Avimimus

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
15 December 2007
Messages
2,232
Reaction score
495
I'm putting this here under the thin justification that some of the cars were to be defensively armed, there were plans to transport small warships with it, and it could fill a logistics role similar to the Reichsautobahnen. However, I really just wanted a thread somewhere to discuss this.

Some info here:
http://vonattal-termeszetesen.blog.hu/2013/12/16/adolf_hitler_vasutja_a_breitspurbahn

I have mixed feelings - these projects were part of Nazi political architecture (including the huge stations), yet they are fascinating in their scale.

Does anyone know what the most comprehensive books on this topic are?
 
Avimimus said:
I have mixed feelings - these projects were part of Nazi political architecture (including the huge stations), yet they are fascinating in their scale.

Like a lot of the rest of it, the Breitspurbahn was fascinating almost *solely* due to the scale, which was, like the rest of it, kinda ridiculous. it would only make sense in the context of essentially a whole continent that is being opened up for exploration and exploitation, lacking not only existing infrastructure, but also partisans willing to plant a bomb under the tracks and blow this monster sky-high.

On some alternate reality where the Nazis didn't so much conquer the Russians as they discovered a stargate into *yet* *other* alternate realities where Eurasia is wholly unpopulated, it might make a measure of sense.

Does anyone know what the most comprehensive books on this topic are?

The *one* book I have on the subject - "Die breitspurbahn - Das projekt zur Erschliessung des gross-europaischen Raumes 1942-1945" is substantial, well-illustrated, seems well-researched.
 
Indeed. I agree entirely. But if you like late 1930s railway technology and have a kid like fascination with bad judgement it is still... oddly compelling? Wouldn't you agree? :)

Apparently the original 4 metre gauge concepts could've carried two normal gauge rail cars inside of their giant ones. There is also mention of feasibility studies for 6 metre and 9 metre gauges... what they could be reaches beyond my paltry imagination though (although I could imagine estimates for rail weight and minimum turn radii being done).
 
Avimimus said:
Indeed. I agree entirely. But if you like late 1930s railway technology and have a kid like fascination with bad judgement it is still... oddly compelling? Wouldn't you agree? :)

It is a quirk in human programming that we have a fascination with super-sized civil engineering projects. Always have; just look at pyramids all over the world. As soon as we figured out how to stack one rock on top of another, we tried to outdo what had gone before.

Apparently the original 4 metre gauge concepts could've carried two normal gauge rail cars inside of their giant ones. There is also mention of feasibility studies for 6 metre and 9 metre gauges... what they could be reaches beyond my paltry imagination though (although I could imagine estimates for rail weight and minimum turn radii being done).

The 9-meter vehicle is illustrated in the book I referenced. It is *in* *sane,* a giant four-deck (tall enough for 5) rail-going Zeppelin-shaped monstrocity propelled by a pair of contra-rotating props at the back. A single car, not a train, 7000 horsepower, 250 km/h, 300 tons, 650 passengers.
 

Attachments

  • breitspurbahn-03-305302-abe6157b,0,920,0,0.jpg
    breitspurbahn-03-305302-abe6157b,0,920,0,0.jpg
    244.8 KB · Views: 510
  • Breitspurbahn Engine 01.png
    Breitspurbahn Engine 01.png
    518.8 KB · Views: 486
  • breitspurbahn-08-305302-d9ee90a1,0,920,0,0.jpg
    breitspurbahn-08-305302-d9ee90a1,0,920,0,0.jpg
    21.2 KB · Views: 446
  • breitspurbahn-mapa-30530-177ec01,0,920,0,0.jpg
    breitspurbahn-mapa-30530-177ec01,0,920,0,0.jpg
    149.4 KB · Views: 459
Russian guage was six feet, nearly two metres. Three metres is not all that much larger. Europe just needed to widen it's rail corridors to make this fit. It would carry significantly larger quantities of freight and people. The US is another good place for this. Australia has the room but not the traffic to justify it. South America? Again, it has the space but not the traffic. The terrain would be more difficult with tropical rainforest and mountains but not unconquerable.
 
oh the Breitspuhrbahn
normal people have model railroading, but not the "Little annoying Austrian"
his model railways has to be oversizes gigantic toys
let's take His idea for Munich central rail station
640px-2011-03-05-eisenbahnmuseum-nuernberg-by-RalfR-31.jpg

a Dome of 900 ft diameter made out windows.
The Reichs Railway say NO to the plans, the "Little annoying Austrian" screamed YES YES YES (while hammering on table, floor or something in the way...)
1467932997195.gif


on Locomotives they study 41 different configurations
Ranging from classical steam locomotives over steam turbine to gas turbine-electric and diesel-hydraulic or electric locomotives
(nuclear power was consider for revival version of Breitspuhrbahn in 1950s and begin 1960s)
and "Little annoying Austrian" had extra wishes for his toy Train
if possible to install cinema in wagons or how luxurious could be first class and his personal train, can ships be moved with it over land ?

