History of railway construction in the 19th century. How did the transport system develop in Russia before the advent of rails and sleepers?

The first railways

The first train in Russia

The Tsarskoye Selo Railway marked the beginning of the construction of the Russian railway network. On the thirtieth day at 12:30 p.m. in October 1837, the first train departed by rail public use St. Petersburg – Tsarskoe Selo. The length of the road was 25 versts (26.3 km).

On the Tsarskoye Selo Railway a number of artificial structures, including bridges, among which the largest - across the Obvodny Canal - had a length of 25.6 m. 7 locomotives and various carriages for trains were purchased abroad: closed stagecoaches with 40 seats, open charabancs, lines with soft seats, carriages ( "Berlins"). In 1838 in St. Petersburg Institute of Technology for Tsarskoye Selo railway The "Agile" steam locomotive was created.

From 1837 to 1841, 2.5 million passengers were transported. During this period, the Tsarskoye Selo Railway gave the treasury a net income of 360 thousand rubles.

The significance of the Tsarskoye Selo railway was that the experience of its construction and operation practically proved the possibility of uninterrupted operation of railway transport in climatic conditions Russia in all seasons. The commercial operation of the road also demonstrated in practice the profitability and feasibility of the new type of transport. Being the first experience in organizing railway traffic in Russia, the road gave a significant impetus to the development and broad organization of railway business in the country.

Highway St. Petersburg - Moscow

In the summer of 1843, construction work began. The road was built according to engineeringly sound parameters, ensuring, along with economic feasibility, the required throughput taking into account the future. At the insistence of P.P. Melnikov, the track width was set to 5 feet or 1524 mm. It has become standard for all Russian railways.

Russian engineers already in the first years of railway development chose wide-foot rails. On the St. Petersburg – Moscow line, such rails were laid, manufactured at the Lyudinovsky plant. Subsequently, this rail profile spread throughout all the railways of the world.

The first rails were made mainly of cast iron. However, it was found that steel rails wear less and more evenly than cast iron. The latter very soon ceased to be used on railways. The profile of the rail has changed little over the past 140 years, but its mass has increased from 20-24 to 75-77 kg/m. It should be noted that already during the construction of the St. Petersburg – Moscow road, sleepers were impregnated under pressure. Most early railroads laid untreated sleepers, the wood of which failed after 8-12 years.

The foundations for organizing traction facilities and operating locomotives on Russian railways were laid in 1851, that is, with the opening of the Nikolaevskaya (now Oktyabrskaya) railway for public use.

The road from St. Petersburg to Moscow was divided into eight traction sections (traction arms). The length of each section was taken to be the distance between the “large locomotive parking lots,” which were later renamed the “main” or “root” depots. Freight and passenger locomotives were assigned to the depot for repairs and maintenance.

In the intervals between the “large locomotive stands” there were “small stands”, where there were reserve locomotives in case of damage to the locomotives of passing trains.

The first traction arms for freight traffic had a length of approximately 80 km, and for passenger traffic – 160 km. With the development of railways, the length of the traction arms was increased. By the beginning of the 80s of the last century, it increased for freight steam locomotives to 120 km or more, reaching up to 260 km on some roads.

On November 1, 1851, the official opening of traffic on the St. Petersburg-Moscow Railway took place. Trains traveled along it, driven by steam locomotives built at the Alexander Plant in St. Petersburg. Transport volumes grew rapidly. Already in 1852, the road transported 719 thousand passengers and 164 thousand tons of cargo. The distance from St. Petersburg to Moscow is 650 kilometers; the fast train covered it in 12 hours.

In 1850-54. The first domestic passenger cars were built at the Aleksandrovsky plant in St. Petersburg.

The first serial freight cars in Russia began to be produced in 1846. They were four-axle on two two-axle bogies. However, due to the fact that the frame and body of the first cars were made of wood, their carrying capacity was small. Only in 1965 were two-axle cars removed from circulation on the railways of the USSR.

By 1860, the Russian railway network had a length of about 1,590 km. After the land reform of 1861 and the abolition of serfdom, changes occurred in the country's economy, which contributed to the development of a system of financial and administrative measures, which formed the basis of the new railway policy. In particular, a “railway fund”, formally separate from the state budget, was established, which contributed to the development of railway construction.

The periods of boom in construction occurred in the late 60s - early 70s of the 19th century (on average, over 1.5 thousand km were commissioned per year) and in the 90s (over 2.5 thousand km per year). By 1875, over 20 thousand km of railways had been laid, and by the end of the 19th century, the length of the Russian railway network was 53.2 thousand km. In the early 1900s, another 22.6 thousand km were built.

The construction of the railway in Russia was important not only from the point of view of economics and geography - it was also a significant cultural project. Stations in the second half of the 19th century were supposed to become “beacons of civilization”: for example, books were sold at railway kiosks, and the Ministry of Railways issued special laws to accustom passengers to order and decorum. T&P publishes an excerpt from Fridtjof Benjamin Schenk’s book “Train to Modernity. Mobility and social space of Russia in the age of railways", which was published by the publishing house "NLO", about why the ideas of enlightenment turned out to be a utopia, and passengers of the third and fourth grade Quite quickly they turned into “living cargo”.

The station as a projection surface: plans for ordering society

In Russia, as in other countries of the European continent, traveling by train was at first an extremely expensive undertaking, being thus intended only for the wealthy part of the population. The company that operated the first railway of the empire - the railway line from St. Petersburg to Tsarskoe Selo and Pavlovsk opened in 1837 - focused primarily on the needs of the wealthy upper class of the capitals. They used the services of a private railway company to travel to dachas, to the southern suburbs of the metropolis, or to concerts and balls at the “music station” in Pavlovsk. Not only luxurious " concert hall, overlooking the platform”, in the park of the royal residence, but also the Tsarskoye Selo station in St. Petersburg had to satisfy the needs for comfort and luxury of a wealthy target group. The stations built in the late 1840s for passenger traffic on the route from St. Petersburg to Moscow were also not yet conceived as places of modern mass transport, which they would quickly turn into as the number of passengers, especially third and fourth classes, grew. Following the examples of Western Europe and the USA, Russian architects The first passenger stations of the empire were not designed by reasonable and rational structures that served their purpose, but by representative palaces of communication routes. […]

Alfred Lawrence, Station in Pavlovsk, 1860-1867 © MAMM / MDF

The idea of ​​an ideal social order, which was embodied in the external design of Russian stations, in accordance with the views of the transport planners of the empire, was also supposed to determine the principles of interaction between various social groups inside these buildings. Since the 1870s, employees of the Ministry of Railways, using legislative regulations, intensified efforts to streamline the behavior of passengers and railway personnel on trains and at the stations of the empire down to the smallest detail. The words “order” or “decency” in almost every second sentence are striking when reading the relevant circulars and orders. One of the orders of the Ministry of Railways in 1873, for example, emphasizes that “the organization of balls, picnics and similar entertainment gatherings” at Russian stations is prohibited and that the presence of people there who are not waiting for the train is punishable as “a violation of order and decorum at stations.” . One of the instructions issued in 1874, regulating the work of buffets and restaurants at Russian stations, emphasizes that “the servants must... have decent clothes”, serve guests “politely and attentively”, and copper utensils “must have good quality”. IN General rules for transporting passengers, luggage and dogs, which determined the rules of conduct for passengers on Russian railways in the early 1870s, stated that passengers who “do not obey the generally established order” are deprived of the right to travel by rail. […]

In the minds of the tsarist transport planners, the orderly life of the Russian railway space was supposed to contribute to the improvement of people who used transport services. [...] Stations were intended to be beacons of civilization in the outback, untouched by enlightenment and progress. In one of the guidebooks to the state South Western Railway in 1898, for example, it was written:

Every mile of new rail tracks is a new stage on the path to achieving cultural success in the region; each new railway station is a new center through which enlightenment and the light of knowledge penetrate into the depths of previously abandoned outbacks.

