Where did the electrification of railways of the second five-year plan go?

Many railways in the USSR before the war could have looked like this

Would you like some dark Soviet secrets in the new year? Of course, there are some. Not long ago I was looking through the first volume of the publication “The Second Five-Year Plan for the Development of the National Economy of the USSR (1933-1937)”, and the plan for the electrification of railways, envisaged for the second five-year plan, caught my eye.

The Great Plan

The second five-year plan envisaged a radical reconstruction of railway transport in order to create significant reserves of throughput and carrying capacity. Two methods of reconstruction were envisaged: the transfer of a number of lines from steam to electric or diesel traction, as well as the introduction of powerful steam locomotives and heavy-duty wagons.

The USSR NKPS has always been a recipient of significant capital investment, and for the second five-year plan the People's Commissariat was allocated 18,7 billion rubles, including 10,12 billion rubles for existing lines and 2,67 billion rubles for new construction. The concentration of work on existing lines included strengthening the track superstructure, in particular the re-laying of tracks with the laying of type 1A rails (R-38 according to the modern classification; 38,5 kg per linear meter or 482 kg in a 12,5-meter-long rail), as well as the laying of crushed stone ballast.

But the most important thing was the electrification of railways. The plan envisaged the commissioning of 4306 km of main and 579 km of suburban and resort electrified railways. The USSR was to overtake the USA, which had 1931 km of electrified railways in 3600.

The first to be electrified were the roads with a difficult profile, i.e. large slopes. The Transcaucasian Railway was in first place. Almost all the railways in Georgia (then — ZSFSR) were to be electrified. Then the roads with a mountain profile in the Urals were to be electrified.

An example of a highway with a difficult profile. Even in this photo you can see what a decent slope it is

Donbass, Kuzbass, and the line connecting Donbass with Stalingrad were also electrified. Preparations were to begin for the electrification of the Trans-Siberian Railway on the Omsk-Novosibirsk-Belovo section.

This plan was decent, although it fit into a relatively small table:

Donbass - 2079 km
Azov-Black Sea line - 127 km
ZSFSR - 705 km
Ural - 1359 km
Kuzbass - 546 km
Siberian line - 627 km
Murmansk railway - 467 km
Total number of mainline railways: 6046 km
including in the second five-year period - 4306 km

Moscow junction - 330 km
Leningradsky junction - 172 km
Kharkiv junction - 66 km
Resort lines - 104 km
Total suburban and resort lines - 672 km
including in the second five-year period - 579 km

The total cost of the work was estimated at 751 million rubles, including 543 million rubles for lines introduced in the second five-year period.

By the standards of capital investments of the second five-year plan, even individual capital investments in railways are not much.

Scheme of electrification of lines as it should have been. The scheme does not claim to be absolutely accurate, it is more important to grasp the general picture

33% of the plan

Many historians constantly repeat that "you need to read documents." I, on the basis of my experience, believe that in order to read documents, you must first acquire solid experience in the knowledge and understanding of the period whose documents are being studied. In relation to stories Stalin's industrialization - extensive knowledge and deep understanding of the economy of that time. Otherwise, many things in the documents cannot be read or even discerned. Without knowledge, the numbers "don't stick" and remain meaningless.

Hundreds, if not thousands of researchers have read the second five-year plan and the tables attached to it. But how many have “hooked” on this table of electrified railway lines, how many have realized that something is wrong here?

There's not much here. Personally, I remembered that the electrification of the Trans-Siberian Railway began in the mid-1950s, and the plan to electrify a decent section of the Trans-Siberian Railway in the second five-year plan looks strange. What happened so that this plan, the benefits of which probably do not need to be proven, was not implemented?

But first, the scale of the problem. A search of the RSL catalogue showed that in the first half of the 1930s, a lot of specialized literature on railway electrification was published. Up until 1936. And from 1937 onwards, it was as if it was cut off. There was nothing at all. This is an interesting, suggestive observation.

Without the opportunity to conduct a deep study of the materials, I still found an interesting publication from 1939, which gave the state of railway electrification at the end of the second five-year plan: "Development of Railways". Not a report document, but still.

It states that in the first five-year plan there were 163 km of electrified railways, and in the second it became 1632 km. Or 33,4% of the original plan.

Of the "Dnieper ring" and the lines connecting Kharkov, Rostov and Stalingrad, only two lines remained to Zaporozhye and Dnepropetrovsk. The Ural line was cut in half. In Georgia, only the main line was electrified, but without approaches to the ports of Batumi and Poti. Lines in Siberia and on the Kola Peninsula were cut.

Scheme of electrified lines in 1939

In this configuration, the electrification plan lost much of its economic sense. For example, the road system connecting the Donbass with nearby industrial centers was clearly intended to save coal in the internal transportation of this economic region. Steam locomotives needed high-quality coal, while electric locomotives could be powered by state district power plants using low-value grades of coal or even waste, such as coal dust.

But the main thing, in my opinion, is that the electrified lines were initially planned so that in the third, maximum fourth five-year period, the backbone of rail transport would be created in the form of the main electrified highways. Kharkov - Moscow - Leningrad - Petrozavodsk - Murmansk; Stalingrad - Saratov - Kuibyshev - Ufa; Chelyabinsk - Omsk. There would be two main lines crossing the country from north to south and from west to east.

In addition, it was possible to electrify the road from Rostov to Samtredia, adding Georgia to the main line from north to south. It was also planned to build an electrified line across the Main Caucasus Range.

But then it didn't happen. And it's completely unclear why. I don't even know what to think. It was clearly someone's political decision, which effectively cancelled the implementation of the railway electrification plan, which had already been included in the second five-year plan and actually had the force of a state plan. Despite the obvious economic benefits of railway electrification, which was the "highlight of the program" in Lenin's GOELRO plan, and despite the broadest opening prospects.

