document_title: Tanks in World War I

question_text: what battle were tanks first used in ww1

text: Tanks in World War I

text: Conceptual roots of the tank[edit]

text: The conceptual roots of the tank go back to ancient times, with siege engines which were able to provide protection for troops moving up against stone walls or other fortifications. With the coming of the Industrial Revolution and the demonstrable power of steam, James Cowan presented a proposal for a Steam Powered Land Ram in 1855, towards the end of the Crimean War. Looking like a helmet on 'footed' Boydell wheels, early forerunners of the Pedrail wheel, it was essentially an armoured steam tractor equipped with cannon and rotating scythes sprouting from the sides. Lord Palmerston is said to have dismissed it as 'barbaric'.

text: From 1904 to 1909, David Roberts, the engineer and managing director of Hornsby & Sons of Grantham, built a series of tractors using his patented 'chain-track' which were put through their paces by the British Army, a (small) section of which wanted to evaluate artillery tractors. At one point in 1908,  Major William E. Donohue of the Mechanical Transport Committee remarked to Roberts that he should design a new machine with armour, capable of carrying its own gun. But, disheartened by years of ultimately fruitless tinkering for the Army, Roberts did not take up the idea. In later years he expressed regret at not having pursued it.[5]

text: An engineer in the Austro-Hungarian Army, Lieutenant Gunther Burstyn, inspired by Holt tractors, designed a tracked armoured vehicle in 1911 carrying a light gun in a rotating turret; equipped also with hinged 'arms', two in front and two at the rear, carrying wheels on the ends to assist with obstacles and trenches, it was a very forward-looking design, if rather small. The Austrian government said it would be interested in evaluating it if Burstyn could secure commercial backing to produce a prototype. Lacking the requisite contacts, he let it drop. An approach to the German government was similarly fruitless.

text: In 1912, a South Australian, Lancelot De Mole, submitted a proposal to the British War Office for a "chain-rail vehicle which could be easily steered and carry heavy loads over rough ground and trenches". De Mole made more proposals to the War Office in 1914 and 1916, with a culminating proposal in late 1917, accompanied by a huge one-eighth scale model, yet all fell on substantially deaf ears. De Mole's proposal already had the climbing face, so typical of the later World War I British tanks, but it is unknown whether there was some connection. Inquiries to the government of Australia, after the war, yielded polite responses that Mr. De Mole's ideas had unfortunately been too advanced for the time to be properly recognised at their just value. The Commission on Awards to Inventors in 1919, which adjudicated all the competing claims to the development of the tank, recognised the brilliance of De Mole's design, even considering that it was superior to the machines actually developed, but due to its narrow remit, could only make a payment of £987 to De Mole to cover his expenses. De Mole noted in 1919 that he was urged by friends before the war to approach the Germans with his design, but declined to do so for patriotic reasons.

text: Before World War I, motorized vehicles were still relatively uncommon, and their use on the battlefield was initially limited, especially of heavier vehicles. Armoured cars soon became more commonplace with most belligerents, especially in more open terrain. On August 23, 1914, the French Colonel Jean Baptiste Eugène Estienne, later a major proponent of tanks, declared: Messieurs, la victoire appartiendra dans cette guerre à celui des deux belligérants qui parviendra le premier à placer un canon de 75 sur une voiture capable de se mouvoir en tout terrain ("Gentlemen, the victory will belong, in this war, to the one of the two belligerents who will be the first to succeed in mounting a 75 mm gun on a vehicle capable of moving in all types of terrain").

text: Armored cars did indeed prove useful in open land such as in deserts, but were not very good at crossing obstacles (e.g. trenches, barriers) or in more challenging terrain. The other issue was that it was very hard to add much protection or armament.

text: The main limitation was the wheels, which gave a high ground pressure for the vehicle's weight. This could be solved by adding more wheels, but unless they also were driven, the effect was to reduce traction on the powered wheels. Driving extra wheels meant more drive train weight, in turn requiring a larger and heavier engine to maintain performance. Even worse, none of this extra weight was put into an improvement of armor or armament carried, and the vehicles were still incapable of crossing very rough terrain.

text: The adoption of caterpillar tracks offered a new solution to the problem. The tracks spread the weight of the vehicles over a much greater area, which was all used for traction to move the vehicle. The limitation on armor and firepower was no longer ground pressure but the power and weight of the power-plant.

text: The remaining issue was how to utilise and configure a vehicle.  Major Ernest Dunlop Swinton RE, was the official British war correspondent serving in France in 1914. He recounts in his book Eyewitness how the idea of using caterpillar tracks to drive an armoured fighting vehicle came to him on October 19, 1914, while he was driving through northern France. In July 1914 he had received a letter from a friend, Hugh Marriott, a mining engineer, drawing his attention to a Holt caterpillar tractor that Marriott had seen in Belgium. Marriott thought it might be useful for transport over difficult ground, and Swinton had passed the information on to the appropriate departments. Now Swinton suggested the idea of an armoured tracked vehicle to the military authorities, by sending a proposal to Lieutenant-Colonel Maurice Hankey. Hankey in turn tried to interest Lord Kitchener in the idea; when this failed he sent a memorandum in December to the Committee of Imperial Defence, of which he was himself the secretary; Winston Churchill the First Lord of the Admiralty was one of the members of the committee. Hankey proposed to build a gigantic steel roller, pushed by tracked tractors, to shield the advancing infantry. Churchill in turn wrote a note on January 5 to the Prime Minister H. H. Asquith, in which he warned that the Germans might any moment introduce a comparable system. A worried Asquith now ordered Kitchener to form a committee, headed by General Scott-Moncrieff, to study the feasibility of Swinton's idea; however, after trials with a Holt 75 h.p. machine the committee concluded in February 1915 that the idea was impractical.

text: The Landships Committee[edit]

text: Winston Churchill however decided that if the Army wouldn't take up the idea, the Navy should proceed independently, even if it were to exceed the limits of his authority. He created the Landships Committee in February 1915, initially to investigate designs for a massive troop transporter. As a truer picture of front-line conditions was developed the aims of the investigation changed. A requirement was formulated for an armoured vehicle capable of 4 mph (6 km/h), climbing a 5 feet (1.5 m) high parapet, crossing an 8 feet (2.4 m) wide gap, and armed with machine guns and a light artillery piece. A similar proposal was working its way through the Army GHQ in France, and in June the Landships Committee was made a joint service venture between the War Office and the Admiralty. The Naval involvement in Armoured Fighting Vehicle (AFV) design had originally come about through the Royal Naval Air Service Armoured Car Division, the only British unit fielding AFVs in 1914; surprisingly, until the end of the war most experimentation on heavy land vehicles was conducted by Royal Naval Air Service Squadron 20.

text: At first, protecting heavy gun tractors with armour appeared the most promising line of development. Alternative early 'big wheel' designs on the lines of the Russian tsar tank of 1915 were soon understood to be impractical. However, adapting the existing Holt Company caterpillar designs — the only robust tracked tractors available in 1915 — into a fighting machine, as France and Germany did, was decided against. While armour and weapon systems were easy to acquire, other existing caterpillar and suspension units were too weak, existing engines were underpowered for the vehicles that the designers had in mind, and trench-crossing ability was poor because of the shortness of the wheelbase. The Killen-Strait tractor with three tracks was used for the first experiments in June but was much too small to be developed further. The large Pedrail monotrack vehicle was proposed in a number of different configurations, but non were adopted. Trials to couple two American Bullock tractors failed. There also were considerable differences of opinion between the several committee members. Col R.E.B. Crompton, a veteran military engineer and electrical pioneer, drafted numerous designs with Lucien Legros for armoured troop carrying vehicles and gun-armed vehicles, to have used either Bullock tracks or variants of the Pedrail. At the same time, Lt Robert Macfie, of the RNAS, and Albert Nesfield, an Ealing-based engineer, devised a number of armoured tracked vehicles, which incorporated an angled front 'climbing face' to the tracks. The two men fell out bitterly as their plans came to nought; Macfie in particular pursued a vendetta against the other members of the Landships Committee after the war.

text: To resolve the threatened dissipation of effort, it was ordered in late July that a contract was to be placed with William Foster & Co. Ltd, a company having done some prewar design work on heavy tractors and known to Churchill from an earlier experiment with a trench-crossing supply vehicle, to produce a proof-of-concept vehicle with two tracks, based on a lengthened Bullock tractor chassis. Construction work began three weeks later.

