German Railways in the East

Discussions on the economic history of the nations taking part in WW2, from the recovery after the depression until the economy at war.
Post Reply
User avatar
Der Alte Fritz
Member
Posts: 2171
Joined: 13 Dec 2007, 22:43
Location: Kent United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: German Railways in the East

#466

Post by Der Alte Fritz » 05 May 2015, 07:18

The language is Romanian so you are right Ukrainian would be in Cyrillic alphabet.
Here a re a couple more images from your book:

Image
Image

User avatar
Der Alte Fritz
Member
Posts: 2171
Joined: 13 Dec 2007, 22:43
Location: Kent United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: German Railways in the East

#467

Post by Der Alte Fritz » 05 May 2015, 09:32

Looking at the bridge building sequence, I am struck by how much manual labour was used and how few power tools were employed.

Running through the equipment that appears in the film we see:
8 Eisenbahn lorries Mercedes Benz LS4500
1 LKW
1 PKW
1 FAUN 9 tonne crane lorry mounted
1 crane (steam?)

1 motor tug
2 small motor boats
2 unpowered pontoons with gantries
rubber combat rafts

1 steam pile driver on land
2 steam pile drivers on water

1 train with a track laying machine
2 trains with jibs for placing beams

hand held electric metals drills
hand held electric wood borers
lathe - for producing screws
forge
press
plank saw mill
temporary gantry for handling tree trunks

log wagon
several teams of draught horses

hand tools:
double hand saw
hand saws
hand axes
hammers, sledge hammers, ect
hand winches - most lifting was done by these
diver with hand pump air supply


User avatar
Der Alte Fritz
Member
Posts: 2171
Joined: 13 Dec 2007, 22:43
Location: Kent United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: German Railways in the East

#468

Post by Der Alte Fritz » 05 May 2015, 09:50

The construction began with a survey of the site using theodolites as one would expect.
Making materials, such as planks, ironmongery such as the bolts used to hold the structure together, etc.
Driving piles using a mobile pile driver both on land and the same pile driver on a pair of pontoons. Piles are delivered by horses or floated out on rafts. The number of groups of piles is hard to judge but to cross the main valley is over 30 with about a dozen piles per group.
The top of the piles are cut off by hanhd saws and beams are bolted across the tops, again delivered by horses or rubber rafts and winched into position by hand or using hand winches. There is a lot of cutting out by hand of the rebates for these timbers. ONly the holes are bored by machine.

Trusses are prefabricated on shore consisting of 6 upright logs and a supporting diagonal log on either side and top and bottom braces. These are used in 2s or 4 on top of the groups of piles and then supporting logs around them as diagonals. Usually 6 on each side. Trusses are positioned on water by towing from shore held by a gantry (hand winch) and pulled into position. Secured by more bolts and rods. This gives you a tower on the top of which are placed 6 guide planks.

The track layer, lays the pre-formed track sections up to the bridge and then the jib train brings up 30m (?) I beams and its lays two groups of three beams from one set of piles to the next for the track bed. Short distances between closely spaced piles are filled with shorter military style bridge sections. These two groups of beams are braced by timber balks and bound together by iron rods which wrap around the whole structure. The pre-formed track is then laid on top. So only one span can be built at a time but work proceeded from both ends at once.

The bridge is then tested by driving two locomotives onto it giving a weight of around 300 tonnes in the centre of the bridge and then measuring the displacement.

