Discussion of the Routes of the Future Trans-Siberian Railway in Russian Scientific and Technical Societies in the 1870s - early 1890s.

Shilnikova Irina PhD in History Associate Professor, Department of Social and Economic History of Russia, Institute for Social Sciences, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration 82 Vernadsky Avenue, Moscow, 119571, Russia, Moscow region shilnikova.i@gmail.com Other publications by this author

The stage of practical actions for the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway was preceded by a rather long period of discussion of various issues related to the possibilities and methods of implementing this grandiose project. In addition to government circles, members of business organizations and scientific societies participated in the discussions. Russian Russian Geographical Society (RGS) and the Imperial Russian Technical Society (RTO) are primarily concerned with the latter. The range of issues discussed was quite wide, and close attention was drawn to the problems of the condition and operation of waterways in Siberia and European Russia in the context of the construction of the Siberian Railway, as well as the choice of places where the projected highway was to cross large rivers. Consideration and analysis of the course and results of these discussions in these scientific societies of the Russian Empire, as well as their significance for determining the route of the future Trans-Siberian Railway are priorities in this article.

There are a significant number of publications in historiography devoted to various stages of discussion of the direction and route of the transcontinental railway planned for construction, including generalizing works ^{[1, 2, 3, 4]}, articles in journals ^{[5, 6, 7, 8]} and collections with conference materials ^{[9, 10]}. However, they poorly reflect the theme of water routes and obstacles in the context of the implementation of this infrastructure project of the Russian Empire. In addition, to a greater extent, the researchers' eyes were drawn to the course of discussion of these issues in government circles. The article by M.E. Mitina ^[11] is devoted directly to the participation of the Imperial Russian Geographical Society in solving various issues of railway construction in the 1860s - 1880s, however, when mentioning the Trans–Siberian Railway, the author refers the reader to the doctoral dissertation of V.F. Borzunov (Borzunov V.F. The history of the Trans-Siberian Railway of the XIX – early XX centuries. Diss. ... doctor of historical sciences. Tomsk, 1972. – 1852 p.) with the caveat that it contains a detailed analysis of the discussions that took place. Indeed, one of the paragraphs of this dissertation research is entirely devoted to discussing the issue of the Siberian Railway in scientific and industrial societies in the 60s - 80s of the XIX century. At the same time, analyzing the course of discussions about the route of the future railway line designed to connect the European and Asian parts of the empire, the author focuses on the clash of economic interests of various groups of entrepreneurs representing certain regional and sectoral business circles. At the same time, the assessments expressed by representatives of the scientific community, members of the RGS and RTO often remain in the shadows, as often happens in later publications, the authors of which also pay more attention to the position of representatives of government and business circles. Meanwhile, the analysis of potentially possible directions and specific routes for laying railway lines to Siberia took place at meetings of the RGS and RTO specially devoted to these problems in the 1870s - early 1890s, and one of the most pressing topics just concerned the state and possible use of water resources at the stage of construction of the highway, as well as the choice of places for crossing large and small rivers. The basis of the source base of the study was the published verbatim reports and other materials of the meetings of the RGS and RTO.

On January 28 and 31, 1870, two meetings of the Statistics Department of the Russian Geographical Society "on the direction of the Ural-Siberian Railway" were held with the participation of both members of the society and invited guests. During the speeches, different points of view on the route of the future Transsib were revealed. All the opinions expressed can be grouped into two main groups. Some of the participants in the discussion were in favor of the "southern" option, while others were in favor of the "northern" one. Summing up all the opinions expressed, it can be concluded that when implementing the northern option, the Siberian Railway should have started from the territory of either Yaroslavl (Yaroslavl, Rybinsk) or Kostroma (Kineshma) province. Then the route followed through Kostroma, Vyatka, Perm. During the construction of the southern route, the railway was supposed to go from Nizhny Novgorod to Kazan, cross the Volga and Kama (the latter near the mouth), then move to Siberia through Yekaterinburg. This southern version of the route allowed two options, since a number of participants in the discussion considered it more logical to lead the road "along the meadow bank of the Volga", others – "along the mountainous coast" ^{[13, p. 83]}.

