Prices at the Dawn of the Gasoline Age, Dusk of the Equine

Pat Holscher
Society Member
Posts: 7553
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
Last Name: Holscher

Image

Image

Image

Irish carts, early 20th Century. Relates to the earlier conversation on carts above.
Brian P.
Posts: 75
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 3:28 pm
Last Name: Petruskie

Is the "Irish jaunting Cart", as seen in these pics, unique to Ireland, or could you commonly see it in other lands?
Rik
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 4:03 pm
Last Name: Upcraft

I have not read the whole thread so excuse me if that has already been covered, the main reason to move away from horses was sanitation, this link is quite concise.

http://blog.equinecompare.co.uk/2012_03_01_archive.html

The reason and driver for moving away for the Military was highlighted during WW1, there was more horse feed moved across the English channel during the conflict than everything else combined, troops, equipment, horses, ammunition etc.
Pat Holscher
Society Member
Posts: 7553
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
Last Name: Holscher

Rik wrote:I have not read the whole thread so excuse me if that has already been covered, the main reason to move away from horses was sanitation, this link is quite concise.

http://blog.equinecompare.co.uk/2012_03_01_archive.html

The reason and driver for moving away for the Military was highlighted during WW1, there was more horse feed moved across the English channel during the conflict than everything else combined, troops, equipment, horses, ammunition etc.
Horse waste has been discussed, although I'm not sure if it was in this thread, or earlier ones, but I don't think it would be overall accurate to state that the main reason for moving away from equine transportation was sanitation. Rather, I think it would be much more accurate to save that the move to the automobile had the ancillary effect of saving cities from drowning in horse flop.

The switch over to automobiles wasn't at a uniform rate anywhere in the Western world and was much slower than generally imagined. The locations where it occurred most rapidly were also those that had been drowning in horse flop the least, which isn't to say that it wasn't a problem everywhere. That is, European cities had centuries of effluvia related problems going on in comparison to North America, which was much less densely populated (but with some extremely densely populated big cities, very densely populated indeed) . Anyhow, the change came more rapidly in North America where this was overall less of a problem, which suggests another reason.

Even in cities here, and everywhere, horses lingered on for quite some time, even though horse flop was a big problem. But I'm not aware of any public effort that mandated an end to horses in urban settings. It seems to have happened independently, with there being a noted relief as it came about that the cities were being saved from horse apples in the process. Public horses, ie., horses that belonged to police forces or fire departments, were a tiny minority of urban horses, and the degree of control cities and towns generally exerted over activities in urban settings, at least in North America, was relatively limited. What we tend to see is that freighters, including short haul freighters, were going to gasoline vehicles in the teens and twenties, but not due to horse waste concerns. What they probably found more advantageous than anything else it that you can turn the truck or lorrie off at night and leave it, where as the horse never turns off. No stabling concerns, in other words. Just storage.

For private parties, excluding the wealthy, the automobile didn't really replace the horse in towns. To some degree, it replaced the bicycle. Most people in towns, even in the rural West, didn't own horses. This is sort of contrary to our view of that period, but the majority of people didn't ride and didn't keep or own horses. Just not cost effective or possible. When bikes became widespread in the late 19th Century they were sort of hailed as a mobility revolution, as an average person could keep one and store one and achieve much greater mobility than shoe leather had provided them with. But in retrospect, what the bike really served to be was the precursor of the automobile (or, if you credit some reports, it was the precursor of the automobile, which might be a partial precursor of the revived bicycle). Early automobiles were extremely expensive, and contrary to widespread popular belief, fuel was tremendously expensive. But people could keep them in front of the house, which they couldn't with a horse, and so they became an expensive item that Middle Class households were willing to spend a significant percentage of their incomes on, and that's remained the case ever since. It's interesting to note, but people in the Western World spend a great deal for mobility, to such an extent that they really don't realize it.
Pat Holscher
Society Member
Posts: 7553
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
Last Name: Holscher

Rik wrote:The reason and driver for moving away for the Military was highlighted during WW1, there was more horse feed moved across the English channel during the conflict than everything else combined, troops, equipment, horses, ammunition etc.
Military forage requirements are a topic of several threads, and are addressed here as well. A really interesting series of them discuss "logistical tails".

