Finland "plans to" change to standard gauge

[MoominAndChips]

Finland plans to adjust the gauge of its railroad tracks to the European standard, according to Transport Minister Lulu Ranne (Finns).

The minister issued the announcement at a joint press conference on Tuesday, at an informal meeting of Nordic transport ministers in Helsinki.

According to Ranne, the Finnish government will need to make a decision about changing the gauge by July 2027.

Minister: Finland plans to change its track gauge to European standard

Finland's track gauge is the same as Russia's was in the late 19th and early 20th century— 1,524mm — which is 89mm wider than the European standard.

yle.fi

It was "unreasonable" in 2022, and "too costly" in 2023.... but a lot's changed since then.

I can't even begin to wrap my brain around the logistics of it all - especially the likes of the sleeper trains up to Rovaniemi, complete with car carriers.

 

[nwales58]

I have no inside knowledge, but in the new world you might get a defence budget to part-fund it (in the old TEN-T decision making implausible justifications happened).

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

Interesting - the focus seems to be initially on everything north of Oulu to get military supplies in and minerals out. It would mean the end of overnight services to the far north - unless Talgo can supply something suitable!

One snag with Russian (unlike Iberian) gauge is that you can't have dual-gauge track (unless it is gauntleted) to help during any transition period. I hope this move isn't going to be an excuse to close some lesser used lines.

 

[Snow1964]

One snag with Russian (unlike Iberian) gauge is that you can't have dual-gauge track (unless it is gauntleted) to help during any transition period. I hope this move isn't going to be an excuse to close some lesser used lines.

Some lines in the North and East have been closed over the years, although some of these lines ran to what is now Russia.

Of course the Russian border changed in 1940s with Karelia, Vyborg etc being taken over by Russia.

With the gauge difference of just 89mm, I wonder if it is possible to have some sort of double rail or U shaped rail with 2 heads on one side, with standard rail the other side. Thinking about it where check rails are fitted, they are positioned roughly that distance apart.

 

[RailExplorer]

This is absolutely crazy talk from a country that is financially struggling!

It would be far cheaper to build a standard gauge link from the Swedish border to where ever you want to in Finland than to start re-adjusting every single piece of track in Finland (the population density up in Lapland is tiny so a new track alignment shouldn't be much of an issue). The Finn's do come up with some nonsense sometimes (and I can say that being a Finn myself).

Russia won't stay an enemy forever (and there's far more potential for traffic across that border) then the Swedish/Finnish border in Lapland.

Instead of wasting billions on this rubbish, open up some new rail links in the country instead. They have a track guage. Just stick with it.

 

[stadler]

Minister: Finland plans to change its track gauge to European standard

Finland's track gauge is the same as Russia's was in the late 19th and early 20th century— 1,524mm — which is 89mm wider than the European standard.

yle.fi

It was "unreasonable" in 2022, and "too costly" in 2023.... but a lot's changed since then.

I can't even begin to wrap my brain around the logistics of it all - especially the likes of the sleeper trains up to Rovaniemi, complete with car carriers.

This is absolutely bonkers. The only benefit is that direct trains from Finland to Sweden will able to run. So perhaps eventually there will be a direct Helsinki to Stockholm service. But it is only one line crossing the border and services around that border area are very infrequent. Passengers can easily change trains at Haparanda or Tornio stations. Surely money would be better spent on improving services and connections at these stations. It feels like this is being done entirely fof political reasons because they do not want want to use the same gauge that Russia uses and want to have more in common with Western European railways. It is utter waste of money. This will end up costing billions when you consider the thousands of miles of track to replace and the thousands of new trains they will have to buy or spend money on regauging them. Plus it will end up causing months or even years of disruptions to passengers and endless rail replacement buses. It is an utterly bonkers plan.

 

[daodao]

I suspect that the plan to change the Finnish railways' gauge is "political" in origin and is driven by the EU. The EU is promoting and supporting financially the new "high speed" Rail Baltica line from the Polish-Lithuanian border to Tallinn, which is being built to the British/Western European standard gauge of 4 ft 8.5 in, although most other existing railway lines in all 4 Baltic states use the Russian/Eastern European standard gauge of 1.524 m. There is an aspiration to connect this line to Helsinki via a tunnel under the Gulf of Finland.

As in other countries where gauge conversion has been carried out, such as Bosnia-Hercegovina, I suspect that the network would be pruned severely, as the cost of converting lightly used lines to the new gauge would not be deemed worthwhile.

