User:BurpoFrogmin/sandbox

When considering the standards for early rail designs, one must keep in mind the scarcity that were initial investments for the development of America’s first rail and cart transportation systems; it proved extremely difficult to make developments for transcontinental transportations when the only individuals interested were those who used primitive rail systems for their personal mining ventures, and those who only saw it possible to develop a rail system by wood and timber. This is to say that those who had the capital for extensive development only saw it fit to make it as economically favorable to them due to how ungodly expensive developing and constructing a railroad was; the danger of making a risky investment due to volatility combined with no foreseeable profits and skeptical mainstream application for such a railroad turned away any potential investor. Combine this with a lack of experienced American engineers and low population density throughout potential routes, you’ll end up having a perfect storm; a complete nightmare for early rail development in 19th century America. As a result to how expensive constructing a railroad was, early rail designs were centered around being as economical as possible to those providing money to the projects. Initially, many vouched wholeheartedly for the use of tinder in the construction of railroads due to how cheap it was compared to cast iron rails, yet as organic materials go timber proved to be only useful for temporary rail establishments. As development continued, many advocated for the use of complete cast iron rails built upon stone or timber; both became widely applicable due to the abundance of support materials. When the needed materials were figured out, mainly those listed above, the need for keeping the railroad economical became apparent as ever, so figuring out the appropriate dimensions for rail related items became a must. Some of the first cast iron rails proposed were “two to three inches thick and 4 inches in width”, something that became a necessity if you wanted to bear the pressure that transporting goods in a “single, heavily loaded car” would add onto the railroad and the supporting materials underneath. After some trial and error it was developed that separating a single heavy cart into several lighter carts was in every way more economical due to the carts still being able to bear the same amount of load all while applying less pressure to the railroad itself, allowing for narrower rails and less use of resources. After development, it was settled that track thickness would be fixated at 1 and a half inches in thickness at the rails thinnest point, all while preserving the original proposal for each rail to be 3 feet in length and 4 inches in width. When trying to keep things economical in difficult enterprises, the iteration process for potentially cost saving designs was a must, especially when these developments were now being built on local, private and state capital. In 1789, William Jessop created the “edge rail”, a rail design that only needed to be supported at each ends by 2 spikes that could be driven into the supports. This was initially devised to save money and supporting materials, yet this design ended up failing due to the rails being too narrow; the rail would severely damage the train and cart wheels’ integrity, as it would occasionally cause them to chip and break and would cause the wheels to need extensive repair. The only fix for this would be to increase the width and thickness of the rail, but in doing this it would end up costing more than a traditional rail. As it ended up, most early rail designs would not be economically viable, which defeats the entire purpose of particular rail designs.

1. Bianculli, Anthony. Trains and Technology: The American Railroad in the Nineteenth Century—Volume 3: Track and Structures. University of Delaware Press, 2003, p. 13 2. Ibid, p. 11 3. Ibid, p. 11 4. Klein, Maury. Unfinished Business: The Railroad in American Life. Hanover: U of Rhode Island, UP of New England, 1994, p. 9 5. Bianculli, Anthony. Trains and Technology: The American Railroad in the Nineteenth Century—Volume 3: Track and Structures. University of Delaware Press, 2003, pp. 11-13