Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As a bit of a railroad buff it is one of the few films that gave some idea of what rail travel was like during Czarist Russia. Well other than countless remakes of Anna Karenina.
Pretty simple: by the mid 19th century, the US was by and large an industrial economy, rather than an agrarian one. Russia during the same time was essentially an agrarian nation. Agrarian economies can get along quite well without rail transport. While rails were nice for passengers, the main impetus for rail transport then, just as now, is freight traffic. Without an industrial base, there really is not much demand for rail freight, so railroads tend to not be built.
This is also a good explanation for the pattern of the mid 19th century American rail network. While there were some rail lines in the South, the vast majority of American rail mileage was built in the northeast. This was the most industrialized region of America at the time. Hence the need for a more extensive rail network.
By the early 20th century, Russia was beginning to industrialize. Hence, the growth in the Russian economy and the corresponding growth in the Russian rail network, including the construction of the Trans-Siberian line.
Yeah but the US wasn't all that rich in the 1860s either, and although Russia didn't have middle class, I'm pretty sure the nobility still held quite a bit of wealth. Here are some estimates for historical GDP's of regions, and Russia (former USSR) is always ranked in the top 5, so I'm pretty sure Russia could've squeezed some money for such an important project.
GDP (PPP) in millions of 1990 International Dollars
Also considering that the liberal reformer Tsar Alexander II reigned 1855 – 1881, I would think that infrastructure development should've been possible.
You should make these calculations on a per capita basis. After all, Russia had almost two more people than the U.S. had in 1913.
So why wasn't Russia investing as much in rail transport as the US and British Canada, and why weren't they the leaders in this field?
On a per capita basis, Russia was much less industrialized than Britain and the U.S. were in the pre-World War I era. In turn, this might help explain why Russia might have viewed railroad development as less of a priority than Britain and the U.S. viewed it. After all, it seems silly to talk about a Trans-Siberian railroad when one doesn't have much industry even in European Russia.
One of my favorite films involving Russian RR; Horror Express!
As a bit of a railroad buff it is one of the few films that gave some idea of what rail travel was like during Czarist Russia. Well other than countless remakes of Anna Karenina.
The trains have hardly changed since Czarist times. Have you been on them? You should take a trip--it's an experience. While Western Europe has re-designed their train cars completely, for greater economy due to inflation, the Russian trains haven't changed at all.
Ultimately, Industrial Revolution spread from Britain. Countries in Europe industrialized on the basis of proximity to the British (UK -> France -> Germany -> Russia). Germany didn't really enter industrial revolution until 1860-1880, Russia started in 1890.
US was able to short circuit this process by being close to the British. Most of the engineers were simply British immigrants.
Germany had more railroads that any European country in the 1860's even though it was agrarian. They were built for the army. (Prussia and then the North German Confederation)
Also, someone posted the US was mostly industrial by the 1850's. I don't think that is right. In 1860 about 60% of the labor force worked on farms.
Russia and the US are both big countries. It would seem both needed fast end-to-end transportation. Maybe in America, the westward migration and the riches of the west coast created the demand, while in Russia there was nothing in eastern Siberia worth shipping west.
I still think it had a lot to do with the backward ways of the Romanovs and Russian nobility vs. the industrial go-getters of America when it comes to those two.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
