Drawing Rail. When to. When not to.

[Simon Edmonds]

I am currently doing a map at 6 km scale. My question is how to treat narrow gauge rail lines at this scale.
Should they be shown or not?

[Lobster]

Russia and the small Baltic countries had lots of narrow gauge rail. Mainly for peat and logging. Some was used by the Germans for supply around places like Leningrad. If there was any rolling stock the line could be used even using horses to pull the cars. Especially useful in swampy areas where roads were mud paths but the narrow gauge rail passed through. So depends on what you want to achieve.

[Simon Edmonds]

Thanks for your reply. It's more a case of what I don't want to have happen. I don't want to see tank regiments being railed down narrow gauge rails. There is just no way they could have handled the weight. Especially in the later years. On the other hand as you say the use of narrow gauge for supply was critical at points on the eastern front.
So I guess the question is how can I have a railway that can extend supply but not be traveled on?

[Zovs]

Simple answer is you can’t. TOAW only has one type of rail period.

[rhinobones]

ORIGINAL: Simon Edmonds

I don't want to see tank regiments being railed down narrow gauge rails. There is just no way they could have handled the weight.

Regards

In most Eastern front scenarios, the automatic R/R destructions seems to be set at nearly 100%. For your purposes I think you can assume that as the Germans rebuild the rails they rebuild to German specifications.

Regards

[Lobster]

A Soviet single track line could carry 24 trains of 45 cars per day. That was optimal of course. The tonnage for one train would be about 1200 tons but in reality could only pack about 850 tons because of cargo volume and inefficiency. That would be enough for seven rifle divisions in an inactive setting or five rifle divisions conducting active operations. A narrow gauge line won't get anywhere near that even with all rolling stock captured in good condition.

Since they were okay for supply but impossible for moving large formations you could use secondary or primary roads in place of rail. I would probably lean towards a secondary road solution because supply would be more restricted. But that's just me. [;)]

[sPzAbt653]

how can I have a railway that can extend supply but not be traveled on?

Supply doesn't cost anything to move, so try No Rail Capacity.

[Simon Edmonds]

Thanks all. Done a bit of research. Lobster mentioned the Baltic States so I thought I would start there. The wider gauge railways were built by the imperial Russians. In 1920 at their first independence Estonia had 648 km of broad gauge and 187 km of narrow. When the Russians moved back in in 1940 it had grown to 770 km of broad gauge and 675 km of narrow. During the German occupation the broad gauge was converted to European Standard. The narrow gauge was left.
I have gleaned from publications relating to other countries that the conversion of narrow gauge to standard or broad gauge wasn't just a matter of changing the width of the tracks. The base had to be relaid; bridges and culverts rebuilt; even the sleepers had to be replaced. Essentially a new railway had to be built.
I had thought to go with Rhinobones idea and start with all narrow gauge rail in a broken condition. I see now that wont work.
I thought of having a non rail hex at the joining points of all narrow gauge rail. That would mean that the players would have to disembark off the main network. Move. Then re-embark on the narrow gauge rail. Essentially making it too much of a nuisance for players to use unless it was really important. Bit like history.
Or I can just leave them off the map until Toaw 5.
What do you think?

[Lobster]

In the vast majority of cases in Russia the narrow gauge lines are short. I'd leave them alone because of the supply potential. They'll all get damaged anyway and they don't go anyplace but if the Axis wants to repair them I'd give them that option.

In the Baltics it's a coin toss. Although if I recall the rail to the jumping off point to Muhu is fed by a narrow gauge line. Kind of important for supply.

[cathar1244]

So I guess the question is how can I have a railway that can extend supply but not be traveled on?

Simon, if your intent is to extend supply, perhaps you could represent those lines as a chain of supply points with the value representing what you think the line could provide in terms of supplying units?

Cheers

[Simon Edmonds]

Hey Lobster and Cathar. I think what I will do is include the important narrow gauge rail lines and notate them with "NG" at their connection points. After all I have 4000 place names to play with and a couple of hundred "NG"s shouldn't break the bank. Then it's just a matter of a "house rule"

[cathar1244]

https://www.hgwdavie.com/works

Some interesting works on Eastern front logistics here, including a paper on the use of rail networks by both sides.

Cheers

[Dreamslayer]

ORIGINAL: Simon Edmonds

Thanks for your reply. It's more a case of what I don't want to have happen. I don't want to see tank regiments being railed down narrow gauge rails. There is just no way they could have handled the weight. Especially in the later years. On the other hand as you say the use of narrow gauge for supply was critical at points on the eastern front.
So I guess the question is how can I have a railway that can extend supply but not be traveled on?

Such narrow gauge railroads was used not only for transport a supply and various materials. It was used for normal military units transport as well (in this case probably could be used home rules for prevent use it by something a heavy like tank units).
There is other case that during relocating via these narrow gauge railroads units should transfer to other trains if this lines connects to a standart gauge railroads on its way. I read about it in documents of local Rifle Division in Estonia when its was mobilized and relocated in first days of the war.

Thanks all. Done a bit of research. Lobster mentioned the Baltic States so I thought I would start there. The wider gauge railways were built by the imperial Russians. In 1920 at their first independence Estonia had 648 km of broad gauge and 187 km of narrow. When the Russians moved back in in 1940 it had grown to 770 km of broad gauge and 675 km of narrow. During the German occupation the broad gauge was converted to European Standard. The narrow gauge was left.

About Estonia I found this:
Length of RR network is 1466 km, 792 km standart gauge (most of standart gauge RR lines in Estonia was Russian standart 1524 mm) and 674 km narrow gauge rails.
Major narrow gauge (750mm) railroads on 1 Jan 1941:
Tallinn - Tamsalu (163 km)
Virtsu - Raplo (95 km)
Parnu - Lelle (80 km)
Papindu - Turi (147 km)
Ikla - Rissella (49 km)
Sonda - Mustve (63 km)
Valga - Ape (52 km)

Estonian RR on 1941:

(green - major narrow gauge lines, purple - secondary narrow gauge lines)

[Simon Edmonds]

Thanks for that Dreamslayer. Every bit helps.