North African railroads

[Bronsky]

(snip) from my point of view it's not clear that the steam locomotives were more "powerful" (per the definition above) than the diesel ones...

In the final analysis there can be little doubt that the Whitcombs beat the Staniers by a handsome margin for operations on the desert railroad. After all, power output is just one parameter for measuring a locomotive's usefulness for the task at hand. Logistic requirements - in casu the voracious water needs of the Stanier - reliability and also availability are just as important factors.

I had no doubt that the Whitcombs were more useful. First, for the logistical reasons that I outlined, and second because as you noted diesel engines (even from manufacturers with a reputation for poor reliability like Whitcomb) are less maintenance-intensive than steam engines. The Reichsbahn always had between 20 and 30% of its locomotive park unavailable for maintenance or repairs.

What I wonder is how much - if any - cost in terms of average train load the switch to diesel engines entailed. Again, I have no doubt that the cost was more than offset by gains in other respects, but I still wonder about it.

The Allied-operated Persian railroad which I linked to earlier may be a useful comparison.

I don't know about that. What I've read, both from the page that you referred to and from the US history of lend-lease through Persia, doesn't provide sufficient details in support of the choice between steam and diesel engines.

An important factor militating for steam engines was their availability. With the bulk of the train park worldwide being steam locomotives, as well as (at least so it seems to me) the bulk of US production, the general idea would be to provide steam locomotives as the standard item. Diesel locomotives would be useful in theaters where logistics were a bottleneck i.e. the Western Desert and Europe.

Another thing that the more widespread use of steam engines provided was that local manpower was familiar with them and could be expected to run/repair them with minimal additional training. That was clearly a factor in the case of the Soviets, although I think that they also received diesel locomotives from lend-lease (but I'm not typing this on the right computer to check).

[Kuno2]

Uff. Only saw this thread just now. A lot of information about the desert railroads!

I do not think, that I can give much more technical information but I would like to state that the traces of these railroads are still visible in the area of TOBRUK! Such was quiet surprising for me since I have always been told that this is not the case...

Here a link with all the pics I could find about the subject:

http://www.afrika-korps.de/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1153

[Bronsky]

There were other interesting related threads on the Afrika Korps forum, for those interested.

In the thread mentioned by Kuno, on the last page here:

http://www.afrika-korps.de/forum/viewto ... c&start=90

is a photograph of a typical Axis supply train between August and November 1942. There are three cars, and the little thing on the right is one of those Badoni shunters that I had mentioned before. This shows what kind of "locomotives" we're talking about here.

German locos look like regular diesel locomotives, there just weren't all that many of them, and there was at least one fairly serious accident (though the loco was salvaged, using a captured British steam crane). The discrepancy between the resources that each side was willing to commit to that theater is really striking.

[Kuno2]

@ Bronsky; this is "my" other railway-thread in the DAK-forum:

http://www.afrika-korps.de/forum/viewto ... 7&start=30

...and it has just reminded me to post a pic of a diesel-loco which has been used by the italians there.

[Bronsky]

Thanks, I knew about that thread even though I hadn't contributed there as I had on the other one.

Strangely enough, the DAK forum doesn't always remind me when threads that I'm following have received new messages, so I guess I'll just have to go back there and do some wholesale reading.

The Italians had brought a few new diesel locomotives to Benghazi, and had just finished assembling the first one when the British came a-knocking following El-Alamein. The British don't seem to have bothered assembling the others.

[Kuno2]

Ok, the last pic I found recently was one of a diesel locomotive...have postet that foto now as well.

[Jon G.]

Thanks, Bronsky and Kuno2 for posting the links to the photos on the DAK forum. I lurk there sometimes, but evidently I do not check in at that forum often enough. I know that the owners of the DAK site have had problems with people stealing pictures from their extensive collection and selling them elsewhere as their own, so I am not going to repost or deep link to the images here. For now the pictures will remain one click away.

However, if they are your photos, Kuno2... you have my active encouragement to post them here as well

The Italian diesel-electric bogie locomotive you posted on the DAK forum a couple of hours ago looks very interesting. Do you have any additional information on its origins and performance?

...[on the DAK thread]
is a photograph of a typical Axis supply train between August and November 1942. There are three cars, and the little thing on the right is one of those Badoni shunters that I had mentioned before. This shows what kind of "locomotives" we're talking about here.

