{"id":6106,"date":"2026-05-26T11:39:14","date_gmt":"2026-05-26T07:39:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.ypc.am\/lineofcontact\/?p=6106"},"modified":"2026-05-27T14:08:36","modified_gmt":"2026-05-27T10:08:36","slug":"26-05-2026-eng_analitics_2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ypc.am\/lineofcontact\/en\/2026\/05\/26-05-2026-eng_analitics_2\/","title":{"rendered":"REGIONAL TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS: HISTORY AND PROSPECTS (Parts 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Samvel Meliksetian<\/strong><\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

(Continued. Part 1\u2026<\/mark><\/a>)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Part 2<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Railway construction in the South Caucasus from 1872 to 1908 (source: blog \u201cNotes of a Geographer\u201d \u2013<\/strong> <\/strong><\/a>https:\/\/zametki-geo.livejournal.com\/<\/mark><\/a>) <\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The transportation network that had taken shape by the early 20th century reflected the empire\u2019s primary military, political, and economic priorities. From east to west, railway lines connected the Baku oil fields with the Black Sea ports (Poti, Batumi), passing through Tbilisi and the flat sections of the Kura and Rioni valleys. The port of Baku and the railway network were also actively used for connections with Central Asia. In parallel with the construction of the Baku\u2013Tbilisi line, the Trans-Caspian Railway was developed along the eastern coast of the Caspian Sea: from the port of Uzun-Ada (later Krasnovodsk) to Ashgabat, Bukhara, and Tashkent, which helped strengthen Russian control over the recently conquered territories of Central Asia. The establishment of a ferry service between Baku and Krasnovodsk by 1885 spurred the migration of Armenian and Azerbaijani populations to Central Asia and contributed to the formation of stable communities along the Trans-Caspian Railway.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Map of the main highways (bold colored lines) and railroads (black line) of the South Caucasus by 1907.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By the start of World War I, the railway infrastructure had acquired decisive military-strategic importance. The Empire built a railway from Kars to the border (Sarykamysh) in 1913. As Turkish historians note, the presence of a railway on the Russian side of the border, which allowed for the rapid deployment of reinforcements, coupled with the absence of similar infrastructure on the Ottoman side, played a key role in the catastrophic defeat of Ottoman forces at the Battle of Sarikamish (December 1914\u2013January 1915), despite the initial success of their offensive and their advance deep into Russian territory, which raised the question of a possible evacuation of government institutions from Tiflis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To the south, the railway along the Araks Valley reached Julfa in 1907, coinciding with the division of spheres of influence in Persia between Russia and Great Britain (1907), and by 1915 it had been extended to Tabriz\u2014the main city of northern Persia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

During World War I, the Russian Empire continued railway construction in the occupied territories of the Ottoman Empire and Persia, laying narrow-gauge lines from Sarikamish to Erzurum and from the Shakhtakhty station (Nakhichevan) to Bayazet. The latter was planned to be extended to Van, and by early 1917, construction of railway stations was already underway on the northern shore of the lake (the Berkri\/Muradiye area). During this period, such intensive development of the narrow-gauge network was directly driven by the need for military advancement and consolidation in the occupied territories: given the accelerated pace of construction, the choice of narrow gauge allowed for the most rapid possible transport of troops, food, weapons, and ammunition to the front.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Schematic map of railways in the South Caucasus and in the regions of the Ottoman Empire occupied by the Russian army by 1917 (including narrow-gauge railways).<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thus, by the time of the Russian Empire\u2019s collapse, a stable transportation network had developed in the South Caucasus, with key lines branching out from Tbilisi to the Black Sea ports, Baku, Kars, and Julfa (on the Persian side). Baku\u2019s growing economic importance also led to its direct connection with the Vladikavkaz Railway along the Caspian coast, and the city itself became a hub for ferry service to Central Asia via the port of Krasnovodsk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Part 3<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Communications during the period of Armenian independence (1918\u20131920) and in the Soviet era<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The geographical features of Armenia\u2019s territory, divided by numerous isolated mountain river basins, shaped the characteristics of its transportation networks, which differed from those of neighboring countries. While Georgia had a main north-south highway running the length of the country, with various branches connecting the country\u2019s regions to Tbilisi, and in Azerbaijan\u2014with Baku, in the case of Armenia, the country\u2019s various regions were better connected to neighboring centers (Tbilisi or Baku) than to Yerevan, whose economic role also lagged significantly behind the other two regional centers until the 1940s and 1950s.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

