SLTX

As somebody previously mentioned, the line along I-10 was used 'til about 1997. In the mid to late '90's, all the trains I saw passing through the Spring Branch area travelled at speeds of 10mph or less.

I haven't seen it mentioned, but Eureka Yard still exists and is in use.... in fact it had some major track work and renovations in the last couple years. You can see it if you look west while travelling over the yard on the T.C. Jester overpass. The yard is used for storing cars for a couple of cement plant type industries nearby, and also apparently for staging switching operations on the line heading out Hempstead Hwy.

Thanks to all. My question elicited some interesting comments, and I'm hoping to see more. Please though, no comments on mascot names. That's an entirely different debate that may be worth a separate thread of its own. I'm more interested in your thoughts on schools named for people who were famous in infamous causes, such as defending slavery in the Civil War -- excuse me: that War of Northern Aggression.

Someone mentioned John H. Reagan, and thanks for that. His name didn't occur to me when I started this thread. And speaking of Confederate war hero Dick Dowling, along with the school named for him, don't forget his statue at the entrance to Hermann Park over on Macgregor.

I had forgotten that Robert E's given names were taken off Lee High School a few years ago. Does anybody really believe that makes any difference? It's still Robert E. Lee, whether his given names are used or not. It's like taking the name Henry off the letterhead at Ford Motor Company and pretending the company's not named for Henry Ford.

I'm in full agreement with those who say it's wrong and silly to change names on buildings and other landmarks just because they're no longer politically correct with one group or another, in this case African-Americans. That sort of mindless revisionism can get out of control very easily, and it wouldn't be long before Mexican-Americans and other Hispanics would want names like Houston, Crockett, or Travis, or Bowie, or Austin taken off schools they attend in large numbers.

You know what? It may well be true that we don't have any controversy over those Confederate names because hardly anybody today knows who those people were, or what they were famous for. See? Nothing's ALL bad. Even historical illiteracy.

Abraham Lincoln viewed blacks as an inferior race, stated in a speech that he "doubted they were even human", and believed they should be resettled overseas to prevent them from mixing with the white race. Should we erase his name from all institutions as well? How about many of the nation's founding fathers, such as Thomas Jefferson, who owned slaves.

I probably would've felt the same way as you back when I only had a third grade understanding of the civil war and the events leading up to it. But after much reading and research, you realize that the war wasn't about slavery, it was about much broader issues, but slavery was used as a wedge issue (politics never change) to garner support against the south. The Union leaders and generals were just as "racist" as the Confederate ones.

If we start removing the names of every historic figure that supported slavery, opposed women voting, that was anti-semitic, that thought the red man should be eliminated, etc., believe me, there will be NO ONE LEFT. Not one. Society has changed drastically in the last 200 years, and NOBODY from that era is going to stand up to our 2009 social standards.

That figure of 200 homes is probably WAY off. Appraisal districts generally get their "year built" dates from the date of the last building permit filed on the property. So if you have a house built in 1890 that was remodeled or added on to in 1930, the year built will show as 1930 in their records. Also, sometimes they will lose records for large numbers of properties, and just assign a random date, 1950 etc., across the board when they recreate the files. I've found the appraisal district records to be pretty unreliable (for older homes) everywhere I've lived.

That would normally only apply to AM radio stations though. That frequency is quite low, and

the ground and radials under the tower provide the lower "half" of the antenna.

And the ground quality really doesn't matter that much because they will run radials

under the tower. The radials will improve the quality of the ground system, and provide

stability under changing moisture conditions, etc. So as long as you have a good radial

system, the quality of the ground really doesn't matter much.

On the VHF and UHF frequencies that are use for TV, FM radio, etc, they do not rely

on the ground or radials as part of the antenna. At those high frequencies the antennas

are much smaller, and they can build "complete" antenna systems which are mounted

to the towers. They do not rely on the ground at all to provide part of the antenna.

Myself, I think a large reason they chose that site was coverage. IE: they wanted to

be able to cover Galveston and the areas along the coast like Surfside, etc.

So I think that was probably part of the reason. In years past, there was plenty of

available land up north, but that would extend the coverage to the north towards

Conroe, etc, and they probably wanted to concentrate on the coast.

Whatever you say, but It's gonna be hard for me to tell the broadcast engineers I've worked with that all these years they were wasting their time seeking out low, wet areas for FM transmitter sites. They'll be crushed. LOL, sorry for the sarcasm, but I'm also a ham (NM5K sounds familiar actually) and former FM radio employee. Just wanted you to know I wasn't just making stuff up. Have spent some time out in one of those transmitter buildings at the base of one of the above mentioned 2,000 ft. towers. I'd say "catch you on the air", but sadly, all my equipment has been boxed up in a closet the last few years :-(

Several of the towers in the Blue Ridge antenna farm are approx. 2,000 ft. The area was not really chosen because of "cheap land", but because it is a very low-lying, wet and swampy area. That type of soil is preferred for an ideal radiation pattern in TV and radio broadcasting.

I also noticed the M.R. Wood school... not sure if it was torn down or just heavily refaced. When I was in school, it was the "alternative" school for Fort Bend ISD... where the bad guys went. And yes, it was the segregated school back in the day. That Mayfield Park area historically was the segregated neighborhood, dating back to the 1850's when the slave quarters of the Terry/Kyle plantation stood in the same location.

1. Yes, Lakeview elementary is what's left of Sugar Land HS... actually it was a K-12 school. The auditorium and gym buildings are all that's really left of the original complex that was built around WWI. It closed after Dulles HS was built around 1959. The original complex of buildings was pretty amazing.... I have many photos, will have to see if I can post.

2. Nope, no other old schools around that I know of.

3. Don't know about segregated areas of Stafford or Mo. City. Sugar Land's stands out because it was set up and built by the company town.

4. I think I know the house you're talking about, big 2 story turn of the century victorian next to Mo. City MS. Had heard what family built it at one time, but can't remember now.

5. I have a number of historic SL/Ft. Bend county photos, there was a coffee table book published in mid 80's called "Sugar Land Pictorial Tribute" or something, that clears up a lot of questions about the way things used to look. If I get brave enough, I'll try to upload some.

Didn't know Sugar Land was ever "Sugarland" LOL, the people who named it made it two words from the beginning (1853?).