01-23-2017, 11:29 AM
(This post was last modified: 01-23-2017, 11:30 AM by Warren Dew.)
(01-23-2017, 11:26 AM)David Horn Wrote:(01-21-2017, 09:28 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:(01-21-2017, 11:50 AM)David Horn Wrote:(01-20-2017, 02:37 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: ... As to "the question", *shrug*. Victorian Britain and the pre-1930s US had comparatively minimal bureaucracies. The Soviet one was quite extensive. Somalia doesn't have one to speak of. It is presently fashionable for big tech companies to have relatively flat hierarchies. Mid-20th century industrial companies had much more structured ones. I don't think the evidence bears out a claim of "bureacracies good, no bureaucracies bad" or vice versa. The technological substrate, the presence or not of unifying norms mores and values, the security environment, etc. influence the extent of formal organization required...
In a way, that makes my point. At one point in time, Chicago was served by 9 railroads that all used different track spacing and profiles. Needless to say, moving goods from rail system A to rail system B involved unloading by hand, transport between rail yards in some cases and reloading by hand. That is intolerable today.
And yet, there is still no freight rail link between North Station and South Station in Boston, last I checked. Somehow we tolerate it.
Are you purposely obtuse? The issue was standardization of the track. not where it was laid. Once you standardize, a railcar on System A could be transferred to System B. Nothing forces the two to merge operations, but having incompatible equipment makes the option moot.
Lack of a rail link also prevents transfer of rail cars. Since we have that situation right here in Boston, that's obviously not "intolerable today", as you claim.