During the Russian Empire, the main highway connecting Yerevan with Tbilisi and Baku\u2014as noted in the quote from Ivan Chopin cited in the first part of this publication\u2014ran along the route Yerevan\u2013Sevan\u2013Dilijan\u2013Ijevan\u2013Aghstafa\u2013Tbilisi. Another branch of the highway ran from Dilijan into the Pambak River Gorge and on to Alexandropol (Gyumri), the largest city in Armenia in the 19th century. With Russia\u2019s conquest of Kars, the highway from Alexandropol was extended to this new center of the empire. The connection between the territory of the modern Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic and the centers of the South Caucasus also ran along the Araks River to Yerevan and further along the Dilijan\u2013Aghstafa\u2013Tiflis route. South of Nakhichevan, the highway continued to the village of Julfa, where there was a bridge and a customs post to Persia. From Ordubad to the village of Meghri along the Araks River ran a difficult-to-traverse dirt road, and as for the road from Meghri along the Araks toward modern-day Zangelan, due to the extremely mountainous terrain and the narrow river gorge, the only route marked on the road maps of the Russian Empire was a trail for pack animals. The extremely isolated nature of the Meghri Valley in the past also contributed to the isolation of the local population. This was reflected in the emergence of distinct and specific Meghri and Karchevan dialects of the Armenian language, as well as in the existence of one of the last enclaves of an Iranian-speaking population (generally and incorrectly referred to as Tatars) in the villages of Ushtubin on the southern bank of the Araks River,  Nyuvadi (Nrnadzor) and Tei on the northern bank.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Communications in the Ordubad-Meghri area on the 1903 Road Map of the Caucasus Region. A highway is indicated to Ordubad, a cart road from Ordubad to Meghri, and a trail for pack animals from Meghri along the Araks.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The modern Syunik region, as part of the Elizavetpol Governorate, was connected to the provincial capital via the Goris-Shushi (Geryus-Shusha) highway, which continued on to the Yevlakh station (from 1883). It was precisely for this reason that the migration of Syunik peasants to the Baku oil fields was so massive, and at certain times they even outnumbered the Karabakh Armenians, who suffered to a lesser extent from the scarcity of land in the mountains.  There were no developed or economically significant transportation routes from Nakhichevan to the main part of modern Azerbaijan or from Syunik to the main part of Armenia.
With the construction of the Tbilisi\u2013Alexandropol\u2013Kars railway (1899) and the Alexandropol\u2013Ulukhanly\u2013Julf railway (1902\u20131908), the territory of Armenia became a transit zone. The construction of the railway also facilitated the export of local products, particularly cotton, the cultivation of which was actively developing in the Ararat Valley during this period (including the southern part of the valley\u2014Igdir).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Part 4<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Communications during the Soviet era<\/strong>   <\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Between 1917 and 1920, the state of the region\u2019s transportation infrastructure deteriorated significantly. Beginning in 1917, railways were systematically put out of service or used for military purposes, including the deployment of armored trains. This was due both to interstate conflicts\u2014the invasion by the Ottoman army (1918) and the Armenian-Georgian War (December 1918)\u2014and to internal clashes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The latter include hostilities in Nakhichevan and Kars in 1919\u20131920, as well as the May Uprising in Armenia in 1920. During the uprising, which was an attempt at a Bolshevik coup following the Sovietization of Azerbaijan, a key role was played by workers at the Alexandropol (Gyumri) railway depot, led by Sargis Musayelyan, commander of the armored train \u201cVardan Zoravar.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Following the conclusion of the Batum Peace Agreement between the Ottoman Empire and the Armenian National Council on June 4, 1918, the entire Kars\u2013Alexandropol\u2013Masis\u2013Julf railway came under Ottoman control. The length of the only railway line under Armenian control, from the Yerevan station to the village of Noragavit, was 7 km. From early July 1918 through October, the Ottoman side allowed, on an irregular basis, the operation of two available trains belonging to the Armenian government.

