The Politics Behind Industry Associations
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The April 2006 issue of Technology and Culture contains Mark Aldrich’s article “From Forest Conservation to Market Preservation: Invention and Diffusion of Wood- Preserving Technology, 1880-1939”. The author misses or misrepresents the major episodes in the history of tie preservation, and his main argument is completely wrong. My rebuttal, below, turned out to be too long for the journal to publish. My reduced, two- page critique appeared as part of the journal’s “Communications”: Technology and Culture 48.3, July 2007, pp. 680-688. The role of industry associations in tie preservation A response to Mark Aldrich’s article “From Forest Conservation to Market Preservation: Invention and Diffusion of Wood-Preserving Technology, 1880-1939” Jeffrey A. Oaks, University of Indianapolis It is for good reason that railroad ties are the focus of over three quarters of Mark Aldrich’s article on wood preservation, which appeared in Technology and Culture’s April 2006 issue. In 1880, at the start of the period he covers, ties were a major drain on the nation’s forests. Nearly all were used untreated, rotting in the track in an average of less than a decade. By the end of his story, in 1939, railroad demand for wood had dropped dramatically. Most ties were preserved with creosote, and saw a life of over thirty years of service. But even in the 1880’s, when wood was cheap and the vast majority of ties went untreated, many railroads could have benefited economically from preserving them. Aldrich attributes the reluctance of companies to invest in wood preservation to “information and contracting problems”,1 which were resolved beginning about 1900 by the establishment of new institutions. One of the main arguments of his article is “that the desire to reduce the uncertainties associated with [railroad tie] preservation resulted in the innovation of new institutions to manage the technology—a development in which the railroads played a central role”.2 He credits the spread of tie treating in large part to the American Railway Engineering Association (AREA), founded in 1899, the American Wood-Preservers’ Association (AWPA), established in 1904, and the Forest Products Laboratory (FPL), which was set up by the government in Madison, WI in 1910.3 Aldrich writes “These organizations performed three crucial functions. First, they provided forums for developing, evaluating, and publicizing scientific and technical information… Second, they developed a host of standards based on their findings. Last, they liaised and shared expertise with many groups.” By reducing uncertainties, these actions “facilitat[ed] the acceptance and widen[ed] the market for wood preservation.”4 I argue in this response that the pre-1900 “information and contracting problems” had already been resolved in 1885 through just the kind of institutional activities Aldrich ascribes to post-1900 organizations. Further, the burst of treating activity at the end of 1 He uses the phrase four times: pp. 312, 314, 316, and 320. 2 Aldrich, p. 312. 3 The AREA was originally called the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association, and the AWPA started out as the Wood-Preservers’ Association. 4 Aldrich, p. 321. 1 the nineteenth century was directly caused by a rise in timber prices, and not by the work of new organizations. Last, Aldrich’s portrayal of the activities of the AREA and AWPA, as havens where railroads and treating companies carefully and impartially developed standards for the benefit of all, is an ideal which was often not met in reality. The controversies among members of these organizations over empty-cell creosoting (1905-1915) and record keeping (1909-1922) reveal a strong political element which drowned out any proper scientific assessment of these crucial issues. Aldrich gives scant attention to the first controversy, and he entirely overlooks the second, allowing him to misrepresent both the nature of the institutions and their role in the industry. To understand the development of tie preservation one needs to consult more than just a few old railroad engineering journals and books. One must also compile from disparate sources the practices of individual railroads. In addition to exposing trends in tie preservation and record keeping, such a body of data also helps reveal to what extent published recommendations and standards were followed in practice. A third source of information are the date nails which collectors have been pulling from railroad ties over the past few decades. Aldrich did not indulge in the compilation of data on different railroads, and he may not even have known that date nails can be a valuable source of information. These omissions are not serious compared with the fact that he failed to dig very deeply into the journals he did consult, and that he did not adequately review