Sweden mainly transported its iron ore to Germany from the port of Luleå, and - in the winter, when Luleå was frozen over - through Narvik over the Atlantic route. These routes both involve rather long sea voyages, as compared to the length of a voyage from somewhere around Skåne to a German port along the Baltic coast. I've tried to do a little searching, but haven't quite found a clear explanation for my question.
Why wasn't iron transported from the mines in northern Sweden to a port in the very south via railway, then shipped over a much shorter distance that was also as well-protected from Allied convoy raids as any route could have been? I'm guessing that shipping the iron from Luleå was a far lesser logistical burden, but once again, Luleå was frozen over in winter. Meanwhile, the Narvik route was eventually disrupted by the Allies and it took a full-scale invasion to keep it more or less running. But either way, just by looking at a map, at a first glance, it seems far easier to transport the iron over land to southern Sweden and transport the resources that way - especially since Sweden, being neutral, couldn't have had its trains bombed. But it seems to me that it simply wasn't done, and Germany actually staged a full-scale invasion of Norway (another major logistical burden) instead. What made this impossible, then? Was the Swedish rail network inadequate to transport the iron overland? Or were the merchant ports on Sweden's south coast not up to par? (If I understand it right, at least these ports would have been operational during winter.) Something else I'm missing? Even if this wouldn't have been the main method of trading iron to Germany, why couldn't it have been used during the winter?
For that matter, what's the situation today? I imagine Sweden still exports iron ore today (and whatever other resources/goods they produce up north), and it seems weird to me that to export these resources, they'd rely on a port that is frozen over during the winter. Has Sweden done any investments that would allow it to more easily ship its iron ore to Germany in winter today in a hypothetical reenactment of WWII?
Why wasn't iron transported from the mines in northern Sweden to a port in the very south via railway, then shipped over a much shorter distance that was also as well-protected from Allied convoy raids as any route could have been? I'm guessing that shipping the iron from Luleå was a far lesser logistical burden, but once again, Luleå was frozen over in winter. Meanwhile, the Narvik route was eventually disrupted by the Allies and it took a full-scale invasion to keep it more or less running. But either way, just by looking at a map, at a first glance, it seems far easier to transport the iron over land to southern Sweden and transport the resources that way - especially since Sweden, being neutral, couldn't have had its trains bombed. But it seems to me that it simply wasn't done, and Germany actually staged a full-scale invasion of Norway (another major logistical burden) instead. What made this impossible, then? Was the Swedish rail network inadequate to transport the iron overland? Or were the merchant ports on Sweden's south coast not up to par? (If I understand it right, at least these ports would have been operational during winter.) Something else I'm missing? Even if this wouldn't have been the main method of trading iron to Germany, why couldn't it have been used during the winter?
For that matter, what's the situation today? I imagine Sweden still exports iron ore today (and whatever other resources/goods they produce up north), and it seems weird to me that to export these resources, they'd rely on a port that is frozen over during the winter. Has Sweden done any investments that would allow it to more easily ship its iron ore to Germany in winter today in a hypothetical reenactment of WWII?