Following the conclusion of the Mudros Armistice on October 30, 1918, the Ottoman army, while retreating in November 1918, looted stations and other railway infrastructure on Armenian territory; the Alexandropol station was blown up. Starting in 1919, the Armenian side launched active efforts to restore the destroyed infrastructure. One of the first steps was to clear the Yerevan railway station, which by early 1919 had served as a refuge for many refugees for over a year and, as eyewitnesses recalled, was in appalling sanitary condition.       <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The main line, which connected all the major cities of the country, included Yerevan, Alexandropol, and Kars (all the way to Sarikamish). In addition, between July and September 1920, the Armenian side also used the narrow-gauge (1,069 mm) Shakhtakhty\u2013Maku railway to transport wheat from the Maku Khanate.  Access to Persia via the Julfa Road was complicated by constant fighting along the Nakhichevan Railway, on which armored trains most often ran. The main international route for the Armenian side was the port of Batumi, whose role was particularly critical in the first months of 1919: at that time, the delivery of American humanitarian aid that had arrived in Batumi via the railway saved the republic\u2019s severely depleted population, which had shrunk by approximately 200,000 people.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although Armenia and Azerbaijan were involved in several border skirmishes between 1918 and 1920, diplomatic and trade-economic relations existed between the two countries. In addition to the Yerevan\u2013Dilijan\u2013Aghstafa highway, which served as a direct link between the two countries, kerosene, fuel oil and other petroleum products were delivered to Armenia from Azerbaijan via the railway through Georgia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By the end of 1919, there were 446 km of railways in operation in Armenia, carrying approximately 30 million \u201cpoods\u201d of cargo (490,000 tons). During its brief period of independence, the Armenian side developed a number of ambitious transportation projects aimed at optimizing the country\u2019s railway system, taking into account its geographical location and the most efficient routes to the Black Sea. By the summer of 1920, a project was being developed for an electrified Kars\u2013Batumi railway via Olty and the Chorokh River Gorge. Construction was expected to be completed within four years. Konstantin Argutinsky-Dolgoruky served as the project\u2019s concessionaire. According to the plan, the Kars\u2013Batumi line was to shorten the distance between Yerevan and the Black Sea ports by 340 km. In the broader perspective, the Batumi\u2013Kars\u2013Yerevan\u2013Julfa\u2013Tabriz mainline, as envisioned by its designers, could have become part of the Trans-Persian route with access to ports on the Indian Ocean.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Excerpt from the financial justification for the Kars\u2013Batumi railway, June 10, 1920.<\/strong>
<\/em>
Further plans called for the construction of a new railway to the port of Rize, as the Entente allies had promised Armenia access to the Black Sea. One section of this route was to pass through a tunnel several kilometers long under the Pontic Range, in the Kachkar Mountains region (the Hemshin settlement area). It is telling that the Turkish side only completed construction of the 14.3-kilometer Ovit Road Tunnel (from the Armenian \u0570\u0578\u057e\u056b\u057f\/hovit \u2013 valley) in this direction in 2018\u2014one of the longest such structures in the world. Alongside this, projects for the Kars\u2013Kag\u0131zman and Sardarapat\u2013Kohb (modern-day Tuzluja in Turkey) railway lines were actively discussed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The development of major transportation infrastructure during the Soviet period largely followed the logic established as far back as the era of the Russian Empire. In a number of cases, this involved the direct implementation of projects developed before 1917 (for example, the construction of a railway along the Black Sea coast of the Caucasus in Georgia, or the Alyat\u2013Julfa line).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The key directions of railway construction were determined by two main factors: military-political (creating infrastructure to supply the army and reach the borders) and economic (serving industry and providing access to mineral deposits).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A telling example is the construction of the Novye Osmanly\u2013Meghri\u2013Julfa railway, completed by 1941\u2014on the eve of the Soviet troops\u2019 entry into Iran. This route provided a shorter and more convenient connection to the existing Tbilisi\u2013Gyumri\u2013Masis\u2013Julfa\u2013Tabriz branch, also redirecting part of the transit to Armenia via the southern route. At the same time, in the eastern part of Azerbaijan, the New Osmanli\u2013Astara railway was completed that same year, leading to the border with Iran and supplying Soviet troops that entered Iranian territory in August 1941. The Julfa route became one of the key Lend-Lease supply routes to the USSR\u2014about a quarter of the total Lend-Lease volume passed through it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The economic rationale for the construction was evident, in particular, in the extension of railways to industrial centers. Thus, as early as 1937, a 39-kilometer branch line was laid from the Baku\u2013Julfa line under construction, running from the Mindjivan station to Kapan (Kafan), which made it possible to transport Kapan ore by rail.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The state of transportation infrastructure in southern Armenia and the Nakhichevan Autonomous Region by the late 1930s. The Mingevan\u2013Kafan railway is shown, but the Julfa\u2013Meghri\u2013Mingevan section has not yet been completed.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 1945, construction of the railway along the Black Sea coast was completed, linking the South Caucasus to the main territory of the USSR not only via the Caspian Sea but also via the Black Sea. This led to an institutional division of the region\u2019s railway system: the Transcaucasian Railway, headquartered in Tbilisi and comprising the Tbilisi and Yerevan branches, and the Azerbaijan Railway, headquartered in Baku, were established. Each agency had its own access to the European part of the USSR along the coasts of the Caspian and Black Seas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The assignment of specific railway sections to one administration or another was determined by geographical factors and the convenience of communications. Thus, prior to the construction of the Mingijan\u2013Meghri\u2013Ordubad branch line, the entire Nakhichevan Railway up to the Julfa station was under the jurisdiction of the Armenian Railway Administration, headquartered in Leninakan and Yerevan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the 1950s, the border between the Azerbaijan and Transcaucasian railways ran through the stations of Aghstafa and Norashen (Nakhichevan).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The division of the Transcaucasian (green line) and Azerbaijani (brown) railways in 1950. The border stations between the two administrations were Norashen (Sharur) and Aghstafa.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The railways continued to merge and split again until 1967, when the final division took place. The Transcaucasian Railway came to include all lines in Georgia and Armenia, as well as a small section within the Nakhichevan Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (Norashen\/Sharur station). In turn, all remaining sections were transferred to the Azerbaijan Railway , including the Meghrin line and the Kafan station in the territory of the Armenian SSR, which had no direct connection to the main network of the Yerevan branch of the Transcaucasian Railway.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An additional example of this logic is the transfer in 1971 of the Kazakh\u2013Ijevan section (running through the territory of the Armenian SSR) to the management of the Azerbaijan Railway, since until almost the very collapse of the USSR, Ijevan had no direct connection to the railways of Armenia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Part 5 <\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The \u201cConstruction Project of the Century\u201d of the Armenian SSR \u2013 the Yerevan\u2013Aghstafa Railway<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

In 1924, the question arose of creating a shorter railway connection between Yerevan and the main centers of the South Caucasus through the Aghstev River valley\u2014along the Yerevan\u2013Aghstafa line. This project, which involved laying the track through the Aghstev River Gorge and had been rejected as early as the 1890s in favor of the interests of the Alaverdi copper ore district, regained relevance during the Soviet period and came to be viewed as one of the key trunk routes for the republic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The construction of the Yerevan\u2013Aghstafa line was included in the plan for the first Five-Year Plan (1926\u20131930) alongside projects such as the Kapan Mines\u2013Mingyavan branch line and the Alyat\u2013Meghri\u2013Julfa railway. At the same time, the project\u2019s implementation was viewed as an immediate priority: on the 1927 map of the Armenian SSR, the Yerevan\u2013Aghstafa route was already marked, as were the Kapan\u2013Mingyavan road and the line through Meghri, among the projects in the implementation phase.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moreover, over 30 million rubles were allocated for the construction of the Aghstafa\u2013Yerevan section, which attests to the project\u2019s advanced planning and its priority status in the transportation policy of that period. Nevertheless, despite repeated references to the need to implement this line throughout the 1930s, the project was never carried out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The Yerevan\u2013Aghstafa railway on a map of the Armenian SSR in 1927. A higher-resolution map is available at the following link:<\/em><\/strong> <\/strong><\/em><\/a>http:\/\/www.etomesto.com\/map\/base\/105\/armeniya-1927.jpg<\/mark><\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The completion of the Alyat\u2013Mingivan\u2013Julfa railway line in 1941 served as a temporary solution that relieved congestion on the northern route and improved Yerevan\u2019s connections with the industrial centers of the USSR. This line provided a shorter route to Baku along the Araks Valley\u2014211 km shorter than the route via Tbilisi (Navtlugi)\u2014which, for a certain period, reduced the relevance of the Yerevan\u2013Aghstafa railway project.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The project was revived in the 1960s, following the completion of the Yerevan\u2013Sevan line (1960). In 1964, Anton Kochinyan, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Armenian SSR, initiated a reconsideration of the issue of constructing this railway, which was once again identified as one of the key trunk routes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It was anticipated that the new line would optimize the existing configuration of the railway network by relieving traffic on the Yerevan\u2013Leninakan\u2013Tbilisi and Yerevan\u2013Nakhichevan\u2013Baku routes. Shortening the routes by 90 and 50 km, respectively, would significantly improve transport efficiency and reduce travel time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Work began in 1966, and the project subsequently became one of the longest-running construction projects in the Armenian SSR. By 1971, the Aghstafa\u2013Kazakh (Gazakh)\u2013Ijevan section had been built, making Ijevan the terminus of the Kazakh branch of the Azerbaijan Railway. Construction of the Ijevan\u2013Hrazdan line took place between 1972 and 1986.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The unsatisfactory pace of construction was repeatedly the subject of criticism and party sanctions. Thus, at a meeting of the Council of Ministers of Armenia in 1981, serious shortcomings in construction were noted, along with the failure to meet targets in 1979 and 1980, as well as significant deficiencies on the part of local and republican agencies. The conclusion stated:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Given the particular importance of the Ijevan\u2013Hrazdan railway line for the economic and social development of the Armenian SSR and in order to complete its construction within the established deadlines, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Armenia, the Council of Ministers of the Armenian SSR, the Ministry of Railways, and the Ministry of Transport Construction resolve:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

– To designate the Ijevan\u2013Hrazdan railway line as the most important construction project of the Armenian SSR.