The first Soviet electric locomotive

Who cancelled the plan?

In the same book, “Railway Development” of 1939, there was rather little talk about the fight against sabotage in the People’s Commissariat of Railways, in particular with the “limiters” (that was the name for the specialists who claimed that the railways had exhausted their technical and economic reserves and were working at the limit), the main hero of which was People’s Commissar L. M. Kaganovich. In particular, the fight was around fuel. In the autumn of 1936, measures were taken to regulate the fuel regime, since it turned out that a large amount of oil fuel and valuable coals were being burned. There was a discussion about the possibility of using fuel mixtures using lean and local coals.

L. M. Kaganovich talks with Stakhanovite railway workers

Kaganovich eventually defeated everyone, but, as we can see, one of the consequences was the virtual disappearance of railway electrification from the immediate plans.

And here many ambiguities arise. Firstly, did not Kaganovich understand the advantages of electric locomotives over steam locomotives, in particular in the fuel issue that worried him so much? Secondly, steam locomotive traction does not particularly contradict electric traction, and steam locomotives can run on electrified tracks. Moreover, it is possible to make a hybrid, as was done in Switzerland out of necessity, when a steam locomotive is equipped with electric heaters built into the boiler and a current collector. This could have been a completely reasonable measure to depreciate the existing fleet of steam locomotives. Thirdly, what is the point of leaving such a "tail" of the plans for the electrification of railways, and what is the point of cutting the state plan itself, even for the sake of saving about 300 million rubles?

No definite answers to these and other questions can be given yet. But a definite and specific answer is needed, preferably leading to the person who made the decision. Most likely, to Kaganovich, but this is far from proven.

Therefore, when, how and under what circumstances the plan for electrification of railways was abandoned during the years of the second five-year plan is still a big and interesting question, probably with a taste of a possible discovery.

Comments

[alexoff]

An unexpected end to the article. The plan has disappeared somewhere, there is a supposed suspect and that's it, will there be a second part of the detective story?

[Zagrebun]

[/quote]No definite answers to these and other questions can be given yet. [quote]

[bayard]

Quote: Zagrebun

]No definite answers to these and other questions can be given yet.

Yes, on the surface the answer to these questions is that in the second half of the 30s it was already clear that a war between a united Europe and the USSR could not be avoided, and Hitler was already in power, had carried out purges and was already preparing Germany for war. And what kind of electrification of the railways can we talk about if during a war a strike on power plants would deprive all trains on the lines of movement? And during a war there is ALWAYS a shortage of electricity generation. That is why STEAM LOCOMOTIVES, which are ideal for the harsh conditions of war. Because they can run on coal, fuel oil, and wood, if there are interruptions with coal. Yes, anything as long as it burns and the trains will move. That is why steam locomotives, even after the railways were converted to electric propulsion and diesel traction, were simply put into reserve in case of war. And they remained in that reserve until the 90s, when they were gradually removed from the reserve, freeing up spare tracks.
On a military site, during the current military conflict (war), the author should have such a change in the plans for the 2nd five-year plan be clear and obvious. Otherwise, they will soon start saying: “Why didn’t they engage in massive housing construction in the USSR in the 3rd Five-Year Plan to solve the housing problem? After all, this was exactly what was planned at the end of the 2nd Five-Year Plan – to solve the housing problem during the 3rd Five-Year Plan. And it doesn’t matter that instead of the 3rd Five-Year Plan, the Great Patriotic War came and most of the European part of the USSR fell into ruins, and the country lost 27 million citizens (7,5 million from the Army’s list and about 20 million civilians in these territories). In our country, both Collectivization and Industrialization were carried out SO quickly and quite harshly precisely because the Country was being prepared for War. Moreover, it was implied that not only Germany would fight against us, but also practically all of Europe and the entire British Empire (together with France, they were ready to fight against us even without Germany). And the railways, in the conditions of such (or any!) war, should They had to work clearly, rhythmically, without interruption, regardless of electricity generation and even coal supplies... They also stocked up on firewood at the stations.

[hhurik]

The USSR MGB for transport should look into this, definitely for the sake of intrigue and variety of the storyline

Chief of the Main Directorate of the USSR MGB, Colonel General S.A. Goglidze, officer and senior sergeant of the MGB security units on transport. An officer in the uniform of the Main Directorate of State Security (GUGB) is visible from behind.

[alexoff]

I thought Inspector Dmitry Verkhoturov would solve this case for us. But apparently it will be a historical unwritten novel...

[gsev]

Quote: hhurik

The USSR MGB for transport should look into this, definitely for the sake of intrigue

When I transferred to the design department of TsNITI, a retired engineer whose father was involved in the design of railway equipment worked as a leading engineer in my sector. According to him, he learned from his father that at that time, saboteurs and enemies of the people who had infiltrated the NKVD were destroying design schools in Russia. However, the repressed engineers managed to pass on their knowledge to the younger generation, and design did not stop even after all the more or less experienced designers had been destroyed. In addition, when the arrests began, attempts were made to save the designers. It was necessary to go to Moscow and get a transfer to another city from the ministry. The NKVD officers were generally lazy people, and they tried to repress only those who did not resist and did not create problems during the arrest. In railway transport, the repressions were massive compared to other industries. It was most convenient to repress the designers who created new equipment. There were no detailed instructions for its use, and any ambiguity in the instructions can be interpreted as its violation and an attempt at sabotage. Therefore, the designers of electrification in a completely new direction tried to move to other work with the beginning of the repressions. As soon as the organizers of the repressions - Sudoplatov, Beria, Abakumov, Ryumin - were shot or imprisoned by Khrushchev, there was no one to interfere with the work on electrification and Khrushchev rather quickly organized and carried out the main, most difficult work on electrification. Khrushchev removed Kovalev, a talented Minister of Railways, but accustomed to steam locomotive traction and afraid of everything radically new. Unfortunately, the author's admiration for the organs somehow prevented an objective assessment of the reasons for the failure of electrification under Stalin.

[wehr]

If you don't like the NKVD, then there was an alternative - the Gestapo!
The NKVD may have been an unpleasant organization, but it protected us, and many of its employees did so at the cost of their lives.

Your story is interesting, but it does not lead to the reasons for such decisions.

[gsev]

Quote: wehr

If you don't like the NKVD

The NKVD under Stalin repressed many innocent people. In many ways, the root cause of the repressions was not the NKVD but the political leadership of the country in those years. After taking power, Khrushchev probably repressed less than a hundred employees of the Soviet special services. Moreover, Abakumov was repressed already under Stalin, and Stalin would have inevitably shot Beria if he had lived another 5 years. My colleague said that from talking with my father, he got the impression that my father's colleagues had reconciled themselves to the fact that they would be repressed and shot. But the goal of their lives was not to avoid repression, but to preserve the locomotive design school and prepare a replacement for themselves before the execution. Somewhere around 1950, the idea took hold of Soviet youth that you don't have to stick your neck out, but say what is required of you and don't do anything so that the authorities decide that you are smart and pose a threat to the authorities and should be repressed.

[wehr]

Then here's a joke in the repressive style for you:

1937. Two Chekists clean their revolvers after an execution:
- Imagine how great it will be to live in Moscow in 2022!
- Yes. They'll give you an apartment in Butovo, and you can get from Lubyanka to Kommunarka by metro.

[gsev]

Quote: wehr

Two Chekists clean their revolvers after an execution:

Stalin created a society in which his wife shot herself, his son was repressed and his daughter escaped. Moreover, Stalin's daughter married an old man in order to escape. By the way, I was assured by knowledgeable people that Stalin was killed during the coup.

[Gennady Bogdanovich]

It was a cruel time, cruel people, they made cruel decisions. It is stupid to evaluate them from the point of view of today's liberal-pedagogic morality. If we judge by deeds, then Stalin took over Russia with a wooden plough and left it with a nuclear bomb. To this day, Russia is eating up Stalin's legacy, no matter what the petty stinkers in power say.
Another question, would you, I, want to live in such times - no, I would not, we are all products of another system. We just need to stop speculating on the topic of Stalin. Nothing can be fixed, what is done (good and bad) is done. This is our history. We do not speculate on the topic of Peter I. He was a real fruit.

[gsev]

Quote: wehr

and from Lubyanka to Kommunarka you can get there by metro.

The metro was built to Kommunarka after the collapse of communism, the demolition of the Dzerzhinsky monument and the condemnation of Stalin's repressions. The metro is developing faster under Putin than under Stalin, Khrushchev or Brezhnev.

[Gennady Bogdanovich]

Because all of Russia has been turned into a colony of Moscow. Moscow is bursting with fat, sucking money and specialists out of all of Russia, and still looks down on the provincials.

[gsev]

Quote: Gennady Bogdanovich

and still looks with disdain at the provincials.

Moscow sucks out the smartest and most businesslike people from the outskirts. The smartest ones will not immediately, but in 5 or 10 years, master a profession in demand, learn how to earn money and find ways to make a greedy employer pay and refuse their services to an incorrigible employer. By the way, the most talented ones already from the 9th or 10th grade look for and find ways to leave Russia altogether. My friends have tried Turkey, Morocco, South Korea, the Emirates. One at 18 chose South Korea, the second at 22 chose Dubai. This is simply the result of the greed of business owners and managers who believe that their employees are ready to happily toil for the boss for a bowl of buckwheat, 200 grams of vodka and a rented room (40 rubles a month).

[gsev]

Quote: Gennady Bogdanovich

Because all of Russia has been turned into a colony of Moscow.

In 1993, there was an uprising against the bourgeoisie in Moscow. If a character like Ensign Krylov had appeared at Ostankino then, Yeltsin, Yavlinsky, Gaidar, Chernomyrdin and Sobchak would have had to flee to the US, the Baltics or Ukraine. That is why Putin forces businesses to treat their employees with a little respect, and Yavlinsky does not criticize Putin too much for his totalitarian methods in relation to business in order to raise salaries, especially in Moscow. By the way, the management of medium-sized businesses is quite nostalgic for a strong hand. They believe that the KGB should shoot and repress slackers, drinkers on the job, thieves and officials who do not help business.

[hhurik]

When I was serving a five-year sentence in the air police, I also tried to repress everyone. Well, why can’t they explain why planes fly but don’t flap their wings?

So I was removed from the fight against drug smuggling - and everything went away.

[AllX_VahhaB]

Quote: gsev

However, the repressed engineers managed to pass on their knowledge to the younger generation, and design did not stop even after the destruction of all more or less experienced designers.

Bravo! This is the quintessence of "in spite of"!

Quote: gsev

As soon as the organizers of the repressions - Sudoplatov, Beria, Abakumov, Ryumin - were shot or imprisoned by Khrushchev

How interesting... That is, Beria, who carried out the first amnesty of convicts and thousands of people returned from the camps in the late 30s, is on your list of "ghouls"... but you don't even mention Yezhov or Yagoda! Why? Out of ignorance? Or are they not in the manual?

Quote: gsev

and Khrushchev quite quickly organized and carried out the main, most difficult work on electrification. Khrushchev removed Kovalev, a talented Minister of Railways, but accustomed to steam locomotive traction and afraid of anything radically new.

And what place do you think Kaganovich occupied in all this?

[AllX_VahhaB]

Quote: hhurik

An officer in the uniform of the Main Directorate of State Security (GUGB) is visible in the back.

Actually, we are talking about the end of the 30s! And you are giving a post-war illustration...

[hhurik]

And what? Right now the managers and employees of Voentorg have been sent to the bunk - they stole 625 lemons on toothbrushes, as part of the execution of a state contract for the supply of "Army toiletry bags". Respectable people, the head of JSC Voentorg Vladimir Pavlov has been in business since 2012, one might say pre-war. Post-war times are not a reason, you understand, to justify enemies, saboteurs and ̶uk̶r̶u̶r̶a̶i̶n̶s̶k̶i̶h̶ foreign spies who operated in the 30s.

That senior officer of the MGB security units on transport in the picture - he stood on the platform for years and continued to stand there, absolutely nothing had changed for him - only they gave him a saber for some reason, yes, he was probably very surprised, it was very inconvenient to cut through the carriages with it.

[Doctor]

An unexpected end to the article. The plan has disappeared somewhere, there is a supposed suspect and that's it, will there be a second part of the detective story?

But there is no detective story. The costs are immeasurable, and the effect is very dubious.

The USSR had to overtake the USA, which had 1931 km of electrified railways in 3600.

At the peak of electrification, the United States had about 5000 km (3100 miles) of electrified railroads.
As of 2013, the only electrified lines that moved freight using electricity were three short coal lines (from the mine to the power plant) and one railroad in Iowa. The total length of electrified track on these four railroads is 122 miles (196 km).

Electrification of railways in the USSR is one of the dead-end economic adventures, like nuclear power plants. Not to mention that all this instantly dies in a special period.

[ycuce234-san]

Quote: Arzt

Electrification of railways in the USSR is one of those dead-end economic adventures, like nuclear power plants.

In any case, with each decade hydrocarbon fuel becomes more expensive and becomes depleted - and powering electric locomotive fleets from nuclear power plants is the inevitable future of all countries in the world, albeit a very distant one.
As for the cancellation of early railway electrification, they could have decided to spend the electricity on the aluminum industry. At that time, aviation was switching to all-metal aircraft and, in the interests of safety, in pre-war times, they could have postponed the unfinished railway electrification.

[Doctor]

In any case, with each decade hydrocarbon fuel becomes more expensive and becomes depleted - and powering electric locomotive fleets from nuclear power plants is the inevitable future of all countries in the world, albeit a very distant one.
As for the cancellation of early railway electrification, they could have decided to spend the electricity on the aluminum industry. At that time, aviation was switching to all-metal aircraft and, in the interests of safety, in pre-war times, they could have postponed the unfinished railway electrification.

The investments in the initial stage of railway electrification are simply immeasurable. Apparently they did the math and shed tears...

And the nuclear power plant - Are you aware that the liquidation of the Chernobyl accident cost 4 times more than all the electricity generated by the USSR nuclear power plants during their entire existence? This is a conservative estimate...
The USSR budget for 1986-1987 is still secret.

https://minfin.gov.ru/ru/ministry/historylib/common/budget/ussr

Stupid Germans with wind turbines, yeah.

[ycuce234-san]

As for the electrification of railways, the investments there at the initial stage are simply immeasurable.

Just a few years after the Great Patriotic War, these same investments were considered acceptable and electrification began. As for the risks of nuclear power plants, this is their inherent feature.

[gsev]

Quote: Arzt

And the nuclear power plant - Are you aware that the liquidation of the accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant cost 4 times more than all the electricity generated by the USSR nuclear power plants during their entire existence?

At the end of 1980, I carried out economic calculations for a project to modernize a workshop at the Podolsk Electric Machine Building Plant. It turned out that CNC machines were unprofitable. But it seems to me that, according to the calculation method, profit was only obtained when production regressed.

[gsev]

Quote: ycuce234-san

Powering electric locomotive fleets from nuclear power plants is the inevitable future of all countries in the world

In 2005, the only undeveloped uranium deposits were in Afghanistan and Ukraine. It seemed to me that there was enough uranium on Earth for about 50 years, and coal for 1000 years.

[ycuce234-san]

Quote: gsev

In 2005, undeveloped uranium deposits were only in Afghanistan and Ukraine.

Deposits are developed based on economic benefit. Energy becomes more expensive and less profitable sources are developed.
From a purely geological point of view, uranium and thorium are even on the Moon - electricity will become more expensive and then these reserves will become interesting for mining.
The point of switching from hydrocarbons to atomic fuel, from the point of view of economists, is that over the decades, the cost of atomic fuel grows more slowly than hydrocarbon fuel.

[AllX_VahhaB]

Quote: Arzt

Electrification of railways in the USSR is one of those dead-end economic adventures, like nuclear power plants.

Can you tell me the number of nuclear power plants in the USA and the USSR (not even the Russian Federation), respectively?

[Doctor]

Can you tell me the number of nuclear power plants in the USA and the USSR (not even the Russian Federation), respectively?

They have a lot of nuclear power plants, more than anyone else in the world, but the US has neither its own production nor processing of uranium.
The development of the industry there is in great question; the project to create a small modular nuclear reactor was cancelled, and they are mainly modernizing the old one.
Chornobyl taught the planet a lot.

[gsev]

Quote: Arzt

Not to mention that all this instantly dies during a special period.

SVO in Ukraine. Rail transport operates and it is mainly on electric traction. Compare how much time and money it takes to repair a refrigerator and a motorcycle. A 200W refrigerator works continuously for 10-20 years. And a motorcycle needs to be filled with oil, gasoline, piston rings need to be changed, and the cylinder needs to be bored. Or compare a chainsaw and an electric saw, an electric pump and a gasoline pump. With the savings from operating electric transport, you can build such a number of missiles that will discourage the aggressor from fighting.

[Doctor]

SVO in Ukraine. Rail transport is functioning and it is mainly on electric traction.

On the state of the Ukrainian railways in the SVO there is a good review by S.G. Sigachev "Ukrainian railways, state and prospects in light of the SVO".
In short - there was no initial goal to knock out electric traction. Everything was planned to be kept for themselves. When they started to bang on electric, they quickly switched to diesel locomotives.
In a total war with nuclear weapons, they will take out the sources (hydroelectric power plants, nuclear power plants, etc.), then only diesel locomotives.

The refrigerator operates continuously as long as there is 220 V in the socket. Add the cost of capital expenditures for installation and operation of the contact electrical network and you will get a slightly different layout.
And also add the necessary lengthening of tracks at stations and dividing points for electric traction, strengthening of the track superstructure, installation of automatic blocking and dispatch centralization, construction of tunnels, pedestrian bridges, passenger platforms and pavilions at stations, etc., etc.
Our lobbyists for electric traction give an efficiency factor of 1,5 compared to diesel locomotives, but I think the Americans know how to count money better, there has always been a market there, however.

[Vladimir_2U]

What's unclear? Things were heading towards war, and by 37 it had become crystal clear.
It is clear that an electric locomotive will not work without current. But even in the rear, where aviation cannot reach, even without electric locomotives there will be someone who will guzzle current like crazy... Defense enterprises.
But in addition to current, electric traction also requires a lot of high-quality copper, a lot of wires, electrical equipment, significant production capacity and qualified personnel.
It is obvious that defense enterprises also require all this.
This is not a mystery at all...

[gsev]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

It is clear that an electric locomotive will not work without current.

I have a post-war textbook on the design and operation of electric power supply systems for electrified railways at home. It says that sections with electric traction were more resistant to bombing than non-electrified ones. It is indeed harder for a piece of shrapnel to damage a wire than to break through a water pump pipe at a station. The transformer can be moved away from the station and disguised as a shed. A broken wire can simply be extended or replaced. And before welding a broken pipe, it is necessary to drain the water from the water pump and then, after welding, fill it again and check the quality of the welds. Moreover, it is possible that the drain-weld-fill-check operation may have to be repeated.

[gsev]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

and qualified personnel.

What is more difficult to service, an electric motor or an internal combustion engine? What is more difficult to deliver fuel to a power station and distribute energy through wires, instantly turning on an electric motor at full power, or to chemically prepare water, deliver coal to all stations and keep standing steam locomotives running, burning coal in vain?

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: gsev

I have a post-war textbook at home on the design and operation of electric power supply for electrified railways. It says that sections with electric traction were more resistant to bombing than non-electrified ones.

Great, but does it say where to get electricity if the power station was bombed?
And does it say there what to do if current is needed more in production?
Some kind of incomplete textbook...

Quote: gsev

And before welding the broken pipe, you need to drain the water from the water pump and then after welding, fill it again and check the quality of the welds. Moreover, it is possible that the operation of draining-welding-filling-checking may have to be repeated.

This is just some kind of disgrace... The fact that the damaged section is blocked by valves, they didn't write in the textbook? Apparently, when a tap leaks, you demand that the water supply to the area be shut off, no less.

Quote: gsev

What is more difficult: to deliver fuel to a power plant and distribute energy through wires, instantly turning on an electric motor at full power, or to chemically treat water, deliver coal to all stations and keep standing steam locomotives running, burning coal in vain?

What requires more qualifications - water main maintenance, coal handling, STEAM LOCOMOTIVE maintenance, or high-voltage power lines, traction substations, and electric locomotive maintenance?

Quote: gsev

What is more difficult to service, an electric motor or an internal combustion engine?

However, why the questions? A person who considers a steam locomotive to be a locomotive with an internal combustion engine is a technically illiterate person. You are a technically illiterate person.

[gsev]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Apparently, when a tap leaks, you demand that the water supply to the area be shut off, no less.

When attacking a railway junction, an aircraft will fire at key objects: a train, a depot, and a water pump. A water pump pipe can be punctured anywhere, and during and immediately after an attack, no one will first turn off the water and patch up the holes. During a guerrilla war, guerrillas did not only conduct a rail war. A lesser-known but more effective operation was to destroy water pumps.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: gsev

A water pump pipe can be punctured anywhere, and during an attack or immediately after it, no one will be the first to shut off the water and seal the holes.

You'd think that someone would replace the knocked down wires from fallen masts, or simply knocked down by a break...
Here is a seemingly simple thing...
Only a fountain of water from the tower will not stop the fueled steam locomotives, but a knocked down wire...

[gsev]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

You'd think they were downed wires from fallen masts,

The textbook had a large section on the functioning of electrified roads during the war. In order to break a wire, it must be damaged by a large fragment. An F-1 grenade produces fragments weighing half a gram or a gram. A small fragment weighing 2 grams will only scratch the wire. The textbook directly stated that wires with grooves from fragments continued to work normally and wire breakage from fragments was rare. Moreover, when a fragment rises upward, its speed and stored energy decrease. The blast wave practically does not damage the wires. Replacing a porcelain insulator can be entrusted to a clever teenager. But it is problematic to find an argon welder who welds seams without leaks. I once observed the adjustment of a water treatment plant in Pushkino in the Moscow region. There, a welder was welding a tank at one end of the room, and at the other end of the tank, which he had welded 2 weeks ago, was leaking at that time. Although the hydraulics were designed by designers from Elektrostal.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Only a fountain of water from the tower will not stop the fueled steam locomotives, but a knocked down wire...

You need to fill the steam locomotive with water that does not form scale, otherwise the steam locomotive valves will become clogged with calcium. How long do you change a leaking mixer and how long does it take to change a burnt-out extension cord in an apartment?

[gsev]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

A person who considers a steam locomotive to be a locomotive with an internal combustion engine is a technically illiterate person.

A steam locomotive is more difficult to service than a diesel locomotive. That will suit you. And an electric locomotive is easier to service than both a diesel locomotive and a steam locomotive.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: gsev

A steam locomotive is more difficult to service than a diesel locomotive. That will suit you. And an electric locomotive is easier to service than both a diesel locomotive and a steam locomotive.

Yes, and the calculator is easier to use than the abacus. But the abacus does not depend on electricity, it is completely repairable.
A steam locomotive is harder to maintain, not more complicated. A steam locomotive is less demanding on oils and fuel, and finally, a steam locomotive is much easier to manufacture than both a diesel locomotive and an electric locomotive.
The fact that you don’t understand this, well, what can you expect from a person who considers a steam engine to be an internal combustion engine?
But not understanding that by the 30s at least the infrastructure for steam traction had already been established is an indicator. Not a very good indicator.

[gsev]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Yes, and the calculator is easier to use than the abacus. But the abacus does not depend on electricity, it is completely repairable.

Will you calculate the gear transmission on the abacus? It seems to me that now you can buy an engineering calculator cheaper than wooden Soviet abacus. I have about 5 calculators lying around at home and they were quite cheap, and to buy a foot massager made in the image of an abacus, I thought whether my finances would allow it.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

The steam locomotive is less demanding on oils and fuel

The working fluid of a steam locomotive is steam, which causes rust. There is calcium in the water, which clogs the pipes. Loading coal is a manual job. Refueling with gasoline and diesel fuel is conveniently done with a pump. The efficiency of a steam locomotive is probably about 5 percent.

[ycuce234-san]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

But in addition to current, electric traction also requires a lot of high-quality copper, a lot of wires, electrical equipment, significant production capacity and qualified personnel.

It is much more difficult to design and mass-produce a powerful internal combustion engine than these electric traction components. The point is that the circumstances were unfortunate at the time - aviation lagged behind in the transition to aluminum aircraft and therefore needed to catch up. Otherwise, there would have been a point in electrifying remote rear areas - because the technical requirements for power electrical components were much easier to meet at that time and at that level of industry in the USSR than the requirements of engine building.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: ycuce234-san

It is much more difficult to design and mass-produce a powerful internal combustion engine than these electric traction components.

Congratulations! A person who considers a steam locomotive to be a locomotive with an internal combustion engine is a technically illiterate person. You are a technically illiterate person.

[ycuce234-san]

The comment was not written quite correctly, but it will not change the essence of the situation with the requirement for precision manufacturing and quality of service. A steam locomotive is the same, requiring constant maintenance, a precise complex mechanism, it also cannot be made and maintained without good precision engineering and economic stability. And must not, in fact, to keep the fleet of steam locomotives running for a long time in case of economic and political problems. That is why during the Civil War 50-60% of steam locomotives were out of order - no one bombed the engineering enterprises in those days as in the Great Patriotic War (like the German industry), they just stood - and there were faulty steam locomotives. To put these steam locomotives out of order, it was enough to create some economic and logistical difficulties for the industry. In times of crisis, power grids and electric locomotives can be even more stable.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: ycuce234-san

The comment was not written quite correctly, but it will not change the essence of the situation with the requirement for precision manufacturing and quality of service. A steam locomotive is the same, requiring constant maintenance, a precise complex mechanism,

Yes, you made it even worse. Although where, it would seem.
Any internal combustion engine is much more demanding in terms of materials and manufacturing precision than a steam engine.

Quote: ycuce234-san

That is why during the Civil War 50-60% of steam locomotives were out of order - no one bombed the engineering enterprises in those days as in the Great Patriotic War (like the German industry), they just stood there - and the out of order steam locomotives stood there. To put these steam locomotives out of order, it was enough to create some economic and logistical difficulties for the industry. In times of crisis, power grids and electric locomotives can be even more stable.

And here we also see problems with critical thinking. Because 40% were running. And if not even the power plant, but the traction substation, fails, 100% of the EV will not be able to run on this section. And 40% is better than 0%.

Quote: ycuce234-san

And it is impossible, in fact, to keep a fleet of steam locomotives running for a long time in the event of economic and political problems.

What a shame... And electric locomotives, don't problems affect them? Windings don't burn out, actuators don't burn out, wheel pairs don't wear out, high-quality transformer oil isn't wasted? The "motor-wheel" gear pair simply burns out much faster than the crank mechanism. And there are also substations, contact networks, etc.
Well, and the fact that the locomotives of the armored trains were exclusively steam and diesel locomotives, this is strictly due to the stability of electric traction, right?
The fact that electrification is very expensive in itself, and that by the 30s there was already an established structure for the production, supply and repair of steam traction, so, I will just write. Not for you. Although maybe you will understand...

[Sensor]

There have been many words about the disrupted plan for railway electrification, but nothing has been said about the planned increase in electricity consumption and the creation of electricity generating capacities.

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

. But then it didn't happen. And it's completely unclear why. I don't even know what to think. It was clearly someone's political decision,

The Author (Dmitry) has his own conclusion in most cases, this work is no exception.
Regarding the issues of the disruption of the electrification of the Southern section of the Trans-Siberian Railway in the Urals, I can write the following. Moreover, I will operate with the opinions of railway workers. The problem initially arose with human resources. Both with "blue collars" and performers. The factories under construction sucked out specialists like vacuum cleaners. Therefore, based on the possibilities, what was designed, that's what was built.
The second problem Dmitry is right - the possibilities for generating electricity. The means of production were one step above the delivery tools. The chord from the outskirts to the center was provided first. Regional interests were not taken into account. For example, the Yekaterinburg-Chelyabinsk railway section has not yet been electrified.
Thirdly, at the end of the 30s, the realization of the transition from direct current traction to alternating current came. It was necessary to create a new element base.
Fourth - rolling stock. There simply wasn't any.
Have a nice day, everyone!

[Anton Yu]

I think the main problem was the lack of capacity. Our Sverdlovsk TPP, launched in 1927, had a capacity of 11 MW, the main consumers were industrial enterprises. Kushvinskaya TPP, built in 1927, 15 MW, the main consumer was ferrous and non-ferrous metallurgy enterprises. Tagilskaya TPP, built in 1935, produced 1941 MW by 49. The main consumer was UVZ. In some areas, electricity came from the Perm region. That is why they could not electrify the Sverdlovsk-Nadezhdinsk road.

[Lewww]

Well, this is a strange article.
First, this promising approach:

In relation to the history of Stalin's industrialization - extensive knowledge и deep understanding of the economy at that time. Otherwise, many things cannot be read or even discerned in the documents. Without knowledge, the numbers "don't stick" and remain meaningless.

And then the unexpected ending:

But then it didn't happen. And It's completely unclear why. I don't even know what to think about this.

Apparently the author didn't get the numbers, and he decided to ask for extensive knowledge and deep understanding from the readers.

[Aviator_]

It states that in the first five-year plan there were 163 km of electrified railways, and in the second it became 1632 km. Or 33,4% of the original plan.

I don't understand something. It says that in the second five-year plan it will be 10 times more, and suddenly 33,4% appears from somewhere. Author, the New Year is long over!

[Reviews]

Planned to build > 4000 km, built 1600 km. 33% is not working, but otherwise everything is correct.

[Aviator_]

The text is structured in a chaotic manner; the author should have proofread it before posting.

[Andrey VOV]

I agree that the reasons are not only in possible sabotage, if the author worked with numbers, then how many electric locomotives were produced? Traction substations?
The problem of personnel, namely high-class specialists, was very acute. And he smiled, referring to the example of Switzerland... Well, they compared

[Petrovich]

I don't even know what to think here.

There weren't enough resources, neither human nor material.

The electrification of the Trans-Siberian Railway was completed quite recently, in 2002.

And here are some of the tiny areas that were completed in the 1930s.

1929 Moscow-Pass. - Mytishchi Northern 18 km = 1500 A
1930 Mytishchi – Pravda Severnye 18 km = 1500 A
1931 Pravda - Sofrino Northern 9 km = 1500 A
1933 Sofrino - Zagorsk Northern 25 km = 1500 A
1937 Zagorsk - Aleksandrov Yaroslavskaya 42 = 3000
1942 Ekaterinburg - Ekaterinburg-Sort. them. L.M. Kaganovich 3 km

Main electrification - Trans-Siberian Railway - 1960s

[Grancer81]

At that time, it was easier for steam locomotives to operate on coal in Kuzbass, as well as in the surrounding areas.

[wehr]

Quote: Petrovich

There weren't enough resources, neither human nor material.

Your logic is seriously flawed. First, look at the cost of electrification work or 2,7% of capital investments under the People's Commissariat of Railways. There were resources and people for the rest, but here there was nothing for a kopeck. Second, you proceed from the implicit "subversive" premise that the plan was supposedly a fantasy and they stuck whatever they could into it. Your position on this is essentially the same as that of Gorbachev's "foremen of perestroika" and Yeltsin's "democratizers". Meanwhile, the plans were calculated thoroughly back then, and if this section was included in the second five-year plan, it means it was considered feasible. Including in terms of the balance of electric power.
The planners of the 30s were not idiots, as they were portrayed by all sorts of Gaidars, Svanidzes and other Chubaises.

Hence the conclusion: it was a political decision, and therefore it somehow went through Kaganovich, who was the People's Commissariat of Transport and a member of the Politburo.
As a political decision, what motives did it rely on? And why was this not explained with a single word?

[Saxahorse]

Quote: wehr

Meanwhile, plans were considered thoroughly at that time, and if this section was included in the second five-year plan, it meant that it was considered feasible.

So you had to indicate the existing and planned electric capacities for this project, the existing and planned production of electric locomotives, indicate who was supposed to train specialists. And only after proving the plan's material security, start looking for subjective, "political" (why exactly this word?) motives for the actual refusal to fully electrify roads at that time.

[wehr]

This is all a detailed study of the topic, requiring effort and time.

[Petrovich]

Quote: wehr

For the rest, there were resources and people, but for this little penny, there were none.

what "penny"? Electrification of railways requires a large initial investment of funds, since first of all it is necessary to construct power supply devices, including: overhead contact network, traction substations, and even entire power plants. And an electric locomotive costs 2-3 times more than a steam locomotive. Another limiting factor was the iron itself. roads - many of them had a reserve in terms of throughput and carrying capacity, which reduced the relevance of introducing electric locomotive traction for trains.

The first Soviet electric locomotive (expensive, complex, poorly developed) was built in 1932, and the production of the much-needed steam locomotives in 1933 only caught up with the 1903 level.

Quote: wehr

plans were considered thoroughly then

In your last article you yourself pointed out a lot of INEVITABLE mistakes in planning, and in the articles about brick and other factories you were convincingly shown that the built factories simply ended up without... raw materials, energy and other resources - they simply did not exist. That's the kind of planning...

Quote: wehr

political decision

Electric roads are very vulnerable in case of war. It is not for nothing that until 1991 the Ministry of Railways kept a huge fleet of STEAM LOCOMOTIVES in working order - to ensure transportation in case of war.

[Knell wardenheart]

If I am not mistaken, at the beginning of the Great Patriotic War we had a severe shortage of electric power, because of which, in particular, to provide for the needs of the transferred enterprises and collective farms, we were forced to build so-called "small hydroelectric power plants". So, perhaps, before the war someone considered it excessively dangerous to convert transport traction to electricity, due to a variety of considerations - issues of local shortage of generation, for example.
It is also possible that the Soviet industry did not master the production of the first electric locomotives perfectly; they themselves were expensive and revealed a lot of shortcomings during operation. In the pre-war period, they could compete for resources with military equipment, the riveting of which was in its prime. The same copper and insulation for an electric locomotive were required in significant quantities, and the ability of the USSR in the 1930s to produce all this of the required quality was still insufficient.

The steam locomotives could have been left as a temporary but still working measure. And after the Great Patriotic War, let's say, there was no time for that either - the need for generation and non-ferrous metals in the national economy only increased, and funds were spent on the nuclear and missile programs as well as the country's restoration.

Also, perhaps, the historical period itself made adjustments. Somewhat before that, there was a time of, let's say, excessive sexual experiments. Some crazy things like aircraft motherships, remote-controlled tanks, recoilless guns were developed. Then, as part of a "witch hunt" and probably due to bureaucratic struggle and economic considerations, the state began to furiously weed out these projects, and their authors and promoters, whether for good reason or not, were sent to feed the fish or to very remote places. They even got to the GIRD people with their missile theme. My point is that against the backdrop of these events, expanded local electrification could have seemed to someone a potential mine under his comfortably sitting ass, precisely according to the logic of that time. And he somewhat slowed down "until better times."

[Umptek]

It seems that the problem was the same as today with the construction of aircraft - first to solemnly make plans, then silently correct them. I hope that the 27th year in the 21st century will not be the same as the 37th in the 20th.

[Lewww]

I hope that the year 27 in the 21st century will not be the same as the year 37 in the 20th

.or like 17th

[Gennady Bogdanovich]

Sooner or later we will have to return to the people everything that was stolen by Yeltsin's gang and the oligarchs. Here we will have 1918 and 1937 in one glass.

[NSV]

Interesting material, thank you. I would like to continue the topic.

[wehr]

When I manage to collect materials and unravel this topic, I will write a continuation.

[Fangaro]

I will express the opinion of a VO reader, not supported by anything...
When plans are made for the coming year, especially for several years, one can base them on statistics from previous years, expected changes and confidence that the plan will be implemented within a small margin of error. Those who have power in the country do not want damage or collapse of the country. Because they can lose power. And having power is a desire to preserve and strengthen it. Together with the country. And power is an opportunity to do better. The whole country. Or all PAO/AO/OOO/IP... over which you rule. Not so that citizens bend over, but so that competitors respect, hate, and in the morning already think...
I do not believe that all those historical examples cited by the Author (because there are several publications, both consistent and with materials) confirm the evil foreign-financed criminal conspiracy of saboteurs, slow-movers and accomplices.
Mistakes in planning, incomplete results, persistence in continuing to follow the path that was adopted years ago... And here are the enemies of the people. And someone admits their mistakes, and suggests changing or even stopping the plan they themselves approved. And here are not the enemies of the people, but comrades.

Sorry! That was a lot of wet water. But personally, I don't believe in the conspiracies of the 30s, or in the betrayals of those times, or in the pre- and perestroika times.

[BAI]

Why didn’t the author turn to Kaganovich’s memoirs on this topic?

It is no exaggeration to say that although in other People's Commissariats, as I highlighted in my report at the 17th Party Congress, there were many bureaucratic methods and bureaucratic rats, nowhere was there such an influence on the affairs of the People's Commissariat of old officials as in the People's Commissariat of Railways, in which many influential figures from the old pre-October Ministry of Railways and road administrations remained.
https://stalinism.ru/elektronnaya-biblioteka/pamyatnye-zapiski-chast-ii.html?start=4

[rat07]

Quote: Arzt

Are you aware that the liquidation of the Chernobyl accident cost 4 times more than all the electricity generated by the USSR nuclear power plants during their entire existence?

This is nonsense. The main goal of the liquidation is to put the remaining power units into operation. If it is all so unprofitable, it would be carried out differently.

[MCmaximus]

What a mystery. Either there wasn't enough industrial capacity or money. The country was poor. Electric locomotives and infrastructure were high-tech at the time. And steam locomotives were already 100 years old. And there was more or less infrastructure for them.

[Gennady Bogdanovich]

Quote: Gennady Bogdanovich

It was a cruel time, cruel people, they made cruel decisions. It is stupid to evaluate them from the point of view of today's liberal-pedagogic morality. If we judge by deeds, then Stalin took over Russia with a wooden plough and left it with a nuclear bomb. To this day, Russia is eating up Stalin's legacy, no matter what the petty stinkers in power say.
Another question, would you, I, want to live in such times - no, I would not, we are all products of another system. We just need to stop speculating on the topic of Stalin. Nothing can be fixed, what is done (good and bad) is done. This is our history. We do not speculate on the topic of Peter I. He was a real fruit.