the secondary literature. In particular, he seems not to have read my book Date Nails and Railroad Tie Preservation,5 though he refers to it in two of his footnotes. Had he read the book, or had he studied closely the articles and exchanges published in the old journals, he would not only have avoided numerous small errors, but he would not have overlooked or misinterpreted the major episodes in the history of tie preservation in North America. Before I delve into the development of tie preservation I should say a word about my book. In the first volume I include a 57-page history of railroad tie preservation. This was written with the aid of the twelve pages of tables and graphs which follow it, which in turn derive from my research into the tie treating and record keeping practices of over 250 North American railroads. Individual railroad listings comprise about 260 pages, extending to the end of the second volume. The whole text portion of the book covers 350 pages, with well over 4,000 references to the primary literature. Volume III contains photos of over 2,000 date nails, arranged by manufacturer, and a reverse listing to help identify nails of unknown origin. The whole book is now online (visit my website for the links). Volume I contains my history of tie preservation. Below I give enough of an outline of the history of tie preservation from 1880 to the 1920’s to put Adrich’s distorted account in perspective. I pay close attention to three developments: the 1885 recommendation of Octave Chanute’s committee, the 1905- 1915 debate over empty-cell creosoting, and the 1909-1922 controversy over the best method of record-keeping. Following this is an assessment of Aldrich’s main argument, and a list of some of his minor errors. The ASCE Tie Preservation Committee report, 1885 5 University of Indianapolis Archeology and Forensics Laboratory, Special Report #3, 1999. 2 Most of the various experiments in tie preservation conducted in the first half century of the railroad era were failures, either from a technical or an economic perspective. Also, what good information was gained was not shared by the several companies which had dabbled in tie treating. This situation changed in the early 1880’s. The census report of 1880 alerted railroad officials of an impending timber shortage, and in anticipation of this report the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) appointed a committee to study wood preservation. Information on prior tests was collected and analyzed in order to understand which methods were both effective and economical. On June 25, 1885 chair Octave Chanute presented the committee report, which concluded that treatment with a solution of zinc chloride should be cost effective on many railroads.6 Despite the clear-cut evidence that treatment would pay on many lines, only three companies implemented the committee’s plan. The Santa Fe commenced treating in July, 1885 at a new plant in Las Vegas, NM. The following year the Rock Island began using large numbers of ties treated in Chicago, and in 1887 the Southern Pacific joined in with a leased plant in Houston. Chanute’s firm, the Chicago Tie Preserving Co., designed and built the Las Vegas and Chicago plants, and they operated the latter under contract for the Rock Island. Two different methods were involved. The Southern Pacific used the Burnett process, which is pressure treatment in a solution of zinc chloride. Its disadvantage is that in wet conditions the chemical leaches out of the ties. Santa Fe and Rock Island ties were treated by the Wellhouse process. This is a two-step method, in which ties are first injected with zinc chloride and glue, then a second time with tannin. The glue and tannin form a kind of artificial leather which prevents the zinc chloride from washing out. Creosote was not an option at the time, due to its high cost. Aldrich calculates that in the 1880’s “ninety, or nearly one third of the 283 carriers covered, would have found some preservation profitable, despite the relatively inexpensive wood.”7 One problem in getting railroads to adopt tie treating is illustrated by the experience of the Union Pacific. Chanute’s firm built a tie treating plant for the UP at Laramie, WY, which opened July 26, 1886. But after only a year in operation “the works were temporarily shut down to save current expenses.” Soon afterward it was partially destroyed by fire, after which it was dismantled.8 While Union Pacific officials were well aware of the economic benefits of tie treating, they were unwilling to make the initial investment required for long-term savings. In 1909 Chanute wrote of their 6 The full report was published in three consecutive issues of the Transactions of the ASCE: Octave Chanute (and committee), “The preservation of timber: report of the Committee on the Preservation of Timber, presented and accepted at the annual convention June 25th, 1885.” July 1885, pp.