The issue of waterways was discussed at these two meetings of the RGS in connection with discussions about where the Siberian Railway should cross the Volga and Kama. Many argued in favor of the fact that these intersection points should be located as upstream as possible, where the river is narrower, which means that from a technical and financial point of view, this option looked preferable. But there were also supporters of choosing places for crossing rivers based solely on economic interests, even if it is necessary to look for technically complex solutions and additional financing. For crossing the Volga, such crossing points as Yaroslavl, Rybinsk, Kineshma, Nizhny Novgorod, Kazan were considered. One of the options suggested starting the road in Nizhny Novgorod, then leading it "along the upland side of the Volga", crossing it "at its confluence with the Kama", i.e. near Spassk or Tetyush. Here, as the participants of the meeting noted, was located "the most important node of all waterways of eastern Russia" ^{[13, pp. 24-25]}. Therefore, this option should have been implemented even if technical difficulties were identified and, as a result, the cost of the project increased. After crossing the Volga, the supporters of this route proposed to lead the highway to Bugulma and Birsk, which allowed, from their point of view, to avoid competition between the railway and waterways. Opponents of this option suggested crossing the Volga near Kazan (most supported the Sviyazhsk option), and then the Kama River – near Chistopol. From the point of view of taking into account economic interests, many considered this option as optimal ^{[13, p. 27]}. In addition, some participants in the discussion cited arguments criticizing the "Perm" option, considering that the crossing of the Volga on the territory of the Spassky and Tetyushinsky counties, i.e. below the confluence of the Kama, is practically impossible, since starting from the confluence of the Kama, the right bank of the Volga at a distance of almost 30 versts goes very steeply, its height above the river level is about 50 fathoms, and in some places even more. Therefore, the construction of a bridge here will cost twice as much and technically much more difficult ^{[13, p. 27]}.

For crossing the Kama River, such options as Perm, Osa, Sarapul, Laishev and other points were discussed. As the advantages of Perm in this regard, the speakers of the RGO and invited panelists (guests) noted its location on the straight line between Tyumen and Vyatka, which was just convenient for the northern version of the route of the Siberian Railway. At this point, the Kama was not very wide. In addition, it was noted that opposite the Perm cannon factories "there is a large island [...] that reduces the cost of building a bridge, and Chusovaya flows nearby, which can serve as a convenient harbor for ships that go along Chusovaya." In addition, there were many backwaters near Perm that were convenient for "wintering steamships" ^{[13, p. 8]}.

The waterways were also given attention when discussing whether the Siberian Road should pass through Tyumen. Supporters of this option spoke about the importance of connecting the Ob and Kama water systems. From their point of view, this choice was supposed to ensure optimal interconnection of railways and waterways for cargo transportation, since Tyumen was "the northernmost point available for shipping", and this makes it possible to shorten waterways suitable for the future railway. Opponents of the "Tyumen" variant emphasized that "steamship traffic in Western Siberia does not play such a big role in Siberia as in European Russia," since the bulk of the population of Siberia lives far from rivers, and the latter are practically not used for passenger transportation. In addition, the cargo going through the Ob and Irtysh systems is "less than the cargo that goes through Siberia in winter", due to the shortness of the navigation period ^{[13, pp. 57-58, 66]}. A well-known Russian economist and statistician, awarded in 1865 the Order of St. Vladimir 3rd degree, it was for his work on the line of the Russian Geographical Society, V.P. Bezobrazov focused on the fact that it would be difficult to continue the road beyond Tyumen, because further to Tomsk there are "completely deserted tundras". And in this case it will be necessary to build another railway to connect the Ob system and the Yenisei ^{[13, p. 75]}. Supporters of access to Tyumen countered their opponents by offering the option of continuing the highway from Tyumen to the village of Artamonova, and in addition to this, to build another section of the railway from the village of Desolate on the Irtysh to Kolyvan on the Ob. However, it is difficult to call this mixed route option from a commercial point of view wealthy. It is no coincidence that these proposals were met with rather harsh criticism and were not implemented.

The discussion on the possible directions of the future Trans-Siberian Railway, which took place in the RGS at the end of January 1870, certainly could not put an end to this issue. However, already at this time, the main possible options for the route of the railway are gradually being formed, taking into account, first of all, economic interests, financial opportunities and, to a lesser extent, technical difficulties. Moreover, already at this stage, among the most discussed proposals are those that were later implemented.

In the 1889-1890s, the Imperial Russian Technical Society raised various issues of the condition and use of waterways in the Siberian region during the work of a special commission chaired by the head of the VIII Railway Department of the Russian Technical Society A.N. Gorchakov, established on May 23, 1888 to discuss problems related to the construction of the Siberian Railway. Three sub - commissions were formed in its composition: 1) on the direction of the railway under the chairmanship of M.N. Gersevanov, 2) on the technical conditions of construction headed by M.N. Annenkov, 3) on conducting direct reconnaissance work under the chairmanship of I.I. Stebnitsky ^{[14, p. 3]}. The main work of all three sub-commissions was carried out from the end of March to the end of April 1889, after which all the results and conclusions were submitted to the Commission. The latter, however, provided the final conclusions to the RTO Council only a year and a half later.

The reason for this delay was the ongoing discussions in the RTO on key issues of the construction of the highway. In particular, there were still disputes between supporters of the northern, southern and intermediate directions of construction. The routes of the first two were not significantly revised compared to the 1870s. The mixed version, which assumed the largest length of the Siberian Railway, provided for the beginning of construction from Zlatoust to Chelyabinsk, which coincided with the northern direction, then the highway was to turn around to Troitsk, Kustanai, Akmolinsk, Semipalatinsk, Biysk, Kuznetsk (which coincided with the route of the southern direction), after which in Nizhneudinsk it again went to the north route. However, the authors of the mixed direction project did not receive support during the discussion in the RTO Commission and were the only ones who voted for it ^{[14, p. 7]}. Only two participants in the voting held on November 3, 1890, spoke in support of the southern direction, the remaining 24 members of the Commission voted in support of the northern direction ^{[14, p. 6]}. Thus, the Commission advocated the immediate start of the construction of the Siberian Railway from Irkutsk, further along the southern shore of Lake Baikal to the upper reaches of the Amur. One of the weighty arguments in favor of the northern route, in addition to the economic interests of both European Russia and Siberia, was that this territory was better surveyed. The choice of the southern option would require longer surveys and additional funding, which could postpone the start of construction indefinitely.

During the discussion on the direction of the highway, a common opinion was developed to make a petition to the Government on the need to conduct a "complete geographical study of the southern Siberian region", i.e. not to limit research for the purpose of railway construction, but to organize topographic, geological, climatic and other studies with the involvement of the right specialists and with the participation of various departments ^{[14, p. 9]}. In addition, a proposal was made to carry out survey work in Siberia under a single program that would combine the efforts of various departments, which would reduce costs and increase the effectiveness of these works. The members of the Commission also insisted on the need to publish the results of these surveys in order to make them available to the general public. As an example of the successful implementation of the comprehensive survey of territories program, the Commission participants proposed using the American experience of terrain exploration in order to lay a railway from the Mississippi to the Pacific Ocean ^{[14, p. 11]}. In the course of such comprehensive surveys of Siberian territories, it was proposed to collect information about the rivers of Siberia.

In the context of discussing various issues related to the construction of the Siberian Railway in the Commission (and sub-commissions) formed in 1888 Much attention was paid to water transport routes, and it was noted that their role may be different. Firstly, rivers were considered only as routes for the transportation of materials and other goods during the construction of the highway. Secondly, they could play the role of "nutrient" routes that ensure the transportation of goods to and from railway stations during the operation of the railway. Thirdly, since at first the possibility of building a highway "with interruptions and reversals" was considered, then when implementing this option, rivers were included in the composition of a mixed "water-rail" communication. Fourth, much attention was paid to the choice of points where the Siberian Railway was to cross rivers, i.e., the sites for the construction of crossings and bridges were chosen ^{[15, p.1]}. Next, let's see what opinions were expressed on each of the four positions listed, and what decisions were included in the final conclusions of the Commission.

The above-mentioned subcommissions have repeatedly raised the question of how seriously water routes should be considered as an alternative way of delivering local goods through Siberia in comparison with the projected railway. As a result, no consensus was formed, but most allowed the emergence of competition between rivers and the railway only on certain sections of the track. In general, the Siberian rivers "pouring into the Arctic Ocean and into the inhospitable Sea of Okhotsk" were recognized as not dangerous for the "railway crossing them" ^{[15, p.1]}.

On May 31, 1889, a meeting of the members of the RTO was held under the chairmanship of A.N. Gorchakov, fully devoted to the state of the Siberian rivers, including in the context of the upcoming railway construction. The main speaker at this meeting was the railway engineer S.M. Zhitkov, who presented the available information about the Siberian rivers and possible ways to improve navigation along them, taking into account the possibilities of using waterways during the construction and operation of the future railway. He focused on the possibilities of connecting Siberian rivers with each other. So, he focused on the project of the Ob-Yenisei Canal, the construction of which was just taking place at that time. S.M. Zhitkov emphasized the importance of the Ob-Yenisei Way for the delivery of goods (cement, rails, rolling stock) to Irkutsk, especially if it was decided to start the construction of the Siberian Railway in separate sections. The project of the canal connecting the Ob and Yenisei river systems also assumed the improvement of navigation conditions along the Angara, which was considered as a continuation of the Ob-Yenisei Way. Therefore, Irkutsk and Tyumen were to eventually become the final points of this route. In 1887, "research was started to draft the improvement of the Angara River in the rapids" in order to implement a normal tour shipping on this river. S.M. Zhitkov during the report focused on the fact that "obstacles to navigation on the Angara are not so much in the rapids and steep crossings in the rapids, which can be easily overcome tuerom, how much in the ease and narrowness of the course and in the abundance of pitfalls scattered on the ples" ^{[16, p. 6]}. In this regard, the speaker made a proposal, which was later supported by some of those present at the meeting, to use a different type of vessels for moving around the Hangar, in particular, "to replace large, deep-seated steamers with strong engines with steamers of lesser strength, but with as little draft and hull as possible" ^{[16, p. 7]}. As a result, the Ob-Yenisei Canal, provided that the conditions of navigation along the Angara were improved, "would link the route from Irkutsk to St. Petersburg into one continuous water connection" ^{[16, p. 9]}.

