An Empire's folly: The Transsaharian railway is built in the 1880's

In 1881, France is reshaping the world: Panama, Suez... And the Sahara!

Paul Flatters, Lieutenant-Colonel is conducting a study of feasibility for an ambitious railway from Algers (Algeria) to Bamako (Mali) and further to Dakar, across the Sahara.

In the middle of the desert, he, and all his expedition, died in a Touareg ambush, killing the project for the next 70 years.



But what if there had been no such attack? What if he went through and decided it was feasible (as was said 70 years later)?

Vichy tried, and failed yes, but it was in a particularly difficult time. Due to climatic conditions, most machines failed onsite so they had the same technical capabilities, but the IIIrd Republic might have a bigger budget thanks to not being occupied and at war.

So, could the Transsaharian have been built in the original time frame? What would have been the impact? Let me know your thoughts!

I don't have any insight into this, but its a really interesting question. I hope someone who knows something about railroads can contribute.

I am interested and ignorant as well

A little taste of modern railroad in the region...

Michael Palin's: Sahara
Sahara video - Destination Timbuktu

I've watched the first two episodes on my local PBS TV station in this last week. Palin's route has been mostly west and south of the route being discussed here, but it is similar in environment to some extent.

What would stop the Touaregs from attacking the railroad? They know that their traditional commerce will be harmed and the construction sites would need to be highly militarized.
The French would need to spend a lot of money in a project of dubitable profitability in a short or medium-term (contrarily to Suez or Panama). Nonetheless, like the Uganda Railway, it is a strategic railway. Who knows...

Lampiao said:

What would stop the Touaregs from attacking the railroad? They know that their traditional commerce will be harmed and the construction sites would need to be highly militarized.
The French would need to spend a lot of money in a project of dubitable profitability in a short or medium-term (contrarily to Suez or Panama). Nonetheless, like the Uganda Railway, it is a strategic railway. Who knows...

Click to expand...

My knowlege is near zero here...

Were there conditions available to both the French and Touaregs where the Touaregs loss of trade could be partly offset? Make it worthwhile for them to economically tolerate the railroad - or would that be ASB?

That would be better that a Rally and someone already have propaganda for it:

http://edthomasten.deviantart.com/art/The-Trans-Saharan-Railway-158615101
(Kudos to EdT)

What would stop the Touaregs from attacking the railroad?

Click to expand...

So, in a case like that you have a few solutions. The first one is exterm... hum, pacification of the region. It is too early for the oil stain counter-insurgency tactics to really have taken roots as it was developped by Gallieni and Lyautey (although earlier examples exist) so it would be a global campaign across French Sahara. Doubtful it might work or even be possible, short of blocking every oasis.

Second option would be to protect the railway with forts. Not everywhere but forts at regular interval. It would be easier to set up since they could get supplies more easily.

Third option, buy them off. You "rent" their land, or pay them for the exploitation like we did for oil in the Arabian Peninsula.

Fourth option, take them in. Give them good posts in the local administration. Give them clear territorial authority with an administration division like "Protectorat du Nord-Sahel et du Sahara Français" or "Nord-Niger" or "Tinariwet" (Touareg word for desert) with a capital in Tamanrasset. So basically you avoid the Saharan Pacification campaign of the 1880's (on which I have little information to be honest) by trading a peace against the passage of the railway, which is quite a fair deal if you ask me.


Fourth option would be the most logical but I have a feeling the military of the time would use the first one.


http://edthomasten.deviantart.com/art/The-Trans-Saharan-Railway-158615101

That would be better that a Rally and someone already have propaganda for it:

http://edthomasten.deviantart.com/ar...lway-158615101
(Kudos to EdT)

Click to expand...

Ooooh pretty *_*

Tanc49 said:

So, in a case like that you have a few solutions. The first one is exterm... hum, pacification of the region. It is too early for the oil stain counter-insurgency tactics to really have taken roots as it was developped by Gallieni and Lyautey (although earlier examples exist) so it would be a global campaign across French Sahara. Doubtful it might work or even be possible, short of blocking every oasis.

