Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(TreeHugger)   How fast could you travel across the US in the 1800s or 1930? With the experience of slow travel authentically recreated through the use of a very short eight-slide show   (treehugger.com) divider line 22
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

5286 clicks; posted to Geek » on 08 Dec 2012 at 6:26 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-12-08 06:54:07 PM  
3 votes:

Popcorn Johnny: This has to be bullshiat. For example, NY to Detroit is a 600 mile trip and they're saying it took 4 weeks to make it. If I walked at 3mph for 10 hours a day, I could make the trip in 20 days.


That's assuming you don't have to deal with any rivers, mountains, marshes, forests, inclement weather, highwaymen or natives during your trek.
2012-12-09 12:18:44 AM  
1 votes:

SanjiSasuke: Looks exactly like Gundam, actually.


Whoops wrong thread. Although...no not at all.
2012-12-09 12:17:18 AM  
1 votes:
Looks exactly like Gundam, actually.
2012-12-09 12:14:18 AM  
1 votes:

Dwight_Yeast: What depresses me is that it takes longer to get to the West Coast by train today than it did in 1940.

Amtrak needs to be set free of politicians who demand that every train stop at every piss-ant town.


That's not the problem here in the midwest. The problem is that Amtrak has to cede tracks to freight over passenger trains.
2012-12-09 12:12:25 AM  
1 votes:

Dwight_Yeast:
In London in the late 19th century, there were up to FIVE mail deliveries a day, depending on where you lived. I you wanted to invite someone to dinner, you could send a letter in the morning and have their response in the afternoon post.


I learned this from Downton Abbey. Every time those people turned around, they were getting mail. I thought maybe it was because they were rich and had some kind of full-time courier, but that didn't make much sense.

So now I know.
2012-12-08 11:47:47 PM  
1 votes:
Popcorn Johnny: This has to be bullshiat. For example, NY to Detroit is a 600 mile trip and they're saying it took 4 weeks to make it. If I walked at 3mph for 10 hours a day, I could make the trip in 20 days.

What is even more bullshiat is that Detroit was not even in the United States in 1800.
2012-12-08 08:45:27 PM  
1 votes:

Popcorn Johnny: brantgoose: If you think travelling is slower than in the 1940s, try mailing a letter! It takes three days more now than in the 1800s.

So it took weeks to travel hundreds of miles by train but the mail made it in days?


www.transamericanelectricbiketour.com
2012-12-08 07:54:25 PM  
1 votes:

brantgoose: If you think travelling is slower than in the 1940s, try mailing a letter! It takes three days more now than in the 1800s.


In London in the late 19th century, there were up to FIVE mail deliveries a day, depending on where you lived. I you wanted to invite someone to dinner, you could send a letter in the morning and have their response in the afternoon post.

What killed this huge, efficient and expensive system needed to help run an empire? The telephone.

/I can still ship a package and be certain it will arrive within two days anywhere in the US (one day if it's within 200 miles of me)
2012-12-08 07:52:46 PM  
1 votes:

brantgoose: If you think travelling is slower than in the 1940s, try mailing a letter! It takes three days more now than in the 1800s.

Mind you, this is how it worked in the 1800s. Local post-master hangs out bag of mail on a hook by the railroad line. Train picks up bag--without stopping. Mail-sorting car in train allows letters to be sorted en route. Sorted mail is put into bag and dropped on another hook--without the train having to stop. If the train does have to stop, no hook. The mail is the first thing off the train and possibly the first thing on the train.

Nowadays, despite massive sorting centres, the mail moves slowly because it has to pass through more hands. To get from you to the house next door it may have to go to the local post office. But if the local post office doesn't do local sorting, it would go to the town or county sorting centre and then back again.

This hierarchical system may save money and union labour but it doesn't save time. In the old system, if the postman got a letter for the house next door he might deliver it--provided it was stamped. He might even have a little cancelling stamp in his pocket. Not today. Efficiency is the law. It just doesn't work, is all.

Mind you, most mail does get delivered and within the standards applied. Sometimes the mail can make it half way across the country in under four days. This is a miracle of mass organzation because the volume of mail continues to grow inexorably, but it is true that many things take more time today than in 1900 or 1870. This is because time is money. You have less of it and rich people have more of it.


Your local post office only does *limited* local sorting these days. Virtually *all* sorting is done at regional sorting centers, to include sorting by local carrier route (this means that a letter you are sending to someone who lives 5 blocks away will take a *minimum* of 2-3 days to arrive, instead of the old next-day delivery when local sorting was done locally).
2012-12-08 07:50:43 PM  
1 votes:

Lunchlady: Outside of the northeast the freight companies own the lines. They can do what they want.


No, CSX owns the lines in the NE, as well. Around here, a lot of track is shared between CSX, Amtrak and SEPTA, with fright getting priority, which is insane.
2012-12-08 07:41:50 PM  
1 votes:
If you think travelling is slower than in the 1940s, try mailing a letter! It takes three days more now than in the 1800s.