User avatar
Der Alte Fritz
Member
Posts: 2171
Joined: 13 Dec 2007, 22:43
Location: Kent United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: German Railways in the East

#469

Post by Der Alte Fritz » 05 May 2015, 11:13

To serve as a contrast the greatest accomplishment of the 371st Engineer Construction Battalion (as a member of ASDEC Engineer Group) was the reconstruction of the Wesel Railway Bridge, 1,751 feet (534 m) long and 2140 tons, over the Rhine River in the record time of 10 days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/371st_Engi ... _Battalion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesel_Railway_Bridge
images:
http://www.webcitation.org/5kjKBTiOD

GregSingh
Member
Posts: 3877
Joined: 21 Jun 2012, 02:11
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: German Railways in the East

#470

Post by GregSingh » 06 May 2015, 02:00

Der Alte Fritz wrote:Looking at the bridge building sequence, I am struck by how much manual labour was used and how few power tools were employed.
It was a timber construction so basic carpentry tools were used.
Eg. welding equipment, common in pioneer units, was not needed for this job.
Also generally Germans were lacking track vehicles, so we won't see many cranes, etc. Instead pulleys and "muscles" were used...

That Faun crane was all most units had. As it could be used both on road and on rails, it was called Strassen und Schienengängiger Lastkraftwagenkran.

BTW.
That language is not Romanian. Word MOST for bridge is common for nearly all Slavic languages only.
I wonder if any Croatian or Slovakian pioneer unit was involved in construction of Pervomaisk (Mykolaiv Oblast) bridge?

Third photo (with an officer saluting) is of Dnieper bridge in Saporoshje, not Southern Bug bridge in Pervomaisk according to the description in the book.

User avatar
Der Alte Fritz
Member
Posts: 2171
Joined: 13 Dec 2007, 22:43
Location: Kent United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: German Railways in the East

#471

Post by Der Alte Fritz » 10 May 2015, 07:56

This does not seem to have been the only rapid bridge building project by the US Army:

Duisburg-Hochfeld Railway Bridge
Immediately after the American army crossed the Rhine, the 332nd Engineer General Service Regiment (as a member of ADSEC Engineer Group "A") constructed a replacement railway bridge 2,815 feet (858 m) long over the river in the record time of six days, fifteen hours and twenty minutes. The bridge was completed 8 May 1945 and was named the "Victory Bridge" in English.[2] This line was put back into operation on 12 May 1945.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duisburg-H ... way_Bridge

It is probable that two factors played apart in these rapid reconstructions:
1) Greater us of mechanical means, cranes, bulldozers, lorries, pile drivers, etc
2) Bridge construction using modular metal structures that could be bolted together to form a bridge of any length. This simply required transport to the area and saved the time needed to source, gather and process timber and then to construct the trusses.

User avatar
Der Alte Fritz
Member
Posts: 2171
Joined: 13 Dec 2007, 22:43
Location: Kent United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: German Railways in the East

#472

Post by Der Alte Fritz » 10 May 2015, 08:25

With regard to British Military Railway Bridges see:
http://ww2talk.com/forums/topic/23821-bridges/
RAILWAY BRIDGES

Military railway bridges did not differ greatly from civilian bridges except that they needed to be built rapidly and there was seldom a great deal of time for planning. They usually replaced a damaged existing bridge and the extent of the damage could not be assessed until the area was secured. Thus the military railway bridge had to be
- Flexible. The components had to be capable of being adapted to the needs of the moment and the site.
- Standardised. Personnel needed to be able to construct a bridge without additional training.
- Rapid to construct. Railway bridges naturally took longer to construct than did the military road bridge but they were needed in a short time to maintain supplies for the armies and for the civilian population.
- Easy to transport. Railway bridge components could often be transported by rail but this was not guaranteed. Components had to be light enough to be carried on military lorries, and preferably components should be light enough to be manhandled.

For the campaign in NW Europe railway bridging was of the following types.
- Rolled Steel Joist (RSJ) and Sectional Joist Equipment. These shared several components and the Sectional Joist Equipment was a more easily transported version of the RSJ equipment. These could be used for spans up to 39 foot.
- Sectional Welded Plate Girder. This was a heavier equipment capable of constructing spans up to 56 foot. It was not much used since the other equipments were capable of performing the same task, often in combination.
- Unit Construction Railway Bridge. This could construct spans up to 110 foot. The great majority of railway bridges in NW Europe were built with this equipment, often with RSJ and Sectional Joist Equipment forming approach spans.
- Sectional Truss Railway Bridge. A heavier equipment capable of building 150 foot spans. This was just coming in to service at the end of the campaign.
- Light Standard Unit Trestle. This was a flexible system of building supports for bridge spans. The Light equipment was the most widely used.
- Heavy Standard Unit Trestle. Capable of forming higher or heavier trestles with fewer components and less effort than the Light equipment. Not much used.

