Better African rail links

[blueczar]

How would the history of Africa be different if there were more extensive rail links? Suppose the European powers in the early 20th century put much more effort into linking Africa by rail.. including Cecil Rhodes's Cape to Cairo railway of course, but also a coastal railway linking all the cities in North and West Africa. This would mean freight could more easily move between countries and today it would be possible to travel from Cape Town to London by train.

(map from here ,black = new rail)

 

[Cherico]

the rails would be demolished by warlords in some countrys as soon
as the colonial era ended, in other parts the infostructor would be
allowed to fall apart and in a limited number of countrys the rails would
be maintained and allow for economic growth

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I've given this quite a bit of thought and research, and even constructed simulated lines for some of them to explore their economic feasibility. You will be seeing a lot of this in my upcoming AH "Shadow of God", a more successful Ottoman Empire with a POD in 1876.

On the map, some of these are not feasible. The line across Libya is not possible economically and technically - it would have to pass through endless stretches of uninhabited desert; building and maintaining the line would be incredibly expensive and it would be cheaper to use sea transport.

Your line through Uganda runs through impossible terrain.

The direct connection of Egypt and Sudan was studied, but the last section between Aswan and Wadi Haldfa runs through impossible terrain; the line would have to travese a long series of sudden and deep ravines at right angles, which is why it wasn't built. It wouldn't matter that much anyway since the gauges were different and would require transshipment in any case.

That's an overall problem - North Africa uses a lot of standard gauge, but also several types of narrow gauge, and sub-Sharan Africa is split between meter gauge and 3.5' gauge, which is a little bit less of a problem as track and rolling stock could be regauged in this case, but it would still be a huge project that would have to be coordinated by many different governments.

The one I can see is the line connecting the Sudan with Kano in Nigeria - that passes through Wadia, Baguirmi and Bornu, all established states with reasonable possibility for development, but political unity would be required to accomplish it.

A line connecting Tunisia with Tripoli is possible, and perhaps could run a bit south to reach the Sahara plateau and thus greatly increase the utility of the caravan routes to Lake Chad and Kano.

Anyway, most of these wouldn't make too much difference, except the Sahel route (through Chad) which would greatly facilitate development and the movement of labor. The Ethiopian connector line would also probably be a good thing both for Ethiopia and its trade outlets.

How would the history of Africa be different if there were more extensive rail links? Suppose the European powers in the early 20th century put much more effort into linking Africa by rail.. including Cecil Rhodes's Cape to Cairo railway of course, but also a coastal railway linking all the cities in North and West Africa. This would mean freight could more easily move between countries and today it would be possible to travel from Cape Town to London by train.

(map from here ,black = new rail)

 

[The Dean]

This is most interesting, would it be possible to put this map over a contour map to show Abdul's points?

 

[Dutchie]

you'd probably need a completely different African experience for the Europeans to have this come about - the race for colonies was about denying rivals territory more than securing resources for the mother country, and that wouldn't foster much accord for inter-colonial links. If you look at the colonies and former colonies that built extensive networks (Canada, US, Australia, India) they were generally under one adminstration, so questions of gauge, expense, rights-of-way, tariffs, etc. weren't an issue. Africa was so disintegrated by competing claims that precluded the necessary cooperation to have this work.

Which is really too bad, because efficient transport links would have helped the development of the interior immensely.

 

[TheMann]

The biggest single helper would have been the Cape-to-Cairo if it was ever built. After 1917, you could feasibly do it without ever leaving British territory (well, except for South Africa).

The Aswan-Wadi Halfa section I would imagine is possible, but you would have to lay out the route well. I mean, most would have figured some of the routes used in North America and Europe would be impossible too. And let's not forget some of China's rail lines - one is a 780 mile stretch with 560 bridges and 175 tunnels. I'm sure it would be possible if one pushed it. And that line from Cairo/Alexandria, if you made it go all the way to Istanbul and into Europe that alone could be much easier than shipping by water, perhaps faster too.

Most of the colonial powers used the same rail gauge - Britain and Russia were the chief exceptions. And Australia has a lot of mileage in three main gauges - 3ft 6in, 4ft 8.5in and 5ft 3in. The colonies may have been just to deny land to others, but if the links were developed (this could be either by the colonials or by private enterprises as in America) this may have allowed Africa to better develop its resources. If the colonies are better developed the colonials would perhaps be less wanting to let them go.

For Britain, better links would make it easier to develop Africa's resources. They have the rail lines, that might make companies do more exploration of the resources. That process might find the diamonds in Botswana and Namibia earlier, as well as the aluminum and other resources in Rhodesia. Then have the few whites teach the blacks how to be commercial farmers and make Africa the breadbasket and resource base of the British Empire.

 

[Berra]

If shipping is better, I think that the rail lines would go from coast to the inlands.

 

[dforgue]

If shipping is better, I think that the rail lines would go from coast to the inlands.

This seems correct to me. It is not clear that there is an economic justification for linking the coastal cities of West Africa. In fact, weren't most of them established at the mouths of rivers to facilitate the movement of goods from the hinterland to the coast, and thence to the world? It seems as if being able to maximize the efficiency of moving goods from the hinterlands to any coast would be the biggest benefit.