Second option would be to protect the railway with forts. Not everywhere but forts at regular interval. It would be easier to set up since they could get supplies more easily.

Third option, buy them off. You "rent" their land, or pay them for the exploitation like we did for oil in the Arabian Peninsula.

Fourth option, take them in. Give them good posts in the local administration. Give them clear territorial authority with an administration division like "Protectorat du Nord-Sahel et du Sahara Français" or "Nord-Niger" or "Tinariwet" (Touareg word for desert) with a capital in Tamanrasset. So basically you avoid the Saharan Pacification campaign of the 1880's (on which I have little information to be honest) by trading a peace against the passage of the railway, which is quite a fair deal if you ask me.


Fourth option would be the most logical but I have a feeling the military of the time would use the first one.

Click to expand...

Part of the calculus would be the expected economic gain from the railroad vs the cost of any of these options long term. As you note, option 1 may look like a career opportunity for some French military commanders rather than a cost, but the financial & diplomatic folks may think otherwise. Option 3 or 4 may be the most economical in the long run.

Part of the calculus would be the expected economic gain from the railroad vs the cost of any of these options long term.

Click to expand...

It would really depend on the actual objective of the railway: prestige or financial.

It would anyway be a big example of state backed capitalism which was the norm back then for big projects but the question is there.

As you note, option 1 may look like a career opportunity for some French military commanders rather than a cost, but the financial & diplomatic folks may think otherwise. Option 3 or 4 may be the most economical in the long run.

Click to expand...

You can take away the diplomatic folks here, it's all French territory at best, French sphere of influence at worse (as defined by the Berlin Conference of 1885) so it's all internal matter. And nobody will object to a few indigenes dead in the desert.

One thing to remember is that the regions south of the Sahara are super rich in natural resources. Sierra Leone diamond, Mali gold, copper, manganese... Plus it's a massive market of new consumers and at a time where the pacification is not fully done in all regions, the capacity to send more troups easily is a big big plus for the colonial administration.

So you'd be looking at a much quicker unification of the colonies, probably more settlers and I think a whole new outlook on the colonies. They are not the far away land but become basically next door like Algeria was. Oh, did I say Algeria? Yes I did. So you could look at the same fate with constitution of at least some parts of the AOF (Afrique Occidentale Française) in départements.

It would be interesting to see if more black people would come to the métropole and be more integrated as part of normal life. That is doubtful though as it wasn't done with the Arabs of Algéria

So, I found the minutes of a meeting of 1889 about this very subject.

Here are different points (in order of reading):

• It would be technically possible by using a smaller rail gauge, of about 60 cm which was the colonial norm at the time. The downside is that it only goes at about 18/20 km/h against 40/50 km/h for the standard gauge but it's said that it's not that much of a problem
• The Transsaharien has many uses: political, military, economical, diplomatical and practicality
• Militarly speaking, it is said the strategical importance is to be able to bring indigenes soldiers to the North or the South, better movement of local troups, perhaps to defend continental France?
• Economical: by allowing better transport of goods, the regions impacted would flourish, making this country "one of our most productive and richest"
• Agriculture would also flourish by allowing a better transport of water (more on that later)
• Diplomatical: here, I'm sorry Driftless, I was wrong, you were right, there is a huge diplomatic impact as it would cement French control on inner Africa and would keep others away. Examples: UK to the Lake Tchad and Morocco southward expansion
• Political: It would undermine local fiefdom by expanding French influence and would cut in half the local Muslim confederations which threaten Christian implantations

Now from a defense point of view, the Touareg problem

• Well, the Touaregs are not much of a threat apparently. A total population of 100k, of which about 1500 max can be fielded at one time due to logistical restrictions (oasis can't hold more camels at once). Problem can be solved via defence of the implantations and attack of selected chokepoints with a small force of "200 indigenes and maybe 50 horses as the camels are utterly afraid of those and become impossible to control"
• Also possibly problematic: Moroccan and Lybian merchants with interests in the slave trade which would cease to exist

I am not done reading the document, will update again later

What were the French going to use for sleepers/ties for the track bed, and where were they brought from? I'm assuming the rails themselves were being imported, and carried along as the route grows.

