Latvian RailwayLatvijas dzelzceļš. "LDZ" - Latvian Railway Latvian trains

The Latvian railway has many shortcomings. Some of them are a consequence of historically low cargo turnover - there was simply no need to develop the infrastructure, the other part is a consequence of recent ill-conceived decisions. However, it turned out that the main problem with our steel highways, according to Latvia’s main strategic partner, is transport incompatibility.

The railway is not a source of pride for our country. She performs her direct functions - and okay. Each of the 31 officially existing lines (segments) has its own advantages and disadvantages. The main structural disadvantage is the lack of capacity due to the short length of double-track lines, electrified lines and lines equipped with a modern signaling system.

Latvia has modern railways only in the Riga region, and then two of them (at Tukums and Skulte) serve only passenger trains. The main cargo transportation - and this is the main function of the railway - is carried out along four main transit lines, and a little along the remaining lines from among those left after the pogrom that happened in the 90s of the last century.

Line to Liepaja... don't rush to rejoice. It is one of the most lagging behind in technical terms (it has a simple and outdated semi-automatic blocking system; lowered, 2nd category) and in terms of capacity - it is single-track with a small number of sidings and provides very little freight traffic. However, the transportation of goods in the volume required for the port of Liepaja is still provided with a reserve.

Over the past 20 years, a number of railway lines that connected with neighboring railways have been liquidated: the closest line to us is from Priekule to Klaipeda and from Vainode to Mazeikiai, the line from Skulte via Rujena to Estonia, the line from Cesis via Gulbene in Russia, and the line from Jelgava towards Renge became a dead end at the whim of the Lithuanian side. These days, only four connections with neighboring countries are in use. Why? The railway network is maximally optimized and adapted for the transportation of transit cargo from Russia to the ports of Ventspils and Riga. (Liepāja does not belong to the transit corridor.) But even this transit corridor is predominantly single-track, although 80 percent of the total freight turnover of the Latvian Railway is transported along it.

The lack of an extensive network of connections with neighboring railways seriously limits the possibilities of transporting goods across the territory of Latvia; however, Estonia and Lithuania did the same - they liquidated unnecessary railways. The ability to maneuver in case of accidents on the lines is also limited; there are no spare moves to be able to bypass the emergency section.

Cargo transportation is carried out exclusively on diesel traction, not on electricity, which would be cheaper and more environmentally friendly. The electrification infrastructure is intended only for passenger traffic; there are no electric freight locomotives in Latvia. The single-track nature of the sections does not make it possible to increase the route speed of trains and freight turnover.

These are the main shortcomings of the Latvian railway as a system, as we, the residents of Latvia, see it. But they don’t really bother us yet, since our railway is greatly underutilized, and the existing infrastructure has always coped with the existing cargo flow and continues to cope.

Little by little the shortcomings are being corrected. In recent years, for the first time, a fairly large section of the second track was built from Skriveri station to Krustpils station. Electrification from Rezekne and Daugavpils to Riga is being projected using a modern system (albeit incompatible with the suburban electricity network existing in the Riga region). True, this is all that has been done and will be done in the near future. Plans for a major reconstruction of the Latvian railway, adopted 30 years ago, are long overdue and forgotten.

However, our partners saw completely different shortcomings. The Institute of Modern Warfare, which belongs to the US Military Academy at West Point, saw the railway lines of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia as a problem for the movement of alliance forces.

The report of the institute's experts notes that differing track standards in Europe and the Baltic countries make it impossible to quickly transfer NATO troops in the event of a conflict. The fact is that in these countries the railways have remained since the times of the Soviet Union and have not changed, and they are not compatible with the European gauge. American experts are confident in the need to modernize railway communications in Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia.

“This incompatibility means that trains carrying military equipment and supplies from large NATO bases in Germany or Poland will have to transfer their cargo to trains adapted to the Russian gauge, or deliver it to their destination by freight vehicles. Both options require not only significant time investment, but also the involvement of trained personnel and significant military resources, such as heavy equipment transportation systems, military police and security guards. In addition, awareness of such operations and the ability to carry them out are necessary,” the material reports.

“Unlike the armed forces of the Russian Federation, NATO forces do not have access to unlimited freedom of movement of troops across friendly territory. Currently, the Baltic countries use the Russian standard for railway gauge, while other European NATO member states use the European gauge,” the report says.

Experts from the American Institute of Modern Warfare emphasize that in the field of railway infrastructure, the Baltic countries lag significantly behind other European countries. “Currently, there is no north-south axis in these three countries,” the document notes. Note that a couple of decades ago this axis existed and was very powerful.

Plans are already in place to correct the current situation. Thus, the European Union has planned the implementation of the “Rail Baltica” project - the construction of a European standard railway line that should connect the Baltic countries, Poland and Western Europe. However, the report notes that the project will not be completed until 2025.

“Improving the railway network will give NATO... the ability to quickly deploy armored forces in anticipation of serious Russian provocations or Russian exercises (such as Zapad) while maintaining the ability to withdraw them as soon as the situation de-escalates,” the document says.

This is how, for the first time, it was officially communicated clearly and openly why Rail Baltica was actually being built. What until now had only been spoken about by Alexander Gaponenko, who had long since become an outcast, now sounded loud and clear to everyone.

Using materials:

Latvian Railways is the state-owned railway company of Latvia, serving the entire railway network of the country. The company was founded in 1919 and re-established in 1994 on the basis of the Latvian part of the Baltic Railway, which operated in Soviet Latvia.

Anatoly Konstantinov told the analytical portal site how, after graduating from the 8th grade, in 1960, he entered the Daugavpils Technical School of Railway Transport and connected himself with the railway for the rest of his life, how he worked from 1983 to 1992 as an engineer for the track service of the Baltic Railway , and in independent Latvia until 2009 he held the post of head of the technical department of the Latvian Railways. But first things first.

“It’s written in my work book that on July 18, 1963, I was hired as a 1st category track worker, with no work experience,” recalls Anatoly Ivanovich. “When I graduated from technical school in 1964, I was assigned to the Daugavpils distance route, and less than a year later I was sent from production to study at the institute.”

The young specialist, who graduated from technical school with honors, entered the institute. In his fourth year, in 1969, he got married, and in 1970 he graduated with a diploma in transportation engineering. At the same time, graduates were assigned to work at the Baltic Railway, where Anatoly Konstantinov worked until his retirement.

After graduating from the institute, Konstantinov was appointed to the position of senior engineer in the technical department.

“After working for a year, I was appointed senior road foreman in order to gain experience in all positions: this was the practice before.”

Next was military service in the railway troops, after which Konstantinov was faced with a choice: the management of the track service offered work in Jelgava, as the chief engineer of the track, or in Daugavpils, also as the chief engineer of the PMS.

“The head of the major repair department of the track service encouraged me to stay in Daugavpils, saying that I already had an apartment there, which the railway had provided me. After all, the Baltic Railway provided its workers with housing. But my wife was from Jelgava and suggested moving to this city, where we eventually went.”

In Jelgava, the housing issue was resolved quickly. The young family changed their Daugavpils “registration” to Jelgava, especially since the local railway department also provided workers with housing.

“In general, many residential buildings were built in the city by order of the Jelgava branch of the railway. Kindergartens were also built. In addition, a Railwaymen’s Club, a cinema, which now houses the Swedish bank Swedbank, and many other objects necessary for society were built.”

This is how Konstantinov ended up in Jelgava. He worked as the chief engineer of the track distance on the Baltic Railway until 1983, then he worked as the chief engineer of the track service until the collapse of the USSR, and then, in independent Latvia, as the head of the technical department.

Anatoly Ivanovich, speaking about the Baltic Railway in the 1970–80s, tell us what the volume of freight and passenger traffic was at that time?

Large, definitely more than 40 million tons of gross cargo were transported per year, and this is only in the direction of Jelgava and Ventspils, and if we take the direction Riga - Valga, then there was also about 40 million.

In the mid-1960s, the railway underwent a major overhaul, and by the mid-1970s it was already “at its limit.” In fact, there are rail service standards according to which the rails must be changed after carrying 350 million tons, and when I arrived in 1974, it was said that the volume of cargo in a decade exceeded 500 million. That is, the standard was exceeded almost twice; it is clear that the path again needed repairs.

But the movement cannot be stopped: cargo is coming - oil products, various fertilizers, timber, all this was required. Plus there was also passenger traffic.

About 15 pairs of long-distance trains ran from Riga in the southern direction through Jelgava per day. For example, on the direction Riga - Vilnius: a daytime “Chaika”, which then went to Minsk, and a night train. In addition, trains Riga - Klaipeda and Riga - Kaliningrad ran across the Baltic states.

There were also three trains to Ukraine: Riga - Kyiv, Riga - Lvov and Riga - Odessa. Also, two trains went south: Riga - Simferopol and Riga - Adler. And it was difficult to get tickets for these trains.

Since 1983, I began working as the chief engineer of the track service, and I constantly had to go on business trips throughout the Baltic Railway. I remember I had to urgently go to Vilnius; I go to get tickets, but there are no seats. However, I had a travel card that gave me the right to travel not only on the train, but also in the driver’s cabin. Well, I went there, but I saw the whole way.

However, in the 90s all this stopped. Currently, none of the routes you named are available, and many passenger routes in Latvia have been closed. What is the reason for such decisions?

There are fewer passengers, there are not enough of them to pay for these routes, and no one will keep unprofitable routes without subsidies from the state. After all, the railway must maintain the appropriate infrastructure: not only rails and sleepers, but also much more, and this is a big expense.

In addition, in the Baltic states there was one factor that united all countries - the Russian language. Now this is not the case - each republic speaks its own language, but tell me, what should a Lithuanian who knows only Lithuanian do in Estonia, or an Estonian in Latvia if he does not know Latvian?

Although I should note that many changes on the railway were not so rapid in the 1990s. The first governments of Latvia tried not to interfere in the work of the railway, and the first head of the Latvian railway was Belarusian Stanislav Boyko, who until then had worked as the chief engineer of the Baltic railway.

Changes began when they began to divide state property. They divided up everything they could, but the railway remained. So they separated freight and passenger transportation, which, it seems to me, was imposed by Europe. They have it divided there, so they introduced something similar here too.

True, while in the West many people use the railway, in Latvia this passenger flow is incomparably lower, so many local routes had to be closed, such as the routes Riga - Ergli, Riga - Renge, and Riga - Ventspils.

- What, in your opinion, is the current state of the railway?

Its technical condition is quite good. Many reconstruction projects were carried out with funds from the European Union. Some of them were carried out during my work. I remember how we submitted applications for the reconstruction of railway tracks, replacement of switches, modernization of train control devices and much more.

So, in general, we cannot say that everything is bad with us - the tracks are in good condition, and cargo can be transported along them. Of course, it’s a pity that there are fewer of these cargoes and the volume is decreasing.

- In that case, what do you think awaits our railway?

The Latvian railway is configured to transport transit, 85–90%; we have practically no local freight traffic. Naturally, if we have a neighbor like Russia next to us, for which 50–80 million tons of cargo is trivial, then our cooperation should clearly develop in an eastern direction.

At the same time, I believe that it is necessary to continue to modernize the road and improve the condition of the track in this particular section; for example, on the route St. Petersburg - Warsaw, connecting the northern part of Russia with the European Union.

In turn, the decision made by our government, as well as the EU, on the Rail Baltica project does not take into account the development of the promising Chinese Silk Road project and will not lead to any improvement in transit from the east.

Subscribe to Baltology on Telegram and join us on