Not least of all, contemporaries who believed in progress hoped that through bookselling at train stations they would be able to bring a spark of education and civilization to the Russian provinces. Anonymous author St. Petersburg Gazette in January 1909 reflected:

…Where good book at 1, 2, 3 kopecks could not only provide a pleasant rest at the waiting place, but also serve as a source of light and joy in that wilderness into which poor passengers very often rush. I think one can look at the railway kiosks with selected literature in the sense of morality as the only bright points scattered among the wilderness of vast spaces in the intervals between rare cities our homeland.

The utopia of the civilizing power of the railway was by no means a Russian invention. In other countries in the 19th century, created by steam engines transport system also served as a projection surface for magnificent future projects and an orderly life. However, it is obvious that the idea of ​​​​the civilizing power of the railway had a special attractive force in Russia. […]

* The so-called Baranov Commission, an inter-ministerial committee vested in 1876 with powers to inventory the empire’s railways and develop a unified legislative framework for railway traffic throughout the country.

Not only in big cities, but even in the provinces, maintaining “law and order” at the stations of the Russian railway system still had to turn into a task, the implementation of which was hardly possible. This was due, on the one hand, to a clear increase in the mobility of people from the poorest segments of the population, who, in the era of industrialization and urbanization, increasingly turned to the services of Russian railways. In the second half of the 19th century, provincial train stations became the most important points of attraction for both the local population and the increasing number of traveling people. In many places, the telegraph at the nearby station was the only point of rapid communication between the periphery and the center. Here the rural population could also earn some money by selling food to passing passengers. As a counter-flow, city news and rumors spread through the train stations throughout the villages. Especially during the cold season, the provincial stations of the empire also served as a refuge and haven for people stuck there due to train delays or cancellations. Already employees of the Baranov* commission in Passenger Traffic Report 1881 pointed out that stations in sparsely populated hinterlands cannot be considered only as places for passenger traffic. In Russia with its long, harsh winters, where railway stations were often at a great distance from the city and, moreover, were poorly connected with it, it was important to ensure that people had the right to be in the waiting rooms of rural stations outside of their official opening hours. Transport experts apparently knew that the tasks were to turn provincial train stations, on the one hand, into “beacons of civilization” and, on the other, to keep them open long time for passing people of different origins are hardly compatible with each other. In the end, in this conflict of goals, those who advocated the protection of travelers from the adversity of the Russian climate - with all the consequences that this had for the "order" in these modern places of public space - won.

"Class society" and its places

In Russia, as in other European countries, the division of passengers into various classes formed the framework for the hierarchization of the collective of railway passengers. The idea of ​​separating passengers into classes was an innovation of the railroad age, originating initially in England. Planners of the first railway lines Russian Empire adopted this scheme and offered their clients a trip with comparatively greater or less comfort, depending on the price. If a passenger was willing and financially able to pay a higher price for a ticket, then he could cover the geographical distance in a shorter time for more fast train than a third or fourth class passenger. […] First and second class passengers had at their disposal not only separate carriages and compartments with appropriate luxurious furnishings. At many stations they also had access to their own waiting rooms, buffets, as well as luggage storage and ticket offices. The size and furnishings of the spaces assigned to individual classes of passengers have been regulated by law since the 1880s in Russia. The 1886 regulations stipulated that each third class passenger at the station was entitled to at least 1.14–1.5 square meters. m (0.25–0.33 sq. fathoms) of space. First and second class passengers were entitled to 3.41–4.55 sq. m (0.75–1 fathom) of area in the waiting room.

These figures were supposed to serve as a guide for architects who created concepts for new station buildings. However, due to the overproportional growth in the number of passengers of the lower classes in the second half of the 19th century, compliance with the standards prescribed by the state for passengers of the lower classes remained in the realm of pure dreams. Already at the end of the 1870s, members of the Baranov Commission pointed out the somewhat unbearable conditions in the third-class halls at some stations. […]

Passengers on Russian railways on trains also faced a dramatically unequal division of spatial resources. […] Already in 1875, the Ministry of Railways approved standards for the size of seats in Russian passenger carriages. At the same time, officials proceeded as a matter of course from the idea that a third-class passenger was entitled to less freedom of movement and respect for the sphere of his personal life than a first-class passenger. […]

Samara-Zlatoust railway. Laying the track at the 724th mile. 1890 © State historical museum Southern Urals, 1890 / https://russiainphoto.ru/

Of course, first and second class passengers enjoyed not only more space in their lounges, but also greater comfort. In 1886, the Ministry of Railways obliged all stations to equip third-class waiting rooms with wooden benches and tables, an icon, a schedule, a thermometer, lighting fixtures, and containers with drinking water, as well as a book of complaints. In the halls of the first and second classes, there also had to be upholstered armchairs, a wall clock, a map of communications, a “water purifying machine,” an ashtray and a spittoon. The luxury and comfort in Russian trains and first-class station restaurants were legendary and already caused real storms of delight among those traveling domestically and abroad already at the very beginning of the railway century. Those who bought cheaper tickets had to be satisfied with hard seats, poor lighting, heating and ventilation, and questionable hygienic conditions in a hard carriage. Since the 1890s, the empire also came into use with freight cars, rebuilt for the needs of passenger traffic. The so-called “teplushkas” were used by fourth-class “travelers”, as well as migrants, in huge quantities those who sought their fortune in Siberia and Central Asia at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries.

The places where people traveling in different classes could be located, at stations and on trains of the Russian Empire, were, as a rule, clearly separated from each other in spatial terms. Already the architects of the first Russian passenger stations designed buildings in such a way that passengers of different classes, if possible, did not meet there or met for a very short time. Thus, passengers of the first and second classes at the St. Petersburg station of the St. Petersburg-Moscow Railway (since 1855 - Nikolaevskaya) entered their waiting rooms through entrances separated from those intended for the third class, and then through special exits to the platform for departing passengers. trains. On the way of passengers to their carriages, however, it was not possible to avoid meetings between separate groups of passengers. Near the platforms at many stations, lobbies and cafeterias, queues at ticket windows and luggage storage rooms were also areas of potential social contact. Where only one room was provided for meals for travelers, the station buffet was also a place for possible interpersonal interaction. Completely separated from the areas where “ordinary” passengers were staying at stations of the first and second categories (“1st and 2nd classes”) were spaces that could be used by members of the imperial family and other high-ranking nobles while traveling around their country. For the most part, these chambers and executive lounges, often with their own entrance or corresponding entrance, were located close to the first and second class waiting rooms. This proximity further enhanced the symbolic status of the spaces of the upper classes of passengers within the topography of the station.