 

[sefyllian]

This is absolutely bonkers. The only benefit is that direct trains from Finland to Sweden will able to run.

The beneft is that it prevents direct trains from Russia to Finland.

One of the reasons Russia has been able to occupy parts of eastern Ukraine so effectively is that they can easily transport troops, weapons and equipment by rail from Russia. The common gauge is what is maintaining those supply lines now – it would be very difficult for Russia to hold those territories without it.

If you’re a neighbour of Russia (who has been invaded by them in the fairly recent past) then it makes perfect sense to consider changing gauge to prevent this. If it provides other benefits such as direct trains to elsewhere in Europe, then even better.

It’s not bonkers to consider ways to make it more difficult for an enemy to invade you, however much it might cost.

 

[stadler]

The beneft is that it prevents direct trains from Russia to Finland.

One of the reasons Russia has been able to occupy parts of eastern Ukraine so effectively is that they can easily transport troops, weapons and equipment by rail from Russia. The common gauge is what is maintaining those supply lines now – it would be very difficult for Russia to hold those territories without it.

If you’re a neighbour of Russia (who has been invaded by them in the fairly recent past) then it makes perfect sense to consider changing gauge to prevent this. If it provides other benefits such as direct trains to elsewhere in Europe, then even better.

It’s not bonkers to consider ways to make it more difficult for an enemy to invade you, however much it might cost.

That is a ridiculous reason to change gauge. There is zero chance Russia is going to invade Finland and anyone who says they are is just fearmongering. It simply is never going to happen. Finland is an entirely different case to Ukraine and the history and situation between them is very different and you can not compare the two. Finland is also part of NATO and the EU and many other organisations and i highly doubt Russia would have an interest in taking Finland too. If that is really their reason for wanting to change gauge than it really shows how bonkers and deluded these Finnish railway officials are.

Also if you really wanted to ensure that no Russian trains entered then you could simply remove the track near the border. Just maybe remove the track between the last station in Finland and the Russia border. That would probably be a million times cheaper. Doing that would cost almost nothing compared to changing the gauge of the entire country. Also remember that roads for cars and lorries exist too and you can not change the gauge of those.

The money would be much better spent on providing things that actually benefit the Finnish people. I can not find an estimate on how much they expect this to cost but it will definitely be well over a billion once you have added the costs of changing the track in the entire country and buying brand new trains or regauging trains. I can think of so many better things to spend this money on.

Also as others have pointed it this would likely result in the closure of more minor Finnish branch lines. So this would have a negative impact on the railway network and mean buses would permanently replace trains on some lines. It is highly unlikely they will spend money on changing the gauge of minor little used railway lines.

 

[rf_ioliver]

Lulu Ranne is a member of the "True Finns" (Perus Suomalaiset) party - basically our version of Reform. They have been doing very badly in the polls recently, mainly due to lying about policies, cutting services which they said they wouldn't etc - usual stuff.

Then, of course this idea that comes up now and again has to go through parliament, and even then by her own words wouldn't even start until the late 2030s.

I'm willing to get a good sum of money that this never happens.

As for disconnecting Russia - there are only 4 remaining border crossings (Salla to Murmansk is long gone) - and each of those can be severed fairly easily; Finns are extremely adept at using explosives in construction.

We're still discussing a new high-speed line to Turku and there's still an obsession by some politicians about a high speed line via the airport and then east (One Green politician said that 300kmh running from Pasila to the Airport would be feasible - apart from the G forces - and that "Helsinki Vantaa would attract significant numbers of passengers from St.Petersburg via the rail link" ). At the same time we're neglecting strategic links such as Tampere-Seinäjoki (this really needs doubling throughout instead of the dozen or so passing places on 200kmh track), the whole Savo line has never been run at its full potential; however there are ETCS works going on.

 

[Fundee on Tay]

Even if invasion by Russia and then troop movements by rail was a credible fear, simply removing tracks near the border would halt movement, far more efficient than regaining your entire railway. A totally political and worthless stunt.

 

[Austriantrain]

That is a ridiculous reason to change gauge. There is zero chance Russia is going to invade Finland and anyone who says they are is just fearmongering. It simply is never going to happen. Finland is an entirely different case to Ukraine and the history and situation between them is very different and you can not compare the two. Finland is also part of NATO and the EU and many other organisations and i highly doubt Russia would have an interest in taking Finland too.

I would certainly be very careful to use „Russia“ and „zero chance“ in the same sentence nowadays. Especially as no one knows if NATO membership is worth much nowadays - Most likely not.

 

[ainsworth74]

although most other existing railway lines in all 4 Baltic states use the Russian/Eastern European standard gauge of 1.524 m

Four Baltic states? Who is the fourth?

That is a ridiculous reason to change gauge. There is zero chance Russia is going to invade Finland and anyone who says they are is just fearmongering. It simply is never going to happen. Finland is an entirely different case to Ukraine and the history and situation between them is very different and you can not compare the two. Finland is also part of NATO and the EU and many other organisations and i highly doubt Russia would have an interest in taking Finland too. If that is really their reason for wanting to change gauge than it really shows how bonkers and deluded these Finnish railway officials are.

I'm not sure that's a sensible way of planning for the national defence however. Just because something is unlikely doesn't mean plans shouldn't be drawn up to deal with it and practical steps taken to make it harder. Admittedly, not convinced this is a sensible idea, but if I were a Finn looking at a revanchist Russia I'm not sure I'd be quite so blasé about the chances of Russian aggression.

Also if you really wanted to ensure that no Russian trains entered then you could simply remove the track near the border. Just maybe remove the track between the last station in Finland and the Russia border. That would probably be a million times cheaper. Doing that would cost almost nothing compared to changing the gauge of the entire country.

One thing Russia is good at is railways. You take out a couple of miles of track near the border and they'll have that rebuilt in a few weeks. They've built a several hundred kilometre long railway in the past couple of years linking Rostov to Crimea in Ukraine for instance. So it might make things trickier for them in the beginning but really the only thing that can make it difficult longer term is making sure your network is a difficult to use as possible so changing the gauge, or ideally, ripping it out behind you has a lot of merit

Not sure it's worth the investment in changing it mind you!

Also remember that roads for cars and lorries exist too and you can not change the gauge of those.

True but Russian logistics, such as they are, run on rails. They run into trouble as soon as they get too far away from an operational railhead. So just because there's a road they can use doesn't mean that they'll actually be able to support their forces using it.

 

[Taunton]

Russia won't stay an enemy forever (and there's far more potential for traffic across that border) then the Swedish/Finnish border in Lapland.

This is a reality which many politicians seem to ignore.

The whole reason behind Russian Gauge goes back to the first significant railway there in the late 1830s. Czar Nikolai I sent engineers to Britain to study the London to Southampton Railway (and others) then under construction. They returned with accounts of how gauge had rapidly standardised across Europe, and it would soon be possible to travel by train from Paris to Moscow.

This was the last thing the Czar wanted to hear. In 1812, as a 17-year old junior army officer he had seen Napoleon sweep across Eastern Europe and invade Russia, only to be defeated by weather (well-known) and resulting transport difficulties. Not going to have that happen again with (whoever) now invading by train. The Czar determined a different gauge, and thus separate rolling stock. And being more than a little engineering savvy, hence sending the engineers in the first place, he went for a gauge just sufficiently wider to thwart either dual gauge (as mentioned here) or adapting the rolling stock. All of which, of course, served them very well 100 years later by significantly upsetting the Wehrmacht's arrival.

 

[Krokodil]

Also remember that roads for cars and lorries exist too and you can not change the gauge of those.

What sort of roads are they and can you drive a main battle tank down them? Remember that the road convoy to Kyiv got bogged down and if you want to move a tank any sort of distance you need a road low-loader or a railway well wagon.

I would certainly be very careful to use „Russia“ and „zero chance“ in the same sentence nowadays. Especially as no one knows if NATO membership is worth much nowadays - Most likely not.

Even so, Russia would first have annexed Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and probably bits of Poland and Romania (the objective being to advance the border to the Carpathians and shorten the bit which is vulnerable to invasion) before targeting Finland. Russia has overstretched itself with Ukraine and has no hope of holding the country even if the Americans withdrew all support - the Ukrainians would just continue fighting an insurgency, we've taught them what the Taliban taught us. And you don't mess with the Finns!

One thing Russia is good at is railways. You take out a couple of miles of track near the border and they'll have that rebuilt in a few weeks. They've built a several hundred kilometre long railway in the past couple of years linking Rostov to Crimea in Ukraine for instance. So it might make things trickier for them in the beginning but really the only thing that can make it difficult longer term is making sure your network is a difficult to use as possible so changing the gauge, or ideally, ripping it out behind you has a lot of merit

Indeed, relaying a few miles of track is easy for an army. Changing the gauge of the entire route to Helsinki is much more difficult.

If improving international links is the objective then I suspect that a single standard gauge route from Tallinn to Helsinki as part of Rail Baltica will be the most likely outcome. If a direct link from Stockholm to Turku is ever on the cards then you'd build that first before considering a new or regauged line from Turku to Helsinki - changing trains or using Talgo at the break of gauge would be far easier.

As for the existing route around the top of the Gulf of Bothnia, Talgo is the only practical solution to the question of through trains.

 

[AndrewE]

This was the last thing the Czar wanted to hear. In 1812, as a 17-year old junior army officer he had seen Napoleon sweep across Eastern Europe and invade Russia, only to be defeated by weather (well-known) and resulting transport difficulties. Not going to have that happen again with (whoever) now invading by train. The Czar determined a different gauge, and thus separate rolling stock. And being more than a little engineering savvy, hence sending the engineers in the first place, he went for a gauge just sufficiently wider to thwart either dual gauge (as mentioned here) or adapting the rolling stock. All of which, of course, served them very well 100 years later by significantly upsetting the Wehrmacht's arrival.

I thought it was recognised that the Czar got it wrong: by going to 5 ft gauge he made it relatively easy to move one rail in and you (the Germans) could run standard gauge stock, whereas if the Russians had had a significantly narrower gauge you wouldn't have been able to spread the rails so easily.

 

[jamesontheroad]

One snag with Russian (unlike Iberian) gauge is that you can't have dual-gauge track (unless it is gauntleted) to help during any transition period.

There are a few km of dual-gauge track between Haparanda and Tornio stations, over the Torne River bridge. It looks like this (photo credit: Daniel Majd for jarnvag.net - from this useful guide to the Boden - Kalix - Haparanda - Tornio line). It would theoretically be possible to build much longer sections of dual-gauge track.

 

[Giugiaro]

It would mean the end of overnight services to the far north - unless Talgo can supply something suitable!

The Poles and Germans have used their own solution for exactly this use case. It's called Rafil Type V, SUW2000 or PolSUW.

 

[JonasB]

This is absolutely bonkers. The only benefit is that direct trains from Finland to Sweden will able to run. So perhaps eventually there will be a direct Helsinki to Stockholm service. But it is only one line crossing the border and services around that border area are very infrequent. Passengers can easily change trains at Haparanda or Tornio stations.

Haparanda station is built for easy changes between Swedish and Finnish trains, but it makes the trip a bit more complicated. I'd not bet any money on Finland regauging their entire network, but they are also looking at building a couple of standard gauge lines in the north, which makes sense in my opinion.

As for the existing route around the top of the Gulf of Bothnia, Talgo is the only practical solution to the question of through trains.

A gauge changer has been tried in the north and IIRC it didn't work that well in the winter. Maybe something can be done to make it work better, but I don't know what. And it will also reduce the possible cross border traffic to trains that can change gauge.

 

[Gag Halfrunt]

This was the last thing the Czar wanted to hear. In 1812, as a 17-year old junior army officer he had seen Napoleon sweep across Eastern Europe and invade Russia, only to be defeated by weather (well-known) and resulting transport difficulties. Not going to have that happen again with (whoever) now invading by train. The Czar determined a different gauge, and thus separate rolling stock. And being more than a little engineering savvy, hence sending the engineers in the first place, he went for a gauge just sufficiently wider to thwart either dual gauge (as mentioned here) or adapting the rolling stock. All of which, of course, served them very well 100 years later by significantly upsetting the Wehrmacht's arrival.

That appears to be a myth.

In 1837, the first railway built in Russia was a 6 ft (1,829 mm) gauge, 17 km long experimental line connecting Saint Petersburg with Tsarskoye Selo and Pavlovsk. The choice of gauge was influenced by Brunel's Great Western Railway which used 7 ft (2,134 mm). The Tsarskoye Selo railway's success proved that a larger gauge could be viable for railways isolated from the extant 1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in) gauge Western European network.[6][7]

In 1840, work started on the second railway in the Russian Empire, the Warsaw–Vienna railway in Congress Poland. It was a 1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in) standard gauge, with the express intention of allowing through-freight trains into Austria-Hungary.[6][7]

The modern Russian railway network solidified around the Saint Petersburg–Moscow railway, built in 1842. There, the Tsar established a committee to recommend technical standards for the building of Russia's first major railway. The team included devotees of Franz Anton von Gerstner, who pushed to continue the Tsarskoye Selo gauge, and engineer Pavel Melnikov and his consultant George Washington Whistler, a prominent American railway engineer. Whistler recommended 5 ft (1,524 mm) on the basis that it was cheaper to construct than 6 ft (1,829 mm) and cheaper to maintain than 1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in). His advice won over the Tsar.[6][7]

At the time, questions of continuity with the European network did not arise. By the time difficulties arose in connecting the Prussian railroads to the Russian ones in Warsaw in the 1850s, it was too late to change.[6]

A persistent myth holds that Imperial Russia chose a gauge broader than standard gauge for military reasons, namely to prevent potential invaders from using the rail system.[8] The Russian military recognized as early as 1841 that operations to disrupt railway track did not depend on the gauge, and should instead focus on destroying bridges and tunnels.[6][7] However, in both World Wars the break of gauge did pose some amount of obstacle to the invading Germans.

5 ft and 1520 mm gauge railways - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

George Washington Whistler, incidentally, was the father of the artist James McNeill Whistler.

 

[Krokodil]

I thought it was recognised that the Czar got it wrong: by going to 5 ft gauge he made it relatively easy to move one rail in and you (the Germans) could run standard gauge stock, whereas if the Russians had had a significantly narrower gauge you wouldn't have been able to spread the rails so easily.

The Wehrmacht's arrival at the gates of Moscow wasn't exactly smooth, they got bogged down in the autumn mud which meant that they arrived too late and were hit by the winter.

 

[Sorcerer]

Interesting development, and not quite surprising to see Finland choosing to change gauge for security reasons what with being on the Russian border. But regardless of Russia was there not a possibility that was going to happen sooner or later anyway? The EU has been very keen on interoperability, and I've no doubt that Sweden and Norway would've wanted rail connections to Finland eventually.

 

[AndrewE]

The Wehrmacht's arrival at the gates of Moscow wasn't exactly smooth, they got bogged down in the autumn mud which meant that they arrived too late and were hit by the winter.

True, but unlike WW1 wasn't the second (initially) a triumph of fast tanks and mechanised / road transported infantry?

 

[AlastairFraser]

I suspect that the plan to change the Finnish railways' gauge is "political" in origin and is driven by the EU. The EU is promoting and supporting financially the new "high speed" Rail Baltica line from the Polish-Lithuanian border to Tallinn, which is being built to the British/Western European standard gauge of 4 ft 8.5 in, although most other existing railway lines in all 4 Baltic states use the Russian/Eastern European standard gauge of 1.524 m. There is an aspiration to connect this line to Helsinki via a tunnel under the Gulf of Finland.

Indeed - if the Tallinn to Helsinki tunnel went ahead, perhaps the trunk lines in Finland from Helsinki towards Tampere/Turku/Oulu would be converted to dual gauge. It seems that it is a tried and tested possibility with the bridge between Tornio and Haparanda, so it may be the best solution.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

At the other end of Europe, Portugal seems to be ignoring any EU directive on gauges and the proposed Lisbon to Porto high-speed line is to be Iberian. A retrograde step if it wants to connect with the Spanish high-speed network. The Russian threat, rather than the EU, is driving the Finnish move I think.

 

[ainsworth74]

True, but unlike WW1 wasn't the second (initially) a triumph of fast tanks and mechanised / road transported infantry?

The Germans certainly had lots of mechanised and motorised units but they also marched into Russia with hundreds of thousands of horses. You don't get to Blitzkrieg without tanks and motorised transport but a lot of German logistics relied on the good old fashioned horse.

 

[AHBD]

Accidental post deleted

 

[mountainpixel]

This is a ridiculous political stunt, none of it will materialize.

A waste of money and resources.

Changing train gauges hasn’t been an issue for years. They could run direct trains from Sweden to Finland in the past. But they don’t, because there simply isn’t a feasible use case.

Goods are transported by sea and then transferred to lorries or trains. And passenger numbers are very low this far up north.

 

[FormerBritInMe]

Indeed - if the Tallinn to Helsinki tunnel went ahead, perhaps the trunk lines in Finland from Helsinki towards Tampere/Turku/Oulu would be converted to dual gauge. It seems that it is a tried and tested possibility with the bridge between Tornio and Haparanda, so it may be the best solution.

Is dual gauge even possible between 1435mm and 1524 mm? That isn't much more than the width of a rail.

 

[JonasB]

Is dual gauge even possible between 1435mm and 1524 mm? That isn't much more than the width of a rail.

Yes, but you have to use four rails.