable.

I thought this would help me figure out which source was wrong, but now I still don't know.

4

drdrewpschlong t1_iyimxhq wrote

That's why train drivers are called engineers

5

Kevin_Wolf t1_iyjq9ks wrote

No, it's not. They're called engineers because they operate an engine car. The engine car is the car at the front or rear of the train that provides the motive force.

91

drdrewpschlong t1_iyjxn7k wrote

Look at you here busting with your facts and stuff. Would it be known that I'm a doctor. I know certain things

14

SusanForeman t1_iyks28b wrote

I'm also a doctor.

I just call myself that because I fake documents and sell them to college kids

2