text: Fosters of Lincoln built the 14 ton "Little Willie", which first ran on 8 September. Powered by a 105 hp (78 kW) Daimler engine, the 10-foot-high (3.0 m) armoured box was initially fitted with a low Bullock caterpillar. A rotating top turret was planned with a 40 mm gun but abandoned due to weight problems, leaving the final vehicle unarmed and little more than a test-bed for the difficult track system. Difficulties with the commercial tracks supplied led to Tritton designing a completely new track system different from, and vastly more robust than, any other system then in use. The next design by Lieutenant Walter Gordon Wilson RNAS, a pre-war motor engineer, added a larger track frame to the hull of "Little Willie". In order to achieve the demanded gap clearance a rhomboidal shape was chosen—stretching the form to improve the track footprint and climbing capacity. To keep a low centre of gravity the rotating turret design was dropped in favour of sponsons on the sides of the hull fitted with naval 6-pounder (57 mm) guns. A final specification was agreed on in late September for trials in early 1916, and the resulting 30 ton "Big Willie" (later called "Mother") together with "Little Willie" underwent trials at Hatfield Park on 29 January and 2 February. Attendees at the second trial included Lord Kitchener, Lloyd George, Reginald McKenna and other political luminaries. On 12 February an initial order for 100 "Mother" type vehicles was made, later expanded to 150.

text: Crews never called tanks "Willies"; at first they referred to them as "landships", and later informally "buses".[6] Although landship was a natural term coming from an Admiralty committee, it was considered too descriptive and could give away British intentions. The committee therefore looked for an appropriate code term for the vehicles. Factory workers assembling the vehicles had been told they were producing "mobile water tanks" for desert warfare in Mesopotamia. Water Container was therefore considered but rejected because the committee would inevitably be known as the WC Committee (WC meaning water closet was a common British term for a toilet). The term tank, as in water tank, was in December 1915 finally accepted as its official designation. From then on, the term "tank" was established among British and also German soldiers. While in German Tank specifically refers to the World War I type (as opposed to modern Panzer), in English, Russian and other languages the name even for contemporary armoured vehicles is still based on the word tank.

text: It is sometimes mistakenly stated that, after completion, the tanks were shipped to France in large wooden crates. For secrecy and in order to not arouse any curiosity, the crates and the tanks themselves were then each labelled with a destination in Russian, "With Care to Petrograd". In fact the tanks were never shipped in crates: the inscription in Russian was applied on the hull for their transport from the factory to the first training centre at Thetford.

text: The first fifty had been delivered to France on 30 August. They were 'male' or 'female', depending upon whether their armament comprised two 6-pounder cannon and three Hotchkiss machine guns or four Vickers machine guns and one Hotchkiss. It had a crew of eight, four of whom were needed to handle the steering and drive gears. The tanks were capable of, at best, 6 km/h (4 mph), matching the speed of marching infantry with whom they were to be integrated to aid in the destruction of enemy machine guns. In practice, their speed on broken ground could be as little as 1 mph.

text: After the war the Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors decided that the principal inventors of the Tank were Sir William Tritton, managing director of Fosters, and Major Walter Gordon Wilson.

text: First Deployments[edit]

text: The first use of tanks on the battlefield was the use of British Mark I tanks at the Battle of Flers-Courcelette (part of the Battle of the Somme) on 15 September 1916, with mixed results; many broke down, but nearly a third succeeded in breaking through. Of the forty-nine tanks shipped to the Somme, only thirty-two were able to begin the first attack in which they were used and only nine made it across "no man's land" to the German lines. The tanks had been rushed into combat before the design was mature enough (against Churchill's and Ernest Swinton's wishes)[7] and the number was small but their use gave important feedback on how to design newer tanks, the soundness of the concept, and their potential to affect the course of the war. On the other hand, the French Army was critical of the British employment of small numbers of tanks at this battle. They felt the British had sacrificed the secrecy of the weapon while employing it in numbers too small to be decisive. Considering that the British attack was part of an Anglo-French offensive while the Russians were also attacking at the same time, Haig felt justified in making a maximum effort, regardless of the limitations of the tank force.

text: The Mark Is were capable of performing on the real battlefield of World War I, one of the most difficult battlefield terrains ever. They did have reliability problems, but when they were working they could cross trenches or craters of 9 feet (2.7 m) and drive right through barbed wire. It was still common for them to get stuck, especially in larger bomb craters, but overall the rhomboid shape allowed for extreme terrain mobility.

text: Tank crews who had read press reports depicting the new weapon driving through buildings and trees, and crossing wide rivers, were disappointed.[6] Most World War I tanks could travel only at about a walking pace at best. Their steel armour could stop small arms fire and fragments from high-explosive artillery shells. However they were vulnerable to a direct hit from artillery and mortar shells. The environment inside was extremely unpleasant; as ventilation was inadequate the atmosphere was heavy with poisonous carbon monoxide from the engine and firing the weapons, fuel and oil vapours from the engine and cordite fumes from the weapons. Temperatures inside could reach 50°C (122°F). Entire crews lost consciousness inside the tanks, or collapsed when again exposed to fresh air.[8] Crews learned how to create and leave behind supply dumps of fuel, motor oil, and tread grease, and converted obsolete models into supply vehicles for newer ones.[6]

text: To counter the danger of bullet splash or fragments knocked off the inside of the hull, the crew wore helmets with goggles and chainmail masks. Fragments were not as dangerous as fire, because of explosive fumes and the large amount of fuel aboard; smoking was prohibited inside and within 20 yards outside tanks.[6] Gas masks were also standard issue, as they were to all soldiers at this point in the war due to the use of chemical warfare. The side armour of 8 mm initially made them largely immune to small arms fire, but could be penetrated by the recently developed armour-piercing K bullets. There was also the danger of being overrun by infantry and attacked with grenades. The next generation had thicker armour, making them nearly immune to the K bullets. In response, the Germans developed a larger purpose-made anti-tank rifle, the 3.7 cm TAK 1918 anti-tank gun, and also a Geballte Ladung ("Bunched Charge")—several regular stick grenades bundled together for a much bigger explosion.

text: Engine power was a primary limitation on the tanks; the roughly one hundred horsepower engines gave a power-to-weight ratio of 3.3 hp/ton (2.5 kW/ton). By the end of the 20th century, power-to-weight ratios exceeded 20 hp/ton (15 kW/ton).

text: Many feel that because the British Commander Field Marshal Douglas Haig was himself a horse cavalryman, his command failed to appreciate the value of tanks. In fact, horse cavalry doctrine in World War I was to "follow up a breakthrough with harassing attacks in the rear", but there were no breakthroughs on the Western Front until the tanks came along. Despite these supposed views of Haig, he made an order for 1,000 tanks shortly after the failure at the Somme and always remained firmly in favour of further production.

text: In 1919, Major General Sir Louis Jackson said: "The tank was a freak. The circumstances which called it into existence were exceptional and not likely to recur. If they do, they can be dealt with by other means."[9]

text: French developments[edit]

text: France at the same time developed its own tracked AFVs, but the situation there was very different. In Britain a single committee had coordinated design, and had to overcome the initial resistance of the Army, while the major industries remained passive. Almost all production effort was thus concentrated into the Mark I and its direct successors, all very similar in shape. In France, on the other hand, there were multiple and conflicting lines of development which were badly integrated, resulting in three major and quite disparate production types. A major arms producer, Schneider, took the lead in January 1915 and tried to build a first armoured vehicle based on the Baby Holt tractor but initially the development process was slow until in July they received political, even presidential, support by combining their project with that of a mechanical wire cutter devised by engineer and politician Jean-Louis Bréton. In December 1915, the influential Colonel Estienne made the Supreme Command very enthusiastic about the idea of creating an armoured force based on these vehicles; strong Army support for tanks was a constant during the decades that followed. Already in January and February 1916 quite substantial orders were made, at that moment with a total number of 800 much larger than the British ones.

text: Army enthusiasm and haste had its immediate drawbacks however. As a result of the involvement of inexperienced army officers ordered to devise a new tank based on the larger 75 hp Holt chassis in a very short period of time, the first French tanks were poorly designed with respect to the need to cross trenches and did not take the sponson-mounting route of the British tanks. The first, the Char Schneider CA equipped with a short 75 mm howitzer, had poor mobility due to a short track length combined with a hull that overhung front and rear. It was unreliable as well; a maximum of only about 130 of the 400 built were ever operational at the same time. Then industrial rivalry began to play a detrimental role: it created the heavy Char St Chamond, a parallel development not ordered by the Army but approved by government through industrial lobby, which mounted much more impressive weaponry — its 75 mm was the most powerful gun fielded by any operational tank up till 1941 — but also combined many of the Schneider CA's faults with an even larger overhanging body. Its innovative petro-electrical transmission, while allowing for easy steering, was insufficiently developed and led to a large number of breakdowns.