– To ensure the commissioning of the Ijevan\u2013Hrazdan railway line in 1984 , with through passenger train service commencing in 1983, and on the Ijevan\u2013Dilijan section in 1982\u2026<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In keeping with Soviet tradition, the Ijevan\u2013Hrazdan railway was declared a national Komsomol construction project. However, despite the demands of the party leadership, construction was not completed until 1986 and was marred by significant shortcomings, particularly on the section of the tunnel under the Pambak Range.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Construction of the Ijevan\u2013Hrazdan railway, 1985 (photo by Armenpress).<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the Meghradzor\u2013Fioletovo section, the idea of building a tunnel under the Pambak Range\u2014which had been rejected as early as the 1920s due to cost concerns\u2014was finally implemented. A railway tunnel with a total length of 8,311 m was built here, becoming the third longest in the USSR and the first in the South Caucasus (until the commissioning in 2025 of a new railway tunnel under the Suram Range in Georgia, which is 39 m longer than the Pambak Tunnel). In total, on the 61.3-kilometer Ijevan\u2013Hrazdan section, tunnels accounted for 16.4 km, or more than a quarter of the entire line. They ran beneath the urban area of Ijevan (2,960 m), north of Dilijan, where four tunnels with a total length of 3,760 m were located, as well as on the section south of the village of Hovk (997 m).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Photo of one of the Dilijan tunnels, built using state-of-the-art technology for its time under challenging geological conditions.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On August 9, 1986, rail service, including passenger service, was launched on the Ijevan\u2013Hrazdan line, but it was suspended following the 1988 earthquake. One of the reasons for the suspension was also insufficient ventilation in the tunnel, which caused air pollution inside the train cars to reach levels hazardous to health.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Ticket for the first passenger train on the Ijevan\u2013Hrazdan route, August 9, 1986 (photo by Evia Hovhannisyan).<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Freight transport on the line continued until 1991, reaching its peak in 1988\u20131989 due to the aftermath of the Spitak earthquake. However, with the escalation of the Karabakh conflict, rail service between Armenia and Azerbaijan on this line was suspended. In 1991, it was planned that 34,000 railcars would arrive at the Ijevan station; however, by the spring of that same year, traffic had virtually come to a halt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

During the border hostilities, a section of the railway crossing the line of contact between the parties was damaged. During this period, the Ijevan railway station became a temporary refuge for refugees from the border villages (Azatamut, Kayan). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In addition to this route, projects for other railway lines were developed in the Armenian SSR starting in the 1960s: Fioletovo\u2013Kirovakan (discussed as early as the 1920s), Kirovakan\u2013Stepanavan\u2013Kalinino, Sevan\u2013Martuni\u2013Jermuk, Kapan\u2013Svarants\u2013Meghri, and others. The latter line was intended to connect the largest iron ore deposit in the South Caucasus with the railway network in Meghri.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Projects for the construction of new railway lines in Soviet Armenia (late 1960s).<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The postwar period was characterized by rapid growth in the republic\u2019s industrial sector and an increase in freight volumes. Virtually every major enterprise in the country\u2019s main industrial centers (Hrazdan, Abovyan, Kirovakan, Metsamor) had its own railway sidings. By 1968, the volume of freight transported on Armenia\u2019s railways had exceeded 20 million tons (22.7 million tons, of which 9.73 million tons were exports and 12.97 million tons were imports). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

By 1985, 19.3 million tons of cargo were transported on Armenia\u2019s railways, excluding the Meghri section, and by 1989 this figure had risen to 33.9 million tons, due to increased shipments following the Spitak earthquake of December 1988.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Schematic map of railways in the Caucasus as of 1991. Railways electrified with 3 kV direct current are marked in orange, those with 25 kV alternating current in purple, and non-electrified railways in black. (Source \u2013 <\/a>https:\/\/zametki-geo.livejournal.com\/11468.html<\/mark><\/a>)<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By this time, 90% of Armenia\u2019s 760 km of railways had been electrified. The only major non-electrified sections remaining were the Meghri section (44 km) and the Leninakan\u2013Turkish border section (approximately 13 km). Electrification of the Yeraskh\u2013Meghri line via Nakhichevan continued until 1991, when the Norashen (Sharur)\u2013Julfa section was electrified.