Re: Strategic Reserve.

[dave pierson <pierson@mail.dec.com>]

Roger L. Traviss wrote:
> 
> Roy Wilke wrote:
> 
> > I never laid claim to being professionally involved in railways, and was speaking
> > hypothetically.
> >
> > However, "strategic" doesn't necessarily mean railways (and the 20th century proved
> > that railways are a front-line liability to an army - they are too easy for the
> > other side to disable/destroy).

> Mmmmm.  In both North America and in the U.K., the railways were a vital part of the
> Allied victory.  Railways are very difficult to disable or destroy for long periods of
> time.  Even after the worst bombing raid, a junction or marshalling yard could be back
> in service in a couple of days.  Bulldoze the holes flat and relay track over the top.
> May not be up to "standard" but it will do.
 
> The Allies even built hundreds locomotives especially for transportation to Europe
> after D-Day, to ensure that they had enough serviceable locomotives to run the railways
> with.  That's how vital the railway system was.

	Yup.  But if the lines are heavily _electrified_, then any
	'problem' can take them down.  Self propelled motive power
	(steam, diesel, wotever) is better than electics under those
	circumstances, be the disaster manmade or natural...

	best
	dave p