The US Army was happy to standardise on the same bridging material as the British Army and much of the equipment was manufactured in the USA.


UNIT CONSTRUCTION RAILWAY BRIDGE

UCRB was a railway bridge design intended to provide spans from 50foot to 85foot. This was later increased to 110foot.

The largest component of the UCRB was the trough shaped chord member. This was formed from three plates welded together in either fifteen foot or twenty foot lengths. Any span from 30 foot to 85 foot, or later 110 foot, could be constructed by combining the appropriate members. The chord members were fastened together on site using plates bolted through predrilled holes at the end of each member. Vertical members were bolted into the trough of the chord member using predrilled holes. Verticals were at 5 foot intervals. Diagonal bracing was then added to form an N shaped pattern. A trough shaped chord member was then added to the top of the uprights and the truss was then complete. Depth of the truss was 6 foot 10 inches. Width of the truss was 18 inches.

Usually four trusses were used to support a railway track. Trusses were fastened together in pairs using spacers top and bottom. This gave a three foot spacing. Cross bracing was added at the uprights.

The heaviest component of the bridge was the 20 foot trough shaped chord which weighed 1 ton.

The later, and heavier, chord members were painted brown while the earlier members were painted grey.

COMPONENTS
The chord member.
These were the trough shaped components which formed the to and bottom of the truss. They could be 15 foot or 20 foot long and were 18 inches wide. All were predrilled to accept the bolts to hold uprights and sloping members as well as cross bracing and splicing plates.

Splicing plates.
Splices were used to fasten chord members together to form longer trusses. The side splicing plates were oblong but with the corners clipped. They were fastened to the chord members using bolts through the predrilled holes. The flange splicing plates used on the top and bottom surfaces were divided so that there was a three inch gap along the centre to allow free passage to the launching rollers.

Verticals and diagonals.
All verticals and diagonals were identical and were 6 foot 6 inches long lengths of 10 inch by 8 inch RSJ. These were bolted to the chords using the predrilled holes.

Bearings.
Bearings were components on which the completed truss rested. A rocker slab was welded onto a bearing plate which was seated on a bed plate. These could be placed at 11¾ inches, 15 inches or 2 foot 6 inches from the ends of the truss.

All the above were universal and used in any type of UCRB. The spacers and cross members varied with the type of bridge.

Spacers
Cross members.
Cross members used in a through UCRB were I shaped girders. They were 2 foot 3 inches by 9 inches and were 11 foot 6 inches long. They were positioned at each vertical. Girders were fastened lengthwise on top of the cross members, wooden sleepers were laid across the girders and the rails laid on the sleepers in the usual manner.


LAUNCHING NOSE
A launching nose was used when a completed span was being hauled into position. The nose would reach the rollers on the far side of the gap before the centre of gravity was reached and the span fell into the gap.

The launching nose was of a similar, but lighter construction than the bridge itself. It was of the same overall dimensions so that it could be temporarily fastened to the end of the span. Trusses were T shaped girders with strengthening gussets. The uprights, angles and bracing were all standard UCRB components.

A Launching nose was 52 foot 6 inches long and came in three sections.
- The nose section which was 19 foot 3 inches long
- The centre section which was 14 foot 3inches long
- The rear section which was 18 foot long



LAUNCHING.
The completed bridge span was launched by using hauling and preventer tackles. The hauling tackle was attached to the far bank and used a winch to haul the span across the gap. The preventer tackle was attached to the near bank and acted as both a brake and a means of keeping the nose up.