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Part 6<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The Only Railway Line Between the USSR and Turkey: Kars\u2013Leninakan<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The only international railway line connecting the USSR and Turkey\u2014Leninakan\u2013Kars\u2014ran through the territory of Armenia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On July 9, 1922, Turkey, the Soviet republics of the Transcaucasus, and the RSFSR signed a railway convention providing for the restoration of service on the Sarikamish\u2013Kars\u2013Tbilisi\u2013Batumi line. Since the Sarikamish\u2013Kars\u2013Leninakan section had been built during the Russian Empire, and the track gauge on both sides of the border was the same, this greatly facilitated the organization of uninterrupted rail service. Under the convention, trains were scheduled to run twice a week\u2014from Sarykamysh and Kars to Batumi and Tbilisi, including passenger cars.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Contacts between the USSR and Turkey became particularly active following the signing of the Treaty of Friendship and Neutrality in December 1925. That same year, a Turkish consulate was opened in Gyumri (Leninakan) (in addition to the consulate in Yerevan), one of whose key tasks was to organize trade and economic ties through the only land border crossing between the two countries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The building of the Turkish consulate in Leninakan (Gyumri), 1930s.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By 1927, the volume of rail freight had already reached a significant level\u20141.33 million tons of cargo. The Soviet side exported petroleum products and industrial goods (oil, gasoline, fuel oil, galoshes, oils, soap, glass, manufactured goods, iron, samovars) to Turkey, while Turkey supplied agricultural products (hay, straw, cotton, fish, butter, brined cheese, honey, hides, barley, wool, meat, pigs, sheep, eggs).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is interesting to note that pork is also mentioned among the goods imported into the USSR in 1929. In all likelihood, its production was linked to the continued presence of a Christian population in Kars until the 1940s\u2014including several hundred Armenians who left the region during the escalation of Soviet-Turkish tensions in the mid-1940s.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 1938, the Turkish consulate in Leninakan was closed, and although there are no direct references to this, the cessation of regular rail service between the USSR and Turkey most likely occurred around the same time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After 1945, as the USSR made territorial claims against Turkey, the Turkish side began dismantling the railway built during the Tsarist period on the section from the border with the USSR to Kars and Sarikamish. This line had a track gauge of 1,520 mm, corresponding to the Soviet standard, whereas the rest of Turkey\u2019s railway network was built to the European standard of 1,435 mm.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By the 1950s, the Erzurum\u2013Kars line had been fully converted to the European gauge, which facilitated the transport of freight and passengers within Turkey but simultaneously created an additional barrier to rail service from the Soviet side.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a 1952 CIA publication on the Soviet-Turkish border, the reason for changing the track gauge on the Sarikamish\u2013Kars\u2013Soviet border section was stated as follows:
 \u201cIn the event of hostilities between Turkey and the Soviet Union, the penetration of a Russian-gauge railway 76 miles (122 km) deep into Turkish territory would give the USSR a tremendous strategic advantage.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Until the early 1960s, the railway between the USSR and Turkey was used primarily for the delivery of international mail and rare diplomatic contacts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On April 27, 1961, the USSR and Turkey signed a new agreement on direct rail service, which entered into force on October 11, 1961. It provided for the opening of a single direct rail crossing via the Akhuryan station for both freight and passenger traffic. In 1968, the agreement was supplemented with a provision regarding transit through the territory of the USSR to the Scandinavian countries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although information on passenger service in the 1960s and 1970s is limited, it is well documented by the early 1980s. The Ankara\u2013 Kars\u2013Leninakan\u2013Moscow passenger service was seasonal (from May 23 to September 25). Trailer cars were used, which were attached at the Leninakan station to the \u201cDruzhba\u201d train (Yerevan\u2013Tbilisi\u2013Rostov\u2013Moscow). Their number increased from one in the early 1980s to six by 1991.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Note on the seasonal nature of passenger services between Kars and Leninakan (Kars\u2013Moscow) in a guide to international railway lines\u2014early 1980s<\/em><\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the final years of the line\u2019s existence, it was used not only for visits to Turkey (including by Armenian \u201cpilgrim tourists\u201d) but also for trips to Greece. The railway also began to be used by the first \u201cshuttle traders,\u201d which significantly revitalized trade in Kars.