Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T11:12:23.742Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Standardization of Track Gauge on North American Railways, 1830–1890

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2012

Douglas J. Puffert
Douglas J. Puffert
Affiliation:
Research and Teaching Fellow, Institute for Economic History, University of Munich, Ludwigster. 33 / IV, D-80539 Munich, Germany. E-mail: Douglas.Puffert@econhist.vwl.uni-muenchen.de.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Early North American railways chose different track gauges partly on the basis of differing engineering traditions and partly for mutual compatibility. The resulting dynamic process produced nine district common-guage regions by the 1860s. Growing demand for interregional traffic and increasing among railways yielded incentives to resolve this diversity, and the specific regional pattern of gauges led to selection pf 4'8.5” as the continental standard. The case offers support for aspects of differing views on the role of path dependence in determining features of the economy.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 60 , Issue 4 , December 2000 , pp. 933 - 960
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

American Rail-road Journal 1 (21 01 1832).Google Scholar
Arthur, W. Brian. “Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-in by Historical Events.” Economic Journal 99, no. 1 (1989): 116–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arthur, W. Brian. Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baer, Christopher T., ed. Canals and Railroads of the Mid-Atlantic States, 1800–1860. Wilmington, DE: Eleutherian Mills - Hagley Foundation, 1981.Google Scholar
Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Co. Annual Report 4 (1829–1830). Baltimore.Google Scholar
Carlson, Robert E.The Liverpool andManchesterRailwayProject 1821–1831. New York: A. M. Kelley, 1969.Google Scholar
Currie, Archibald W.The Grand Trunk Railway of Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1957.Google Scholar
David, Paul A.. “Clio and the Economics of QWERTY.” American Economic Review 75, no. 2 (1985): 332–37.Google Scholar
David, Paul A. “Some New Standards for the Economics of Standardization in the Information Age.” In Economic Policy and Technological Perfonnance, edited by Dasgupta, P. and Stoneman, P. L., 206–39. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
David, Paul A.. “Path-dependence and Predictability in Dynamic Systems with Local Network Externalities: A Paradigm for Historical Economics.” In Technology and the Wealth of Nations: The Dynamics of Constructed Advantage, edited by Foray, D. and Freeman, C., 208–31. London: Pinter, 1993.Google Scholar
Farrell, Joseph, and Saloner, Garth. “Standardization, Compatibility, and Innovation.”Rand Journal of Economics 16, no. 1 (1985): 70–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Great Britain. Gauge Commission. Report of the Gauge Commissioners. London: T. R. Harrison, 1846.Google Scholar
Haney, Lewis H.. A Congressional History of Railways in the United States. Reprint edn. New York: A. M. Kelley, 1968.Google Scholar
Hilton, George W.. American Narrow-Gauge Railroads. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
Johnson, Edwin F.. Transcontinental Railways of the United States. Hartford, CT: Case, Lockwood and Brainard, 1871.Google Scholar
Kirkwood, James P.. Report on the Guage [sic] of Track to the Board of Directors of the Pacific Railroad. St. Louis, MO: 1854.Google Scholar
Lavallée, Omer. Narrow Gauge Railways of Canada. Montreal: Railfare, 1972.Google Scholar
Lovett, Henry A.Canada and the Grand Trunk, 1829–1929, reprint edition. New York and Toronto: Arno, 1981.Google Scholar
Liebowitz, S. J., and Margolis, Stephen E.. “The Fable of the Keys.” Journal of Law and Economics 33, no. 1 (1990): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liebowitz, S. J., and Margolis, Stephen E.. “Network Externality: An Uncommon Tragedy.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 8, no. 2 (1994): 133–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liebowitz, S. J., and Margolis, Stephen E.. “Path Dependence, Lock-In, and History.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 11, no. 1 (1995): 205–26.Google Scholar
Mobile and Ohio Railroad Co. Annual Report 37 (1984–1985). New York.Google Scholar
Morton, A. C. Report on the Gaugefor the St. Lawrence and Atlantic Rail-Road. Portland, ME: Thurston, 1847.Google Scholar
Mott, Edward H.. Between the Ocean and the Lakes. The Story of the Erie. New York: Collins, 1899.Google Scholar
National Narrow-Gauge Railway Convention. Proceedings ofthe National Narrow-Gauge Railway Convention, held at St. Louis, Missouri, June 19, 1872. St. Louis, 1872.Google Scholar
Pennsylvania Railroad Co. Annual Report 22 (1869). Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Poor, Henry V.. Manual of the Railroads of the United States [title varies]. New York: H.V. and H.W. Poor, annual beginning 1868/69.Google Scholar
Seymour, Silas. A Review of the Theory of Narrow Gauge as Applied to Main Trunk Lines of Railway. New York: D. Van Nostrand, 1871.Google Scholar
Shuman, Armin E.. “Statistical Report of the Railroads in the United States.” In Report on the Tenth Census, vol. 4: Report on the Agencies of Transportation in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Census Office, 1883.Google Scholar
Smiles, Samuel. The Life of George Stephenson and of his Son Robert Stephenson. New York: Harper, 1868.Google Scholar
Stapleton, Darwin H.. “The Origin of American Railroad Technology.” Railroad History 139, no. 1 (1978): 65–77.Google Scholar
Taylor, George R., and Neu, Irene. The American Railroad Network 1861–1890. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar