11,000 railroad cars and 1200 locos - but set against 600,000 railcars and 28,000 locos from Soviet stocksThomasG wrote:, plus hundreds of locomotives and thousands of railroad cars,
Impact of Lend-Lease on Soviet railways
-
- Member
- Posts: 8251
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Impact of Lend-Lease on Soviet railways
Split off from this thread http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=54923
-
- Member
- Posts: 8251
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
This is a reprint of a 1935 article on Soviet Railways
http://mikes.railhistory.railfan.net/r097.html#2
Extract:
20,000 Locomotives
To-day there are still many oil-burning locomotives at work in the south of Russia, certain of the modern standard types having been modified to take this type of fuel. At the same time, it is also possible that they will be superseded, perhaps within the next few years, by Diesel locomotives running directly on crude oil. There are already at least twenty Diesel locomotives at work on the southern lines, and experiments with Diesel traction have been carried out over a number of years. Recent figures show that the Soviet Union contains about 20,000 locomotives of various types. Naturally, complete standardization is still a good way off, for the locomotive stock left by the old Empire was amazing in its variety. Within the past ten years, however, definite steps have been taken in the matter of locomotive standardization, and some very fine types have been evolved.
http://mikes.railhistory.railfan.net/r097.html#2
Extract:
20,000 Locomotives
To-day there are still many oil-burning locomotives at work in the south of Russia, certain of the modern standard types having been modified to take this type of fuel. At the same time, it is also possible that they will be superseded, perhaps within the next few years, by Diesel locomotives running directly on crude oil. There are already at least twenty Diesel locomotives at work on the southern lines, and experiments with Diesel traction have been carried out over a number of years. Recent figures show that the Soviet Union contains about 20,000 locomotives of various types. Naturally, complete standardization is still a good way off, for the locomotive stock left by the old Empire was amazing in its variety. Within the past ten years, however, definite steps have been taken in the matter of locomotive standardization, and some very fine types have been evolved.
Michael Kenny wrote:
2 - One should also take in consideration the huge quantity of material both destroyed during the onset of the war and the huge qunttity of material that went unscath but turned out to be seized by the axis powers. One should also remember that during the occupation the axis used for the most part soviet material in what used to be soviet territories.
1 - One must match the quality and the state of maintenance of both the existent soviet material with the one received through land-lease."...but set against 600,000 railcars and 28,000 locos from Soviet stocks"
2 - One should also take in consideration the huge quantity of material both destroyed during the onset of the war and the huge qunttity of material that went unscath but turned out to be seized by the axis powers. One should also remember that during the occupation the axis used for the most part soviet material in what used to be soviet territories.
-
- Member
- Posts: 8251
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
The point is that it is said the Locos and railcars provided under LL were 'crucial'. Nobody seemed to realise how Soviet stock dwarfed the LL supplied equipment.viriato wrote: 1 - One must match the quality and the state of maintenance of both the existent soviet material with the one received through land-lease.
Did you?
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... c&start=45
I posted a list of Beute des Heeres which I got from my moderator colleague Qvist here:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 54#1087854
...according to that list, the Heer had captured a remarkably modest 2,237 rail cars and 231 locomotives from the Soviets as of November 1 1941. There might be some captured stock not evident in the list - for example rail stock captured by the Finns and the Rumanians, and of course rail stock captured after November 1st has to be added. Captured Soviet stock was only of limited use to the Germans anyway (which may also be implicitly evident in the small numbers), for they re-gauged the Soviet 1520 mm system to continental 1435 mm gauge.
Still, just counting Lend-Lease supplied rail cars and locomotives and holding them against Soviet stocks may not tell the whole story - if we count production rather than existing stock, it's clear that LL accounted for the majority of new Soviet rolling stock and, particularly, rails. See this table from Sturmvogel. Soviet locomotive production vanishes to almost nothing from 1942 on.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 54#1087854
...according to that list, the Heer had captured a remarkably modest 2,237 rail cars and 231 locomotives from the Soviets as of November 1 1941. There might be some captured stock not evident in the list - for example rail stock captured by the Finns and the Rumanians, and of course rail stock captured after November 1st has to be added. Captured Soviet stock was only of limited use to the Germans anyway (which may also be implicitly evident in the small numbers), for they re-gauged the Soviet 1520 mm system to continental 1435 mm gauge.
Still, just counting Lend-Lease supplied rail cars and locomotives and holding them against Soviet stocks may not tell the whole story - if we count production rather than existing stock, it's clear that LL accounted for the majority of new Soviet rolling stock and, particularly, rails. See this table from Sturmvogel. Soviet locomotive production vanishes to almost nothing from 1942 on.
Presuming there was a two-way link offer-demand between Soviets and Allies, the question that rises immediately is why Soviets demanded so many rail equipment in the first place? Ok, they've had a vast number of rail cars and locos themselves and that number wasn't seriously lowered by war losses (both captured and destroyed vehicles). So why demand them at all? Wouldn't it be better to exchange 1200 locos for delivery of 4-5 k tanks/trucks/tractors then?Michael Kenny wrote:Extract:
20,000 Locomotives
Lend-Lease increased the demands on the Soviet rail system. Most LL was shipped in via Persia or Vladivostok, then railed to European Russia where it was needed. As you can see, the number of locomotives and rail cars delivered actually surpasses the number of locomotives and rail cars lost (until Nov 1st 1941 anyway)
American planners had a rather particular interest in the capabilities of the Soviet rail system also prior to Pearl Harbor.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 40#1150240
American planners had a rather particular interest in the capabilities of the Soviet rail system also prior to Pearl Harbor.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 40#1150240
From what I recal reading most of the rail road cars and locomotive were delivered to Vladivostok. This also gives at least a minor increase in efficiency as there is not as much need to run trains back to Siberia. Anyone have any idea how the horsepower of Soviet locomotives compare to those delivered via LL?
-
- Member
- Posts: 8251
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Well as you say if we just include wartime production then it would appear the Allied aid was absolutely decisive.Jon G. wrote: Still, just counting Lend-Lease supplied rail cars and locomotives and holding them against Soviet stocks may not tell the whole story - if we count production rather than existing stock, it's clear that LL accounted for the majority of new Soviet rolling stock and, particularly, raill..
You have to ignore the fact that The Soviets were not short of Locos or rolling stock and could indeed have managed without the LL locos/railcars.
I've read again that interesting page about 20k locos you've given. Pretty impressive, but I think some questions still remain. Like (...) for the locomotive stock left by the old Empire was amazing in its variety.Michael Kenny wrote:You have to ignore the fact that The Soviets were not short of Locos or rolling stock and could indeed have managed without the LL locos/railcars.
Such was a situation - according to source page - in 1935. Truthfully, I don't know how typical exploatation for a soviet engine from mid thirties looked like, but such composition for a large and excessively used machine park is a sure recipe for massive problems. How many of these 20 k engines were in good technical shape? What was their durability? Anyone spotted such data on the net?
I saw the other posts about delivery pattern of LL locos & other, so I'm rather convinced that these engines/cars weren't that much critical for survival of Soviet Union in a time of German pression - but would the Soviet offensives go that easy without them?
Well, the 20,000 number given in the article you link to (thanks!) is meaningless in itself. It can give an idea of Lend-Lease's impact on Soviet rolling stock, but a) a 1935 number is in all probability outdated, and b) Lend-Lease itself increased the demands on the Soviet railroads on top of the extra demands on railroads which usually comes with war.Michael Kenny wrote:Well as you say if we just include wartime production then it would appear the Allied aid was absolutely decisive.Jon G. wrote: Still, just counting Lend-Lease supplied rail cars and locomotives and holding them against Soviet stocks may not tell the whole story - if we count production rather than existing stock, it's clear that LL accounted for the majority of new Soviet rolling stock and, particularly, raill..
You have to ignore the fact that The Soviets were not short of Locos or rolling stock and could indeed have managed without the LL locos/railcars.
According to the paper I talk about in the post I linked to above, the 3rd Five Year Plan (1938-1942) expected an increase of no less than 8,000 locomotives at the end of the period. Obviously, that number was not achieved (the Sturmvogel link which I gave demonstrates the shortfall), but the Soviet loco park was in all probability larger in 1941 than it was in 1935. Several giant locomotive works were built during the 1930s.
And Lend-Lease in itself increased the needs of the Soviet railroads. For example, the Persian Corridor railroad was a major supply artery into the USSR - but obviously, the Soviets had to pick up and distribute LL supplies at their end. Take away the LL, and you'll reduce the Soviets' need for rolling stock, while obviously also giving them other problems to contend with.
Soviet train engines were quite powerful when compared to western types - Soviet railroads had a larger loading gauge, and hence more room for boilers and cylinders on their engines. Grajdanzev's paper mentions that 38% of all Soviet locomotives were 2-10-2 FD freight types, rated at 2,630 hp*, or 2,200 tons of traction, with a stated speed of 65 kph. In 1935 a total of 1,495 locomotives were built for the Soviet railroads in 1935; 1,123 of them were FD types.
As a data point for comparison to your 28,000 Soviet locomotives in 1935, the Deutsche Reichsbahn had 21,656 locomotives, 596,597 freight cars and 60,343 passenger cars in 1935. German railroads carried 408,000 thousand tons in 1935 which compares favourably with the Soviets' 388,533 thousand tons - although German trains of course travelled shorter distances.
* but note that it's not very meaningful to measure hp output of a steam engine because it varies according to the engine's speed.
For this discussion to become more meaningful, what are needed are the loss figures for locos in 1941. The Germans may not have captured a lot, but many more will have been shot up, bombed, or disabled by retreating Soviet forces.
We have the basis for 1935. To this should be added all new production/imported locos, and substracted all retired/destroyed/captured locos, say by 1941. Only by performing this calculation will it be possible to make a statement of the impact of LL locos.
Also, straightforward loads transported can not be compared in a meaningful way, as Jon rightly points out. The measures of transport output are passenger-/ton-kilometres (or passenger-/ton-miles if you are thinking in Imperial measurement), to eliminate the distance difference in the analysis.
All the best
Andreas
We have the basis for 1935. To this should be added all new production/imported locos, and substracted all retired/destroyed/captured locos, say by 1941. Only by performing this calculation will it be possible to make a statement of the impact of LL locos.
Also, straightforward loads transported can not be compared in a meaningful way, as Jon rightly points out. The measures of transport output are passenger-/ton-kilometres (or passenger-/ton-miles if you are thinking in Imperial measurement), to eliminate the distance difference in the analysis.
All the best
Andreas
Here is some statistics you of that kind:Andreas wrote:Also, straightforward loads transported can not be compared in a meaningful way, as Jon rightly points out. The measures of transport output are passenger-/ton-kilometres (or passenger-/ton-miles if you are thinking in Imperial measurement), to eliminate the distance difference in the analysis.
Year/Turnover (mlrds tons*kms)/Cargoes transported (mlns tons)/Average number of cars loaded per day (thousands)
1940/415.0/592.6/97.9
1941/386.5/527.9/85.0
1942/217.8/277.2/42.6
1943/238.8/296.6/45.5
1944/281.3/356.3/55.4
1945/314.0/395.2/61.8
http://tashv.nm.ru/StatSbornikVOV/StSbVOV20.html#t03
One should dig dipper to get the number of locomotives and railway car in use, at least the production figures for 1940 were 928 locomotives, 30 880 freight and 1052 passenger railway cars. In the next year the cars production figures remained on the same level, but locomotives production fell rapidly down to 715. In the following years there were no locomotives and car production to speak about. For example, in 1943 the industry produced 43 locomotives and 13(!) railway cars.
http://tashv.nm.ru/StatSbornikVOV/StSbVOV07.html#t06
- phylo_roadking
- Member
- Posts: 17488
- Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
- Location: Belfast
Andreas, in relation to your comments above - I'd also be interested in knowing TWO other sub-totals -
1/ How many locomotives the Germans captured and destroyed
compared to
2/ How many they captured and used
...given that as they rewheeled Russian freightstock and retracked, Russian locos in their possession would have been of absolutely no use to them, or in some areas quickly-decreasing use, and not worth counting into figures UNLESS they could be converted.
I'd also like to see a breakdown of that 1935 all-over total - given the huge industrial projects underway in the USSR, a higher percentage of those will be shunting locos and "industrial" yard locos than in other nations.
1/ How many locomotives the Germans captured and destroyed
compared to
2/ How many they captured and used
...given that as they rewheeled Russian freightstock and retracked, Russian locos in their possession would have been of absolutely no use to them, or in some areas quickly-decreasing use, and not worth counting into figures UNLESS they could be converted.
I'd also like to see a breakdown of that 1935 all-over total - given the huge industrial projects underway in the USSR, a higher percentage of those will be shunting locos and "industrial" yard locos than in other nations.