What is the basic land form along the proposed route? Is it mostly bare country rock, or are there dune areas to cross as well? I would guess the dune areas would be avoided wherever possible. How do they clear railroad track of blown sand? By comparison, snow is either plowed or mechanically thrown off the line, but what do you do for sand?

If they could have gotten enough track laid to the interior, there is the "build it and they will come" synergy that should bring additional development along parts of the line, especially if there are exploitable minerals near the route. That was the North American experience going across the plains in the US and Canada, but there of course, it was mainly agricultural product, not mineral

Tanc49 said:

So, I found the minutes of a meeting of 1889 about this very subject.

Here are different points (in order of reading):

• It would be technically possible by using a smaller rail gauge, of about 60 cm which was the colonial norm at the time. The downside is that it only goes at about 18/20 km/h against 40/50 km/h for the standard gauge but it's said that it's not that much of a problem
• The Transsaharien has many uses: political, military, economical, diplomatical and practicality
• Militarly speaking, it is said the strategical importance is to be able to bring indigenes soldiers to the North or the South, better movement of local troups, perhaps to defend continental France?
• Economical: by allowing better transport of goods, the regions impacted would flourish, making this country "one of our most productive and richest"
• Agriculture would also flourish by allowing a better transport of water (more on that later)
• Diplomatical: here, I'm sorry Driftless, I was wrong, you were right, there is a huge diplomatic impact as it would cement French control on inner Africa and would keep others away. Examples: UK to the Lake Tchad and Morocco southward expansion
• Political: It would undermine local fiefdom by expanding French influence and would cut in half the local Muslim confederations which threaten Christian implantations

Now from a defense point of view, the Touareg problem

• Well, the Touaregs are not much of a threat apparently. A total population of 100k, of which about 1500 max can be fielded at one time due to logistical restrictions (oasis can't hold more camels at once). Problem can be solved via defence of the implantations and attack of selected chokepoints with a small force of "200 indigenes and maybe 50 horses as the camels are utterly afraid of those and become impossible to control"
• Also possibly problematic: Moroccan and Lybian merchants with interests in the slave trade which would cease to exist

I am not done reading the document, will update again later

Click to expand...

I think you're overestimating the possible profits of the railway. I agree 100% with you in a long-term basis. But, in a short or medium-term, as the French say, "ce n'est pas évident". It will take some years to make the investment pay itself.

An OTL comparable situation on a smaller scale is the Uganda Railway: lack of basic infrastructure and workforce, animosity of native population and logistics and logistics and logistics.

Logistics not only to maintain the construction of the railway (which is already pretty much expensive given the size of the project and the remoteness of the region), but you should also consider military logistics as the armies cannot just wander in the desert killing the bad guys, they need pretty much to stay stationned in the construction sites in the middle of the desert. Touaregs were aware that it would destroy their way of living. Expect local sabotage, guerrilla tactics, etc. Unless you're planning concentration camps, genocide or population transfer, the nomads will be a big problem.

The costs of such enterprise are pretty much impossible to be calculated. Thus, it's impossible to attract private investment without a really strong government involvement. We need a decent economic context in France and political will to make that happen. A good way to do it is making France defeat Prussia, this crazy mageproject sounds like Napoleon III.

In a nutshell, it's like constructing the Transiberian Railway with a Uganda Railway context summed up with a very hostile climate and very hostile population.

If it was that easy it would be OTL.

Still not done reading it all but I'll point out that my source is a French colonial meeting and seems damn well enthusiastic.

but you should also consider military logistics as the armies cannot just wander in the desert killing the bad guys, they need pretty much to stay stationned in the construction sites in the middle of the desert.

Click to expand...

The minutes mention the existence of chokepoint, big oasis, merchant cities which, if occupied, would pretty much starve any opposition. It also notes that since the population is not remotely united they don't pose much of a threat. It does insist quite a lot on that.

The costs of such enterprise are pretty much impossible to be calculated. Thus, it's impossible to attract private investment without a really strong government involvement.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I was thinking a way to do it would be a chartered compagnie as the Brits did extensively: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_South_Africa_Company

Obviously a need of massive government collusion, for security purposes alone. I don't think a win against Prussia is necessary, they seemed quite enthusiastic about building the damn thing in 1889.


Source here by the way

If this actually happens in the 1880s as opposed to petering out and dragging into the 20th century, the presence of the railway could definitely make for butterflies once we get to Fashoda, although probably generally in the direction of a more aggressive Britain facing better supplied and supported French forces...

Actually about Fashoda I'm not sure it would aggravate stuff.

The thing with Fashoda is that the French wanted an West/East axis in Africa (Dakar/Djibouti basically) and the English wanted the famous Cairo/Cape liaison (which they briefly got).

Now Djibouti was never that rich or that useful (there were other projects around as well but they were fast surrounded by the British in Somalie and the Italian in Erythrea). But if there is a transsaharian then the French focus shifts completely to West Africa and all resources will be poured into the betterment of this region rather than scraping for territories in the East. Don't get me wrong, they'd probably still be there but I don't think that would make them less likely to back down.

On the other hand, expect trouble around Nigeria and Ghana

Ok, so I attached an image, couldn't copy paste it for some unknown reason.

The first step was to build two forts in Amguid and Timassinin, which I believe is modern day Temacine, both manned with about 200 men, mostly locals. This would guard the desert against Touareg as well as establishing French influence in the region as they felt threatened by the Ottomans in the Tripolitan region.

The idea is to colonise the oasis, build wells and establish cultural and commercial centers so the touaregs see it's better for them to come into the fold.

The idea was to start building a line from Constantine to Biskra, Ouargla, Temacine and then Amguid, going quite deep into the Algerian desert.

The whole route would basically be that one but it hadn't been agreed yet.


First financial plan was to build it and then find a company to exploit it, maybe even using soldiers to build it as it would be cheaper. First, to pay the construction, bonds would be emitted by the Crédit Foncier and it seems quite reasonable (that's what people say, I'm not that versed into the context for bond profitability in 1889 France, I hope to be forgiven for that)

First plan is that in two years trains can go from Constantine to Ouargla, so still quite north in the desert.


That's all I have for the moment but that gives us a good speculative base. Basically it would have taken forever to build but would have brought many things and could have been financed part by public funds, part by bonds and then exploited by a private consortium.

Personally, I do like the idea of a raised railway line being built across the Sahara, just because I love a good MegaEngineering project.

But it isn't going to work without substantial stations along the route - where the Tuaregs are going to be able to benefit from it.

Perhaps working with the Tuaregs to perform some sort of resource survey so that they can scout out good points for mines or quarries (or whatever else could be exploited) and setting these up as actual settlements where Tuaregs could get involved in the business, as well as transport - and which alongside encouragement and other deals - would create a local incentive to protect the railway.

"You mean that iron horse can move rocks that you'll pay me WHAT?! for? Fantastic, hurrah!"

"Wait, you have machines that I can dig how many emeralds out of the ground with?"

"Hmm, I like this opium, its very nice"

Obviously quarries will ONLY work if there are trains, but other resources that the Tuaregs could transport initially could create some incentive to protect new train lines. Admittedly, those doing the transport will need to be brought into the train services otherwise there is a conflict there.

Tanc49 said:

Problem can be solved via defence of the implantations and attack of selected chokepoints with a small force of "200 indigenes and maybe 50 horses as the camels are utterly afraid of those and become impossible to control"

Click to expand...

Quite the opposite, it is said that the camels are the ones that scare horses. Note that even that may be a myth with no basis in reality (other than some horses possibly being scared by unknown animals bigger than them the first time they encounter them).

I'd like to expand on my initial post by saying that it really wouldn't have been that cost effective without something in the interior to take advantage of.

It could help in constructing earlier oil field pipelines, but I'm not even sure that this railway would be faster than shipping by boat after transporting goods to the coast.

More secure from European pirating, but otherwise. Eurgh