Earlier Trans-Siberian Railway?

In planning for a new timeline, I've been doing a bit of research on the Trans-Siberian Railway. According to the Wikipedia, it was first proposed in 1851 to aid in the colonization of Siberia. Economic pressures intensified with the 1861 abolition of serfdom, but construction still didn't start until 1891. It was finished in 1916, though parts had been in operation much earlier. Siberian development instantly accelerated.

So, my question is: Assuming the Russian government had a greater interest in Siberia, would it have been possible to build it earlier? How much earlier? What problems would they face beyond those they did iOTL?
 
The earlier the railway's built, the less efficient it will be purely because some technology won't be available. Steel rails didn't even exist when the Trans-Siberian was first proposed. Hell, the first serious Russian railroads only popped up in the 1850s-- building a Trans-Siberian route earlier means that there will be less native experience to build upon, higher maintenance costs to account for (iron rails v. steel, less efficient locomotives, etc.), and the earlier it's built, the less local traffic there is to rely upon for revenue.
 
Another problem would be the cost; the Russian governement would need to raise loans for this project, almost certainly. In the 1850s, who are their creditors?
 
Well, the 1850's aren't the only option here -- there's also after 1861, around the same time the US is building its transcontinental railway...
 
The best way might be to have an already established route through Siberia that was not heavily reliant on the rivers running to the Artic.
 
The best way might be to have an already established route through Siberia that was not heavily reliant on the rivers running to the Artic.
Why would less reliance on the rivers help, given how the Siberian plains were already rather flat (so it wouldn't help find any passes earlier or anything)?
 
Why would less reliance on the rivers help, given how the Siberian plains were already rather flat (so it wouldn't help find any passes earlier or anything)?
Veering away from the rivers would also make construction more time- and money-consuming. Don't really know much about the Trans-Siberian, tbh, but the American transcontinental railroad relied, when at all possible, on rivers to ship ties, rails, and other necessary goods to as close to the railhead as possible. Construction slowed down when the railheads moved away from the rivers and the flow of building materials became less constant.
 
Veering away from the rivers would also make construction more time- and money-consuming. Don't really know much about the Trans-Siberian, tbh, but the American transcontinental railroad relied, when at all possible, on rivers to ship ties, rails, and other necessary goods to as close to the railhead as possible. Construction slowed down when the railheads moved away from the rivers and the flow of building materials became less constant.

Agreed. The Trans-Siberian takes the shape it takes because it follows Russian forts, which in turn followed river routes.

The driest part of the Soviet grand railroad network, in south Turkestan, wasn't completed until the mid-30s. Rivers help a lot.
 
The Russians really need to defeat the Khanates and deal with the uprisings earlier for the railroad to be feasible.

The main push during ww1 was to enable the shipping of arms and supplies from the Entente to the Russians.
 
Earlier? Didn't they do it in the 1600's?
The big ones, sure, but states like Bukhara and Khiva stuck around 'til the mid-1800s. They're not really a threat, but they became nice Russian railroad towns later on for southern branch lines.
 
Top