text: But industrial initiative also led to swift advances. The car industry, already used to vehicle mass production and having much more experience in vehicle layout, in 1916 designed the first practical light tanks, a class largely neglected by the British. It was Renault's excellent small tank design, the FT, incorporating a proper climbing face for the tracks, that was the first tank to incorporate a top-mounted turret with a full 360° traverse capability. In fact the FT was in many respects the first truly 'modern' tank having a layout that has been followed by almost all designs ever since: driver at the front; main armament in a fully rotating turret on top; engine at the rear. Previous models had been "box tanks", with a single crowded space combining the role of engine room, fighting compartment, ammunition stock and driver's cabin. (A very similar Peugeot prototype, with a fixed casemate mounting a short 75mm cannon, was trialled in 1918 but the idea was not pursued). The FT had the largest production run of any tank of the war, with over 3700 built, more numerous than all British tanks combined. That this would happen was at first far from certain; some in the French army lobbied for the alternative mass production of super-heavy tanks. Much design effort was put in this line of development resulting in the gigantic Char 2C, the most complex and technologically advanced tank of its day. Its very complexity ensured it being produced too late to participate in World War I and in the very small number of just ten, but it was the first tank with a three-man turret; the heaviest to enter service until late in World War II and still the largest ever operational.

text: French production at first lagged behind the British. After August 1916 however, British tank manufacture was temporarily halted to wait for better designs, allowing the French to overtake their allies in numbers. When the French used tanks for the first time on 16 April 1917, during the Nivelle Offensive, they had four times more tanks available. But that did not last long as the offensive was a major failure; the Schneiders were badly deployed and suffered 50% losses from German long-range artillery. The Saint-Chamond tanks, first deployed on 5 May, proved to be so badly designed that they were unable to cross the first line of German trenches.

text: German developments[edit]

text: Germany concentrated more on the development of anti-tank weapons than on development of tanks themselves. They only developed one type of tank which saw combat in the war. The A7V Sturmpanzerwagen was designed in 1917 and was used in battle from March 1918. It was manned by a crew of 18, and had eight machine guns and a 57mm cannon. Only 20 A7Vs were produced during the war.

text: Battle of Cambrai[edit]

text: The first battle in which tanks made a great impact was the Battle of Cambrai in 1917. British Colonel J.F.C. Fuller, chief of staff of the Tank Corps, was responsible for the tanks' role in the battle. They made an unprecedented breakthrough but, as ever on the Western front, the opportunity was not exploited. Ironically, it was the soon-to-be-supplanted horse cavalry that had been assigned the task of following up the motorised tank attack.[10]

text: Tanks became more effective as the lesson of the early tanks was absorbed. The British produced the Mark IV in 1917. Similar to the early Marks in appearance, its construction was considered to produce a more reliable machine, the long-barrelled naval guns were shortened (the barrels of the earlier, longer guns were prone to digging in the mud when negotiating obstacles) and armour was increased just enough to defeat the standard German armour-piercing bullet.

text: The continued need for four men to drive the tank was solved with the Mark V which used Wilson's epicyclic gearing in 1918. Also in 1918 the French produced the Renault FT, the result of a co-operation between Estienne and Louis Renault. As mentioned before, it had the innovative turret position, and was operated by two men. At just 8 tons it was half the weight of the Medium A Whippet but the version with the cannon had more firepower. It was conceived for mass production, and the FT became the most produced tank of World War I by a wide margin, with over 3,000 delivered to the French Army.  Large numbers were used by the Americans and several were also lent to the British.

text: In July 1918, the French used 480 tanks (mostly FTs) at the Battle of Soissons, and there were even larger assaults planned for the next year. In Plan 1919, the Entente hoped to commit over 30,000 tanks to battle in that year.

text: Whippet[edit]

text: Finally, in a preview of later developments, the British developed the Whippet. This tank was specifically designed to exploit breaches in the enemy front with its relatively higher speed (around 8mph vs 3-4mph for the British heavy tanks). The Whippet was faster than most other tanks, although it carried only machine gun armament, meaning it was not suited to combat with armoured vehicles but instead with infantry. Postwar tank designs reflected this trend towards greater tactical mobility.[citation needed]

text: Villers-Bretonneux: Tank against tank[edit]

text: The German General Staff did not have enthusiasm for the tanks, but allowed the development of anti-tank weapons. Regardless, development of a German tank was under way. The only project to be produced and fielded was the A7V, although only twenty were built. The majority of the fifty or so tanks fielded by Germany were captured British vehicles. A7Vs were captured by the Allies, but they were not used, and most ended up being scrapped.

text: The first tank-versus-tank battles took place 24 April 1918. It was an unexpected engagement between three German A7Vs and three British Mk. IVs at Villers-Bretonneux.

text: Fuller's Plan 1919, involving massive use of tanks for an offensive, was never used because the blockade of Germany and the entry of the US brought an end to the war.


document_title: NBA playoffs

question_text: how many games are there in the nba semifinals

root

text: NBA playoffs

text: Format[edit]

text: In September 2015, the NBA announced changes to the formula used to determine the format of the 2016 NBA Playoffs. The top eight teams in each conference (East and West), ranked in order by win-loss records, qualify for the playoffs. The tie-break criteria for playoff seeding and home-court advantage have also changed; head-to-head results between the tied teams is the first tie-breaker, and whether a team won its division championship is the second tie-breaker.[1]

tag: p

text: These seedings are used to create a bracket that determines the match-ups throughout the series. Once the playoffs start, the bracket is fixed; teams are never "reseeded", unlike in the National Football League (NFL) and Major League Soccer (MLS) where the strongest remaining teams face the weakest teams in subsequent rounds. The first round of the NBA playoffs, or conference quarterfinals, consists of four match-ups in each conference based on the seedings (1–8, 2–7, 3–6, and 4–5). The four winners advance to the second round, or conference semifinals, with a match-up between the 1–8 and 4–5 winners and a match-up between the 2–7 and 3–6 winners. The two winners advance to the third round, or conference finals. The winner from each conference will advance to the final round, or the NBA Finals.

text: All rounds are best-of-seven series. Series are played in a 2–2–1–1–1 format, meaning the team with home-court advantage hosts games 1, 2, 5, and 7, while their opponent hosts games 3, 4, and 6, with games 5–7 being played if needed. This format has been used since 2014, after NBA team owners unanimously voted to change from a 2–3–2 format on October 23, 2013.[2]

text: The most common criticism of the current structure is related to parity of conferences. On numerous occasions, Eastern Conference teams with losing records qualified for the playoffs, while Western Conference teams with winning records ended up missing them, including the 2011, 2013 and the 2015 NBA Playoffs.

text: History[edit]

text: The National Basketball Association was established in 1949 by merger of the Basketball Association of America (BAA) and National Basketball League but it recognizes the three BAA seasons as part of its own history. In all of its three years the BAA champion was finally determined in a best-of-seven series but its first two tournaments, the 1947 and 1948 BAA Playoffs, were otherwise quite different from the third, which 21st-century NBA playoffs nearly match. In 1947 and 1948, the Eastern and Western Division champions were matched in a best-of-seven series following the regular season, whose winner advanced to the championship round. Meanwhile, four runners-up played best-of-three series to determine the other finalist: the two second-place teams were matched in one short series and the two third-place teams in another; the winners of those two series played another one. In 1947 the Philadelphia Warriors won the runners-up bracket and beat the Western champion Chicago Stags four games to one, which the NBA recognizes as its first championship; in 1948 Baltimore won the runners-up and beat Eastern champion Philadelphia in the final. Both tournaments generated one finalist from the Eastern and one from the Western Division, but only by chance.[3]

text: In 1949 the third and last BAA tournament matched Eastern teams exclusively and Western teams exclusively, necessarily generating Eastern and Western playoff champions to meet in the final. At the same time, the number of playoff teams was increased from three to four from each Division; two rounds of best-of-three series were played, followed by a best-of-seven championship. The main idea was retained by the NBA. Even the 1950 tournament, following a transitional season with three divisions rather than two, initially determined one playoff champion from each division. The Central champion Minneapolis Lakers became the first league champion under the NBA name by defeating Anderson from the West in a best-of-three, with Syracuse from the East idle, and then knocking off the Syracuse Nationals in six games.[4]

text: The 1951 through 1953 playoffs changed the division finals into a best-of-five playoff. With only nine league members in 1953–54, the NBA cut its postseason tournament field from eight teams to six (from 1954 through 1966, the period of eight to nine league members). Round robins were played in 1954, uniquely in NBA history—a three-team round robin among the three playoff teams in each division. From 1955 to 1966, the first-place team in each division was idle while its two runners-up faced played a best-of-three. Division finals were expanded to best-of-seven in 1958 and division semifinals to best-of-five in 1961.