It struck me that the Italian engine looks remarkably like a Brauer tractor, and thankfully it's confirmed further downthread (on the DAK thread) that the Badoni tractor was indeed a license-built version of the German Brauer shunting tractor. This curious little engine is a serious contender to first place on a list over the smallest normal-gauged locomotives ever built. I have not been able to find any hard stats for the Brauer yet, but I am fairly certain that its hp output is well below the 250/340 range for the other Axis engines you have mentioned, and that it would be hard pressed to do 25 km/h even under the best of circumstances. The bogie box car at the end of the train looks like a narrow-gauged goods car, possibly converted to run on the normal-gauged line into Egypt. Note how the car is noticeably lower than the two other box cars, and it has four axles mounted in bogies in order to reduce axle load and enable the car to run through sharper curves. This is a guess on my part, based on the fact that narrow-gauged rail lines usually have smaller loading gauges than normal-gauged railroads.

As I understand it from the DAK thread the line east of Tobruk was operated by the Germans until Mersah Matruh; from there until El Daba the rail line was operated by the Italians.

German locos look like regular diesel locomotives, there just weren't all that many of them, and there was at least one fairly serious accident (though the loco was salvaged, using a captured British steam crane). The discrepancy between the resources that each side was willing to commit to that theater is really striking.

Absolutely it is, and the image of the puny Badoni next to the imposing Stanier or the top modern Whitcomb is as good an image as any on the relative strengths of the two sides' supply chains.

Edited to insert comment about loading gauge.

[Bronsky]

It struck me that the Italian engine looks remarkably like a Brauer tractor, and thankfully it's confirmed further downthread (on the DAK thread) that the Badoni tractor was indeed a license-built version of the German Brauer shunting tractor. This curious little engine is a serious contender to first place on a list over the smallest normal-gauged locomotives ever built. I have not been able to find any hard stats for the Brauer yet, but I am fairly certain that its hp output is well below the 250/340 range for the other Axis engines you have mentioned, and that it would be hard pressed to do 25 km/h even under the best of circumstances. The bogie box car at the end of the train looks like a narrow-gauged goods car, possibly converted to run on the normal-gauged line into Egypt. Note how the car is noticeably lower than the two other box cars, and it has four axles mounted in bogies in order to reduce axle load and enable the car to run through sharper curves. This is a guess on my part, based on the fact that narrow-gauged rail lines usually have smaller loading gauges than normal-gauged railroads.

1. Badoni engine power was 65CV as I wrote upthread, so well below 250/340hp (the conversion multipliers are also upthread).

2. In the Italian history as well as in my notes from a German one, there are mentions of the bounty found. All cars used were captured (all right, make that 95% as I'm sure that the odd exception will crop up here and there, this is the Axis we're dealing with, after all!) and were therefore originally designed for standard gauge. There are remarks (I forget if they're from the Italians or the Germans) about the paucity of double-bogie cars and platform cars. So I'm not sure I can share your supposition. It's not impossible that the car's design might have originally been for narrow-gauge track, but the vehicle itself is unlikely to have been transported from a narrow-gauge network to Egypt.

As I understand it from the DAK thread the line east of Tobruk was operated by the Germans until Mersah Matruh; from there until El Daba the rail line was operated by the Italians.

No, the Germans and Italians ran their separate supply efforts, with the Italians being in overall charge of the line. Some German RR troops were received as reinforcements and they may well have been deployed west of Mersa Matruh (I'd have to check), but I'm very sure that the line was entirely managed by the Italians. Again, with 100% German convoys to cater for the needs of PAA, inter-Axis cooperation did not reach as far as mixing logistics if it could be avoided! Next, you'll suggest that German and Italian supplies could have been crated together, it'd be anarchy if that guy was listened to (paraphrasing R. Sutherland in "Kelly's heroes").

[Jon G.]

1. Badoni engine power was 65CV as I wrote upthread, so well below 250/340hp (the conversion multipliers are also upthread).

2. In the Italian history as well as in my notes from a German one, there are mentions of the bounty found. All cars used were captured (all right, make that 95% as I'm sure that the odd exception will crop up here and there, this is the Axis we're dealing with, after all!) and were therefore originally designed for standard gauge. There are remarks (I forget if they're from the Italians or the Germans) about the paucity of double-bogie cars and platform cars. So I'm not sure I can share your supposition. It's not impossible that the car's design might have originally been for narrow-gauge track, but the vehicle itself is unlikely to have been transported from a narrow-gauge network to Egypt...

The Badoni/Breuer (not 'Brauer' as I wrote) is certainly small enough to fit on a truck, and I presume that was how it was brought up to the normal-gauged line after Rommel had pushed into Egypt. But the question remains how the larger German engines delivered to Tobruk bridged the gap from the terminus of the narrow-gauged Italian railroad to the captured normal-gauged rail line to El Daba. Apart from the power output it would be interesting to know the weight of the German engines which were delivered in 1942. At ~20 tons or less they may have been movable on tank transporter trailers.

