>>510168162
>>510167833
>people didn't need huge sums of capital
Yes, and no. Think about 1865 America. Huge country, huge disparities in wealth. Huge price differences for commodities depending on location. Cotton sold for cheap in the south, but was worth much more in the north where the textile mills were. How to move the cotton from the south to the north? Riverboat/barge. Sure okay, but the riverboat costs a lot of money if it's going to be big enough to haul a large shipment of cotton.

Going east to west, grain was expensive on the east coast, but cheap in the midwest. How to get the grain to the east? Wagons? Too slow and too small a cargo, that's why it was so expensive. Rail would work, but railroads require ENORMOUS amounts of capital. Much more than riverboats. A railroad is an extremely complex undertaking that costs a fortune to build, run and maintain.

But a railroad can more than pay for itself in the long run if it goes to and from the right locations, and is a key requirement for a large country that does not have convenient navigable river access.

Today one could argue that interstate highways (autobahns) are of equal or greater importance to a nations economy than the railroads. Highways require an enormous expendature of capital to build and maintain.
.