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Freight traffic between the USSR and Turkey in the 1980s did not reach the levels of the 1920s\u20131930s (in part due to differences in track gauge), but continued to develop actively. Industrial goods were shipped from the USSR to Turkey, while agricultural and textile goods were shipped from Turkey.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Residents of the border village of Akhurik have preserved a remarkable story about the derailment of a train in the early 1980s that was carrying branded sportswear from Turkey\u2014a scarce commodity in the USSR. After local residents looted the cargo, law enforcement arrested dozens of people on charges of theft.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to the recollections of Akhurik residents, starting in the 1970s, one of the most common shipments from the Turkish side was cattle, which were delivered to the Leninakan meat processing plant. In addition to the Akhuryan-1 border station, the Akhuryan-2 station was built between the villages of Akhurik and Gharibdzhanyan by 1991, where Turkish railcars (1,435 mm gauge) were to have their wheel sets changed to 1,520 mm gauge bogies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Until 1989, when the Sarp checkpoint (Georgia) was opened, the Dogukapi\u2013Akhurik crossing remained the only border crossing between the USSR and Turkey.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table. Freight traffic on the Kars\u2013Leninakan railway line in the 1980s and up until the closure of the Armenian-Turkish border (July 1993).<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Year<\/strong><\/td>Freight volume (thousand tons)<\/strong><\/td>Visualization of volume<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead>
1984<\/strong><\/td>65<\/td>\u2587\u2587\u2587<\/td><\/tr>
1989<\/strong><\/td>180<\/td>\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587<\/td><\/tr>
1991<\/strong><\/td>147<\/td>\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587<\/td><\/tr>
1992<\/strong><\/td>90<\/td>\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587<\/td><\/tr>
1993 (<\/strong>up to<\/strong> July)<\/strong><\/td>42<\/td>\u2587\u2587<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Official Ankara suspended rail service between the countries in April 1993\u2014following the occupation of Azerbaijan\u2019s Kelbajar region by Armenian forces. The last shipments (Canadian wheat) via the Kars\u2013Akhurik line arrived in Armenia on July 6, 1993, as an exception, after which the border was permanently closed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In addition to the connection with Turkey, until 1942, rail service between the USSR and Iran also ran through the territory of the Armenian SSR. Prior to the construction of the Alyat\u2013Julfa railway line (1941\u20131942), the two countries were connected by rail exclusively through Armenian territory. At the same time, the Nakhichevan section (Sadarag\u2013Julfa) of the railway was administratively part of the Armenian railway system\u2014initially with its headquarters in Leninakan, and later in Yerevan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After the new line was put into operation, and especially after Soviet troops entered northern Iran in August\u2013September 1941, the Julfa route became of key importance: a significant portion of Lend-Lease supplies (about 25%) entered the USSR via this route.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Delivery of Lend-Lease aid to the USSR via the Tabriz\u2013Julfa railway, 1943 (photo from the U.S. Library of Congress).<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the postwar period, trade volumes between the USSR and Iran continued to grow, at a faster pace than in the case of Turkey, until the mid-1970s , when the situation began to gradually change. The Iranian city of Julfa was home to the country\u2019s largest dry port, and the volume of cargo traffic between the USSR and Iran reached 3\u20134 million tons in the 1980s. By the time of the Soviet Union\u2019s collapse, these figures began to decline, amounting to 2.69 million tons in 1990 and 2.37 million tons in 1991.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(To be continued)<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Samvel Meliksetian (Continued. Part 1\u2026) Part 2 Railway construction in the South Caucasus from 1872 to 1908 (source: blog \u201cNotes of a Geographer\u201d \u2013 https:\/\/zametki-geo.livejournal.com\/) The transportation network that had taken shape by the early 20th century reflected the empire\u2019s primary military, political, and economic priorities. From east to west, railway lines connected the Baku oil fields with the Black Sea ports (Poti, Batumi), passing through Tbilisi and the flat sections of the Kura and Rioni valleys. The port of Baku and the railway network were also actively used for connections with Central Asia. In parallel with the construction of the Baku\u2013Tbilisi line, the Trans-Caspian Railway was developed along the eastern coast of the Caspian Sea: from the port of Uzun-Ada (later Krasnovodsk) to Ashgabat, Bukhara, and Tashkent, which helped strengthen Russian control