text: With ten league members again for the 1966–67 season, eight teams were again admitted to the tournament, providing a simple three-round knockout (8-team bracket). A year later, the division semifinals were changed to best-of-seven playoff.  Then, in 1975 and 1977, respectively, a fifth and sixth team were added to each Division, necessitating an additional first round of best-of-three series.

text: Finally in 1984, the tournament expanded to its present 16-team, four-round knockout, and the now-complete set of first-round series were expanded to a best-of-five. In 2003 the first round was changed to also be best-of-seven. (Thus all playoff teams from 2003 to present, same as the two Division champions in 1947 and 1948, continue to play at the close of the regular season without idle team ("bye") and may be certain of four playoff games including two at home.)

text: Beginning with the 2004 season, with the addition of the thirtieth NBA franchise, the Charlotte Bobcats, the NBA realigned its divisions. The result was that each conference would have three divisions of five teams each, and the winner of each division was guaranteed a top-three playoff seed. This would change slightly after the 2005–06 season; while division winners still receive automatic playoff berths, they are guaranteed a top-four seed, as described below.

text: 2006 NBA playoffs controversy[edit]

text: The previous playoff format, in place for the 2004–05 and 2005–06 NBA playoffs, after the NBA was re-aligned into six divisions, created controversy during the 2005–06 season and playoffs, and would be changed prior to the 2006–07 NBA season.[5]

text: Prior to 2005, NBA division champions were seeded higher than the other teams in their conference, regardless of their record. Prior to 2004, when the NBA was aligned into two conferences with two divisions each, the division champions were guaranteed the top two seeds. This meant that top two teams in a conference (by record) would be seeded either first and second (if they were in opposite divisions) or first and third (if they were in the same division). Because of the NBA playoffs' preset matchups in the second round, this meant that the top two teams in a conference could never meet until the conference finals, assuming they both made it to that round.

text: After the NBA realigned its two conferences into three divisions each, the seeding rules remained largely unchanged. The top three seeds would now be reserved for division champions.  However, this meant that if the top two teams (by record) in a conference were in the same division, they would be seeded first and fourth.  Assuming no first-round upsets, this raised the prospect that the top two teams in the conference would face each other in the conference semifinals, instead of the conference finals.

text: In the second year of this format, the 2005–06 NBA season, the two teams with the best records in the Western Conference, the San Antonio Spurs and Dallas Mavericks of the Southwest Division, did just that.  The Mavericks had the second-best record in the Western Conference and the third-best record in the entire league, behind the Detroit Pistons and San Antonio.  However, they were seeded fourth because they finished second in the Southwest behind the Spurs.  This turn of events led to the playoff format being criticized by many. Besides the prospect of a team losing earlier in the playoffs than its regular-season record or seeding would suggest, critics claimed that it also created an unfair advantage for teams in the 2-7/3-6 half of the Western Conference playoff bracket, who could advance to the conference finals without playing either of the two best teams in the conference in an earlier round.

text: The Phoenix Suns, winners of the Pacific Division and possessors of the third best record, were seeded second, while the Denver Nuggets, winners of the Northwest Division and tied for only the seventh-best record in the conference, were seeded third.

text: The Memphis Grizzlies and Los Angeles Clippers met in the second-to-last game of the regular season, after the top four seeds had been clinched. The two teams were already determined to be the fifth and sixth seeds, and had only to determine which rank higher. The fifth seed would likely need to defeat the best two teams in the conference without home-court advantage to advance to the conference finals, as it would face fourth-seeded Dallas in the first round and likely face first-seeded San Antonio if it managed to defeat Dallas. The sixth seed would play third-seeded Denver in the first round, but would have home-court advantage (since the Grizzlies had the fourth-best record in the conference and the Clippers had the fifth-best), and would not have to face either San Antonio or Dallas until the conference finals at the earliest.

text: This led to speculation about whether the Grizzlies or the Clippers would have much commitment to winning their match-up in the second-to-last game of the season, since it was clearly most advantageous to lose the game in order to obtain the 6th seed. The Clippers eventually lost to Memphis without much evidence to support the speculation that the Clippers had lost intentionally.[6] In the first round of the playoffs, the Clippers defeated the Nuggets in five games, while Memphis was swept by Dallas. Ultimately, Dallas and San Antonio did meet in the second round, with Dallas winning in seven games and advancing all the way to the NBA finals.

text: Timeline[edit]

text: 1947: The playoffs were instituted with a three-stage tournament, similar to the Stanley Cup playoffs of the 1930s; the two first-place teams qualified directly to one semifinal where they played each other in a best-of-7 series.  Teams finishing second & third qualified for the best-of-3 quarterfinals, where the two second-placed teams were paired in one quarterfinal, as were the two third-placed teams, and the two quarterfinal winners played each other in a best-of-three semifinal.  The two semifinal winners played each other in the Basketball Association of America (BAA) best-of-7 final series.

tag: ul

text:
QuarterfinalsBest-of-3

SemifinalsBest-of-3 (one series)
Best-of-7 (one series)

BAA finalsBest-of-7

 E3

W3

E3

E2

W2

E2

E2

W1

W1

E1

tag: table

text: There were no byes, or idle time, for the division champions – as there would be for higher-seeded playoff teams 1955–66 and 1975–83. All six 1947 participants played their first tournament games on Wednesday, April 2; in 1948 the two Eastern runners-up (E2, E3 in the figure) were idle for a few days only because there was a three-way Western tie to break. Both winners of the runners-up bracket, Philadelphia in 1947 and Baltimore in 1948, reached the final series having played fewer tournament games than their final opponents, Chicago in 1947 and Philadelphia in 1948, had played in the best-of-7 pairings of division champions. And both winners of the runners-up bracket won the final series. The "postseason" actually comprised 11 games played in a span of 21 days for the 1947 Chicago Stags and 13 games in 30 days for 1948 Philadelphia Warriors, the finalists who emerged from the pairing of division champions.[3]

text: 1949: The playoffs were reorganized to match Eastern Division teams exclusively, and Western Division teams exclusively – in two halves of the bracket, so to speak. Thus the BAA tournament generated a playoff champion in each Division. (So did the NBA in each of three 1950 divisions, and so it has done in each half of the league since then.) The top four teams from each of the two divisions qualified.  The quarterfinals and semifinals were renamed division semifinals and division finals, respectively, and both rounds were best-of-3. Thus any playoff team might be eliminated in two games, one home game. The best-of-7 final was unchanged.

text:
Division semifinalsBest-of-3

Division finalsBest-of-3

BAA finalsBest-of-7

 E1

E4

E1

Eastern Division

E2

E2

E3

E1

W2

W1

W4

W1

Western Division

W2

W2

 W3

text:
1950: The BAA was renamed as the National Basketball Association (NBA).  With a three-division setup, 12 teams now qualified for the playoffs, with the top four teams from each division meeting in the best-of-3 division semifinals.  The winners met in the best-of-3 division finals.  With three teams remaining, the surviving team with the best regular season record qualified directly for the finals while the other two teams met in a best-of-3 NBA semifinals.
1951: With the NBA reverting to a two-division setup; the division semifinals reverted to its original 1949 format with only eight teams qualifying.  The division finals was extended to a best-of-5 format.

text:
Division semifinalsBest-of-3

Division finalsBest-of-5

NBA finalsBest-of-7

 E1

E4

E4

Eastern Division

E2

E2

E3

E2

W3

W1

W4

W1

Western Division

W3

W2

 W3

text:
1954: With only nine league members (soon to be eight), the number of playoff teams was cut down to six.  The division semifinals was changed to a double round-robin format within the division, with the top three teams from each division qualifying (each team played four games).  Following the round-robin games, the top two teams qualified for the best-of-three division finals, followed by the best-of-seven finals.
1955: The number of playoff teams remained at six, but the initial round-robin was dropped after one year in favor of giving the first-place team in each division a bye to the best-of-five division finals. Teams which placed second and third played a best-of-three division semifinal. In 1955 the byes provided five and six extra days idle for the first-place teams.[7]
1958: The division finals was extended to a best-of-seven format.
1961: The division semifinals were extended to a best-of-five format.

text:
Division semifinalsBest-of-3 (1955–1960),
Best-of-5 (1961–1966)

Division finalsBest-of-5 (1955–1957),
Best-of-7 (1958–1966)

NBA finalsBest-of-7

E1

Eastern Division

E3

E2

E3

E3

W1

W1

Western Division

W2

W2

 W3

text: The 1961 to 1966 tournaments alone combined initial byes for seeded teams with best-of-five initial series for unseeded teams. The 1961 byes provided five and seven extra days idle for the first-place teams. By 1966 the schedule provided more rest for the first-round participants with byes of 11 and eight extra days idle.[8]

text:
1967: The number of playoff teams was expanded to eight once more.  The division semifinals now included the fourth-best team in each conference.  The first-placed teams no longer received a bye.  They were matched against the fourth-placed teams in the best-of-5 division semifinals.
1968: The division semifinals was extended to a best-of-seven format.

text:
Division semifinalsBest-of-5 (1967),
Best-of-7 (1968–1970)

Division finalsBest-of-7 (1968–1970)

NBA finalsBest-of-7

 E1

E4

Eastern Division

E2

E3

W1

W4

Western Division

W2

 W3

text: 1970: With an increased number of teams, the divisions were upgraded into conferences, which were then split into two divisions.  Eight teams still qualified, four from each conference.  The two division winners were guaranteed at least a #2 seed, and the two best non-division winners from each conference qualified as third and fourth seeds.  Hence, the division semifinals and division finals came to be known as conference semifinals and conference finals, respectively.

text:
Conference semifinalsBest-of-7

Conference finalsBest-of-7

NBA finalsBest-of-7

 E1*

E4

Eastern Conference

E2*

E3

W1*

W4

Western Conference

W2*

 W3

text: 1975: The number of playoff teams was expanded from eight to ten.  A first round was introduced which matched the fourth and fifth seeds in each conference in a best-of-3 first round series, while the top three seeds received a bye. This is similar to the system currently used in the MLB.

text:
First RoundBest-of-3

Conference semifinalsBest-of-7

Conference finalsBest-of-7

NBA finalsBest-of-7

E1*

E4

E4

E5

Eastern Conference

E2*

E3

W1*

W4

W4

W5

Western Conference

W2*

W3

text: 1977: The number of playoff teams was expanded from 10 to 12.  The first round now included the sixth best team in each conference, which was matched against the third seed.  Only the division winners received byes to the next round. This is similar to the format currently used by the NFL.

text:
First RoundBest-of-3

Conference semifinalsBest-of-7

Conference finalsBest-of-7

NBA finalsBest-of-7

E1*

E4

E5

Eastern Conference

E3

E6

E2*

W1*

W4

W5

Western Conference

W3

W6

W2*

text: The 1983 tournament is the latest to incorporate first-round byes for seeded teams. The first-round best-of-three series tapped off on Tuesday and Wednesday, April 19 and 20; the second-round best-of-sevens on Sunday to the following Wednesday, April 27. Counting from Tuesday the byes provided five to eight extra days idle.[9]

text: 1984: The playoffs were expanded from 12 teams to 16 teams.  All teams now participated in the first round, which was extended to a best-of-five series.

text:
Conference quarterfinalsBest-of-5
Conference semifinalsBest-of-7
Conference finalsBest-of-7
NBA finalsBest-of-7
            E1*

E8

E4

E5

Eastern Conference

E3

E6

E2*

E7

W1*

W8

W4

W5

Western Conference

W3

W6

W2*

W7

text: 2003: The first round was extended to a best-of-seven series. This change arguably benefitted the higher seeds as it reduced the likelihood of an upset by a lower seed. It also meant that a team that swept their series 4–0 might have to wait up to two weeks to play their next series against a team that had won 4–3.

text:
Conference quarterfinalsBest-of-7
Conference semifinalsBest-of-7
Conference finalsBest-of-7
NBA finalsBest-of-7
            E1*

E8

E4

E5

Eastern Conference

E3

E6

E2*

E7

W1*

W8

W4

W5

Western Conference

W3

W6

W2*

W7

text: 2005: Each conference was realigned into three divisions with each division winner qualifying for a top-three seed regardless of record.  The next best five teams from each conference also qualify for the playoffs.

text:
Conference quarterfinalsBest-of-7
Conference semifinalsBest-of-7
Conference finalsBest-of-7
NBA finalsBest-of-7
            E1*

E8

E4

E5

Eastern Conference

E3*

E6

E2*

E7

W1*

W8

W4

W5

Western Conference

W3*

W6

W2*

W7

text:
2007: To address the criticisms of having each division champion guaranteed a top-three seed, regardless of record, the rules were changed such that the division winners are now only guaranteed a top-four seed.  The team with the second-best record in the conference is now guaranteed the second seed, even if it finishes second in its own division.  This ensures that the two best teams in the conference cannot meet until the conference finals at the earliest.  The previous system raised the prospect of the two best teams in the conference being seeded 1 and 4 if they play in the same division, thus forcing them to play each other in the second round (given no upsets).
Note: In the example below, the East's #2 seed is not a division champion.

text:
Conference quarterfinalsBest-of-7
Conference semifinalsBest-of-7
Conference finalsBest-of-7
NBA finalsBest-of-7
            E1*

E8

E5

E4*

Eastern Conference

E3*

E6

E2

E7

W1*

W8

W5

W4

Western Conference

W3*

W6

W2*

W7

text: 2016: While the playoff bracketing did not change, qualification criteria were changed. The teams with the eight best records in each conference receive playoff berths, with no automatic berths nor guaranteed top-four seed placement for division champions.

text: Team roster[edit]

text: Playoff teams must identify their postseason roster before the playoffs begin. They are allowed up to 15 players and can designate two as inactive for each game.[10] Players are eligible to be on a team's playoff roster provided they were on the team for at least one regular season game, and were not on another NBA team's roster after March 1.[11] Previously[when?], playoff rosters were limited to 12 players who were named before the playoffs began.[10]

text: Records and statistics[edit]

text:
Only five 8th seeded teams have managed to win a series versus the number 1 seeded team:  The Denver Nuggets eliminated the Seattle SuperSonics 3–2 in 1994. The New York Knicks eliminated the Miami Heat 3–2 in 1999. The Golden State Warriors defeated the Dallas Mavericks 4–2 in the 2007 Western Conference First Round (becoming the first 8 seed to beat a 1 seed in the best of 7 format). In 2011, the Memphis Grizzlies beat the San Antonio Spurs, 4–2 and in 2012, the Philadelphia 76ers beat the Chicago Bulls  4–2.
The 1999 Knicks are the only 8th seeded team ever to reach the NBA finals. No 8th seeded team has won the NBA finals.
The 1956–57 St. Louis Hawks, 1958–59 Minneapolis Lakers and the 1980–81 Houston Rockets are the only teams with losing records (34-38, 33–39 and 40–42, respectively) to make it to the NBA finals. In 1981 the Houston Rockets' opponent in the Western Conference Finals, the Kansas City Kings, also had a losing record (40–42).
The 1994–95 Houston Rockets, a sixth seed with a record of 47–35, were the lowest seeded team to win the NBA finals. In the NBA finals, the Rockets swept the Orlando Magic (57–25) in four games. In doing so, the Rockets defeated four teams that had won 50 or more games during the regular season (Utah Jazz at 60–22, Phoenix Suns at 59–23, San Antonio Spurs at 62–20 and Orlando at 57–25), which had never been done before.  They are also the only team to have won an NBA title without having home-court advantage during any round of the playoffs.
The Golden State Warriors own the longest NBA playoff winning streak for a single postseason with 15 straight wins in the 2017 playoffs.
Of all the teams with multiple NBA finals appearances, the Chicago Bulls are the only team to have never lost in the finals, winning 6.
The Boston Celtics possess the most overall NBA finals series wins with an overall record of 17–4. The Los Angeles/Minneapolis Lakers have played in the most NBA finals series (31) with an overall record of 16–15.
The longest active playoff appearance streak currently belongs to the San Antonio Spurs with 21 consecutive appearances in the playoffs, beginning in the 1997–98 NBA season. The longest ever streak of playoffs appearances in a row belongs to the Syracuse Nationals/Philadelphia 76ers, who made the playoffs 22 straight years from the 1949–50 season to the 1970–71 season.
In 1983, under the bye-7-7-7 system, the Philadelphia 76ers attained the best record of 12-1, having only lost in Game 4 of the Eastern Conference Finals against the Milwaukee Bucks.
In 2001, under the best of 5-7-7-7 system, the Los Angeles Lakers attained the best record of 15-1, having only lost in Game 1 of the Finals against the Philadelphia 76ers.
In 2017, under the best of 7-7-7-7 system, the Golden State Warriors attained the best record of 16-1, having only lost in Game 4 of the Finals against the Cleveland Cavaliers. The Warriors and Cavaliers came into the Finals with a combined record of 24-1, with the Cavaliers having only lost in Game 3 of the Eastern Conference Finals against the Boston Celtics.

