A Blunted Sickle - Thread II

[Post]

AFAIK the main lines in Germany, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria(-Hungary), Italy, Switserland, Denmark, Norway and Sweden have always been the same gauge. So that should be no issue.

AFAIK it's just Spain and Russia that have different gauge.

Of course there can be narrow gauge on certain lines, but that's mostly for a specific reason and a local line.

 

[cousjath]

The issue with running trains on other networks is not just the track gauge but also the loading gauge. This is the set of dimensions that allows trains to pass through tunnels, bridges etc. The UK generally has a smaller loading gauge than the continent, so British trains can run in France but not vice verse. This is also why we don't have double decker trains in the UK. It is incredibly expensive to expand the loading gauge as this would require redoing every structure on the railway.

 

[pjmidd]

AFAIK the main lines in Germany, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria(-Hungary), Italy, Switserland, Denmark, Norway and Sweden have always been the same gauge. So that should be no issue.

To be pedantic, technically Europe was different from the UK ( UK was imperial standard gauge, Europe was metric standard ). However as they were well within tolerance of each other, it was meaningless in practice ( normally +/- 5mm for 100mph+ line, +/- 10mm for slower lines ).

 

[Post]

To be pedantic, technically Europe was different from the UK ( UK was imperial standard gauge, Europe was metric standard ). However as they were well within tolerance of each other, it was meaningless in practice ( normally +/- 5mm for 100mph+ line, +/- 10mm for slower lines ).

To be equally pedantic, notice how I didn't mention the UK

 

[pjmidd]

To be equally pedantic, notice how I didn't mention the UK

The discussion is about British rolling stock, which was obviously built for UK gauge, being used on the continent.

 

[Post]

The discussion is about British rolling stock, which was obviously built for UK gauge, being used on the continent.

Oh, I was responding to the question which countries were the same gauge.

 

[Patg_hnj]

There is no issue using British stock on the Continent, the UK during both wars sent plenty over and back, hence the train ferry routes established during World War One, the issue is always that standard UIC gauged stock cannot run in the UK due to loading gauge issues, so you need special smaller stock to fit in the UK.
The main issue prior to the Channel Tunnel opening was the need to tie down stock so most ferry wagons had tie-downs fitted to make securing the wagons during the crossing easier..

 

[pjmidd]

the issue is always that standard UIC gauged stock cannot run in the UK due to loading gauge issues, so you need special smaller stock to fit in the UK.

Not totally true, you just have to pick your routes more carefully, a lot of track could take European sized rolling stock with a bit of TLC ( Great Central railways for instance actually built their lines to European loading gauge ). Indeed OTL the planners did make a few changes ( mainly to bridges ) to allow larger sized loads to get to ports more easily as part as the build up to D-Day

 

[pdf27]

I know a few years ago PDF gave some sneak peaks about the UK railway system, I'm wondering how other railway systems are right now compared to OTL. Here are my best guesses for the west-european nations that I feel like I know enough about to have an opinion:

France: Was not occupied for multiple years while being stripped of stuff to send it into the Eastern Front, which I'm guessing helps a lot. The area near the border that has been a frontline for longer time periods may have had quite some damage, but I think overall the damage will be way less than years of occupation and then as much destruction as possible as the Allies were breaking out from Normandy.
Germany: A shorter war, less strategic bombing AND the German army practically collapsed before most of the network was in range of enemy guns? The German network is going to be in way better shape in my eyes.
Belgium: Compared to OTL, I think Belgium is the worst off. It was the frontline for most of the war, instead of the main rail lines being bypassed in 1940, and the Allies jumping from a frontline near the landing areas in France all the way to the Dutch border and to near the German border with little time inbetween. Since it was the front line so much, I expect there to have been a lot more destruction and disruption.
Netherlands: This was the hardest to categorize for me. Like Belgium, it was on the front line a lot. But on the other hand, that line was a sideshow to both sides for quite a while and the fighting was much less active due to the Water Line. In OTL, the Germans removed a bunch of rail, closing some lines and single tracking others, to provide more rail for their war industry, and I imagine that would also not have happened in TTL.

One of the reasons that I started thinking about this, is that I was wondering if the conditions would have changed enough that it could cause more countries to adopt the same electrification standards as PDF implied both France and the UK have TTL, so that hopefully the patchwork of electrification standards would be a bit cleaner TTL. And then maybe the international trains near me won't require special locomotives able to handle 3 different types of electrification.

1. France: far better than OTL, but stressed by some damage and a lot of over-use. Not too dissimilar to the state the UK found itself in post-war really.
2. Germany: something of a muddle but once they get sorted out (e.g. with coal supplies) they'll be back in pre-war type operation very quickly.
3. Belgium: very little left. Think northern France or western Germany in 1945.
4. Netherlands: decent shape considering, say similar to southern France in OTL.
5. Electrification is a bit complex:
   • 
     
     • In OTL SNCF in France were one of the pioneers of 25kV overhead power. I'm expecting that to remain the same here, albeit accelerated by a shorter war with lower human and financial costs plus the fact that Hungary isn't behind the iron curtain and they did some interesting early work on 25kV which will now be available.
     • The UK had decided pre-war to standardise on 1500V DC overhead electrification, but hadn't done very much about it. Shortly after they put some renewed impetus into it post-war, the French data became available showing just how much better 25kV AC would be. Here, with a better economic situation and better relations with the French, I'd expect more UK involvement in the trials and a more rapid switch-over as well as more funding available.
     • SNCB started electrification in the 1930s to the 3kV DC overhead standard, but there will be little left of it post-war, and indeed the whole country will be needing a major rebuild. I figure they'll be running on steam until the early 1950s, at which point electrification will start all over again. Not sure on 3kV DC / 25kV AC - bit of a coin-toss, the longer they wait the more likely that they'll move to 25kV.
     • NS in the Netherlands seems to have been heavily electrified on 1.5kV overhead before the war, and they're probably the least damaged of the continental networks so I'd assume that they'll stick with it for a while. ITTL they're planning on gradual conversion to 25kV overhead, but that's going to take a while.
     [*]

My inference from all this is that British rolling stock was able to operate on French trackage without modification...because, AFAIK, none of the lines shared by the French with the British, or allocated solely to the British, either were re-gauged or required the use of modified or purpose-acquired British rolling stock.

Given steam engines are both mechanically simple and pretty autonomous this isn't a surprise. The real issues will be with operating procedures - they've managed to share lines with the French which is a good sign, but it's notable that the trunk traffic is going down a segregated line. That's likely to be much more efficient after far longer spent supplying through France in OTL, but still difficult.

The issue with running trains on other networks is not just the track gauge but also the loading gauge. This is the set of dimensions that allows trains to pass through tunnels, bridges etc. The UK generally has a smaller loading gauge than the continent, so British trains can run in France but not vice verse. This is also why we don't have double decker trains in the UK. It is incredibly expensive to expand the loading gauge as this would require redoing every structure on the railway.

Things aren't quite that catastrophic - most of it relates to structures like bridges that need regular repair, reconstruction or replacement. Indeed, when they electrify lines the bridges need updating to give enough clearance for the overhead lines.

Realistically, once you're electrifying the network you sort out the overhead limit and in the process the rebuilding bridges, tunnels, etc. to accept this minimises the additional cost. It's still difficult, but because it's associated with something you're doing anyway and the OTL electrification was pretty much building a new railway on top of the old one it's maybe not as hard as you would think.
The other point is that I'm expecting the Channel Tunnel to happen much earlier than OTL, and for them to be thinking about it immediately post-war. This is largely a reflection of how much richer the UK is than in OTL, but there will also be impacts from much closer integration with the French economy in particular, and concerns about supporting a war with the Soviets in Poland which would require a lot of through-trains. If that is on the table, making the electrified lines compliant with the Central European loading gauge starts to look pretty attractive.

The main issue prior to the Channel Tunnel opening was the need to tie down stock so most ferry wagons had tie-downs fitted to make securing the wagons during the crossing easier..

There were also some major issues with loading the trains on and off in tidal basins - see https://www.shippingwondersoftheworld.com/dover_ferry.html .

Not totally true, you just have to pick your routes more carefully, a lot of track could take European sized rolling stock with a bit of TLC ( Great Central railways for instance actually built their lines to European loading gauge ). Indeed OTL the planners did make a few changes ( mainly to bridges ) to allow larger sized loads to get to ports more easily as part as the build up to D-Day

Fundamentally it's an investment issue. Without running through-trains to the Continent (pretty rare in OTL), the justification to spend the money is pretty poor.
One thing I'm toying with is using the Great Central Railway as a dedicated freight line from London to the North, meaning that only the line from London to Dover needs a full rebuild.

 

[vizzer]

So now we're getting into the 3rd of the post-1900 AH com fetishes i.e. after guns and food we now get railways 😁

 

[pdf27]

So now we're getting into the 3rd of the post-1900 AH com fetishes i.e. after guns and food we now get railways 😁

Yes, I admit it, I changed the course of the Battle of France just so I could have a decent POD for making Beeching a bit less awful!

 

[superstrijder15]

1. Netherlands: decent shape considering, say similar to southern France in OTL.

How was southern France at the time? The sources I could quickly find either cut off in the late 30s or focus their WWII sections heavily on the parts of the system supporting the atlantikwall and then the D-Day breakout.

SNCB started electrification in the 1930s to the 3kV DC overhead standard, but there will be little left of it post-war, and indeed the whole country will be needing a major rebuild. I figure they'll be running on steam until the early 1950s, at which point electrification will start all over again. Not sure on 3kV DC / 25kV AC - bit of a coin-toss, the longer they wait the more likely that they'll move to 25kV.

At that point I expect standardization with neighbours will be considered important so it'd be between Dutch 1.5kV DC or French 25kV AC. Dynamics between Flanders and Wallonia might well impact this just as much as economic decisions too.

NS in the Netherlands seems to have been heavily electrified on 1.5kV overhead before the war,

I actually found a map yesterday and wow there was a lot more there than I expected, but also, wow that was nearly all on the free side of the lines this war. Here is the map, and the water line was between those two non-electrified lines south of the marking "Amersfoort" and then along the river Nijmegen is on.

I also found out the reason for electrification was to improve rail frequencies, so there is a decent chance that the war actually accelerated construction to allow more quick troop movements behind the lines. This is a lot more electrification than I expected though, and I don't expect the rest of the network to be done in 25kV simply due to the legacy network.
If this is going faster than OTL, where the Netherlands did away with steam in 1958, then with your descriptions we could see a Netherlands free of steam by the time Belgium finishes their first new electric lines!

 

[torten]

The Great Central London extention was not built to continental loading gauge. The loading gauge was a tad more generous compared to railways built 50 years prior, but it is nowhere near continental loading gauge.

 

[27zipski]

I don't think the US will be all that different - more inward-looking and they'll probably confront some internal problems earlier, but that's about it.

TTL probably won't see the Democratic domination of Congress that was really cemented by the war in OTL and lasted all the way to 1994 and in some ways 2002(!). Without that backdrop the politics of the rest of the 20th century will be nigh unrecognizable. Social security for example probably doesn't become the untouchable societal pillar that it has OTL without 60 years of entrenchment.

 

[The Ghost of Danton]

TTL probably won't see the Democratic domination of Congress that was really cemented by the war in OTL and lasted all the way to 1994 and in some ways 2002(!). Without that backdrop the politics of the rest of the 20th century will be nigh unrecognizable. Social security for example probably doesn't become the untouchable societal pillar that it has OTL without 60 years of entrenchment.

Eh, if anything the aftermath of the war hurt Democrats more than victory helped them. Aside from the fact the the Conservative Coalition limited Roosevelt on domestic matters in his later terms. When you combine the labor unrest caused by demobilization leading to Taft-Hartley, the Korean War, and the Red Scare panic with Communism on the march across Europe and Asia, it gave the Republicans the short stints in the majority in the early post-war period. What really helped the Democrats was the New Deal Coalition was fairly durable with the Solid South as a major down ballot boost and that the Republicans had to deal with their most successful Presidents being the poor party builder Eisenhower and the king of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, Nixon. The Watergate backlash and the previous Goldwater landslide loss basically gave the Democrats margins that took forever to attrition.

Really, its the changed global landscape that will have more of an impact. On the domestic front, a stronger labor movement should help Democrats but if someone like Dewey is the next Republican President which seems likely in '44, he might shape the party to be more electorally competitive down ballot even if he doesn't govern with a Republican majority himself. Social Security will probably follow a similar OTL route; it's the Great Society programs that could diverge much more wildly.

 

[naraht]

What hides things is the fact that the United States from about 1930 -1960 essentially had three parties in Congress. The Northern Democrats, the Southern Democrats and the Republicans. And for all of the fact that the Civil Rights movement was viewed as a Democratic accomplishment, I would not be *that* surprised if there were piece of the Civil Rights laws that were passed with as high of a percentage of Republican votes as Democratic votes.

 

[27zipski]

but if someone like Dewey is the next Republican President which seems likely in '44, he might shape the party to be more electorally competitive down ballot even if he doesn't govern with a Republican majority himself.

This is mostly what I was getting at, sorry I didn't word it very clearly the first time. In this universe there won't be people who lived their whole conscious pre-adulthood with a Dem in the white house. Their 5-term presidential streak OTL gave the Dems an aura of inevitability in the minds of an entire generation that carried a very long way, and in this universe that streak will probably end at 3. The consequences of this are hard to game out, but just for starters I rather doubt a less desperate, more moderate GOP would go for the Southern strategy. Three-party system anyone?

 

[diestormlie]

Three-party system anyone?

Unlikely. The mechanics of FPTP really 'solve' to a Two Party system.

 

[GDIS Pathe]

This is mostly what I was getting at, sorry I didn't word it very clearly the first time. In this universe there won't be people who lived their whole conscious pre-adulthood with a Dem in the white house. Their 5-term presidential streak OTL gave the Dems an aura of inevitability in the minds of an entire generation that carried a very long way, and in this universe that streak will probably end at 3. The consequences of this are hard to game out, but just for starters I rather doubt a less desperate, more moderate GOP would go for the Southern strategy. Three-party system anyone?

The growth of a two party system in the American South was a two-fold result of the steady growth of the Sunbelt due to the development of air-conditioning and the movement of snowbirds who took with them their Republican politics, which when combined with the steady ideological sorting of 'liberals' (in the American sense) into the Democratic Party and conservatives into the Republican that has been ongoing since at least the Progressive era and turbocharged by FDR brought about the steady collapse of the Solid South.

Nixon's southern strategy is a misnomer, it was far more a strategy about breaking apart White Ethnics from the New Deal Coalition with a strategy of race baiting and law and order, the moderation or lack thereof of the Republican party isn't going to change that, just look at how easily Rockefeller slid into embracing law and order politics.

 

[Bernard Woolley]

Unlikely. The mechanics of FPTP really 'solve' to a Two Party system.

Depends where you are. The U.K. has a strong(ish) third party at Westminster level.