German Railways in the East

[Dann Falk]

Again Great RR Info.

I finally found the link to Engines of the Red Army in WW2 (see below). This site has two areas about Soviet rail... the Persian Corridor and the Russian Rail section. As the creator Oliver says "Covering the Engines of the Red Army (or »Workers and Peasants Red Army« RKKA, called officially) in the Great Patriotic War in scaled multi-view colour profiles"

http://www.o5m6.de

[Der Alte Fritz]

They are really great drawings (but his railway knowledge is not so accurate.)

For instance he says in the SO section that it is one of the most common Soviet engines but fails to mention the reason for this is that the SO19 was the main CONDENSOR locomotive used in areas of low water or poor water supply. This engine was heavily sponsored by Kaganovich for exactly this reason. There is an image on the site called:
"Several SO19 (SO17 variant with increased axle load) as a welcome German prey in the summer of 1941"
which clearly shows 4 captured Condensor SO19s complete with their distinctive Cooling Tenders and the large pipes carrying the waste steam to the tender.

He also repeats the propaganda piece that Stalin arrived at the Potsdam Conference pulled by an American Diesel Locomotive and immediately had it copied. This ignores the fact that the USSR was one of the earliest developers of diesel electric locomotives in the world during the 1920s and had a working fleet of main line ones from 1928 onwards. The reason they were not developed further was a conscious decision by Kaganovich to promote steam and not diesel or electric because the latter two had very high capital costs (a diesel electric loco was over twice the price of a steam one) although they had reduced running costs and longer service intervals. Secondly diesel fuel was in relatively short supply in the USSR compared to coal as was hydro electric power. The diesel would not return to Soviet rails until the death of Stalin and the ousting of Kaganovich.

[Der Alte Fritz]

To quote Westwood (A US railway economist):
Reception of the TE-1 "which were initially copies of the ALCO Da, the enthusiasm for the American locomotives was muted......What is especially piquant about the situation is that a Russian was largely responsible for the existence of the Alco diesel locomotive. Alphonse Lipets, who with Lomonsov had designed a diesel locomotive for the Tashkent Railway before the First World War, had emigrated to the USA after the Revolution. Here he had become a leading , probably the leading, mind behind the move of Alco into the diesel - electric locomotive business."

The Soviet E-el-12 of 1932 was a short series production model of various prototypes in the E-el series that served on the southern border railways where coal and water were scarce. They had a three man crew compared to American diesels one man crew but then labour costs in the US were much of the driving factor in American mechanisation of their railways, whereas this was not a factor in the USSR. The American benefited from the Swiss designed regulator (which controlled the relationship between the diesel engine output, the electrical generator output and the power generated by the motors) which allowed one man operation. The other main difference was the Soviets started with Mainline diesels of 1000 hp plus while the American started with shunters or switching engines of modest output in the 5-600 hp range. ALCOs main HH series would not have a power output of 1000 Hp until 1939 whereas the Soviet E-el-2 developed 1200 Hp in 1924.

Early Diesel electric was most closely associated with Switzerland and German railways from 1903 and the Soviets worked closely with German factories in their development.

[GregSingh]

Might be of interest.

[GregSingh]

Numbers for Soviet CO17 and CO19 - COK - CO(with condenser). Class SO(with condenser) in English.

[GregSingh]

And production numbers for non-condenser CO or SO class.

[GregSingh]

Also have Class FD numbers and 1937 main FD routes:

Kharkov - Krasnyi Lyman
Verhovtsevo - Yasynuvata
Moskva - Kharkov
Kharkov - Yasynuvata
Rybnoye - Michurinsk
Kharkov - Bryansk
Vitebsk - Leningrad
Michurinsk - Rostov
Moskva - Valuyki

In 1940 Moskva - Orsha and Siberian routes were added.

Class FD numbers.jpg (28.37 KiB) Viewed 1367 times

[Der Alte Fritz]

Looking at the FD routes, they mainly seem to be in the Donetz area or connecting it with Moscow and the route south west from Leningrad to Vitebsk.

[Der Alte Fritz]

Until we can hold of some better information, this the best 'guess' as to the location of Eisenbahntruppe units by Army Group

EB Dispositions.jpg (51.46 KiB) Viewed 1289 times

This would seem to indicate that about half the available EB troops were committed to Fall Blau Regts 2, 3 and 6 say about 25,000 men plus the forces of 2 FEDko made up of Grau Eisenbahner plus the extra DRB Blau Eisenbahner of the newly created RVD Rostov

[recidivist]

Excellent thread.

..
So this new uniformity of track strength was a relatively new feature only 12 years old by the time of the invasion of Russia.

As I understand it, track or line strength is not only determined by weight of rails, but also by factors such as quality of track bed - density and type of ballast, density and quality of sleepers, drainage, and also quality of track itself.

By 1929 the fleet had dropped to 23,418 engines with 600 a year surplus ones being paid off but 633 new ones delivered between 1925 and 1929 and the age was slight older at 12.5 years but a higher horsepower of 149. This trend would continue up to 1932 with new locomotives being purchased for no other reason than to maintain employment at the main locomotives builders plants from an industry that had over capacity for its single home customer.

Some engines were also built for export although I have no figures to hand - and anyway, all heavy industry, perhaps particularly German heavy industry, would have surplus capacity post-1929.

By 1938, 1,500 Einheitslok had been purchased and made up around 6% of the fleet. With many older Prussian locomotives P8, P10 and P12 still in service with axle load in the 17-19 tonne range, Germany would go through the 1930s with a steadily ageing fleet as the locomotive manufacturers such as Hanomag were switched to other war work and funds for new locomotives dried up and the DRB had to expend its capital reserves on financing the autobahn programme.

Yes, my guess would also be that Hanomag and other locomotive works switched to war production as part of the rearmament programme which the Nazis started.
Note, though, that many of the old Prussian types would remain in service in comparatively rich BRD right into the 1970s, so ageing does not necessarily mean outdated. The technology was essentially matured by the turn of the century or so anyway, so a 1932 locomotive would not differ very much in performance from a 1912 one, for example. I think it is easier to identify German under-investment in railroads from 1933 and onwards by measuring how many kilometers of main line were electrified in the period (not very much), or how much (or little) effort was put into developing diesel replacements for the steam engine fleet.

[Der Alte Fritz]

We discussed track strength back in Post Nr.31 (http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 9#p1842909) and you are quite right these are the main factors. The main point of interest is the upgrading of the German railways during the period 1924-8 raised the entire network up to a 'modern' level but the Soviet Network remained (albeit for perfectly good reasons) some 15 years behind. Why this should have been such a problem to the German railway authorities either military or civilian is not so clear but may have something to do with the low capacity railways of Eastern Poland which had to be re-built.

Certainly there is an export trade in locomotives from German, although I do not have any figures - which of course would be of interest - but we do know that in 1922, Sweden and Germany built a series of E Class locomotives for the NKPS, around 1,200 of which the bulk were from Germany. Also it is important not to get too hung up on locomotives as these manufacturers were general purpose ones and built a wide range of industrial goods and had some ability to switch men and equipment as demand fluctuated.

For instance HANOMAG was cutting back on locomotive production itself during the 1920s and was switching to making agricultural tractors and cars. So when re-armament comes in the 1930s it can switch again to make half tracks and military utility vehicles.

Likewise BORSIG became part of AEG in 1931 after it went bankrupt and it was absorbed into the AEG Hennigsdorf factory which had made locomotives and steam power plants since 1910. This is further evidence of a contraction of locomotive capacity during the 1920s as factories and firms combine. The DRB was not alone in trying to preserve manufacturing capacity during periods of slow demand by placing orders outwith its actual needs. The Royal Navy adopted a similar policy during the period of naval reduction treaties 1921, 1930 and 1938 calling such orders, experimental or in some cases actually buying the plant and sites outright (such as the crucial turret manufacturing pits) to preserve them for future need.

[Der Alte Fritz]

I am afraid that I cannot agree with your statement that steam technology was matured and there is no difference in performance between 1912 and 1932. The designs, technology (superheaters are one example) additional equipment, etc continued to improve right up to the 1950s and performance did as well. Look at the table in post Nr.150 and the improvements to the Soviet E Class, the first ones in 1912 had a tractive effort of 20 tonnes while the end of the Class in 1932 was 27 tonnes. Overall between the O Class of 1898 and the FD Class of 1932 performance increases by over a factor of 2 times.

You are quite right of course that new types of motive power - electric and diesel bring substantial benefits in terms of performance, operating costs and manning levels, but the way forward was by no means clear in the 1920s as these were futuristic technologies at the time. Look at the case of diesel in which Germany was a world leader. Diesel engines have good power to weight ratios but run at high revs so the difficulty for railway use is the transmission of that power, mechanical gearboxes, diesel-electric, diesel-hydraulic, etc are options but nothing was settled in the 1920s and it was only towards the end of the 1930s that diesel-electric came out as the standard main line motive power.option. Examples such as SVT877 Flying Hamburger in 1931 were a step in the right direction but could not form the basis of a national railway yet. And steam was both cheap in terms of capital costs, reliable and proven technology. There are numerous examples of countries taking the 'easy option' and retaining steam, the Soviet Union being one of them, while far fewer examples of those taking the plunge. Even the USA took a cautious approach with experience with diesels being gained via shunting engines rather than main line motive power. The first 1000 hp examples did not arrive on US rails until 1939.

[GregSingh]

In 1921/22 Soviet Union received 700 Class Eg locomotives from Germany (made in 20 different factories). These were 0-10-0.
I can provide numbers for each factory or you already have them?

[recidivist]

I am afraid that I cannot agree with your statement that steam technology was matured and there is no difference in performance between 1912 and 1932. The designs, technology (superheaters are one example) additional equipment, etc continued to improve right up to the 1950s and performance did as well.

Fair enough, I did not intend to make such a categorical statement when I wrote that the technology was essentially matured. Of course various tweaks and smaller improvements were introduced along the way - superheaters were a well-known technology by the turn of the century, however - but the basic design was very much established by around WW1 or thereabouts.

Look at the table in post Nr.150 and the improvements to the Soviet E Class, the first ones in 1912 had a tractive effort of 20 tonnes while the end of the Class in 1932 was 27 tonnes. Overall between the O Class of 1898 and the FD Class of 1932 performance increases by over a factor of 2 times.

But that was not thanks to major breakthroughs made in steam technology, but rather thanks to infrastructure improvements as explained by you above - i.e. as the Soviet Union industrialized from the late 1920s and on, needs (particularly transporting coal) increased, and the railroads were expanded as a result.

You are quite right of course that new types of motive power - electric and diesel bring substantial benefits in terms of performance, operating costs and manning levels, but the way forward was by no means clear in the 1920s as these were futuristic technologies at the time. ...
And steam was both cheap in terms of capital costs, reliable and proven technology. There are numerous examples of countries taking the 'easy option' and retaining steam, the Soviet Union being one of them, while far fewer examples of those taking the plunge. Even the USA took a cautious approach with experience with diesels being gained via shunting engines rather than main line motive power. The first 1000 hp examples did not arrive on US rails until 1939.

Quite right, my point was more to the effect that the Germans took a more cautious approach in railroad technology in the 1930s - essentially going with a true and tested technology, and could get away with under-Investment because eg. a 1910 steam engine is not all that different in performance from a 1935 one - than they did in more directly war-related technology, where they quite boldly would introduce massed tank forces, all-metal monowing airplanes, synthetic fuels and so on.

[Der Alte Fritz]

In 1921/22 Soviet Union received 700 Class Eg locomotives from Germany (made in 20 different factories). These were 0-10-0.
I can provide numbers for each factory or you already have them?

That would be great to see, Greg.