text: Playoff appearances[edit]

text: Current as of 2018 NBA Playoffs

text: Appearances by active teams[edit]

text:
Team

Appearances[12]

Los Angeles Lakers

60 [A]

Boston Celtics

55

Philadelphia 76ers

48 [B]

Atlanta Hawks

46 [C]

Detroit Pistons

41 [D]

New York Knicks

41

San Antonio Spurs

38 [E]

Chicago Bulls

35

Golden State Warriors

34 [F]

Portland Trail Blazers

34

Houston Rockets

32 [G]

Milwaukee Bucks

30

Oklahoma City Thunder

30 [H]

Phoenix Suns

29

Sacramento Kings

29 [I]

Washington Wizards

29 [J]

Utah Jazz

27 [K]

Indiana Pacers

25 [E]

Denver Nuggets

24 [E]

Cleveland Cavaliers

22

Dallas Mavericks

21

Miami Heat

20

Brooklyn Nets

19 [E][L]

Orlando Magic

14

Los Angeles Clippers

13 [M]

Charlotte Hornets

10 [N]

Memphis Grizzlies

10

Toronto Raptors

10

Minnesota Timberwolves

9

New Orleans Pelicans

7 [N]

text:
Jump up ^ Includes appearances as the Minneapolis Lakers (1947–1960).

Jump up ^ Includes appearances as the Syracuse Nationals (1946–1963).

Jump up ^ Includes appearances as the Tri-Cities Blackhawks (1946–1951), the Milwaukee Hawks (1951–1955), and the St. Louis Hawks (1955–1968).

Jump up ^ Includes appearances as the Fort Wayne Pistons (1949–1957).

^ Jump up to: a b c d Does not include appearances in the American Basketball Association (ABA) playoffs. Per the conditions of the ABA–NBA merger, the NBA does not officially recognize the ABA history, playoffs and records.

Jump up ^ Includes appearances as the Philadelphia Warriors (1946–1962) and the San Francisco Warriors (1962–1971).

Jump up ^ Includes appearances as the San Diego Rockets (1967–1971).

Jump up ^ As part of the 2008 relocation settlement with the City of Seattle, the Thunder officially shares its history with that of the Seattle SuperSonics (1967–2008).[13]

Jump up ^ Includes appearances as the Rochester Royals (1948–1957), the Cincinnati Royals (1957–1972), the Kansas City-Omaha Kings (1972–1975), and the Kansas City Kings (1975–1985).

Jump up ^ Includes appearances as the Chicago Packers (1961–1962), the Chicago Zephyrs (1962–1963), the Baltimore Bullets (1963–1973), the Capital Bullets (1973–1974), and the Washington Bullets (1974–1997).

Jump up ^ Includes appearances as the New Orleans Jazz (1974–1979).

Jump up ^ Includes appearances as the New Jersey Nets (1977–2012).

Jump up ^ Includes appearances as the Buffalo Braves (1970–1978).

^ Jump up to: a b The New Orleans Pelicans were originally named the Charlotte Hornets, and moved to New Orleans in 2002. A new team, the Charlotte Bobcats, was then established in 2004. When the Charlotte team reclaimed the Hornets name in a 2014 agreement, the Charlotte team also reclaimed the history of the original Hornets; as such, the New Orleans Pelicans were established in 2002, and the Bobcats/Hornets rejoined the NBA in 2004.[14]

tag: ol


document_title: Transcontinental railroad

question_text: a railroad that stretches from the east coast to the west coast is called the

text: Transcontinental railroad

text: North America[edit]

text: United States of America[edit]

text: A transcontinental railroad in the United States is any continuous rail line connecting a location on the U.S. Pacific coast with one or more of the railroads of the nation's eastern trunk line rail systems operating between the Missouri or Mississippi Rivers and the U.S. Atlantic coast. The first concrete plan for a transcontinental railroad in the United States was presented to Congress by Asa Whitney in 1845.[2]

text: A series of transcontinental railroads built over the last third of the 19th century created a nationwide transportation network that united the country by rail. The first of these, the 3,103 km (1,928 mi) "Pacific Railroad", was built by the Central Pacific Railroad and Union Pacific Railroad to link the San Francisco Bay at Alameda, California, with the nation's existing eastern railroad network at Council Bluffs, Iowa/Omaha, Nebraska, thereby creating the world's first transcontinental railroad when it opened in 1869. Its construction was made possible by the US government under Pacific Railroad Acts of 1862, 1864, and 1867.

text: Transcontinental railroad[edit]

text: The world's First Transcontinental Railroad was built between 1863 and 1869 to join the eastern and western halves of the United States. Begun just before the American Civil War, its construction was considered to be one of the greatest American technological feats of the 19th century. Known as the "Pacific Railroad" when it opened, this served as a vital link for trade, commerce, and travel and opened up vast regions of the North American heartland for settlement. Shipping and commerce could thrive away from navigable watercourses for the first time since the beginning of the nation. Much of this route, especially on the Sierra grade west of Reno, Nevada, is currently used by Amtrak's California Zephyr, although some parts have been rerouted.[3]

text: The transcontinental railroad provided fast, safe, and cheap aftravel. The fare for a one-week trip from Omaha to San Francisco on an emigrant sleeping car was about $65 for an adult. It replaced most of the far slower and more hazardous stagecoach lines and wagon trains. The number of emigrants taking the Oregon and California Trails declined dramatically. The sale of the railroad land grant lands and the transport provided for timber and crops led to the rapid settling of the "Great American Desert".[4]

text: The Union Pacific recruited laborers from Army veterans and Irish immigrants, while most of the engineers were ex-Army men who had learned their trade keeping the trains running during the American Civil War.[5]

text: The Central Pacific Railroad faced a labor shortage in the more sparsely settled West. It recruited Cantonese laborers in China, who did prodigious work building the line over and through the Sierra Nevada mountains and then across Nevada to their meeting in northern Utah.

text:
One motive for the Gadsden Purchase of land from Mexico in 1853 was to obtain suitable terrain for a southern transcontinental railroad, as the southern portion of the Mexican Cession was too mountainous. The Southern Pacific Railroad was completed in 1881.
The Pacific Railroad Act of 1862 (based on an earlier bill in 1856) authorized land grants for new lines that would "aid in the construction of a railroad and telegraph line from the Missouri river to the Pacific ocean".[6]
The rails of the "First Transcontinental Railroad" were joined on May 10, 1869, with the ceremonial driving of the "Last Spike" at Promontory Summit, Utah, after track was laid over a 2,826 km (1,756 mi) gap between Sacramento and Omaha, Nebraska/Council Bluffs, Iowa[7] in six years by the Union Pacific Railroad and Central Pacific Railroad.[8] Although through train service was in operation as of that date, the road was not deemed to have been officially "completed" until November 6, 1869.[9] (A physical connection between Omaha, Nebraska, and the statutory Eastern terminus of the Pacific road at Council Bluffs, Iowa, located immediately across the Missouri River was also not finally established until the opening of UPRR railroad bridge across the river on March 25, 1873, prior to which transfers were made by ferry operated by the Council Bluffs & Nebraska Ferry Company.[10][11])
The first permanent, continuous line of railroad track from coast to coast was completed 15 months later on August 15, 1870, by the Kansas Pacific Railroad near its crossing of Comanche Creek at Strasburg, Colorado. This route connected to the eastern rail network via the Hannibal Bridge across the Missouri River at Kansas City completed June 30, 1869, passed through Denver, Colorado, and north to the Union Pacific Railroad at Cheyenne, Wyoming, making it theoretically possible for the first time to board a train at Jersey City, New Jersey, travel entirely by rail, and step down at the Alameda Wharf on San Francisco Bay. This distinction existed until March 25, 1873, when the Union Pacific Missouri River Bridge at Omaha was opened.[12][13]

text: Subsequent transcontinental routes[edit]

text:
Almost 12 years after Promontory Summit, the Southern Pacific Railroad (SP) completed the second transcontinental railroad with milestones and ceremonies in 1881 and 1883:

March 8, 1881: the SP met the Rio Grande, Mexico and Pacific Railroad (a subsidiary of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway) with a "silver spike" ceremony at Deming, New Mexico, connecting Atchison, Kansas, to Los Angeles.[14]
December 15, 1881: the SP met the Texas and Pacific Railway (T&P) at Sierra Blanca, Texas, connecting eastern Texas to Los Angeles.
January 12, 1883: the SP completed its own southern section, meeting its subsidiary Galveston, Harrisburg and San Antonio Railway at the Pecos River in Texas, and linking New Orleans to Los Angeles.

