Trans-Siberian Railway Nicholas II's Key Success

Though 101 years have passed since Nicholas II abdicated the Russian throne on March 15th, 1917, the tsars still fascinate. Tourists flock to Anastasia on Broadway to see a high-tech train scene, and millions trek to St. Petersburg to gape at the Winter Palace. The public sees the Romanovs almost as Greek tragic heroes. We marvel at the hero’s noble bearing and inspiring feats. But then we focus on the flaws that led to their doom. When we think of Achilles, we think of his heel - not the slayed Hector. When we think of the Romanovs, we cannot forget the image of angry, impoverished peasants.

The Faberge eggs, and amber rooms of the tsars’ palaces are overshadowed by the Russian Revolution, the Romanov’s gruesome death, and the predominant assumption that the tsars must have been terrible rulers, unable to lead and industrialize Russia at the same pace as more Western nations.

A century later, it’s time to re-assess Nicholas II’s economy. Even today, economic historians fiercely debate Russian “backwardness” on the eve of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, throwing around calculations of GDP and per capita income. Instead I suggest to we move to a more solid piece of evidence, namely, the successful construction and operation of the Trans-Siberian Railway. The railway demonstrates, not tsarist excess, but an economy more robust than most history books admit. This is especially apparent when we compare the Trans-Siberian to the U.S. Transcontinental. From the 1860s to the 1890s, the U.S. – a wealthy nation in this era - spent billions (in today’s dollars) subsidizing railroad companies so that that they could connect the country coast-to-coast to promote commerce and military maneuvers.

Just as the U.S. completed its massive project, tsars Alexander III and Nicholas II launched the construction of the Trans-Siberian railroad, which, by 1905, linked Western Russia (both culturally and economically) to Vladivostok and the Pacific Ocean.

If the Trans-Siberian was built and operated more effectively than the U.S Transcontinentals, it would lend significant credence to the view that the Romanovs were not so economically, fiscally, and politically bankrupt. To do this one must tally calculations of the railways’ respective operating revenues and expenses during key years before the Bolshevik Revolution. The Trans-Siberian Railway was completed in 1904, but World War I broke out in 1914. Therefore, the most helpful data points would fall somewhere between 1904-14. Though Russian businessmen are not known as the world’s greatest librarians, reliable information can be culled from ledgers and contemporaneous sources for the years between 1908-11. When we compare the Russian statistics to the average of all U.S railroads, something rather shocking appears.

Despite running higher operating expenses, Russian railroads averaged a higher net profit per mile than the Americans. And during the period 1908-11, Russia’s net operating revenue more than doubled. Meanwhile, U.S. revenue stagnated. By 1911, Russia’s net operating revenue per mile was about 2.5 times higher than its U.S. counterparts. Long story short: the tsars racked up more money per mile than their democratic-capitalist neighbors in the west.

The Trans-Siberian also stimulated the Siberian agricultural economy. Butter production in particular increased exponentially. Between 1900-12, Russia became a highly competitive, world-class exporter of butter - even rivaling the U.S. by the start of World War I. More butter was also consumed domestically, increasing the quality of life for Russians (butter is a luxury product). After the Revolution, the Bolsheviks attacked the agricultural economy and thwarted Siberian farms. Not till the 1960s would Russian butter production reach the lofty output of the early 20th century.

I am not suggesting that the tsars were flawless (remember the Greek tragedy metaphor). They were often rash, rapacious, and befuddled. But on the 101st anniversary of Nicholas II’s abdication, we should admit the strengths of the monarchy as well. The Trans-Siberian still runs and in it early days surpassed its U.S. equivalent. L'Etat, c'est moi is a philosophy, not a curse, if the ruler handles the levers of power deftly.