Archived Digital Text

The new company immediately got off to a bad start when, in September they published a circular requesting a donation of lands along the right-of-way. Since there had been no survey, there was no right-of-way; the implication being, of course, the route of the road would be influenced by the donations. Understandably, this was not well received. Progress towards what should have been the company's priority was made when in May, 1834, the State agreed to do a rough survey of the route. Governor Marcy appointed Benjamin Wright, the great engineer, to do the survey. Mr. Wright selected James Seymour and Charles Ellet, Jr., as assistants.
Results of the survey were reported to the Secretary of State January 20, 1835. While Goshen was on the proposed route, Middletown and Port Jervis were ignored. In Sullivan County, the line was to pass through the interior of that county, including Monticello. Although much of this survey was eventually discarded, it was quite brilliant. It is interesting to note that Mr. Wright predicted what is today the Graham line right down to the tunnel under Otisville.
It was agreed a railroad would be built from Piermont to Dunkirk, New York. Ground was broken November 7, 1835, near Deposit, by James G. King, then the Erie's president. Eleazar Lord argued the first step should be building the line from Piermont to Goshen. Mr. King believed starting construction at the mid-point of the line would serve to inspire confidence in the enterprise, as well as assure those upstate that they would be reached. Mr. Lord also suspected Mr. King planned to abandon Piermont as the eastern terminus in favor of Newburgh.
Work on the railroad continued until May of 1837 when it was ordered discontinued due to lack of funds. While money-raising efforts proceeded, Erie's board made plans for continued construction. On July 14, 1838, it was agreed "that the work was to be put under contract... as far as Middletown." The village, you'11 remember, was not on the original survey of 1834, but the route was altered when more precise surveys were done later.
On the same day the board made this decision, another was made which would later have disastrous consequences. Bleazar Lord made a motion, which passed, to construct the Brie using a track gauge of 6' rather than the standard 4' 8 1/2"*.
Many historians lay the blame at the door of Mr. Lord, who, in this instance, was short-sighted. Mr. Lord, after all, was a businessman, not an engineer. H.C. Seymour, then Chief Engineer, and s.s. Post advocated the broader gauge for several reasons. The English, considered at that time to be the engineering "masters" of railroad technology, favored the broad track gauge. It was also felt this would permit development of locomotives of great power.
Eleazar Lord favored the wide gauge for these and one other reason: it would make impossible the "diversion of traffic" to
*Track gauge is the distance between the two rails. This figure was established by the ancient Romans who, when building their roads, used a standard measurement- 4' 8 1/2" - for the axle-length of wagons.