In Colorado, the 3-foot gauge Denver & Rio Grande (D&RG) extended its route from Denver via Pueblo across the Rocky Mountains to Grand Junction in 1882. In central Utah, the D&RG acquired a number of independent narrow gauge companies, which were incorporated into the first (1881-1889) Denver and Rio Grande Western Railway (D&RGW). Tracks were extended north through Salt Lake City, while simultaneously building south and eastward toward Grand Junction. The D&RG and the D&RGW were linked on March 30, 1883, the extension to Ogden (where it met the Central Pacific) was completed on May 14, 1883, and through traffic between Denver and Ogden began a few days later. The break of gauge made direct interchange of rolling stock with standard gauge railroads at both ends of this bridge line impossible for several years. The D&RG in 1887 began rebuilding its mainline in standard gauge, including a new route and tunnel at Tennessee Pass. The first D&RGW was reincorporated as the Rio Grande Western (RGW) in June 1889 and immediately began the conversion of track gauge. Standard gauge operations linking Ogden and Denver were completed on November 15, 1890.[15]

text:
The Atlantic and Pacific Railroad completed its route connecting the AT&SF at Albuquerque, New Mexico, via Flagstaff, Arizona, to the Southern Pacific at Needles, California, on August 9, 1883. With trackage rights over the SP, this gave the AT&SF (the A&P's parent company) a direct route into Los Angeles.[14] This route now forms the western portion of BNSF's Southern Transcon.
The Northern Pacific Railway (NP) completed the fifth independent transcontinental railroad on August 22, 1883, linking Chicago with Seattle. The Completion Ceremony was held on September 8, 1883, with former U.S. President Ulysses S. Grant contributing to driving the Final Spike.
The California Southern Railroad (chartered January 10, 1882) was completed from National City on San Diego Bay via Temccula Cañon to Colton and San Bernardino in September, 1883, and extended through the Cajon Pass to Barstow, a junction of the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad, in November, 1885. In September, 1885, the line of the Southern Pacific from Colton to Los Angeles, a distance of 58 miles, had been leased by the California Central with equal rights and privileges thus allowing the Santa Fe's Transcontinental route to be completed by the connection with the California Southern and A&PRR. The SP grade was used until the completion of the California Central's own line between San Bernardino and Los Angeles in June, 1887, a distance of 62.84 miles, which was part of the old Los Angeles and San Gabriel Valley Railroad, which had been acquired by purchase. In August, 1888, the California Central completed its Coast Division south from Los Angeles to a junction with the California Southern Railroad near Oceanside, a distance of 80.90 miles, and these two divisions comprised the main line of the California Central, forming, in connection with the California Southern, a direct line between Southern California and the East by way of the Atlantic and Pacific and Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroads.[16]
The Great Northern Railway was built, without federal aid, by James J. Hill in 1893; it stretched from St. Paul to Seattle.
The Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific reached Santa Rosa, New Mexico, from the east in late 1901, shortly before the El Paso & Northeastern arrived from the southwest. The two were connected on February 1, 1902, thus forming an additional link between the Midwest and southern California.[14] Through passenger service was provided by the Golden State Limited (Chicago—Kansas City—Tucumcari—El Paso—Los Angeles) jointly operated by the Rock Island and the Southern Pacific (EP&NE's successor) from 1902 to 1968.
The San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad completed its line connecting Los Angeles through Las Vegas to Salt Lake City on May 1, 1905. Through passenger service from Chicago to Los Angeles was provided by Union Pacific's Los Angeles Limited from 1905 to 1954.
The Western Pacific Railway (WP), financed by the Denver & Rio Grande on behalf of the Gould System, completed its new line from Oakland to Ogden in 1909, in direct competition with the Southern Pacific’s existing route. Through passenger service (Oakland-Salt Lake City-Denver-Chicago) was provided by the Exposition Flyer 1939 to 1949 and its successor, the California Zephyr 1949 to 1970, both jointly operated by the WP, the D&RGW and the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy.
In 1909, the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul (or Milwaukee Road) completed a privately built Pacific extension to Seattle. On completion, the line was renamed the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific. Although the Pacific Extension was privately funded, predecessor roads did benefit from the federal land grant act, so it cannot be said to have been built without federal aid.
John D. Spreckels completed his privately funded San Diego and Arizona Railway in 1919, thereby creating a direct link (via connection with the Southern Pacific lines) between San Diego, California and the Eastern United States. The railroad stretched 238 km (148 mi) from San Diego to Calexico, California.
In 1993, Amtrak's Sunset Limited daily railroad train was extended eastward to Miami, Florida, later rerouted to Orlando, making it the first regularly-scheduled transcontinental passenger train route in the United States to be operated by a single company. Hurricane Katrina cut this rail route in Louisiana in 2005. The train now runs from Los Angeles to New Orleans.

text: The Gould System[edit]

text: Main article: Gould transcontinental system

text: George J. Gould attempted to assemble a truly transcontinental system in the 1900s. The line from San Francisco, California, to Toledo, Ohio, was completed in 1909, consisting of the Western Pacific Railway, Denver and Rio Grande Railroad, Missouri Pacific Railroad, and Wabash Railroad. Beyond Toledo, the planned route would have used the Wheeling and Lake Erie Railroad (1900), Wabash Pittsburgh Terminal Railway, Little Kanawha Railroad, West Virginia Central and Pittsburgh Railway, Western Maryland Railroad, and Philadelphia and Western Railway,[citation needed] but the Panic of 1907 strangled the plans before the Little Kanawha section in West Virginia could be finished. The Alphabet Route was completed in 1931, providing the portion of this line east of the Mississippi River. With the merging of the railroads, only the Union Pacific Railroad and the BNSF Railway remain to carry the entire route.

text: Canada[edit]

text: The completion of Canada's first transcontinental railroad with the driving of the Last Spike at Craigellachie, British Columbia, on November 7, 1885, is an important milestone in Canadian history. Between 1881 and 1885, the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) completed a line that spanned from the port of Montreal to the Pacific coast, fulfilling a condition of British Columbia's 1871 entry into the Canadian Confederation. The City of Vancouver, incorporated in 1886, was designated the western terminus of the line. The CPR became the first transcontinental railway company in North America in 1889 after its International Railway of Maine opened, connecting CPR to the Atlantic coast.

text: The construction of a transcontinental railroad strengthened the connection of British Columbia and the Northwest Territories to the Dominion of Canada they had recently joined, and acted as a bulwark against potential incursions by the United States.

text: Subsequently, two other transcontinental lines were built in Canada: the Canadian Northern Railway (CNoR) opened another line to the Pacific in 1912, and the combined Grand Trunk Pacific Railway (GTPR)/National Transcontinental Railway (NTR) system opened in 1917 following the completion of the Quebec Bridge, although its line to the Pacific opened in 1914. The CNoR, GTPR, and NTR were nationalized to form the Canadian National Railway, which currently is now Canada's largest transcontinental railway, with lines running all the way from the Pacific Coast to the Atlantic Coast.

text: Central America (inter-oceanic lines)[edit]

text: Panama[edit]

text: The first railroad to directly connect two oceans (although not by crossing a broad "continental" land mass[17]) was the Panama Rail Road. Opened in 1855, this 77 km (48 mi) line was designated instead as an "inter-oceanic"[18] railroad crossing Central America at its narrowest point, the Isthmus of Panama, when that area was still part of Colombia. (Panama split off from Colombia in 1903 and became the independent nation of Panama). By spanning the isthmus, the line thus became the first railroad to completely cross any part of the Americas and physically connect ports on the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Given the tropical rain forest environment, the terrain, and diseases such as malaria and cholera, its completion was a considerable engineering challenge. The construction took five years after ground was first broken for the line in May, 1850, cost eight million dollars, and required more than seven thousand workers drawn from "every quarter of the globe."[19]

text: This railway was built to provide a shorter and more secure path between the United States' East and West Coasts. This need was mainly triggered by the California Gold Rush. Over the years the railway played a key role in the construction and the subsequent operation of the Panama Canal, due to its proximity to the canal. Currently, the railway operates under the private administration of the Panama Canal Railroad Company, and its upgraded capacity complements the cargo traffic through the Panama Canal.

text: Guatemala[edit]

text: A second Central American inter-oceanic railroad began operation in 1908 as a connection between Puerto San José and Puerto Barrios in Guatemala, but ceased passenger service to Puerto San José in 1989.

text: Costa Rica[edit]

text: A third Central American inter-oceanic railroad began operation in 1910 as a connection between Puntarenas and Limón in 1,067 mm (3 ft 6 in) gauge.

text: Mexico – Panama[edit]

text: FERISTSA – a proposed standard gauge (1,435 mm (4 ft 8 1⁄2 in)) north-south line.

text: South America[edit]

text: There is activity to revive the connection between Valparaíso and Santiago in Chile and Mendoza, Argentina, through the Transandino project. Mendoza has an active connection to Buenos Aires. The old Transandino began in 1910 and ceased passenger service in 1978 and freight 4 years later. Technically a complete transcontinental link exists from Arica, Chile, to La Paz, Bolivia, to Buenos Aires, but this trans-Andean crossing is for freight only.

text: On December 6, 2017 the Brazilian President Terner and his Bolivian counterpart Morales signed an agreement for an Atlantic - Pacific railway. The construction will start in 2019 and will be finished in 2024. The new railway is planed to be 3750 km in length. There are two possible tracks in discussion: One from Santos (Brazil) to Ilo (Peru). The alternative track would start in Santos (Brazil) and end in Matarani (Peru).[20]

text: Another longer Transcontinental freight-only railroad linking Lima, Peru, to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil is under development.

text: Eurasia[edit]

text:
The first transcontinental railroad in Europe, that connected the North Sea of the English Channel with the Mediterranean Sea, was a series of lines that included the Paris–Marseille railway, in service 1856. Multiple railways north of Paris were in operation at that time, such as Paris–Lille railway and Paris–Le Havre railway.
The second connection between the seas of Northern Europe and the Mediterranean Sea, was a series of lines finalized in 1857 with the Austrian Southern Railway, Vienna–Trieste. There were before that railroad connections Hamburg–Berlin–Wroclaw–Vienna (including Berlin–Hamburg Railway, Berlin–Wrocław railway, Upper Silesian Railway and Emperor Ferdinand Northern Railway). The Baltic Sea was also connected through the Lübeck–Lüneburg railway.
The first Eurasian transcontinental railroad was the Trans-Siberian railway (with connecting lines in Europe), completed in 1905 which connects Moscow with Vladivostok on the Pacific coast. There are two connections from this line to China. It is the world's longest rail line at 9,289 km (5,772 mi) long. This line connects the European railroad system with China, Mongolia and Korea. Since the former Soviet countries and Mongolia use a broader gauge, a break of gauge is necessary either at the eastern frontiers of Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania or the Chinese border. In spite of this there are through services of passenger trains between Moscow and Beijing or through coaches from Berlin to Novosibirsk. Almost every major town along the Trans-Siberian railway has its own return service to Moscow.
A second rail line connects Istanbul in Turkey with China via Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. This route imposes a break of gauge at the Iranian border with Turkmenistan and at the Chinese border. En route there is a train ferry in eastern Turkey across Lake Van. The European and Asian parts of Istanbul are linked by a train ferry, and an undersea tunnel is under construction. There is no through service of passenger trains on the entire line. A uniform gauge connection was proposed in 2006, commencing with new construction in Kazakhstan. A decision to make the internal railways of Afghanistan 1,435 mm (4 ft 8 1⁄2 in) gauge potentially opens up a new standard gauge route to China, since China abuts this country.[21]

text: Asia[edit]

text:
The Trans-Asian Railway is a project to link Singapore to Istanbul and is to a large degree complete with missing pieces primarily in Myanmar. The project has also linking corridors to China, the central Asian states, and Russia. This transcontinental line unfortunately uses a number of different gauges, 1,435 mm (4 ft 8 1⁄2 in), 1,676 mm (5 ft 6 in), 1,520 mm (4 ft 11 27⁄32 in) and 1,000 mm (3 ft 3 3⁄8 in), though this problem may be lessened with the use of variable gauge axle systems such as the SUW 2000.
The TransKazakhstan Trunk Railways project by Kazakhstan Temir Zholy will connect China and Europe with standard gauge 1,435 mm (4 ft 8 1⁄2 in). Construction is set to start in 2006. Initially the line will go to western Kazakhstan, south through Turkmenistan to Iran, then to Turkey and Europe. A shorter to-be-constructed 1,435 mm (4 ft 8 1⁄2 in) link from Kazakhstan is considered going through Russia and either Belarus or Ukraine.
The Baghdad Railway connects Istanbul with Baghdad and finally Basra, a sea port at the Persian Gulf. When its construction started in the 1880s it was in those times a Transcontinental Railroad.[citation needed] [clarification needed]

text: Oceania[edit]

text: Australia

text: East-West[edit]

text: The first Trans-Australian Railway was completed in 1917, between Port Augusta and Kalgoorlie, and crosses the Nullarbor Plain. This line completed the link between the mainland state capitals of Brisbane then Sydney via Melbourne and Adelaide to the western state capital of Perth. This route suffered from a number of breaks-of-gauge, using 1,435 mm (4 ft 8 1⁄2 in) twice, 1,600 mm (5 ft 3 in) once, and 1,067 mm (3 ft 6 in) thrice, with five breaks-of-gauge in all.

text: The Trans-Australian Railway was the first route operated by the Federal Government.

text: In the 1940s, 1970s, and 2000s steps were taken to rationalise the gauge chaos and connect the mainland capital cities mentioned above with standard gauge 1,435 mm (4 ft 8 1⁄2 in). Since 1970, when the direct standard gauge line across the country was completed, the passenger train on the Sydney to Perth line has been called the Indian Pacific.

text: The proposed Iron Boomerang would connect iron in the Pilbara with coal in Queensland, so achieving loaded operations in both directions.

text: North-South[edit]

text:
A 1,320 km (820 mi) land grant railway from Charleville to Point Parker on the Gulf of Carpentaria, with branches, was proposed in the 1880s.[22]
The first north-south trans-Australia railway opened in January 2004 and links Darwin to Adelaide with the Ghan passenger train. The Adelaide-Darwin railway is standard or 1,435 mm (4 ft 8 1⁄2 in) gauge, though the original line to Alice Springs (never fully completed line) was 1,067 mm (3 ft 6 in) gauge.
In 2006, proposals for new lines in Queensland that would carry both intrastate coal traffic and interstate freight traffic would see standard gauge penetrate the state in considerable stretches for the first time. (ARHS Digest September 2006). The standard gauge Inland Railway would ultimately extend from Melbourne to Cairns.
Starting in 1867, Queensland built several railways going inland from several ports in a westerly direction. From the 1920s, steps were taken to connect these lines by the North-South North Coast line from Brisbane to Cairns.

text: Africa[edit]

text: East-West[edit]

text:
There are several ways to cross Africa transcontinentally by connecting west-east railroads. One is the Benguela railway that was completed in 1929. It starts in Lobito, Angola and connects through Katanga to the Zambia railways system. From Zambia several ports are accessible on the Indian Ocean: Dar es Salaam in Tanzania through the TAZARA, and, through Zimbabwe, Beira and Maputo in Mozambique. The Angolan Civil War has made the Benguela line largely inoperative, but efforts are being taken to restore it. Another west-east corridor leads from the Atlantic harbours in Namibia, either Walvis Bay or Luderitz to the South African rail system that, in turn, links to ports on the Indian Ocean ( i.e. Durban, Maputo).
A 1015 km gap in the east-west line between Kinshasa and Ilebo filled by riverboats could be plugged with a new railway.[23]
There are two proposals for a line from the Red Sea to the Gulf of Guinea, including TransAfricaRail.
In 2010 a proposal surfaced to link Dakar to Port Sudan. Thirteen countries are on the main route, while another six would be served by branches.

text: North-South[edit]

text:
A North-South transcontinental railroad had been proposed by Cecil Rhodes: the Cape-Cairo railway. This system was seen as the backbone for the African possessions of the British Empire, and was not completed. During its development, a competing French colonial project for a competing line from Algiers or Dakar to Abidjan was abandoned after the Fashoda incident. This line would have had four gauge islands in three gauges.
An extension of Namibian Railways is being built in 2006 with the possible connection to Angolan Railways.
Libya has proposed a Trans-Saharan Railway connecting possibly to Nigeria which would connect with the proposed AfricaRail network.

text: African Union of Railways[edit]

text: The African Union of Railways has plans to connect the various railways of Africa including the Dakar-Port Sudan Railway.