What is the plausibility of this? I personally don't really see how it's possible considering the north-south axis is blocked by the Belgian Congo and German East Africa. But what are the implications of it being built if it somehow is?
Cape Town to Cairo Railway
- Thread starter Thucydides
- Start date
- Status
Hold on, I could've sworn the Brits later negotiated a lease from Leopold for a small slice of the Congo specifically for the Cape-to-Cairo line, going around German East Africa.
In any event, there's not much it would do on its own. Construction would take decades, I'd wager-- it took 26 years for the Benguela Railway to just be built across Angola-- and while there's some nice prestige in it, it's not really the strongest trade route possible.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
A lot more of the continent would be "opened for settlement", meaning more immigration...
Modern Africa as one big common market?
The long term effects of having cheap, reliable, high capacity transport running the length of Africa would have been dramatic. The lack of such links is supposed to be one of Modern Africa's biggest development roadblocks. Projects that would be viable if there was a railroad already in existence don't get persued if they would have to build it themselves.
As to time well if the line across the USA could be started from both ends simultaneously then Cape to Cairo could have done the same. Starting in the two most developed parts of the continent would guarantee early cash flow, maybe the middle bit too if there were suitable projects it could help bring on.
Dollars time - currently it costs $400 a ton to ship supplies to NATO forces in Afghanistan by rail from Europe through Russia, and $1200 a ton to the same place by truck from Karachi in Pakistan, which is a tiny fraction of the distance. Rail also handle large tonnages from mining projects better.
So if the rail line had been built the colonies around it would have been much more develped and prosperous places with a far more trade between them then there is now. That would tend to strengthen the merchant class at the expense of the warrior class, or it has everywhere else on the planet anyway. That has stabilising political effects.
The long term effects of having cheap, reliable, high capacity transport running the length of Africa would have been dramatic. The lack of such links is supposed to be one of Modern Africa's biggest development roadblocks. Projects that would be viable if there was a railroad already in existence don't get persued if they would have to build it themselves.
As to time well if the line across the USA could be started from both ends simultaneously then Cape to Cairo could have done the same. Starting in the two most developed parts of the continent would guarantee early cash flow, maybe the middle bit too if there were suitable projects it could help bring on.
Dollars time - currently it costs $400 a ton to ship supplies to NATO forces in Afghanistan by rail from Europe through Russia, and $1200 a ton to the same place by truck from Karachi in Pakistan, which is a tiny fraction of the distance. Rail also handle large tonnages from mining projects better.
So if the rail line had been built the colonies around it would have been much more develped and prosperous places with a far more trade between them then there is now. That would tend to strengthen the merchant class at the expense of the warrior class, or it has everywhere else on the planet anyway. That has stabilising political effects.
First thing, you have to decide on gauge. Egypt uses 1435mm gauge 'Standard' South Africa/Rhodesia uses 1067mm guage 'Cape', whilst East Africa used 1000mm 'metre' gauge, which unless you are going to do a lot of load transferring or bogie exchanges, it means a lot of different equipment and duplication or replacing existing infrastructure with another gauge of track.
Depending on how early and how much is completed, it could mean much more of the continent is opened up, if not for migration, then greater business and resource opportunities. However the capital investments would be massive, and although prestigious, it might not offer much in the way of advantages over shipping goods via ships from the nearest port (which could have a rail link for a much better return on investment anyway).
Depending on how early and how much is completed, it could mean much more of the continent is opened up, if not for migration, then greater business and resource opportunities. However the capital investments would be massive, and although prestigious, it might not offer much in the way of advantages over shipping goods via ships from the nearest port (which could have a rail link for a much better return on investment anyway).
But most of Africa's Sub-Saharan trade routes run east-west, not north-south, so there's not much latent demand for a rail line. There's also a well-established steamship system which meshes quite well with east-west land routes, allowing goods from, say, Uganda to head east, get loaded on a vessel at Mombasa, and then be shipped from there to Bombay or Southampton or take-your-pick.
Egypt was the one major exception to this rule, of course, what with the Nile and all, but even Rhodesia generally stuck to the east-west rule and a lot of its traffic went through Mozambique.
Egypt was the one major exception to this rule, of course, what with the Nile and all, but even Rhodesia generally stuck to the east-west rule and a lot of its traffic went through Mozambique.
I disagree with you on that, as typical building practices in British colonial and dominion possessions well into the 1940s stressed the need for minimum investment on rail projects, which meant:
-Light weight rail (within the 21kg range), with preference for Cape or Metre gauge;
-Minimal earthworks and formation (likely meaning prone to flooding);
-Minimal ballast (cinder or sand) or none in remoter areas (packed into the earth);
-Probable 10 TAL max bridges in remoter areas with generally low speeds (30-40kph average);
-The question of who runs it, owns it and shares in its profits and expenses.
In post colonial Africa, given if the situation is relatively the same as OTL (in terms of government inaction, corruption etc), then that is probably things on a good day, as many of the governments would still be unwilling to invest in new equipment, rolling-stock and maintenance on their section of the line.
POD would be political commitment
The POD for this would have to be political will, which in turn implies that the whole 'Cape to Cairo' idea takes far greater hold of the public mind in Britain and the rest of Europe than it actually did. The proposed railway would be a visionary dream made form, not a coldly calculated business investment, so without this nothing will happen.
With it the situation changes in Europe as well as elsewhere. Some level of co-operation with the other colonial powers would be needed, or at least lack of opposition. If I understand the history of the time this would be a big change from the rising nationalist tensions and nasty 'incidents' partly made worse by the Scramble for Africa.
Africa would have to change from one of the places Europeans went to aiming to make as much money as possible as quickly as possible so they could then retire somewhere civilised to spend it.
Highly unlikely to ASB, as I understand the situation.
The POD for this would have to be political will, which in turn implies that the whole 'Cape to Cairo' idea takes far greater hold of the public mind in Britain and the rest of Europe than it actually did. The proposed railway would be a visionary dream made form, not a coldly calculated business investment, so without this nothing will happen.
With it the situation changes in Europe as well as elsewhere. Some level of co-operation with the other colonial powers would be needed, or at least lack of opposition. If I understand the history of the time this would be a big change from the rising nationalist tensions and nasty 'incidents' partly made worse by the Scramble for Africa.
Africa would have to change from one of the places Europeans went to aiming to make as much money as possible as quickly as possible so they could then retire somewhere civilised to spend it.
Highly unlikely to ASB, as I understand the situation.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Such a line would not have been economical and faced way more horrendous engineering challenges than the trans-American.
Kinshasha Highway, I believe. Also known as the "AIDS highway." You can guess why.
As a main line? That would most likely require a level of investment colonial authorities would not be keen on.
If its not going to make money (either directly or indirectly), there is not much case for it. If it can be sold as a massive money maker, then more investors and more things get done to make it a reality, but its still a big 'if'.
Cook
Banned
Agreed. Rail cannot compete against shipping for freight transportation. You aren’t going to make a profit off a rail line unless you can keep it nice and short and go from the hinterland to the coast.
Building it would be akin to the Trans-Siberian or Alice to Darwin (Not profitable ventures). The American transcontinental was moving mostly people wasn’t it? And didn’t have a direct sea rout as competition did it?
- Status