[Jon G.]

I will try and revive this thread by posting some tidbits gathered from Judd's book about the New Zealand rail troops here. As a preliminary of sorts I must state that Judd's book is not awfully well edited - the narrative is a little disjointed, and Judd spends far too many pages on anecdotes and blanket praise for the rail troops' great achievements. There should be room for both, but here patriotic anecdotes get in the way of the narrative in my opinion. It seems that Judd is greatly awed by the veterans that he interviewed for his book. It is a little disappointing that relevant information is presented in an unsystematic fashion, for Judd clearly knows his railroad stuff.

The New Zealand railway troops sent to the Middle East were organized in two Railway Operating Companies, a Railway Construction Company and a HQ section - in total about 1400 men.Additional unskilled labour was provided by locally hired Egyptians (at a shilling a day), and later also Indian Army soldiers. It appears that there was little difference in the practical roles of the ROCs and the RCC. The NZ rail troops were recruited from NZ railways - i.e. they were railroadmen turned soldiers, which meant that they had a lot of railroad operating/construction experience between them. This gave them an edge over more 'standard' engineer formations.

There was a fairly extensive civilian rail network in Egypt also prior to the war. Particularly the Nile Delta was well served by several rail lines: there was a north-south line closely following the Suez Channel running from Port Said to Suez and a sideline branching off to Palestine. The southern east-west line went from Suez to Cairo, while the main south-north line went from Cairo (& further south along the Nile) to Alexandria via Benha, where another line extended eastwards until it met the eastern north-south line at Ismailia.

The westwards rail line went as far as Mersah Matruh when the New Zealanders arrived, with the purely military part of the line starting at El Dabaa, which had a major engine repair depot and a large water & coal depot. A water pipeline from Alexandria to El Dabaa was completed as early as Jan. 21st 1941.

It was the rail troops' task to expand the line to Mersah Matruh in the direction of Libya. Judd writes that particularly in the beginning the rail troops were provided with odds and sods of leftover rail equipment from all over the empire. It appears though that this situation improved as time went, and the only figure for rail weight that Judd gives is that the rails were delivered in lengths of 30 feet, which weighed in at 700 lbs, or about 35 kg/m, which sounds about right for mainline British track of the time if a little on the light side.

There were no signals of any kind outside station areas - signals can't be seen during a dust storm - but the line had a well-functioning telephone operated block system between stations. The railway definitely was ballasted, but all earthworks were kept at a minimum, and not just for time-saving reasons: sand drifts could sometimes build up on one side of a rail bank, all the way up to the top ("crown") of the track itself. These sand drifts could cause derailments if not removed. Therefore low walls were built on either side of the rail embankment in some places.

Work on the western extension of the desert railroad began at Similla (8 miles east of Mersah Matruh) in October 1940. Similla was chosen over Mersah Matruh because it would have required major eartworks to build westwards directly from Matruh. Another consideration was that the line extension had to conform to a maximum gradient of 1%. Not because a steam engine can't negotiate steeper gradients - it can - but because it can easily run out of control when going downhill, particularly when pulling unbraked wagons.

Again thanks to the fuzzy narrative it is a little difficult to follow the earliest stage of the desert railroad's westwards expansion. It's evident that the Greek diversion in the wake of Compass slowed down construction somewhat, so it was only from May 1941 that the next stage - a 92 mile stretch from Similla to Misheifa, which is due south of Sidi Barani - began. This part of the line was completed by November 5th 1941, just in time for Crusader. The next major part of line was the 160 miles from Similla to Capuzzo via Halfaya. This part of the line was completed by February 1942.

The final part of the desert railroad was the 72 miles from Capuzzo to Belhamed, some 20 miles ESE of Tobruk. The construction of this stretch was built in 59 days from April 3rd 1942 to May 31st 1942. The railroad builders' ability improved as time went - a mile a day was considered exceptionally good at the start of their operations, but later on this figure was routinely beaten - not just because the railway soldiers became better at hammering spikes, but also because their supply trains were loaded more appropriately and economically. On one occasion an impressive four miles of track were laid in a single day.

Numerous stations were built along the line. Sidings and loops etc. were laid out in an unconventional manner - instead of being parallel to the mainline track, railyards were built in a 'balloon' pattern, utilising the vast space of the desert and minimising the effect of enemy air raids. Sidings for POL and ammunition were kept widely apart for safety reasons. For example, the loop at Capuzzo described a huge balloon when viewed from the air, with a circumference of 11.5 miles of track. This must have appeared a rather decadent measure to the Axis considering the severe shortage of tracks they suffered from as described earlier.