This revives, however, a very interesting point, sometimes missed by folks who don't deal with horses. In urban settings at least, horses require a lot of brought in forage. As you note, in WWI, transporting forage in was a major logistical effort, although for the first few months of WWI the British cavalry was able to get by with pasture grass. In many parts of the globe, that's just not a possibility. I'd be really interested to know what the forage situation was in the Middle East, for example (perhaps something that might be worth exploring in a new thread).

Not that vehicles don't have their own parts and fuel consideration. We've tried to explore that in the logistical tails threads, but the nature of those requirements is different.

Anyhow, something that's worth noting in this context is that, as forage is a requirement for urban horses and generally for military horses in intense conflict, what the basic nature of that is to convert grass and cereals into mobility. Vehicles using internal combustion engines convert fossil fuels into mobility. Quite recently there's been an effort (failed effort really) to try to encourage the planting of corn (maize) for conversion into fuel. That effort failed, but one of the topics it actually raised here in the US was the morality of growing a crop for use as a fuel, as opposed to being grown for human consumption. Of course, crops have always been raised for animal forage, and still are, but in some ways that failed effort revived, in a peculiar way, a practice that had been greatly reduced in importance after the internal combustion engine came to predominate.
Pat Holscher
Society Member
Posts: 7553
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
Last Name: Holscher

JV Puleo wrote:Almost all American cars, including the biggest and most expensive, were built with poor roads in mind since outside major urban areas there was hardly a paved road in the entire country before 1920. Most of the urban paved roads were high crowned and featured cobblestones, both of which were even more dangerous to drive on than dirt was. The period literature often describes them as "greasy" which was a polite way of saying that a cobbled street wet with horse buns and urine was a dangerous surface to drive on. Tire chains were introduced to deal with this problem, as well as mud. No one intended chains for use in snow because no one drove in the winter.

Pat, one cylinder cars are a blast. There were dozens of makes of which Cadillac is only one of the more successful. The original "curved dash Oldsmobile" is a one-lunger but probably my favorite from my car days was a 1-cyl Pope Hartford. It had a piston like a paint can and every time it fired it felt like you were getting a gentle kick in the rear end. They were simple and reliable, easily understood by the mechanics of the day, most of which were familiar with stationary farm or workshop engines.

Joe P
Perhaps the very first mention of horse flop in this thread, pointing out a danger besides the sanitary or olfactory.
Pat Holscher
Society Member
Posts: 7553
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
Last Name: Holscher

Pat Holscher wrote:For private parties, excluding the wealthy, the automobile didn't really replace the horse in towns. To some degree, it replaced the bicycle. Most people in towns, even in the rural West, didn't own horses. This is sort of contrary to our view of that period, but the majority of people didn't ride and didn't keep or own horses. Just not cost effective or possible. When bikes became widespread in the late 19th Century they were sort of hailed as a mobility revolution, as an average person could keep one and store one and achieve much greater mobility than shoe leather had provided them with. But in retrospect, what the bike really served to be was the precursor of the automobile (or, if you credit some reports, it was the precursor of the automobile, which might be a partial precursor of the revived bicycle). Early automobiles were extremely expensive, and contrary to widespread popular belief, fuel was tremendously expensive. But people could keep them in front of the house, which they couldn't with a horse, and so they became an expensive item that Middle Class households were willing to spend a significant percentage of their incomes on, and that's remained the case ever since. It's interesting to note, but people in the Western World spend a great deal for mobility, to such an extent that they really don't realize it.
Related to the cost item, Gasoline prices between 1913 and 1922, not adjusted to today's dollars:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/se ... ?cid=33065

If adjusted for inflation, the high mark in that period was about $4.11 per gallon (in about 1920):

http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
Pat Holscher
Society Member
Posts: 7553
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
Last Name: Holscher

Later graph, showing the effect of the Great Depression:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/se ... ?cid=33065

That 1940 .05/gal is about a current .82/gallon.
Steve Haupt
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 12:10 pm
Last Name: Haupt

Greetings,
So today in California the average price per galloon for 87 octane is $4.65.In reality if you were in the Bay Area expect to pay $5.29-$5.69. The price escalates overnight and deescalates over fortnight.
Steve Haupt
(How much was gas 4 years ago?)
Pat Holscher
Society Member
Posts: 7553
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
Last Name: Holscher

Today's local newspaper features a headline indicating that the US is set to resume the position of the worlds largest producer of Petroleum, and that consumption is set to also decline.

Who would have imagined this a decade ago?
Gordon_M
Society Member
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2004 2:56 am
Last Name: McMillan

Not me Pat, as a reality check the cost of petrol ( gasoline ) or diesel here in the UK is approximately US $ 10 per gallon equivalent, so make the best of it. As an oil person I'm not complaining as although consumption is being depressed by the prices there's no lack of investment yet to keep me in a job.

Over here, poor people walk ( car fuel and insurance costs mostly ) middle class folks use the car, but very carefully regarding the right foot, and if you are really rich you can afford a horse .... :mrgreen: I knew I could drag it back on topic somehow.


Gordon
Couvi
Society Member
Posts: 1236
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2001 9:30 am

Gordon_M wrote:Not me Pat, as a reality check the cost of petrol ( gasoline ) or diesel here in the UK is approximately US $ 10 per gallon equivalent, so make the best of it. As an oil person I'm not complaining as although consumption is being depressed by the prices there's no lack of investment yet to keep me in a job.

Over here, poor people walk ( car fuel and insurance costs mostly ) middle class folks use the car, but very carefully regarding the right foot, and if you are really rich you can afford a horse .... :mrgreen: I knew I could drag it back on topic somehow.


Gordon

Nicely played, Gordon! :thumbup:
Pat Holscher
Society Member
Posts: 7553
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
Last Name: Holscher

Gordon_M wrote:Not me Pat, as a reality check the cost of petrol ( gasoline ) or diesel here in the UK is approximately US $ 10 per gallon equivalent, so make the best of it. As an oil person I'm not complaining as although consumption is being depressed by the prices there's no lack of investment yet to keep me in a job.

Over here, poor people walk ( car fuel and insurance costs mostly ) middle class folks use the car, but very carefully regarding the right foot, and if you are really rich you can afford a horse .... :mrgreen: I knew I could drag it back on topic somehow.


Gordon
$10.00? Wow!

You've tapped into part of the odd nature of the reason for this development (which, being in the industry, you are no doubt well aware of). Availability of the resource is determined by it being finite of course, but also by the cost of development and the advance of technology. There's always been a fair untapped reserve because its been uneconomic. At some point, the resource can be so expensive to produce that it won't be produced. What wasn't foreseen was how technological developments would drive the cost of production down. At the same time, we've also seen it be the case here that use of the resource is actually dropping, which is basically the first time in our history that's ever happened. So less oil is now needed, just as the cost of producing it has gone down, so the price of it, while it's gone up, hasn't gone up to the point where it's devastating the economy. It's a really bizarre time in terms of the petroleum market.

The price at the pump of this product has bizarre consequences here and there, in and of itself. In the region I'm located, we're incredibly dependent upon petroleum for transportation, and for jobs. When the price begins to climb, we really hear complaints. At the same time, employment locally really picks up. It sometimes seems to me that some of those complaining don't actually quite make the connection between the high price and the high employment, and I've actually heard, on at least one occasion, a person whose sons were employed in the oil industry attack anyone criticizing the industry while at the same time bitterly complaining about the price at the pump. In the agricultural sector, however, fuel prices really matter enormously and I've heard some pretty detailed discussions on switching to one thing or another to lower fuel costs, such as switching from diesel to propane irrigation pumps. And I've heard ranchers seriously discuss using lower fuel using vehicles where appropriate, or even using horses to a greater extent than they already do, for costs savings.
Gordon_M
Society Member
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2004 2:56 am
Last Name: McMillan

Double-checked, ran the numbers, almost exactly US$ 10 per Imperial gallon, which I'll admit is a hair larger than the US gallon.

80% is tax, so the actual cost of fuel is about $2 per gallon here, plus taxes. Of course that impacts on horse costs too, as they all have to be hauled around, and Vet's bills need to cover steep fuel costs. I'm all for using hydrocarbon efficiently, but don't stop drilling wells till after I retire. :shh:
Steve Haupt
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 12:10 pm
Last Name: Haupt

Pat Holscher wrote: or even using horses to a greater extent than they already do, for costs savings.
Greetings,
If you are able to acquire the lastest issue of Rural Heritage they had quite an extensive review of Horse Progress Days. It is a modern day trade show of horse farming equipment. You can see pictures of the 2010 event at http://horseprogressdays.com/photo-gallery.asp#
It is rotated through the various Amish communitites of the USA. It usually falls close to July 4th.The next one in Arcola Il. will be the 20th edition July 5-6.
The one quote from a few years ago was "If it sounds like, looks like and smells like a tractor why isn't it?"
Cheers,
Steve Haupt
Pat Holscher
Society Member
Posts: 7553
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
Last Name: Holscher

Steve Haupt wrote:
Pat Holscher wrote: or even using horses to a greater extent than they already do, for costs savings.
Greetings,
If you are able to acquire the lastest issue of Rural Heritage they had quite an extensive review of Horse Progress Days. It is a modern day trade show of horse farming equipment. You can see pictures of the 2010 event at http://horseprogressdays.com/photo-gallery.asp#
It is rotated through the various Amish communitites of the USA. It usually falls close to July 4th.The next one in Arcola Il. will be the 20th edition July 5-6.
The one quote from a few years ago was "If it sounds like, looks like and smells like a tractor why isn't it?"
Cheers,
Steve Haupt
For fans of horse drawn equipment, that show always has a lot of interesting stuff, including some very modern stuff, albeit horse drawn, at least based on what I've read or seen of it in photos.

One year somebody had modified a Hoelscher Mini Baler for use behind a team, which was interesting to me because of the name, although I doubt there's any relation. That company is out of Kansas I believe.
Pat Holscher
Society Member
Posts: 7553
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
Last Name: Holscher

Gordon_M wrote:Double-checked, ran the numbers, almost exactly US$ 10 per Imperial gallon, which I'll admit is a hair larger than the US gallon.

80% is tax, so the actual cost of fuel is about $2 per gallon here, plus taxes. Of course that impacts on horse costs too, as they all have to be hauled around, and Vet's bills need to cover steep fuel costs. I'm all for using hydrocarbon efficiently, but don't stop drilling wells till after I retire. :shh:
Wow.

My son's a fan of a British show called Top Gear which features automobiles every episode. I knew that gasoline was expensive there, but I had no idea that it was that expensive. It puts a whole new prospective on the what must be the purchase and design parameters of European vehicles.
Pat Holscher
Society Member
Posts: 7553
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
Last Name: Holscher

Some interesting oilfield photos from the dawn of the petroleum age, end of the equine age.

Image

Image

Image
Steve Haupt
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 12:10 pm
Last Name: Haupt

The pictures also show that the age of the horse was not quite done.
My friend told me of his uncle that provided teams in the Oilpatch. He said they preferred to use mares rather than geldings. With the oil and mud they were in that it was easier to keep the udders of mare clean versus the crud that would accumulate in the sheaths of geldings.Not something that we might think of today but makes perfect sense of 1930s horsemen.
Cheers,
Steve Haupt
Pat Holscher
Society Member
Posts: 7553
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
Last Name: Holscher

Steve Haupt wrote:The pictures also show that the age of the horse was not quite done.
My friend told me of his uncle that provided teams in the Oilpatch. He said they preferred to use mares rather than geldings. With the oil and mud they were in that it was easier to keep the udders of mare clean versus the crud that would accumulate in the sheaths of geldings.Not something that we might think of today but makes perfect sense of 1930s horsemen.
Cheers,
Steve Haupt
One of my wife's relatives operated as a freighter in and out of the big Salt Creek field here in the 1920s. They used huge teams of mules to haul equipment for drilling, etc., out to the field.
Locked