Rollers were laid out on the both sides of the gap and the completed span placed on them. The bottom trusses rested on the rollers and where chords were joined with plates there was a gap to allow the rollers an unobstructed path.

The span was winched out until the launching nose front section just cleared the far side rollers when it was removed. Winching resumed until the mid section just cleared the far side rollers when it too was removed. When the span was in the correct position the rear section was removed and the span was jacked down into position. Usually jacking was assisted by a gantry erected on the bridge trestles. This was removed when the bridge was complete.


TRESTLES

LIGHT STANDARD TRESTLE
The Light Standard Trestle was the most widely used. It was constructed using a number of standard columns of various lengths. These were bolted together to obtain the required height. They were then connected horizontally with struts and braced with diagonal bracing.

Columns.
These came in 12 foot (L1), 8 foot (L2), four foot (L3), and 3 foot (L4)lengths. They were constructed from 10 inch by 3 inch rolled steel channels, two such channels being fastened together with 9 inch square plates at 2 foot intervals. Each column had the relevant letter painted on it, L1, L2, L3, L4.

Each column had a plate at the top and bottom so that they could be bolted together. The plates were 16 inch square and had predrilled holes.

Struts.
The horizontal struts were 4 foot 1¾ inches long with 9 inch square plates at each end. They were placed at 4 foot centres, again using predrilled holes.

Bracing.
The diagonal bracing was of 2 inch by 2 inch angle iron.

Grillage joists.
The joists were used as a footing for the trestle and as a capping to which the bridge trusses could be connected. They consisted of either 10 foot or 15 foot lengths of 12 inch by 6 inch RSJ. They were predrilled to allow columns to be fastened on the flange surface and to accept connecting pieces. The joists themselves could rest on a grillage of timbers or sleepers.

Connecting pieces.
These were used to join grillage joists in pairs. The connecting piece was 9½ inches long.

Camels foot.
A camels foot was a circular foot which could articulate so as to rest firmly on the ground. It was 3 foot in diameter and had a leg which could be adjusted for length between 3foot 11¼ inches and 5 foot 11¾ inches. This was connected to the bottom of columns and replaced a grillage. It was particularly useful on uneven ground, on existing but damaged piers of bridges or when trestles were to be set on a river bed.


HEAVY STANDARD TRESTLE
The Heavy Standard Trestle was much less used than was the Light Standard Trestle. It was a scaled up version using heavier components.

Columns.
There were three columns of 14 foot 8 inch (H1), 9 foot 4 inch (H2) and 4 foot (H3). Each was constructed from two 12 inch by 3½ inch RSJ joined by 10 inch by 12 inch plates placed 2 foot 8 inches apart. They were capped by 20 inch square plates. H1, H2 or H3 was painted on the columns.

Struts.
These were 5 foot long with 10 square plates at each end.

Grillage.
The grillage joists were either 12 foot or 18 foot lengths of 12 inch by 6 inch RSJ with 13 ½ inch distance pieces.

Camels feet could not be used with the heavy trestle.



SECTIONAL JOIST EQUIPMENT.

Sectional Joist Equipment was introduced in order to simplify supply by providing just three lengths of joist which could be used for any span up to 39 foot.

All the joists were of 24 inch by 7½ inch RSJ and there were three lengths, 9 foot, 12 foot and 15 foot. They were predrilled and could be cut by one foot at either end or both ends so that by combining joists of different lengths and by cutting any length could be obtained in one foot increments.

Joists were spliced together using splicing plates bolted through predrilled holes.



SECTIONAL WELDED PLATE GIRDER BRIDGE.

Sectional Welded Plate Girders were heavier that Sectional Joists and could be used to form longer spans. A plate girder was constructed by welding plates to form an I shape rather than manufactured by rolling.

The plate girders were 2 foot 11 inches deep and 14 foot long. As supplied the unit was a pair of 14 foot girders welded together in parallel by diaphragms. They were supplied as end units and centre units. The end units incorporated stiffened end posts at one end. A centre unit and two end units were spliced together using splicing plates through pre drilled holes to make a single unit 42 foot long. If required the girders could be cut to give a bridge with a span of 34 foot or 37 foot.

A bridge span required two trusses. These were normally placed separately either by launching on rollers with a light launching nose, or by using a derrick attached to trestle piers. When both trusses were in position they were connected by steel channel spacers. It was possible to construct a deck bridge or a half through bridge, the decked type being most common.



EVERALL SECTIONAL TRUSS BRIDGE.

The Everall Sectional Truss Bridge was developed late in the war and was intended for long spans, up to 400 foot. It was of most use in the immediate post war period when the European railway systems were being rebuilt. The long spans were particularly useful for crossing the navigable rivers of Holland and Germany. Naturally the size, weight and complexity of the bridges meant that they were slow to build, but much quicker than a custom designed bridge for which the components would have to be produced to order.

There were in fact three type of Everall Sectional Truss.
Type 15 had girders 15 foot deep and could be used for spans up to 180 foot.
Type 30 had girders 30 foot deep and could be used for spans up to 330 foot.
Type 45 had girders 45 foot deep and could be used for spans up to 400 foot.



GregSingh
Member
Posts: 3877
Joined: 21 Jun 2012, 02:11
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: German Railways in the East

#473

Post by GregSingh » 15 May 2015, 10:33

Prostken (Ostpreussen), a large train station 2km from German/Russian border (before 1914 and during Oct.1939 - Jun.1941).

Wide gauge track (from Russia) terminated here and station provided services for both gauges from 1883. Half of Russian grain export went through there before 1914.

Below, photo taken in Spring 1941. A Soviet train arrives in Prostken on wide gauge track.
Former Polish locomotive Ty-23 in Soviet service...
Source: expired internet auction.
Prostken 1941.jpg
Soviet train in Prostken, Spring 1941

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8999
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: German Railways in the East

#474

Post by michael mills » 01 Jun 2015, 14:19

Are the goods wagons on the left of the picture standing on a standard-gauge track? It looks narrower than the one the Soviet train is on.

GregSingh
Member
Posts: 3877
Joined: 21 Jun 2012, 02:11
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: German Railways in the East

#475

Post by GregSingh » 18 Jun 2015, 03:01

It certainly looks that way, but I haven't seen 1941 station plans to be able to confirm this...
Freight wagons on the left seem to be German G10 2-axle or similar. Those on the right - Soviet 4-axle ones.

GregSingh
Member
Posts: 3877
Joined: 21 Jun 2012, 02:11
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Kerch Strait Train ferry?

#476

Post by GregSingh » 23 Jun 2015, 04:55

udondave wrote: I'm looking for confirmation/ information regarding this photo of a train ferry across the Kerch Strait (Crimea).
Thank you, Dave
Several photos were uploaded by Dave back in March 2015.
Actually these are of a Dnieper river ferry crossing near Cherson (Kherson).
Similar photos taken by Walter Hollnagel in 1943 seem to show exactly the same place.

Identical barge with a timber shed on both photos.
ferry.jpg
Ferry
ferry.jpg (70.39 KiB) Viewed 1595 times
5670.jpg
Cherson Fähre 1943
Flat, low level river banks are also visible on all photos.

And here is the location on the 1942 Ukraine railroad map. Not too far from Kerch after all!
Cherson Fahre.jpg
Cherson Fähre
Cherson Fahre.jpg (29.11 KiB) Viewed 1595 times

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8999
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: German Railways in the East

#477

Post by michael mills » 24 Jun 2015, 06:11

I have a further question about the photo of the Soviet train arriving at the border station Prostken in the spring of 1941.

I looked up Prostken, and read that after the First World War it was situated on the border between East Prussia and Poland.

Does that mean that broad-gauge railway track that the resurrected Poland inherited from the Russian Empire was not converted to standard gauge during the inter-war period?

I remember reading that when Molotov visited Berlin in November 1940, his party had to change trains at Malkinia, which was the station on the border between the German and Soviet Zones of occupation of Poland, where the broad-gauge track coming from Bialystok met the standard-gauge track from Warsaw.

Presumably, before the First World War, when Warsaw was in Russian Poland, the Bialystok-Warsaw line would have been broad gauge all the way, since all the railways in Russian Poland had been built by the Russians to connect with the Russian broad-gauge system, ie without any break of gauge and necessity to change trains.

It seems to me that there are two possibilities:

1. When Poland became independent after the First World War, it converted all the former Russian railways on its territory to standard gauge. Then, when the Soviet union annexed the Eastern Provinces of Poland in 1939, it converted the railways in its Zone of Occupation back to broad gauge, thereby accounting for the broad-gauge track from Bialystok to Malkinia.

2. The formerly Russian broad-gauge lines in Poland were left unchanged in the inter-war period, and it was the German occupiers who converted the track from Warsaw to Malkinia to standard gauge.

Do you happen to know which case applied? I know that after the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, the Germans put a lot of effort into converting Soviet broad-gauge track to standard gauge, often using Jewish forced labour.

I note that in your comments on the Prostken photo, you identified the locomotive hauling the Soviet train as formerly Polish. That suggests that the Polish railways had broad-gauge rolling stock, which in turn suggests that the Poles did not convert the broad-gauge track inherited from the Russian Empire.

GregSingh
Member
Posts: 3877
Joined: 21 Jun 2012, 02:11
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: German Railways in the East

#478

Post by GregSingh » 24 Jun 2015, 07:26

When Poland became independent after the First World War, it converted all the former Russian railways on its territory to standard gauge. Then, when the Soviet union annexed the Eastern Provinces of Poland in 1939, it converted the railways in its Zone of Occupation back to broad gauge, thereby accounting for the broad-gauge track from Bialystok to Malkinia.
That is mostly correct. Poles converted all the former Russian railways on its territory to standard gauge. After October 1939 Soviets converted 'near all' tracks back to broad gauge. We had some Soviet documents translated earlier in this thread suggesting 100% completed work in Western Bielarus, not so in Western Ukraine before June 1941.
I note that in your comments on the Prostken photo, you identified the locomotive hauling the Soviet train as formerly Polish. That suggests that the Polish railways had broad-gauge rolling stock, which in turn suggests that the Poles did not convert the broad-gauge track inherited from the Russian Empire.
Soviets took over exactly 170 of Ty-23 locomotives in late September 1939 and used them extensively on several routes. That model was easily convertible to broad-gauge. It was part of the design back in 1920's as Poles hoped to sell some to Soviet Union.

udondave
Member
Posts: 389
Joined: 07 Jan 2006, 12:53
Location: Australia

Re: German Railways in the East

#479

Post by udondave » 25 Jun 2015, 23:16

Thanks Greg for the ID of the train river ferry. Fantastic!
Best regards, Dave

GregSingh
Member
Posts: 3877
Joined: 21 Jun 2012, 02:11
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Errata - Dnieper river bridges

#480

Post by GregSingh » 26 Jun 2015, 04:55

Back in January/February 2004 we discussed Dnieper river railroad bridges which were all destroyed by retreating Red Army in 1941.
Recently I noticed we incorrectly labelled this bridge as Dnepropetrovsk one.

It's actually bridge in Zaporozhye (Saporischschja or Zaporizhia) connecting town with Khortytsia island.
Here are the war time photos of damaged and restored bridge in Zaporozhye.
6278.jpg
Zaporozhye bridge 1942
7210.jpg
Zaporozhye bridge 1943

Post Reply

Return to “Economy”