Water was a real problem, as touched upon earlier in this thread. Particularly early in the campaign there was a shortage of tank wagons which made the problem worse. Extensive reservoirs had to be built as the line progressed westwards. Sometimes drinking water delivered by coastal shipping from Alexandria to Mersah Matruh was appropriated for railroad use despite being earmarked for troops in the desert. Eventually it was decided to make away with the awkward distinction between drinking water and locomotive water, and a water filtering plant was built at Alexandria.

[Jon G.]

On a highly interesting additional note, I just came across these pictures from the DAK forum:





...both pictures lifted from this post by DAK member Foo'bar. All speculations on how the Axis transported its locomotives overland can now be put to rest, and as we can see they did have somewhat more substantial normal-gauged engines than the puny Badoni/Breuer tractors.

According to DAK member Foo'bar one of the two WR360 sent was written off as a total loss due to air attack after a mere six weeks in North Africa. A single WR550 (the engine in the picture) was also sent. This engine had better performance, as detailed earlier upthread, but its service life in North Africa was not long. According to this page, the sole WR550 departed Brindisi aboard the Ankara September 6th 1942, arrived at Tobruk on Sept. 8, and was unloaded on Sept. 10th. It was captured intact at Belhamed by British troops in November 1942 and transferred to the coastal railroad in Palestine where it was used until February 1946.

There's speculation as to whether a second WR550 model was sent to North Africa.

[Bronsky]

The Badoni/Breuer (not 'Brauer' as I wrote) is certainly small enough to fit on a truck, and I presume that was how it was brought up to the normal-gauged line after Rommel had pushed into Egypt.

They were unloaded directly at Mersa Matruh as I wrote before (page 3 or 4 of this thread).

[Bronsky]

On a highly interesting additional note, I just came across these pictures from the DAK forum:

Yes, just read the thread, I must find my password etc to re-lo gin (the stupid forum forgot about me, did I mention that I hate this format? ) but there were interesting bits posted, particularly the overland transport.

All speculations on how the Axis transported its locomotives overland can now be put to rest, and as we can see they did have somewhat more substantial normal-gauged engines than the puny Badoni/Breuer tractors.

Indeed, this is very interesting for the transport to Bir El Suessi, though the information about available engines is still incomplete. In my initial post (page 2), I mentioned 3 German locomotives landed in Tobruk and since the first two had arrived in early August, I had assumed that the third and larger one had, too. It seems that this wasn't so.

Other sources have mentioned as many as 8 German diesels but I don't know about those.

I have a picture showing German locomotives in August, which I will try to photograph and post here or on the DAK forum for identification purposes.

[Jon G.]

...Indeed, this is very interesting for the transport to Bir El Suessi, though the information about available engines is still incomplete. In my initial post (page 2), I mentioned 3 German locomotives landed in Tobruk and since the first two had arrived in early August, I had assumed that the third and larger one had, too. It seems that this wasn't so.

It's against my principles to blatantly swipe other peoples' pictures from other sites. At least I've left Foo'bar a message telling him that I'm using his pictures here, so he can take appropriate action and zap the images from his imageshack account if he considers this unacceptable use of his images. But I'll lift my principle just once more because I think we're breaking major ground as far as this thread is concerned:



...this picture illustrates nicely that the other two locomotives were indeed delivered at the same time. Note that it's not the same engine as above dangling from the Ankara's crane! Although externally similar, this engine only has three axles.

By the way, the Ankara was a natural choice for delivering the locomotives to North Africa. She was originally built for delivering locomotives to South America, so she probably had stronger lifting apparatus than most.

[Jon G.]

At the DAK forum there is a nice picture from Mersah Matruh of a Stanier 8F pulling a water wagon and what US readers might identify as a caboose here

The caboose-looking wagon is probably a brake-wagon. Brake-wagons were used particularly in longer trains, manned by NZ railway troops who would begin/stop braking according to whistle signals given from the train engine. This was how trains were braked in the old days before the invention of pressurized brake systems operated from the train engine - so the earlier statement that trains on the desert railroad were unbraked needs some modification. There is no information in Judd's book on whether this way of braking trains was retained after the Whitcomb diesels entered service but if through-braked trains were introduced at the same time it may well have been possible to increase overall train weight despite having somewhat weaker engines pulling the trains.

Mersah Matruh was a blind alley when it was decided to expand the rail line further west. It would have taken major (and time consuming) earth moving to expand the track further west directly from Matruh. Instead it was decided to begin the westwards expansion at Similla, a few miles east from Matruh - but Mersah Matruh remained an important coal/water station because these commodities were delivered there by coastal shipping from Alexandria, where the Royal Navy had a big water filtering plant.