I guess the "Little annoying Austrian" had to overcompensate for something...
 
i vor got ze bookz

in German
Die Breitspurbahn - Das projekt zur Erschliessung des gross-europaischen Raumes 1942-1945, Anton Joachimsthaler. Herbig, 1999. ISBN 3-7766-1352-1

in Englisch
Broader than Broad: Hitler's Great Dream: Three Meter Gauge Rails Across Europe, Barnes, Robin. Locomotives International. 1998. ISBN 1-900340-07-0
 
I would kindly ask for moderation from some of our forum members. This is a serious place to share information, free from prejudice and chauvinism, and I would like to keep it that way.
 
I think, it was meant a irony, but this stylistic device should be used carefully, especially if not all
participants are of the same native language.

Kadija_Man said:
... The terrain would be more difficult with tropical rainforest and mountains but not unconquerable.

The wider the gauge, the wider the bigger the smallest curve radius has to be. A 3m gauge would make
routing of the tracks much more difficult and costly and in mountaineous terrain the only solution often
would be to build tunnels.
 
yes Wurger, my comments on this is in pure irony and sarcasm (I'm a german)

Let face it, The Breitspuhrbahn was a megalomaniac project, that arose from brain of the "Little annoying Austrian"
For this Railway everything had build new from scratch : Tracks & Switch, Bridges, Tunnels, Rail-stations, Wagons and Locomotives.
This had consume hundreds of millions on Reich Mark, if had be build.

The main reason why the revival version of Breitspuhrbahn in end 1950s and begin 1960s went nowhere...
 
Jemiba - 'The wider the gauge, the bigger the smallest curve radius has to be.'

Wasn't that also the case with the TGV and other high-speed rail systems, prompting the British to develop the APT to use existing track?

Chris
 
CJGibson said:
Jemiba - 'The wider the gauge, the bigger the smallest curve radius has to be.'

Wasn't that also the case with the TGV and other high-speed rail systems, prompting the British to develop the APT to use existing track?

Chris

I believe this was the case, which was also the reason for the adoption of the tilting mechanism, to enable the APT to take the sharp curves at high speed . . .
On the subject of british railways, the original Great Western Railway, used a 7 foot (2,134mm) gauge, on the way to the 3 metre Breitspuhrbahn gauge. I think it would be interesting to speculate on what might have happened if the & foot gauge had been adopted as the british standard gauge.
For instance, in military terms, we know that one of the drivers of tank design, was the need to transport tanks by rail, which placed limits on size. A larger loading gauge allows a wider tank hull, which allows a larger turret ring, which in turn permits a larger gun . . .

cheers,
Robin.
 
Jemiba said:
I think, it was meant a irony, but this stylistic device should be used carefully, especially if not all
participants are of the same native language.

Kadija_Man said:
... The terrain would be more difficult with tropical rainforest and mountains but not unconquerable.

The wider the gauge, the wider the bigger the smallest curve radius has to be. A 3m gauge would make
routing of the tracks much more difficult and costly and in mountaineous terrain the only solution often
would be to build tunnels.

I'm well aware of that. You'll note for the most part, according to the map, the European routes avoid mountainous terrain. In South America, that is a little bit harder. You generally have a choice - mountains or rainforest. Not much else. Both have problems associated with them from a railway perspective. 3 Metres isn't, as I've mentioned, all that much larger than 4'9" standard gauge. Many routes couldn't be use but many others, could. The Russians showed that a really broad gauge could work - if you have room for it.
 
Wurger said:
This is a serious place to share information, free from prejudice and chauvinism, and I would like to keep it that way.

All attempts at humor or to personalize the experience should be spurned in favor of pure data.

01100110 01110101 01100011 01101011 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100001 01110100 00100000 01110011 01101000 01101001 01110100
 
Orionblamblam said:
It is a quirk in human programming that we have a fascination with super-sized civil engineering projects. Always have; just look at pyramids all over the world. As soon as we figured out how to stack one rock on top of another, we tried to outdo what had gone before.

Very well put!

The 9-meter vehicle is illustrated in the book I referenced. It is *in* *sane,* a giant four-deck (tall enough for 5) rail-going Zeppelin-shaped monstrocity propelled by a pair of contra-rotating props at the back. A single car, not a train, 7000 horsepower, 250 km/h, 300 tons, 650 passengers.

Fascinating and disturbing... thanks for the info.
 
Wurger, normally I'm for politeness. But trying to conquer the world in a devastating war basically means giving up on politeness or any claims to not be a megalomaniac. I can think of a lot of things Nazi's might deserve - and polite respect isn't one of them. There can be 'no quarter' in civil discourse for those types of political opinions.

Jemiba said:
The wider the gauge, the wider the bigger the smallest curve radius has to be. A 3m gauge would make
routing of the tracks much more difficult and costly and in mountaineous terrain the only solution often
would be to build tunnels.

Indeed. Although it is important to remember that this was the same regime which up plans to replace Warsaw with a lake if they won the war (in retaliation for the 1944 uprising). Leveling and remoulding parts of cities to accommodate huge curves and stations wouldn't be beyond them, nor would impressing huge labour forces be beyond them.

But let's get back to the technology? It'd be interesting to know if turn radii information exists for any of the designs. Which of those books should I order? Any reviews (beyond the German language not being English)? :)
 
Broader than Broad: Hitler's Great Dream: Three Meter Gauge Rails Across Europe, Barnes, Robin. Locomotives International. 1998. ISBN 1-900340-07-0
is Small brochure of 36 pages

Die Breitspurbahn - Das projekt zur Erschliessung des gross-europaischen Raumes 1942-1945, Anton Joachimsthaler. Herbig, 1999. ISBN 3-7766-1352-1
has 392 pages and rich illustrated, only problem it's database is from year 1981.
it really need a new edition with up to date information

in this case buy german edition and learn german, it's beautiful language

Info i forgot
Die Breitspurbahn had to be High speed train with 250 km/h for passages and 100 km/h for Cargo
for english world that would be 155.32 mph and 62.13 mph.
 
CJGibson said:
Jemiba - 'The wider the gauge, the bigger the smallest curve radius has to be.'

Wasn't that also the case with the TGV and other high-speed rail systems, prompting the British to develop the APT to use existing track?

Chris

TGV and others all use standard gauge. They needed a bigger curve radius to keep the centripetal force within tolerable range for the passengers (think coffeecups flying off the table). So new lines were laid with wider curves, with the additional advantage that the line won't have to be shared with slower traffic, and can be laid to new standards (no level crossings, for instance).
APT solved that with its tilting system, making it easier to run APT trains on existing rails. Those existing rails did need a new power system (25 kV overhead lines instead of 750V third rail), so major construction was needed anyway.
 
Kadija_Man said:
Russian guage was six feet, nearly two metres. Three metres is not all that much larger. Europe just needed to widen it's rail corridors to make this fit. It would carry significantly larger quantities of freight and people. The US is another good place for this. Australia has the room but not the traffic to justify it. South America? Again, it has the space but not the traffic. The terrain would be more difficult with tropical rainforest and mountains but not unconquerable.
Russian gauge was five feet, not six, and is now 1,520mm. The Breitspurbahn gauge of 3,000mm is twice this, and over twice the 1,435mm standard gauge. It's as big a step up as it is down from standard gauge to the 2 foot and 2 foot 6 inch narrow gauges used where light, temporary lines were needed.
Hobbes said:
Those existing rails did need a new power system (25 kV overhead lines instead of 750V third rail), so major construction was needed anyway.
APT was planned to be introduced on the West Coast route which was already being electrified at 25 kV AC for conventional trains, and would have been rolled out to other routes as they were electrified on the same system. There weren't any (serious) plans to use it on the Southern Region network electrified at 750V DC - though there apparently was a design study for a version that could run on third rail power.
 
RLBH said:
Kadija_Man said:
Russian guage was six feet, nearly two metres. Three metres is not all that much larger. Europe just needed to widen it's rail corridors to make this fit. It would carry significantly larger quantities of freight and people. The US is another good place for this. Australia has the room but not the traffic to justify it. South America? Again, it has the space but not the traffic. The terrain would be more difficult with tropical rainforest and mountains but not unconquerable.
Russian gauge was five feet, not six, and is now 1,520mm. The Breitspurbahn gauge of 3,000mm is twice this, and over twice the 1,435mm standard gauge. It's as big a step up as it is down from standard gauge to the 2 foot and 2 foot 6 inch narrow gauges used where light, temporary lines were needed.

For further reference, 1,676 mm broad gauge is common in India. A few other countries have shorter lines in similar gauges (e.g. Spain). However a 3,000mm gauge still dwarfs all of these (and even make's Brunel's original 2,140 mm gauge look small - which is the largest gauge every used for a conventional railway).

P.S.
There have apparently been recent proposals for 2,503 mm gauge 'transcontinental lines' ...it'd be interesting if anyone has more information about these - although that might warrant another topic.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom