Russia with standard-gage railroads.

[joatsimeon@aol.com]

When Russia built its first long railroads (St. Petersburg-Moscow) it adopted a broader gage than the "standard" Euro-American one, more or less by default. (The chief engineer was an American, btw.)

Nobody, or nobody but a few visionaries, was thinking in terms of intercontinental rail nets then. There were a lot of variant track widths -- the UK had a broader gage on the Great Western line from London to Bristol, frex, and Australia had several.

So the Russians might as well have picked the standard one.

But this would have consequences _later_. Invading Russia in the industrial era turned out to be much harder simply because there was a change in gage between the European rail net and the Russian one -- which meant that you had to use Russian-built locomotives and rolling stock once you were over the frontier.

 

[WilyBadger]

That could be interesting. I've always thought it a pity that Russia's far east wasn't settled in the way our west was. I've never quite understood why, though obviously Russia has had so many problems in history, it's hard to know where to begin.

 

[Stéphane Dumas]

and if Russia didn't sold Alaska to the US, maybe they could had built the Trans-Bering tunnel/bridge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercontinental_Peace_Bridge

 

[Chengar Qordath]

Russia might have a better economic situation if their railroad network could interlink with the rest of Europe's; it would make trade a lot easier.

 

[Straha]

That could be interesting. I've always thought it a pity that Russia's far east wasn't settled in the way our west was. I've never quite understood why, though obviously Russia has had so many problems in history, it's hard to know where to begin.

Actually it was. Its just that due to the terrain it wasn't as viable to settle as our west.

 

[NapoleonXIV]

Actually it was. Its just that due to the terrain it wasn't as viable to settle as our west.

And it's just a tad colder....

Is the West all that viable? It was the Great American Desert, after all, just that we had pretty much unrestricted immigration, almost free land, and a reputation for freedom.

What if Russia had put in place similar attractions, and advertised for the refugees from Eastern Europe and Ireland, like the US did? At least as far as E and C Europe they are closer.

 

[Smaug]

It would have been a huge help to Hitler. As it was, he used massive resources he might have used elsewhere. His troops had to constantly slow down and even retreat because of lack of supplies.

I'm not saying it would have won the war, but he would have been much more able to mass his armies during the counter offensives, and ensure that his troops could receive important supplies in a timely manner.

 

[HueyLong]

But rail lines are not hard to tear up before a retreat. The Soviet's burnt earth would easily stop any change this would cause.

 

[Wendell]

It would have been a huge help to Hitler. As it was, he used massive resources he might have used elsewhere. His troops had to constantly slow down and even retreat because of lack of supplies.

I'm not saying it would have won the war, but he would have been much more able to mass his armies during the counter offensives, and ensure that his troops could receive important supplies in a timely manner.

Butterflies may actually render Hitler irrelevant ITTL.

 

[Count Dearborn]

Didn't they go for the bigger gage because of the muddy Siberia summers?

 

[Gladi]

Bright day
They had bigger gage because of comfort (or practicality). On their defense I have to agree that it is silly to base your railroad and size of an ass of a roman cart horse.

And there were trains made that could switch the gage. So at first it did not matter because of low amount of transport, and latter it did not matter because of bridging techniques.

Further, what such a benefit would they get from being linked to Germany and Austra by train?

 

[Redbeard]

But rail lines are not hard to tear up before a retreat. The Soviet's burnt earth would easily stop any change this would cause.

Yes, AFAIK narrowing the track width wasn't the tough part of the job, that could often be done with just placing an extra rail inside the two existing. But the Russians blew up bridges whereever they could and Russian railway lines and bridges usually could take far less weight than the German supply situation needed.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[Wozza]

Part of me wonders if the only change would be that lots of people would have spent much less time at Brest.

It is hard to imagine big changes, although the small ones might "add up."

Does anyone know if it is possible to transport a T-34 on a narrower rail gauge?

 

[Saladin]

Yes, AFAIK narrowing the track width wasn't the tough part of the job, that could often be done with just placing an extra rail inside the two existing. But the Russians blew up bridges whereever they could and Russian railway lines and bridges usually could take far less weight than the German supply situation needed.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

Plus, when they had the time, the Russians also ploughed up the sleepers and tried carrying away the actual rails. The scorched earth policy, when it was given time to be carried out was frighteningly thorough.

In terms of WW2, the actual difference between standard and broad gauge was really not an issue -- the issue was the Soviet attempts to totally detroy rail lines whenever they could

 

[Redbeard]

Part of me wonders if the only change would be that lots of people would have spent much less time at Brest.

It is hard to imagine big changes, although the small ones might "add up."

Does anyone know if it is possible to transport a T-34 on a narrower rail gauge?

Tigers were transported on standard European gauge, but using a special narrow track - so I guess a T34 would do too. IIRC we saw pictures of T72s on railway flatcars when the Soviets withdrew from DDR.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[stevep]

And it's just a tad colder....

Is the West all that viable? It was the Great American Desert, after all, just that we had pretty much unrestricted immigration, almost free land, and a reputation for freedom.

What if Russia had put in place similar attractions, and advertised for the refugees from Eastern Europe and Ireland, like the US did? At least as far as E and C Europe they are closer.

Russia was nearer in geographical terms but in terms of transportation the US probably was. Also don't forget a lot of those eastern Europeans, especially the Poles and Jews, were fleeing the Czar. [Although I think the bulk of them who went to the US settled in the cities anyway].

The Russian empire was probably generally too paranoid of foreigners to welcome too many. Also transportation and the much harsher climate would have restricted the attractiveness, even if lower income and less political liberties wouldn't have had an impact as well.

Steve

 

[Dave Howery]

Is the West all that viable? It was the Great American Desert, after all, just that we had pretty much unrestricted immigration, almost free land, and a reputation for freedom.
.

depends on which parts you're talking about. At first, the whole area between the the west coast states and the mississippi were seen as a desert, and everyone just crossed over it on the way to OR/CA... but the prairies were soon found to be just fine for agriculture, so long as you could get water to the fields, and these states started filling up later. The real desert states didn't draw a lot of settlers at first either, but they still had some areas that were good for agriculture... not to mention the gold and silver mines. Of all the lower 48 states, all had enough people to become states before 1900, except for AZ, NM, and OK... and OK could have become a state earlier, except that it had been set aside for the Native Americans until it was the last fertile place in the US that we hadn't taken from them. I always found it odd that NV, with some of the harshest driest hottest terrain in the US, became a state in 1864... must have been because of the silver mines...

 

[Max Sinister]

It would help warring states in both directions - if Russia's already at advantage, they can invade Germany / Poland (1920!) / A-H / whatever much faster. But if their enemies are stronger, THEY can invade faster. Russia can still destroy its rails, but those which aren't, help their enemies.

And AFAIK the wider gauge means that you can have bigger cars and locomotives. (In Gurps AE II they had even bigger ones.)

 

[Neroon]

Question: Did the Soviets ever change their gauge? It would after all have made it more to supply their armies in Europe in the event of a Warsaw Pact vs NATO war if they have to switch trains upon reaching Poland.

 

[Redbeard]

Russia was nearer in geographical terms but in terms of transportation the US probably was. Also don't forget a lot of those eastern Europeans, especially the Poles and Jews, were fleeing the Czar. [Although I think the bulk of them who went to the US settled in the cities anyway].

The Russian empire was probably generally too paranoid of foreigners to welcome too many. Also transportation and the much harsher climate would have restricted the attractiveness, even if lower income and less political liberties wouldn't have had an impact as well.

Steve

From what I understand the liberty and equal opportunity (inkl. availability of land) America was what it was all about for the Europeans then living in heavily stratified class societies, some of them even feudal.

In comparison to America Russia must have appeared almost a nightmare, even if the climate had been perfect.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard