Travel from West Coast to East in 1860 (HELP!!!)

As far as I know, the fastest travel route between the two (American) coasts at this time was a ship to Panama City, across the Panama Railway to Colon, and then on another ship north. Could anyone give me an estimate of how fast such a journey would take if it was done with utmost haste? I tried internet searches but could not turn up any useful information.

If you know of a faster route at this time period (not counting the Pony Express, we're talking about people travelling) don't hesitate to tell me.

Thanks,
Yelnoc
 
Last edited:
Butterfield Stage, St. Louis to San Francisco via Tuscon and Los Angeles, 22-25 days. (Though thanks for referencing the Panama Railroad; you spurred me to look it up, and it's quite interesting!)
 
Clipper ships Average 20 mph, ?What is your distances? [I can't locate my shipping route {distances} Map]
 
Butterfield Stage, St. Louis to San Francisco via Tuscon and Los Angeles, 22-25 days. (Though thanks for referencing the Panama Railroad; you spurred me to look it up, and it's quite interesting!)

That definitely sounds like the fastest land route. I'm not sure if it would beat a ship though. Thanks for telling me about it; if I don't use it for what I'm thinking of it will come in handy later.

Clipper ships Average 20 mph, ?What is your distances? [I can't locate my shipping route {distances} Map]

The only chart I could find that was readable is the below air route chart dating back to the 1920's. From it and your figure, I calculated that a cutter bound from Portland, Oregon, to Panama City Panama would take 10 days. Budget a day for the trip across the Panama Railroad. Then five days to go from Colon to Philadelphia. That does not factor in currents, weather, delays, etc. Thus, this route would take 16 days total. For the year 1860 and this route, does that sound realistic to you?

The map itself is too big to put in the post so here's a link.
 
Steven Ambrose, of Band of Brothers fame, wrote a book about the trans-continental railway. He said that in about 1845 or so, when California joined the US an, the 3 options (cross country, sea-Panama-sea, and around Cape Horn) all took about 6 months on average. However the Panama option was poorly organised which is why it took so long, it only took 8 days steaming New York-Panama and another 3 days to cross the isthmus on foot, from there California was not very far. But in 1845 steamships were rare and unreliable, so fast trips via Panama were the exception rather than the rule. It's been a while since I've read the book so feel free to correct the numbers.

I think by 1860 there were more steamships and a railway in Panama which allows a more regular service not affected as much by the vagaries of wind and weather, making a reliable timetable possible which brings the numbers down a fair bit.
 
Last edited:
Steven Ambrose, of Band of Brothers fame, wrote a book about the trans-continental railway. He said that in about 1845 or so, when California joined the US an, the 3 options (cross country, sea-Panama-sea, and around Cape Horn) all took about 6 months on average. However the Panama option was poorly organised which is why it took so long, it only took 8 days steaming New York-Panama and another 3 days to cross the isthmus on foot, from there California was not very far. But in 1845 steamships were rare and unreliable, so fast trips via Panama were the exception rather than the rule. It's been a while since I've read the book so feel free to correct the numbers.

I think by 1860 there were more steamships and a railway in Panama which allows a more regular service not affected as much by the vagaries of wind and weather, making a reliable timetable possible which brings the numbers down a fair bit.

I don't know about the numbers but I think your second paragraph is right on the money. I think I might increase the travel time to about 20 days to account for any problems and such.

Thanks everyone for your input.
 
Your question has piqued my interest again, so I got hold of Ambrose's book which described 3 journeys from east to west in 1849. He describes a team crossing by land; 8 fit, well lead, driven young men took almost 6 months from South bend Indiana to Sacramento. Another man left New York on March 14 1849, got to Panama in 8 days, 3 days to get to the headwaters of the Chagres river, 2 more days to walk 20 miles to Panama City where he just missed the steamship north. He got a sailship on May 18 which spent 104 days at sea due to no wind, again almost 6 months for the total journey. General Sherman, when he was Lieutenant, took a Clipper around the Horn in 1846 which took 202 days.

I don't know about how it was a decade later, but that's where it started.
 
Your question has piqued my interest again, so I got hold of Ambrose's book which described 3 journeys from east to west in 1849. He describes a team crossing by land; 8 fit, well lead, driven young men took almost 6 months from South bend Indiana to Sacramento. Another man left New York on March 14 1849, got to Panama in 8 days, 3 days to get to the headwaters of the Chagres river, 2 more days to walk 20 miles to Panama City where he just missed the steamship north. He got a sailship on May 18 which spent 104 days at sea due to no wind, again almost 6 months for the total journey. General Sherman, when he was Lieutenant, took a Clipper around the Horn in 1846 which took 202 days.

I don't know about how it was a decade later, but that's where it started.

It sounds like if it wasn't for the second man's bad luck in the pacific he could have gotten to California in less than a month. Thanks a bunch.
 
That definitely sounds like the fastest land route. I'm not sure if it would beat a ship though. Thanks for telling me about it; if I don't use it for what I'm thinking of it will come in handy later.

I know that the government sent the mail on the Butterfield stage route, so I'd imagine it was the fastest (except for the Pony Express, which was killed for political reasons).
 
Money and how much notice?

If someone has vast amounts of money, they might be able to go a bit faster. Hire a private special to get them to Saint Louis as fast as possible. Then, pay the stage line a nice chunk of change to give him (or her) a letter requiring the stage stations to cooperate to the utmost--which means fast horses, changing more often, and no delays for schedules--perhaps even a private stage coach, with light load--no other passengers' dead weight.

Likewise, steamship travel can be hastened with money, also--best speed, not standard speed, and the like. Aslo, a fast ship leaving NOW, not a standard steamer. On the Pacific side of Panama, a good pile of money would be enough to charter the entire ship, so there's no waiting for a full hold and full cabins.


Also, with the land route, the telegraph line can be used to makle arrangements. Perhaps someone at home arranges by (VERY EXPENSIVE) telegrams to have fresh horses waiting along the route. Then, no stage coaches, but a lot of hard riding.

Money and influence can always help; the only question is how much.
 
Also, with the land route, the telegraph line can be used to makle arrangements. Perhaps someone at home arranges by (VERY EXPENSIVE) telegrams to have fresh horses waiting along the route. Then, no stage coaches, but a lot of hard riding.

What telegraph line? It wasn't built until 1861.
 
Before the Intercontinental Railroad - which this was - sea was far faster than land. Sea was also generally more reliable.

So, yeeah, you're right - sea and Darien'd be best.

I imagine mail was sent by land so it could stay inside American borders.
 
The person has a good bit of money though he's not filthy rich. I should have the first installment of the timeline out Saturday; hopefully it won't have much effect in the scheme of things. Thanks again everyone.
 
Top