One of the issues that S.M. Zhitkov paid attention to was the need to connect the Ob and Volga basins by water. He was convinced that this would not reduce the importance of either the Ural Railway or the future Trans-Siberian Railway. The waterway, from his point of view, will be especially important for the long-distance transportation of timber needed for the production of sleepers in railway construction. As one of the tasks, S.M. Zhitkov put forward the idea of joining the Amur River water routes to this system, which would make it possible to build a "continuous waterway" from the Baltic Sea to the Pacific Ocean. To implement this task, it was necessary to conduct "reconnaissance to determine the junction of the tributaries of the Amur River with other rivers of Siberia." At the end of his speech, S.M. Zhitkov once again stressed the importance of "improving" the waterways of Siberia, taking into account the future railway construction, since waterways are able to "expand the area of operation of the highway", increase the number of goods sent to it, and also provide a more convenient sale of transported goods ^{[16, pp. 10-11]}.

During the exchange of views after the completion of S.M. Zhitkov's report, the participants of the meeting came to the conclusion that it was possible, thanks to the construction of the Ob-Yenisei Canal, to establish a water connection from the mouth of the Ob and its tributaries to Irkutsk and further to Verkhneudinsk. The second conclusion made during this meeting was that there was no threat (low probability) of noticeable competition between the railway and rivers in the transportation of local goods in the case of parallelism of this waterway and the section from Tomsk to Irkutsk of the northern direction of the railway.

In addition, the Commission discussed the properties of rivers east of Lake Baikal and the possibility of creating a single waterway across Siberia. The majority agreed with the opinion that the state of the rivers makes it possible to implement this plan, and the Bureau of the Commission included the Shilka, Argun and Amur rivers in a mixed water-rail communication route. However, at the preliminary stage it was necessary to find out how suitable the Shilka and Argun rivers are for navigation, and what measures are needed to improve the conditions for passing ships with cargo here. Moreover, the issue of trade with China played a big role here, which is why the majority leaned in favor of Arguni, although the costs of its reconstruction were obviously higher.

Based on the results of the work of the III Sub-Commission, the report of the Bureau of the Commission "On surveys and reconnaissance" was compiled. In one of the paragraphs of the provisions of this report, it was stated that during the surveys in order to determine the route of the Siberian Railway, "information necessary in the future for the construction of a continuous waterway through the whole of Siberia was also collected." At the same time, it was noted that at that time there was almost no accurate information about the Siberian rivers, although they were necessary, firstly, for the transportation of materials and cargo to the railway, and secondly, for the construction of bridges or other ways of crossing these rivers. The authors of the report acknowledged that in most cases, "neither the water horizons nor the conditions of the fall and spring ice passages are unknown, not to mention information about the full regime of the rivers" ^{[17, p. 2]}. But since the observation period should be quite long in order to collect reliable information, and it was necessary to build a railway as soon as possible, the members of the sub-commission proposed, in order to avoid major technical errors (which was accompanied by wasted money), to build temporary structures for the time being, for example, to build ferries instead of bridges on large rivers at first. In this case, the Commission members called for the use of the American experience, where temporary structures at river crossings were not uncommon, and only after time they were replaced by permanent ones. With regard to the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway, the construction of such temporary ferry crossings was considered possible when crossing the Irtysh, Ob, Yenisei and other major rivers.

If at the initial stage of the discussion of the route of the Siberian Railway, the majority opinion was inclined in favor of its construction intermittently (which meant the creation of a water-rail track), then after repeated discussions in the Commission and sub-commissions of the RTO and government circles, as new research works were carried out and more detailed information was obtained, the scales tilted towards construction "continuous" railway. Accordingly, waterways began to be discussed as supply routes at the stage of construction and operation of the new highway, options for the most convenient connection of river and rail routes were proposed.

Discussion of future routes The Trans-Siberian Railway in Russian scientific and technical societies in the 1870s - early 1890s was of an applied nature and was focused on developing practical recommendations in the context of finding the optimal scheme for laying a railway line, taking into account economic, financial and technical capabilities, which should have made it possible to complete the implementation of this large-scale infrastructure project as soon as possible. During the discussions in the RGS and RTO, options for the directions of the Siberian Railway, the intersection of river and other obstacles were proposed, the possibilities of using Siberian rivers for the transportation of necessary materials during construction were evaluated. The results of this work influenced the final choice of the Trans – Siberian route in 1890-1891. In addition, the main directions of further topographic, geological, hydrological and other studies of the territory of Siberia and the Far East were outlined, and the emphasis was placed on a single program of these works, in which it was proposed to include various government departments to improve the effectiveness of expeditions.