Historians Find "Missing" Lighthouse

Remove all ads!

You have to ask yourself why would the government move a lighthouse all the way across the Continetal United States? Here's the story:

You wouldn't think you could find anything this interesting or "exciting" in "Lighthouse Digest." Here's the question I have for anyone who would know the answer: Wouldn't it just be cheaper to build a new one in California rather than haul a 30 foot lighthouse thousands of miles? I realize it could be taken apart and put back together. But I wonder if Halliburton has the government contract for lighthouses.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24983428/

 

Is this really an Alley worthy topic? I mean, maybe lighthouses are a big deal to some people. I'd love to know the number of subscribers to that Lighthouse periodical.

What kind of a job is "lighthouse researcher"? The world is an odd place.

Are they gonna move it back across the country? Maybe they could make it a reality show.

 

In 1925 labor was cheap but getting funds allocated for the Coast Guard (or the equivalent) was extremely difficult.

 

LKD - I wanted to place it in Whatnots, but the historical/political overtones caused me to place it here. If the mods wish to move it, I have absolutely no objections. My point was that there must have been a government contract somewhere in all this. While my "Halliburton" comment was just sarcasim, I'm sure that there have always been the Halli type companies that have made tons of cash off of government incompetence, especially in just such a "shocking" instance as this.

Much like you, LKD, I had no idea that lighthouses were such a big deal to some people; I mean, lighthouse "researchers?" Is that a real job? Or is it just something someone does who has too much time on his/her hands?

 

I'd think the second, but if I can get paid for it, I'll give it a shot...

 

Also, it was a cast iron, that is more or less single piece, tower. That makes it mobile, say by ship or maybe by rail. It only needed a new foundation at the new site and be put up.

 

Even a house or a building can be moved by rail, but that is very expensive. I would think something that is cast iron and a single piece would be less mobile, rather than an object that is modular. But I'm not an engineer.

 

I would think that it is rather compact actually, after all it's just 30 feet high, and it is long-ish (which I draw from the noun 'tower' ) which suggests that it ought to be relatively easy to transport by rail or ship. I guess that it would be similar in weight and dimensions to industrial machinery, or maybe a cruiser's gun barrel. I guesstimate the weight at some 20- tons.

 

I believe they would ship it the same way the London Bridge was shipped to Arizona... completely disassembled and rebuilt at the new location.

 

Hmmm.... I clicked on this thread from the main page after seeing "Historians Find "Missing"...". I had just recently watched 'The Mummy Who Would Be King' (a PBS documentary on the missing/found mummy of Rameses I) so I thought this thread might be interesting... Instead, I find a thread on lighthouses.

I agree with that. They probably cut it up in to 3 pieces...if you look at the picture, they could have removed the top section right below the walkway, then cut the tower in half at the visible seam.

 

I didn't even think there was much need for lighthouses these days, given the advancement of GPS and such. (that's a comment of the existence of a "Lighthouse Digest")

Anyway, I can see the American government of the time moving a large cast-iron cylinder to save money. Somehow it just seems right.