Mind you, this is how it worked in the 1800s. Local post-master hangs out bag of mail on a hook by the railroad line. Train picks up bag--without stopping. Mail-sorting car in train allows letters to be sorted en route. Sorted mail is put into bag and dropped on another hook--without the train having to stop. If the train does have to stop, no hook. The mail is the first thing off the train and possibly the first thing on the train.

Nowadays, despite massive sorting centres, the mail moves slowly because it has to pass through more hands. To get from you to the house next door it may have to go to the local post office. But if the local post office doesn't do local sorting, it would go to the town or county sorting centre and then back again.

This hierarchical system may save money and union labour but it doesn't save time. In the old system, if the postman got a letter for the house next door he might deliver it--provided it was stamped. He might even have a little cancelling stamp in his pocket. Not today. Efficiency is the law. It just doesn't work, is all.

Mind you, most mail does get delivered and within the standards applied. Sometimes the mail can make it half way across the country in under four days. This is a miracle of mass organzation because the volume of mail continues to grow inexorably, but it is true that many things take more time today than in 1900 or 1870. This is because time is money. You have less of it and rich people have more of it.
2012-12-08 07:33:55 PM  
1 votes:

Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: That all depends.

How much buffalo meat is the wagon hauling?


You know what, if there are 5 farking people hunting the damn buffalo, they'd better bring back more than 100 lbs or their asses are walking to Utah. I'll stop this wagon train right here, so help me god.
2012-12-08 07:20:16 PM  
1 votes:

Dwight_Yeast: What depresses me is that it takes longer to get to the West Coast by train today than it did in 1940.

Amtrak needs to be set free of politicians who demand that every train stop at every piss-ant town.


This ... plus that cargo trains have more priority over passenger. I don't think that grain or coal needs to be there RIGHT NOW.
2012-12-08 07:16:28 PM  
1 votes:

Somaticasual: With dysentary, broken wagon wheels, terrible hunting skills, and constant food shortages, it's a wonder anyone survived Oregon Trail in the mid-90s..


Skyfrog: [www.gunandgame.com image 400x400]


Thisbymaster: It would all depend on your rations and set speed, plus if you ford the river or float it. Or just pay the dam Indian.


At least you could name the characters funny things.

I used to name my Oregon Trail characters after Mega Man villains for the sole of purpose of getting the message:

"BUBBLE MAN HAS DIED OF DYSENTERY."
2012-12-08 07:15:16 PM  
1 votes:

Dwight_Yeast: What depresses me is that it takes longer to get to the West Coast by train today than it did in 1940.

Amtrak needs to be set free of politicians who demand that every train stop at every piss-ant town.


That is the key to quick train travel. In California they want to do a San Francisco to Los Angeles express train. Put aside the fat that they project ridership many times higher than the East Coast corridor, every town along the way seems to be saying "Stop here or no passing through".

That, of course, kills speed.

They need to build several high speed trunk lines right away, then deal with the pissant towns later.

Any Farkers know how European nations managed such a high speed train service across several nations?
2012-12-08 07:08:36 PM  
1 votes:
Fail link is a failure, dumbmitter.

The first slide says, "...the rate of travel by rail from New York City in 1800..."

You know how many miles of railroad the US had in 1800.

Zero.

Ignorant "transportation editor" Michael Graham Richard is ignorant.
2012-12-08 07:02:44 PM  
1 votes:
What depresses me is that it takes longer to get to the West Coast by train today than it did in 1940.

Amtrak needs to be set free of politicians who demand that every train stop at every piss-ant town.
2012-12-08 07:01:58 PM  
1 votes:

Popcorn Johnny: This has to be bullshiat. For example, NY to Detroit is a 600 mile trip and they're saying it took 4 weeks to make it. If I walked at 3mph for 10 hours a day, I could make the trip in 20 days.


It certainly did. They didn't have paved road. And even with trains, to share the tracks and make the ride more comfortable, there were very long delays between stops that can last for days.
2012-12-08 06:56:36 PM  
1 votes:

Popcorn Johnny: This has to be bullshiat. For example, NY to Detroit is a 600 mile trip and they're saying it took 4 weeks to make it. If I walked at 3mph for 10 hours a day, I could make the trip in 20 days.


If you were going to make that kind of long distance trip in 1800, you'd have to haul along a ton of stuff with you. Which means you'd need a wagon or a train to haul it. Which may not mov much faster than walking pace on average, with frequent stops.

The limiting factor is not how fast you yourself can walk. It's how fast you can haul all your stuff along with you.
2012-12-08 06:55:38 PM  
1 votes:
Every time I fly to the west coast I marvel that I'm doing in 5 hours what used to take 9 months by wagon train. And no pesky Injuns.

/just seat kickers
2012-12-08 06:55:24 PM  
1 votes:
It would all depend on your rations and set speed, plus if you ford the river or float it. Or just pay the dam Indian.
2012-12-08 05:46:37 PM  
1 votes:
That all depends.

How much buffalo meat is the wagon hauling?
 
Displayed 22 of 22 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report