Alternative models for ordering society in places that belonged to the railway system

For most contemporaries, it was a commonplace that representatives of the nobility, rich merchants, high officials and foreign travelers traveled in first class carriages, while the “ordinary” or “gray” people, that is, for example, peasants, workers, townspeople and employees - if they could afford to buy a train ticket at all - traveled in third or fourth class carriages. Representatives of wealthy or privileged classes tsarist empire in the carriages and spaces of the first and second classes, they mostly stayed among similar passengers, primarily because for the overwhelming majority, tickets to the carriages of these classes were unimaginably expensive. If a representative of an unprivileged class nevertheless achieved wealth and well-being thanks to his successful economic activity or career in public service, then he could easily acquire a place for himself in the highest status group of this class society inside the railway system and enjoy its privileges. Thanks to this, the socio-spatial boundaries in these “places of modernity” were somewhat more permeable than the social barriers of the class order in the empire as a whole. The modern promise of hard-earned success in society, on trains and in stations seemed embodied in his exemplary form.

If a third-class passenger at a Russian station wanted access to the space of exclusive groups of passengers, he did not necessarily have to buy an expensive ticket. If he belonged to the “decently” dressed passengers of the third class, that is, his appearance corresponded to the norm of clothing of the “civilized” social strata, then the dining rooms and buffets of the first and second classes were open to him, according to the order of 1891. Passengers with cheaper tickets - obviously, the farther, the more - took advantage of this right. For example, the planners of the new station of the Moscow-Vindavo-Rybinsk Railway in St. Petersburg, in a publication dedicated to the newly erected new building, noted that third class travelers are increasingly attracted - “due to greater cleanliness and for the sake of using the restaurant” - first and second class waiting rooms. The nobles and senior officials, on the contrary, reacted with indignation and rejection to the influx of “common people” into spatial spheres that supposedly belonged exclusively to them. For example, the noble Marshal Ganetski from Kobrin district complained on February 28, 1893 to the Ministry of Railways about the presence of third class passengers in his noble station restaurant small town. In the response letter, the authorities only informed the angry nobleman that this circumstance was in full accordance with legal norms.

Spatial spheres were not hermetically separated from each other in Russian passenger trains either. This can be seen from the example of the proposal discussed in 1906–1907 to lock the doors connecting the first and second classes, on the one hand, and the third, on the other, with a chain, in order to avoid the penetration of thieves and “intruders” from cheaper classes into more expensive ones, did not find support from the state railway administration. Critics of this idea pointed out that road regulations related to fire safety, cannot be changed and transitions from one class to another should still be kept open. This example clearly shows that in places that belonged to the railway system, the socio-spatial boundaries between different status groups must have been more permeable than outside this industrial world. The significance of class divisions within the railway system, in addition, became increasingly relative due to the growing meaning of other forms of social stratification. For example, smokers and non-smokers, as well as male and female passengers on Russian trains and stations, were given their own spatial spheres at their disposal. The definition of socio-spatial boundaries of this kind arose from the specific experience of mobility in the industrial era and was partly the result of a long political process. Indicative in this regard are the debates that took place in Russia from the 1870s on the establishment of special compartments or waiting rooms intended exclusively for women.

An example from the notes of the translator of classical literature Alexander Semenovich Klevanov, who in the summer of 1870 traveled in a second-class carriage from Kharkov to Moscow, illustrates that the question of the ordering of genders in public space in the era of railways also arose in Russia. The train in which Klevanov was traveling was not filled with passengers. The random society of travelers, which, in addition to Klevanov himself, consisted of several men, was joined by one woman who was returning to Moscow after a stay on the waters in Pyatigorsk. In the mixed composition of passengers in a carriage that was not divided into compartments, Klevanov did not find anything outrageous, because in the carriages they also traveled in both male and female companies. However, he was indignant at the behavior of his male travel companion, who dared, despite the presence of a lady, to take off his outer clothing and stretch out on the sofa:

It's a terrible disgrace! And I think that only here you can find it. In the middle of the day, lying down in front of ladies with your legs stretched out to your full length in the most unceremonious poses is not tolerated anywhere; but on the railway it is possible. And there is nowhere to go, because everywhere it is the same: there are no, as there should be in this case, special sections for ladies and special ones for men; Meanwhile, one gentleman even allowed himself to undress completely and was in only a shirt.

In Russia, where distances traveled by train were often very long and trains were generally slow, people of different sexes were forced to spend many days and nights together in a very narrow space. This forced negotiations to come to an agreement on the boundaries of the private and intimate spheres, as well as on the rules of behavior for men and women in the semi-public/semi-private space of trains and stations. In 1874, this issue even gave impetus to a plan for the installation of compartments exclusively for women in first and second class carriages, drawn up by the Ministry of Railways on the model of foreign and some Russian railways. Men were prohibited from entering there even if they accompanied a lady on a trip. The right to travel free from the disturbances which male society might cause was at first the privilege of female passengers only of the two upper classes. In February 1891, however, it was established by law that on routes on which there were at least two pairs of trains a day, female passengers in all three classes should be provided with appropriate compartments on night trains. This order, however, allowed numerous exceptions and did not apply to trains running during the day. The so-called “work trains,” that is, those containing fourth-class carriages, were excluded from this order. After numerous complaints from female students who complained of harassment from male fellow passengers in the third class, the supervisory authorities of the railways in June 1891 again became active in this direction and, in a circular sent to railway societies, called on their management to ensure that by the beginning of the school year prepare special compartments and even third-class carriages for female students. These examples show how, locally, in the Russian railway system by the end of the 19th century, socio-spatial boundaries were re-drawn across the 'class order' and the value of the category of 'gender' was clearly enhanced.

The relativity of socio-spatial boundaries between the classes of the Russian railway space in the last third of the 19th century is revealed in another example. The knowledge gained from new scientific disciplines such as "public hygiene" prompted Russian engineers in the 1870s to debate the division of passengers into "classes", as well as the unequal treatment of different groups of passengers. At the same time, experts reflected on the concept of a “homogeneous passenger”, who, due to the same physiological needs, should not be treated better or worse than his fellow traveler belonging to a different class. Since the mid-19th century, there has been intense debate in Western Europe about the consequences of the use of railways for the health of passengers. One of the first Russian scientists to introduce these debates to the interested Russian reader was the physician Vladimir Ignatievich Poray-Koshits (1843–1892). In 1870–1871 he published in Archive forensic medicine and public hygiene an extensive study on the “railway from a socio-medical point of view”, in which he tried to transfer the results of Western research in this area to Russian soil. A long chapter in Poraj-Kositz's work is devoted to the question of what effects rail travel had on the health of passengers of each class. An aspect that particularly interested him was the quality of the air inhaled by a passenger during a trip to full of people carriage. Referring to the latest medical discoveries, the doctor reported that an adult in an enclosed space needs 2000 ft3 (about 60 m³) of air per hour. According to Poraj-Kositz's calculations, in 1870, per first-class passenger in a fully occupied, that is, 16-passenger, carriage belonging to the Main Society of Russian Railways, there was only 212.5 ft3 (6.37 m³) of air, and The third class passenger's share was only 71.2 ft3 (2.14 m³). Based on these figures, the social doctor demanded that the Russian railways be supplied with effective system ventilation. He also advocated that passenger cars, with a volume of 3000–4000 ft3 (90–120 m³), ​​be occupied by only 12 to a maximum of 16 passengers. The requirement to apply these indicative values ​​for third-class carriages seemed downright revolutionary. For Poraj-Košice, equal provision of passengers with space to move and air to breathe was not a matter of social equality, but a logical conclusion from general physiological observations:

There can hardly be a better proof of the thirst of people for exploitation. Air, it seems, is the common property of everything living on earth, but it was also useful for commerce! Moreover, how deeply the laws of physiology are violated! It is the 3rd class passengers who should be given more air to breathe, since they consist of predominantly working people, who are usually physically stronger, with more developed lungs, and as a result, consume more oxygen from the air.

Even if these utopian demands of the Russian physician in the 1870s are somewhat reminiscent of treatises on natural law of the Enlightenment, they stemmed from completely pragmatic social and hygienic considerations. If a person spends a long time in a closed space where the air is of poor quality, for example in a Russian railway carriage, then, according to Poraj-Kosits, this leads to a weakening of the body and increases the likelihood of contracting diseases such as cholera or typhoid at the station. Only from an epidemiological point of view is it necessary to provide all passengers on Russian railways with as much space, that is, air, as is currently available to a first-class passenger.

In view of the travel conditions faced by third-class passengers on Russian railways as early as the 1870s, Poraj-Košice's demands were reminiscent of fantasies from another world. Despite this, socio-medical reflections of this kind were relatively widely accepted by transport planners of the Russian Empire. For example, members of the organization established under State Council The commissions for the study of railway business in Russia (the Baranov commission) thoroughly studied the social and hygienic condition of Russian trains and stations. The question raised in the works of Poraj-Kositz and other physicians forced engineers in the late 1870s to calculate the volume of air remaining for breathing for people in a railway carriage. The results of their research into Russian passenger traffic, published as a detailed report in 1881, were even more alarming than those cited by Poraj-Kositz in his text. According to recent measurements, the share of a first-class passenger in passenger cars on Russian railways was - depending on the design of the car - from 41.5 to 173.7 ft3 (1.25–5.21 m³) of air. A third class passenger could count on 22.6–51.6 ft3 (0.67–1.54 m³) of air. Also, due to greater load and poorer ventilation, the air quality in lower class carriages was slightly worse than in first class. The conclusions drawn by transport experts from these data were even more acute than those reached earlier by Poraj-Kosits. The engineers also proceeded from the premise that all passengers, due to equal physiological needs, were entitled to an equal amount of air in a closed railroad car. The luxurious furnishings, padded furniture and velvet-lined walls in first class should have justified the higher price paid for the trip. The same, however, did not apply to the unequal provision of passengers fresh air: “...no matter what class of train he travels in, he has exactly the same rights and requirements.” Indirectly, transport experts challenged the right of representatives of the wealthy classes, who enjoyed luxury and service in the first and second classes, to privileged treatment within the space of Russian railways. Although it should be assumed that the employees of the Baranov Commission themselves, as a rule, traveled first class, the experts here did not represent the interests of the old class elite, but quite consciously took the side of the third class passengers, that is, indirectly, the unprivileged classes of the Russian Empire.

Despite these very reasonable scientific conclusions and the resulting demands for the reorganization of passenger traffic on Russian railways, little has changed for the better in the living conditions of third-class carriages. In subsequent years, railway companies showed very little interest in improving the travel conditions for their customers, be it reducing the number of seats or improving ventilation technology in third-class carriages, despite the fact that in Russia the problem of air quality in passenger cars of local railways was much discussed in specialized engineering and medical press. […]

Proposals for the democratization of passenger trains in the empire, put forward by Russian doctors and engineers from the 1870s, remained in the realm of pure wishes, not least due to the fact that Russian railway societies lacked either the means or the will to radically change conditions transportation by passenger transport. It was a combination of economic weakness and ignorance which resulted in the idea of ​​a properly and civilized railway society existing in more early years, could not be implemented in the empire's railway system. It is the crowded and stuffy carriages of the third and fourth classes, as well as train stations big cities, which threatened to burst at the seams when they were stormed by poorer commuters, became symbols of the failing dream of order of progressive transport planners in the early 20th century.

However, we must not lose sight of the fact that precisely the reduction of railway passengers to bodies to be transported - an image that served as a justification for enlightened doctors and engineers to demand equal treatment of passengers of all classes, on the other hand, gave grounds for viewing the passenger as an anonymous commodity and soulless transported cargo. This tension between democratization and the commodification of the modern passenger can already be seen in the work of the early 1880s emerging from Baranov's commission. While some transport experts, in the Report on Passenger Traffic, demanded that train passengers of all classes be provided with an equal volume of air, others, in the Report on the Movement of Workers' Parties, advocated transporting the “common people” in primitive freight cars at a reduced fourth-class fare . With the help of this tool, they wanted to turn the migration flows inside Russia and tie them to the railway. In their argumentation, the experts appealed primarily to the economic state of the railway companies. They had to consider the mass of displaced workers and peasants not as “passengers”, but as “living cargo”. Since “our working people” are highest degree“undemanding”, “hardy” and “patient”, it could be transported without hesitation in simple boxcars, and even the standards in force for the transport of recruits could not be observed here. Quite clearly, experts draw in their work a comparison between bulk cargo (for example, wheat, salt or coal), transported by rail at preferential rates, and “fourth class” passengers: “Working artels, like live cargo, are the second bread for the railroads " When talking about seasonal workers, they also added that “the cargo is the most convenient”:

...if we accept the transportation of workers or simply passengers of the 4th class as cargo, and the cargo is the most convenient, requiring neither loading, nor unloading, nor protection at stations and during movement from loss, but, on the contrary, can, in case of any damage to the track or rolling stock on the road to provide assistance.

Authors Report quite soberly calculated that it would be even more profitable for the railway company to transport workers to large quantities at a reduced rate in freight cars as “low value cargo”, like, for example, coal or wheat. If, for example, the owner of a two-axle carriage loaded it with 40 people and charged each “passenger” a fare of ¾ kopecks per mile, then the turnover per car-mile would be 30 kopecks. In a train consisting of 30 fully occupied cars of this type, this amount would increase to 9 rubles per mile. If, for example, a railway company transported coal in 50 freight cars, then the turnover would be only 6 rubles per mile per car. In terms of average weight For one working person, the railways could, when transporting people, make an estimate at the rate of 1/20 of a kopeck per pood per mile, 2.5 times more than when transporting coal.

The transformation of passengers into a commodity that could be transported in large quantities, like cattle, in boxcars, represented the flip side of the modern discourse about the “homogeneous passenger.” It is known that this form of transportation of people also became a widely practiced reality in the twentieth century - be it the organization of peasant resettlement to Siberia and Central Asia or the forcible removal of entire peoples from one part of the country and their transportation to another. These forms of “modern” transportation of people developed not in the “era of extremes,” but in the last third of the 19th century and had their ideological pioneers also in the Russian Empire.

The idea of ​​the need for railways for the Russian open spaces and the development of the economy of the Russian state did not immediately capture the minds of senior government officials responsible for decision-making, and, even more so, ordinary people.

For almost half a century since the construction of the first cast iron road at the Aleksandrovsky Cannon Factory in Petrozavodsk (1788), rail transport was used exclusively as an auxiliary auxiliary mechanism in mining and metallurgical production. It was as such that the road from the Zmeinogorsk mine to the Korbalikhinsky silver smelting plant was built and operated (1806).

The Russian Railways Department first considered the possibility of building general purpose railways in 1826. Then the construction of such was considered inappropriate due to the economic disadvantage and high costs of maintaining railways in the Russian climate, especially in winter conditions.

At this time, the first sections of public railways were successfully opened and put into operation abroad. So, the first two built in England in 1825 -1830. the Stockton-Darlington and Liverpool-Manchester railways had a significant excess of actual revenues over projected ones.

The question of the benefits and harms brought by railways was widely discussed in the European and American press. However, against the backdrop of heated controversy, massive construction of general purpose railways began in parallel. A decisive revolution was made by Stephenson's steam locomotive, which was put into operation for the first time in 1829.

In Russia, things got off the ground on April 15, 1836, when the Decree of Emperor Nicholas I was published on the construction of the Tsarskoye Selo railway solely as an experiment with the goal of “testing to what extent our climatic conditions allow the possibility of constructing rail tracks in our country.” The decision made by Nicholas 1 was of paramount importance for the entire further course of the railway business in Russia.

In the autumn of the same year, work began on laying the rails, and on October 30, 1837. The official opening of the road between St. Petersburg and Tsarskoe Selo. Another six months later, construction was completed and the section of road between Tsarskoe Selo and Pavlovsk was opened for use.

Thus, the first Russian road, 25 versts long, with a gauge of 0.857 fathoms (182.85) was built in a year and eight months. Construction was financed not from the treasury, but from a specially formed joint stock company of the Tsarskoye Selo Railway. 5 million rubles in banknotes were spent on the construction of the road.

Due to its short length and relatively low economic significance, the first Russian railway was an exclusively suburban road and could not lay claim to more. However, the beginning of the history of the development of railway transport in Russia is associated precisely with its opening.

The example of the Tsarskoye Selo road turned out to be so successful that in the same 1838. interested banking circles of the Kingdom of Poland (as part of the Russian Empire) put forward a project for the construction of the Warsaw-Vienna horse-drawn railway. The project was approved, but for steam traction, and in 1839. construction work began. The project was financed by a private company, and with the announcement of its insolvency in 1842. work was temporarily stopped. Construction was continued two years later at the expense of the treasury and completed in 1848. The Warsaw-Vienna line (or Warsaw-Granitsa) had a length of 305 miles and was the second general purpose railway in Russia.

A decisive turn in railway policy occurred in 1842. It was then that Emperor Nicholas I, having familiarized himself with the reports of engineers P.P. Melnikov and N.O. Kraft who returned from America, which finally strengthened him in the conviction of the great cultural and economic significance of railways, announced his decision to begin construction of a rail track from St. Petersburg to Moscow, with the costs of constructing the line transferred to the account of the State Treasury.

“In our continuous concern for improving communications in the empire,” says the Decree of February 1, 1842, “several years before, we, having paid attention to the benefits that the establishment of railways brought in many foreign lands, ordered the Committee of Ministers to enter into consideration of the assumptions that were made regarding this, and the consequences of such consideration were entrusted to the Main Directorate of Communications and to mining engineers further collection of information about foreign railways, so that, having determined the extent of the merits of these railways for Russia, their best use in our country and the most convenient technical execution - then, without unnecessary sacrifices, we can take advantage of all the benefits of this new method of communication.”

“Now, after consideration and diverse discussion, in our personal presence, of this consideration, recognizing it as a blessing to grant our fatherland a message, the organization of which, although associated with significant expenses, promises the state many different benefits and to unite both capitals, as it were, together. We decided to build a railway from St. Petersburg to Moscow, and, following the example of other powers, to build it at the expense of the treasury, in order to keep it permanently in the hands of the government and for the benefit of the general communication, which is so important for the entire industrial and active life of the state.”

Thus, the construction of the primary highway St. Petersburg - Moscow, and, moreover, at the expense of the treasury, was an act of the autocratic will of Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich, who in this case, as in most of his other undertakings, insisted that the initiative in the implementation of such a capital enterprise the government took over. This course of action was completely consistent with the general spirit of the entire internal policy of the state - a policy primarily of government centralization. It is necessary, however, to note that the railway policy of Emperor Nicholas I in this regard was alien to any biased view: while entrusting the government with the obligation to set an example in the construction of one of the most important rail communications for Russia, the sovereign, at the same time, did not at all show himself to be an unconditional opponent private initiative in railway construction; on the contrary, all subsequent proposals of private entrepreneurs for the construction of certain rail tracks were always subject to detailed consideration by government bodies, and the emperor himself showed an undoubted interest in this kind of matter.

To manage the construction of the railway, a special Committee was formed under the chairmanship of the heir to the throne, the future Emperor Alexander II, which received the name “Committee for the Construction of the St. Petersburg-Moscow Railway” and under it a construction commission chaired by Adjutant General Count A.Kh. Benckendorf.

The engineering and technical staff dealt exclusively with technical management issues.

Come on, driver, slowly start...

On September 15, 1830, the world's first railway with stations and regular passenger train service was opened in England. The double-track railway connecting Manchester and Liverpool was 56 kilometers long and was powered by eight locomotives designed by George Stephenson. At the same time, what’s interesting is that all the locomotives were different.

The opening celebration of the road was slightly overshadowed by the death of 60-year-old parliamentarian William Huskisson, who was invited as a guest of honor. For some reason, Huskisson decided to run across the road in front of a moving train and fell under the wheels, becoming the first victim of a mechanical vehicle.

However, the British were not afraid to ride the rails, and in the first three months almost 72 thousand people rode the trains, and the net income of the railway company amounted to 14 and a half thousand pounds. Such financial success prompted many entrepreneurs to invest in the construction of steam locomotives, carriages and rail tracks. The "railway boom" began in England.

When building the road, it was necessary to make a deep excavation in the Age Hill mountain range. This engraving shows the first train passing through it.

Another major obstacle was a seven-kilometre stretch of shifting Chet Moss peat bogs. To lay the rail track, a long dam had to be poured over them.

Liverpool Station, drawing 1831. Just behind the station the railway goes into a tunnel.

Locomotive and carriages of the first railway. The lower ones, as you might guess, were used for transporting domestic animals. Please note that carriage number 4 is a regular carriage on a platform.

The original carriages have not survived, but several very accurate and high-quality copies are on display in English museums.

The earliest steam locomotive to run on the Liverpool-Manchester Road was built in 1827 and was called the Lancaster Witch. All that was left of him were drawings and drawings.

A partially dissected model of Stephenson's most famous steam locomotive, the 1929 Rocket, on display at the British Railway Museum. This locomotive also ran between Liverpool and Manchester. In a niche in the background is a statue of the founder of railway transport.

And this is a working replica of the "Rocket".

In 1830, Stephenson improved the Raketa, giving the virtually new locomotive the same name (to avoid confusion, it is sometimes called Raketa 2). This locomotive survives today and is on display at the British Engineering Museum, although some parts (such as connecting rods) are missing. Note that the locomotive's drive wheels are wooden.

Based on the model of the second "Rocket", with some changes, in the same 1830 the steam locomotive "Northumbrian" was made.

Drawing of the steam locomotive "Planet" - the most advanced Stephenson locomotive of all built at the time of the opening of the Liverpool-Manchester railway.

A modern running replica of "Planets".

I wonder if we will ever make a working copy of the first Russian steam locomotive of the Cherepanovs, built in 1834? After all, this is one of those things that Russia can be proud of.

Bibliographic description:

Nesterova I.A. Railways in the 19th century [ Electronic resource] // Educational encyclopedia website

Development of railways in the 19th century.

Railway transport occupies a leading place in freight turnover of all types of transport (56.7%) and in passenger turnover (33.7%).

It has a number of advantages, which determined its preferential development in the country. Rail transport is characterized by relatively free accommodation, reliability, regularity, and versatility, regardless of the time of year, day, or weather conditions. It makes it possible to carry out mass transportation of goods and passengers, which strengthens its advantages, increases labor productivity and significantly reduces the cost of transportation. In addition, it allows saving liquid hydrocarbon fuels through widespread electrification. Rail transport is especially effective when transporting long distances, and taking into account huge territory In Russia, in the future, it will remain the leading mode of transport in mass freight transport over long distances and in passenger transport over medium distances and suburban services.

The main cargoes of railway transport are: coal, coke, oil and petroleum products, mineral building materials, ores, agricultural cargo, timber, metals, chemicals and mineral fertilizers, mechanical engineering products, etc.

1. The first railways

The first railways in Russia were built in mid-19th V. In 1837, 12 years after the start of traffic on the world's first public railway Stockton - Darlington in England, the "experimental" railway St. Petersburg - Tsarskoe Selo was opened, and in 1851 the first major railway line Moscow - St. -Petersburg. By the end of the 19th century. Railway transport exceeded the traditional horse-drawn and river transport in terms of freight turnover in Russia, and by 1913 it exceeded the freight turnover of river transport by 6 times.

“October 1837 was ending. On the thirtieth day at 12:30 p.m., the station bell rang twice, the whistle of the Provorny steam locomotive sounded protractedly, and the first train set off on the public railway St. Petersburg - Tsarskoe Selo.”

It was this road that marked the beginning of the construction of a railway network in Russia.

However, in fairness, we note that the first steam railway in Russia appeared back in 1834. It was built by serf craftsmen-nuggets Efim Cherepanov and his son Miron at the Ural Nizhny Tagil Metallurgical Plant. They also built two locomotives for this road. And even earlier, on November 20, 1809, the Tsar’s Manifesto was issued, which said: “The spread of agriculture and industry, the growing population of the capital and the movement of domestic and foreign trade already exceed the measure of previous routes of communication.”

The railways were built according to engineeringly sound parameters that, along with economic feasibility, provided the required throughput taking into account the future. Optimal slopes, curve radii and other characteristics were selected. The subgrade was erected under two tracks at once. For the first time, wide-solid iron rails began to be laid. At Melnikov's insistence, the gauge was set to 5 feet or 1524 millimeters. It has become standard for all Russian roads.

To overcome water barriers, builders had to build 8 large and 182 medium and small bridges. 34 stations were built on the road. Two large stations were built in Moscow and St. Petersburg according to the designs of the famous architect K.A. Tones. To this day they delight the eye with the perfection of their forms. On November 1, 1851, the longest double-track railway was opened, and a train departed from St. Petersburg to Moscow at 11:15 a.m. He was on the road for 21 hours and 45 minutes and arrived in Moscow the next day at 9 am.

The first Russian railway, which today is part of the Oktyabrskaya Railway, began to operate. Trains traveled along it, driven by steam locomotives built at the Alexander Plant in St. Petersburg. Transport volumes grew rapidly. Already in 1852, the road transported 719 thousand passengers and 164 thousand tons of cargo. The distance from St. Petersburg to Moscow is 650 kilometers; the fast train covered it in 12 hours.

2. The state of railways in the 19th century.

The main framework of the Russian railway network was formed in the second half of the 19th – early 20th centuries. Railways were built primarily to ensure transport and economic connections between the Center and the country's main raw material and food bases, as well as seaports, which determined their radial configuration.

Transport connections of the Center provided roads in the following directions:

Until the mid-19th century, all transportation in Russia was carried out by water and horse-drawn transport. Rivers were the main transport arteries of the country. Many river basins were connected by canals (Mariinskaya, Tikhvinskaya, Berezinsky, Avgustovsky, Dneprobugsky canals). The Volga was especially important, connecting the most developed and populated regions of Russia. Foreign trade relations were carried out by sea transport.

The first railways in Russia appeared at the mining factories of Altai and the Urals at the beginning of the 19th century. In 1810, at the Kolyvan plant in Altai, Pyotr Frolov laid a two-kilometer-long horse-drawn railway. In 1834, serf mechanics Efim and Miron Cherepanov built a steam-powered railway at the Nizhny Tagil plant. The first public railway in Russia was the Tsarskoe Selo railway, 26 km long, connecting St. Petersburg with Tsarskoe Selo and Pavlovsk since 1387.

During the first period of railway construction in Russia, roads were built, first of all, to ensure the strategic interests of the Russian Empire and the interests of public administration. In 1843-1851, the largest railways in Europe, St. Petersburg - Moscow and St. Petersburg - Pskov - Warsaw - Vienna, were built, connecting main center trade and industry of the country, the Moscow region with the St. Petersburg seaport, and the capital St. Petersburg region with the railway network of Western Europe.

During the second period of construction (mid-60s - 80s of the 19th century), connections between Moscow with its raw materials and food bases and the main grain-producing regions of Russia with sea ports were ensured. The Moscow-Nizhny Novgorod railway connected Moscow with the main river highway, the Volga, and through it with more remote regions of Russia. The lines Moscow - Ryazan - Voronezh - Zverovo, Kozlov - Tambov - Saratov, Moscow - Tula - Orel - Kursk - Kharkov, then extended to Sevastopol, Rostov-on-Don and Vladikavkaz, connected the old capital of Russia with the Black Earth center, Ukraine, Donbass, Volga region and North Caucasus. In the second period of construction, the foundations of the railway network of the European part of Russia were laid, reminiscent of a web emanating from one center - Moscow. An important achievement of this period was the access of railways to the Volga, Baltic and Black Seas. By the beginning of the 90s of the 19th century, the Russian railway network was about 30 thousand km.

Specialization Central Asia on cotton demanded the delivery of large quantities of bread here. In this regard, the Transcaspian road was built to Tashkent and Andijan. In 1906, this road was connected to Orenburg, thereby establishing a direct connection between Central Asia and the railway network.

During the First World War, the lines Novosibirsk - Barnaul - Semipalatinsk and Pletaevo - Troitsk - Kustanai were built for export from the interior regions of Siberia. To provide connections with foreign countries to bypass the Baltic Sea, the exits from which were blocked by Germany, the Volkhov-Petrozavodsk-Murmansk road was urgently built.

The biggest drawback of Russian railways was technical inferiority, as well as the capacity of trains and high prices for transportation. However, in 1913 the cargo turnover was greater river transport 6 times

Center - West: Moscow - Smolensk - Minsk - Brest (1871); Moscow – Rzhev – Velikiye Luki – Ventspils;

Center – North; Moscow - Yaroslavl - Vologda (1872), continued in 1898 to Arkhangelsk; the road through St. Petersburg built during the First World War: Volkhov - Petrozavodsk - Murmansk;

Center - South: Moscow - Ryazan - Kozlov (Michurinets - Voronezh - Rostov-on-Don - Vladikavkaz (1875) with a branch from Kozlov to Tambov - Saratov (1871), continued in 1894. From Vladikavkaz to Petrovsk (Makhachkala) and Baku (which provided the first transport access to Transcaucasia); Moscow - Tula - Orel - Kursk - Kharkov - Sevastopol (1875) with a branch from Kursk to Kyiv (1869);

Center - East: Moscow - Nizhny Novgorod (1862); Moscow - Syzran - Samara - Orenburg (1877)) with a branch from the station. Kinel to Ufa - Chelyabinsk (1892) - Yekaterinburg (1896).

Separate railways were built to provide export supplies grains through sea ​​ports Baltic and Black Sea basins and had a chordal orientation, for example, the Rigo-Orlovskaya road: Tsaritsyn (Volgograd) - Orel - Smolensk - Vitebsk. Riga (1871).

In 1878, railway construction began in the Urals, where the Gornozavodskaya road Perm - Nizhny Tagil - Yekaterinburg connected the main metallurgical plants with the Volga-Kama by water. In 1885 it was continued to Tyumen.

For reliable transport links between the Urals and North-West Russia, the Perm – Vyatka (Kirov) – Vologda – St. Petersburg latitudinal railway was built in 1903. Special significance for the formation of a unified railway network in Russia, the settlement and development of the south of Siberia and the Far East, the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway began simultaneously in 1892 from the west of Chelyabinsk through Novonikolaevsk (Novosibirsk) - Krasnoyarsk - Irkutsk (1899) and from the east of Vladivostok to Khabarovsk (1897 ), Through communication across the territory of Russia was opened on it in 1916 after the completion of the construction of the Amur Railway from Transbaikalia to Khabarovsk.

The Tyumen-Omsk line, built in 1913, provided a second exit (via Yekaterinburg) from Siberia to the European part of Russia. Transport access to Central Asia via the Trans-Caspian Railway was provided by the Orenburg – Tashkent highway (1906).

3. Railway reforms in the 19th century

Until the 1880s Russian government actually adhered to the principle of non-interference in setting tariffs on railways. The Russian railway network, which by 1889 had a length of 27,458 versts, belonged to 42 joint-stock companies, which owned 20,988 versts (76.4%) and the state, which owned 6,470 versts (23.6%). Private railway companies enjoyed almost complete independence regarding tariffs for the transportation of goods and passengers. Freedom in this area was mainly limited by the so-called marginal (maximum) tariffs, i.e. the highest limits of payment per pound and verst established by the government.

The system of maximum tariffs was widespread in European countries and in 1857, the “Regulations on the Basic Conditions for the Construction of the First Railway Network” was introduced in Russia. According to the "Regulations", the following maximum standards for the transportation of goods were established:

For goods of the 1st category (iron and lead in use, copper, cast iron,

vinegar, wine, paper yarn, woolen products, wood, sugar, coffee, tea, spices, porcelain, earthenware, furs, mirrors, etc.) – 1/12 kopecks. with Pudo-

For category 2 goods (ores, charcoal, raw leather, cotton paper, resin, cast iron not in use, marble in pieces, strip and sheet iron, etc.) – 1/18 kopecks. from a mile away.

For category 3 goods (bread, flour, salt, lime, gypsum, sand, clay,

brick, etc.) – 1/24 kop. from a mile away. At the same time, the assignment of goods to one or another category, as well as the creation of an unlimited number of intermediate and additional categories, was in complete dependence at the discretion of individual railway companies.

The above tariff applied to the transportation of goods at low speed over a distance of less than 200 versts and was reduced by 10% - at a distance from 200 to 500 versts, by 15% - from 500 to 1000 versts, by 20% - over 1000 versts. The percentage reduction did not apply to the entire distance traveled by the cargo, but only to the distance traveled on each road separately. For high-speed transportation, a uniform tariff of 1/6 kopeck was established. from a mile away.

With the development of the railway network in Russia, in addition to the higher limits of freight charges, a number of conditions regulating the tariff issue were introduced into the charters of railway companies. In 1868, a rule was included in the charter of the Oryol-Gryazskaya Railway, according to which the government could require the railway company to lower marginal tariffs if the net income on shares reached 15%. This rule, with a few exceptions, was included in the charters of all railway companies, and for some of them the rate of return was reduced to 10% and 8% (Lodz, Putilov, South-Western, Moscow-Brest railways). It should be noted that this condition was actually nominal. None of the railroads in whose charter it was included gave such a percentage of profits to their shareholders. At the same time, many of them demanded additional payments from the government to guarantee shares. Of the same roads, in the charters of which there was a clause on the revision of tariffs and which gave dividends, the latter amounted to only about 5% (South-Western Railways gave 4.6%, Orenburg, Tambovo-Kozlovskaya - 4.97%, Rostov-Vladikavkaz –

5%, Kozlovo-Voronezh-Rostov - 5.18%). (See: 4) In 1876, the charters of the railways (Donetsk railway, later Kharkov-Nikolaev, Novgorod) were supplemented by another rule, which read: " after the first 5 years of operation, and then after each subsequent 5 years, the government, if deemed necessary, revises the tariff fee and establishes, if necessary, a new limit for this fee, according to the changed circumstances.” As time has shown, this rule it practically didn't matter. So, the independence of railway companies in setting tariffs was almost unlimited. In his “Memoirs”, Minister of Finance S.Yu. Witte wrote about this: “...private societies were completely free to establish certain tariffs and were constrained only by the fact that the charters indicated the highest tariff norms... Therefore, there was complete chaos in the tariffs...”.

At the same time, with the development of the rail network and the emergence of competition, railways began to apply lower tariff rates in order to attract more cargo. Thus, on the railways studied by the Moscow subcommittee of the commission for the study of railway business in Russia, the tariffs are below 1/24 kopecks. from a pound and a verst (i.e. below the statutory) in 1878-1879. From 1/2 to 9/10 of all cargo was transported: on Lozovo-Sevastopol - 84%, Moscow-Yaroslavl - 77%, Moscow-Kursk - 68%, Yaroslavl-Vologda - 52%, etc. (see: 18 ) On the South Western Railways in the early 1880s. at reduced rates, reaching up to 1/80 kopecks. from a pound and a verst and below, about 2/3 of the cargo was transported. Reduced tariffs were also applied on other roads.

Thus, maximum tariffs, in fact, were not an effective means of state regulation of the activities of private railway companies. In this regard, the Commission of Count E.T. Baranov Commission of Count E.T. Baranova was created in 1876 to identify shortcomings and their causes in the construction and operation of railways) indicated that maximum tariffs are important only for the transportation of passengers, luggage, high-speed goods and 1st category low-speed goods. For these types of transportation, railroads charge a maximum rate. If such a tariff had not been established by the charter, then, in the opinion of the commission, the actual freight charge would have been even higher. As for other low-speed goods, for them marginal tariffs have lost all meaning. Railways, based on their own benefit, cannot raise freight charges to the levels allowed by the charters.

As the prominent pre-revolutionary economist A. Chuprov points out, the most powerful competitor for the railways was the Volga. As for the rest waterways– Western Dvina, Dnieper, Oka with its tributaries, here the railways almost completely supplanted their rival.

Competition for the railroads was greatly facilitated by the ability to impose all losses due to excessive reductions in tariffs on the state, which guaranteed the shares and bonds of railway companies. According to the above-mentioned Baranov Commission, by the beginning of the 80s. Of the 37 railway companies, only five did not require additional payments on account of the government guarantee. Thus, the tariffs of Russian railways were influenced by the following basic conditions:

Fragmentation of the railway network between numerous

railway companies;

Almost complete non-interference of the state in the tariff issue;

The existence of competition between individual railways, groups of railways, as well as railways and water transport.

The consequences of this state of affairs were extremely negative. The huge losses that arose as a result of rivalry between railways were covered by the state. The government's payments for the guarantees granted to them were:

in 1868 - 4219.831 thousand rubles;

1869 – 5378.411 thousand rubles;

1870 - 9729.306 thousand rubles;

1871 – 12869.083 thousand rubles;

1872 – 15447.071 thousand rubles.

By the mid-80s. the amount of state surcharges to railway companies for guaranteeing shares and bonds reached more than 50 million rubles. per year. In addition, the state suffered losses due to the failure of unprofitable railroads to fulfill obligations related to reimbursement to the treasury of payments on shares and bonds left by it. The fact is that the government retained part of the securities of private railway companies. At the same time, the companies were obliged to pay interest due to the treasury from their income and repay the cost of securities. By the beginning of the 80s. the total debt of railway companies to the government due to failure to fulfill these obligations reached more than 123 million metal rubles and 5 million credit rubles. million credit rubles

It should be noted that the problem of unprofitability of Russian railways was constantly in the center of attention of the government. Thus, in his note “On measures to improve financial and economic situation state" presented to Alexander II in September 1866. Minister of Finance M.H. Reitern pointed out: "Roads are Swiss, Spanish, most Italian, many Austrian ones turned out to be positively ruinous for their shareholders and, if the same cannot be said about some Russian roads, it was precisely because the government provided these companies with huge benefits that were burdensome for the treasury." In 1881, speaking at a meeting of the Committee of Ministers, the Minister finance A.A. Abaza stated: “...freeing the state treasury from those enormous expenses that are caused by annual surcharges under the guarantee...is a matter of paramount importance.” (see: 19) N.Kh. Bunge, being a comrade of the Minister in 1880 finance, in his note to Alexander II “On the financial situation of Russia” also touched on this problem: “... it is necessary to regulate the financial side of the railway sector. It is impossible to allow the railways to constantly run their business at the expense of the State Treasury, so that the treasury... for all expenses assumes a guarantee of interest and repayment, and then the losses that arise from it." Who replaced N.H. Bunge as Minister of Finance, I. A. Vyshnegradsky in a note Alexander III"On Changes in Financial Management" in 1886 pointed out the need " correct setting tariff affairs on our railways," which will make it possible to "significantly reduce the state's surcharges on their guarantees."

Railways set reduced tariff rates for direct message and reduced tariffs (refactions) for some senders to the detriment of others. At the same time, large cargo suppliers received advantages. For example, the Board of the Moscow-Kursk Railway applied a reduced tariff in favor of large coal shippers. The board announced that if one company transports at least 1 million poods of coal during the year, then the fee from it instead of 1/60 kop. will be taken in the amount of 1/70 kopecks. from miles and miles

Railway tariffs were unstable over time, and often changed tariff rates came into force before the deadline set by the railway. In addition, information about changes in tariffs was not always published. This shortcoming of railway tariffs was indicated by numerous complaints from shippers.

A serious lack of freedom in establishing railway tariffs was also the fact that “railway tariffs paralyzed government measures tending to protect the interests of the state and national economy.” The fact is that since the second half of the 70s. 19th century The export of goods from Russia exceeded their import, as a result of which the capacity of railways in the directions opposite from border points to inland points remained underutilized. Therefore, railway companies, competing with each other and trying to attract cargo to these directions, lowered tariffs for imported goods. As a result, the import of foreign goods was carried out at lower tariff rates compared to the domestic tariffs in force on the same railways. For example, the fee for transporting foreign cement from the Baltic ports (Riga, Libau, Revel) to Moscow in 1882 was 18 kopecks. per pound, and the cost of transporting Russian cement from Riga to Moscow is 21 kopecks. from the pood.

Thus, freedom in the field of railway tariffs had negative consequences both for the state treasury and for the development of commercial and industrial activities in the country. This prompted the government in the late 1880s. abandon the principle of non-interference in setting tariffs for railway transportation.

Conclusions

To date, several projects have been developed in our country to reform the railway transport system. According to the government reform concept, it is planned to develop competition in the field of railway transportation. Freight companies must be created here to compete with each other. At the same time, as competition develops, it is planned to liberalize railway tariffs. According to reformers, this will lead to a significant reduction in tariff rates for freight and passenger transportation. However, as historical experience shows, such a policy is fraught with a number of negative consequences.

Literature

1. A. L. Lisitsyn Railway transport of Russia: from the 20th to the 21st century Vestn. All-Russian scientific research Institute of Railways transport.. 2001. N 1. – P. 3-16.

2. Pavlov V.P. Railway statistics //Railway transport. Ed. "Transport". M., 1995. No. 7. p.48.

3. History Russia XIX century" V.G. Tyukavkin Moscow, "VLADOS" 2001

4. "Russia in the world community of civilizations." Textbook for universities. L. I. Semennikova Bryansk, "Cursive" 1995

5. “Lecture course on Russian history” Klyuchevsky V. O. Moscow, VZT. 1993

6. "Lecture course on XIX history c." Kornilov A. A. Moscow 1993