Calcutta-Singapore Railway complete 1925

We have to remember the scale of the project I am proposing is not nearly as momentous as Cape to Cairo or even the London Underground.

Referring back to my map in the OP.

1) Connect India Rail to Burma Rail

We're building a railway from the existing Indian line at Chittagong (now Bangladesh) to the existing line at Myingyan, Burma.

This is 236 miles as the crow files, http://www.distancecalculator.net/from-myingyan-to-chittagong so this would likely be a rail connection of 350 miles or so. Yes, the terrain will be nasty, but not impassable, and labour is extremely cheap and plentiful.

It's not impassable, but it's much worse than anything between the Cape and Cairo. The only African railways this mountainous are the ones in the Horn of Africa, in Ethiopia and Eritrea... and those are truly terrible.
 
Using the theory that railways built nations a possible (but not very likely) political consequence of building the railway is that Burma is not separated from India in 1937.
This is certainly a possible benefit. With a direct rail connection between the new British capital of New Delhi and Rangoon there is certainly going to be more direct administration.
 
To clarify, I see this railway as primarily a commercial venture, not a defensive one, much like, AIUI nearly all railways were in the British empire. That doesn't mean the army wouldn't make use of the rail link in times of emergency. So, this railway will be seen as a means of transporting rubber, tin and other resources from Malaya to Karachi and the western Indian Ocean.

Why on earth would anyone pay to ship rubber or tin over an expensive railway, when they can ship it by ship for MUCH cheaper?

Especially since your hypothetical railway is only going to get it part way and then it has to be transshipped to ships anyway.
???
 
A considerable obstacle to the scheme is the break of gauge. India's railways use a broad gauge of 1,676 mm (5 ft 6 in).

The railways in Burma, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore and former French Indo-China are Metre gauge of 1,000 mm (3 ft 3 3⁄8 in).

So either the section in India has to have a third rail laid along the existing line or:

3) Upgrade the whole route to the Indian Gauge, which would be best, but also the most expensive.
We definitely want a standard gauge across the whole network. So I suggest the India to Singapore section be upgraded to a single track of the standard India gauge, with a doubling of the track as needed in future.
 
We definitely want a standard gauge across the whole network. So I suggest the India to Singapore section be upgraded to a single track of the standard India gauge, with a doubling of the track as needed in future.
As I'm in pedant mode, Standard Gauge was 4ft 8.5in. The Indian Gauge was a broad gauge and the Metre Gauge was a narrow gauge.
 
As I'm in pedant mode, Standard Gauge was 4ft 8.5in. The Indian Gauge was a broad gauge and the Metre Gauge was a narrow gauge.
True, I meant standard not Standard.

If to keep costs down we convert the Calcutta westward section to Metre Gauge, can we still move vehicles and troops in the smaller rolling stock? Here's a pic of artillery being loaded on rails in Malaya to head northward, so we know they can move smaller guns. This image does give an idea of the smaller scale of what we can move.

Army+guns+flat+cars+Singapore+1941.JPG


We won't be moving even light tanks or trucks on this narrow gauge train. Even Bren Carriers may be a pinch.

This pic gives an indication of the difference between narrow and wider gauge. Image source does not state specific gauges.

ngpiggyur1.jpg
 
Last edited:
True, I meant standard not Standard.
I know you did, but I'm going to use the term common gauge to avoid confusion with the Standard Gauge.

I skimmed through the thread, which reminded me that your proposal for India to Singapore is part of a greater Cairo to Singapore scheme. Therefore I think the POD has to be when the railways in India, Burma and Malaya were built so that they were built to a common gauge in the first place and that said gauge is the Standard Gauge so that it is the same as the gauge used in the Cairo to Iran section.

After the Bosphorus and English Channel rail links were completed it would then be possible to travel from Singapore to the northern and western extremities of Great Britain without a break of gauge. If the Standard Gauge railway along the coast of Libya ever gets built then there would also be a branch from Iraq to Morocco.

EDIT

Having the Indian railways built to the Standard Gauge should be easy as long as the POD is early enough because the building cost is the same if not cheaper.

OTOH the Burmese and Malayan railways are going to cost up to 50% more to be build if a 50% increase in the track gauge translates into a 50% increase in cost. Mitigating against that is the Loading Gauge, which might not be 50% bigger in India than Burma and Ceylon.
 
Last edited:
Problems with gauges

1) You have to lift the motive power and rolling stock onto new bogies at the Burma-India border. Or;
2) Lay a third rail on the existing track between Calcutta and the junction with the Burmese Railways so that Metre Gauge trains can use it. Or;
3) Upgrade the whole route to the Indian Gauge, which would be best, but also the most expensive.
1)A transhipment facility is going to be needed somewhere.
2) Even if this happens, the mixed gauge track will only run to the nearest decent sized town, at which point we're back to 1).
3) Not going to happen. The costs of building to Indian gauge would make the whole thing judder to a halt before it started. The earthworks, permanent way, bigger, stronger bridges, everything is going to get prohibitively expensive very quickly.

Stick to Metre Gauge, with a nice generous loading gauge.
 
Top