over the recently conquered territories of Central Asia. The establishment of a ferry service between Baku and Krasnovodsk by 1885 spurred the migration of Armenian and Azerbaijani populations to Central Asia and contributed to the formation of stable communities along the Trans-Caspian Railway. Map of the main highways (bold colored lines) and railroads (black line) of the South Caucasus by 1907. By the start of World War I, the railway infrastructure had acquired decisive military-strategic importance. The Empire built a railway from Kars to the border (Sarykamysh) in 1913. As Turkish historians note, the presence of a railway on the Russian side of the border, which allowed for the rapid deployment of reinforcements, coupled with the absence of similar infrastructure on the Ottoman side, played a key role in the catastrophic defeat of Ottoman forces at the Battle of Sarikamish (December 1914\u2013January 1915), despite the initial success of their offensive and their advance deep into Russian territory, which raised the question of a possible evacuation of government institutions from Tiflis. To the south, the railway along the Araks Valley reached Julfa in 1907, coinciding with the division of spheres of influence in Persia between Russia and Great Britain (1907), and by 1915 it had been extended to Tabriz\u2014the main city of northern Persia. During World War I, the Russian Empire continued railway construction in the occupied territories of the Ottoman Empire and Persia, laying narrow-gauge lines from Sarikamish to Erzurum and from the Shakhtakhty station (Nakhichevan) to Bayazet. The latter was planned to be extended to Van, and by early 1917, construction of railway stations was already underway on the northern shore of the lake (the Berkri\/Muradiye area). During this period, such intensive development of the narrow-gauge network was directly driven by the need for military advancement and consolidation in the occupied territories: given the accelerated pace of construction, the choice of narrow gauge allowed for the most rapid possible transport of troops, food, weapons, and ammunition to the front. Schematic map of railways in the South Caucasus and in the regions of the Ottoman Empire occupied by the Russian army by 1917 (including narrow-gauge railways). Thus, by the time of the Russian Empire\u2019s collapse, a stable transportation network had developed in the South Caucasus, with key lines branching out from Tbilisi to the Black Sea ports, Baku, Kars, and Julfa (on the Persian side). Baku\u2019s growing economic importance also led to its direct connection with the Vladikavkaz Railway along the Caspian coast, and the city itself became a hub for ferry service to Central Asia via the port of Krasnovodsk. Part 3 Communications during the period of Armenian independence (1918\u20131920) and in the Soviet era The geographical features of Armenia\u2019s territory, divided by numerous isolated mountain river basins, shaped the characteristics of its transportation networks, which differed from those of neighboring countries. While Georgia had a main north-south highway running the length of the country, with various branches connecting the country\u2019s regions to Tbilisi, and in Azerbaijan\u2014with Baku, in the case of Armenia, the country\u2019s various regions were better connected to neighboring centers (Tbilisi or Baku) than to Yerevan, whose economic role also lagged significantly behind the other two regional centers until the 1940s and 1950s. During the Russian Empire, the main highway connecting Yerevan with Tbilisi and Baku\u2014as noted in the quote from Ivan Chopin cited in the first part of this publication\u2014ran along the route Yerevan\u2013Sevan\u2013Dilijan\u2013Ijevan\u2013Aghstafa\u2013Tbilisi. Another branch of the highway ran from Dilijan into the Pambak River Gorge and on to Alexandropol (Gyumri), the largest city in Armenia in the 19th century. With Russia\u2019s conquest of Kars, the highway from Alexandropol was extended to this new center of the empire. The connection between the territory of the modern Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic and the centers of the South Caucasus also ran along the Araks River to Yerevan and further along the Dilijan\u2013Aghstafa\u2013Tiflis route. South of Nakhichevan, the highway continued to the village of Julfa, where there was a bridge and a customs post to Persia. From Ordubad to the village of Meghri along the Araks River ran a difficult-to-traverse dirt road, and as for the road from Meghri along the Araks toward modern-day Zangelan, due to the extremely mountainous terrain and the narrow river gorge, the only route marked on the road maps of the Russian Empire was a trail for pack animals. The extremely isolated nature of the Meghri Valley in the past also contributed to the isolation of the local population. This was reflected in the emergence of distinct and specific Meghri and Karchevan dialects of the Armenian language, as well as in the existence of one of the last enclaves of an Iranian-speaking population (generally and incorrectly referred to as Tatars) in the villages of Ushtubin on the southern bank of the Araks River,  Nyuvadi (Nrnadzor) and Tei on the northern bank. Communications in the Ordubad-Meghri area on the 1903 Road Map of the Caucasus Region. A highway is indicated to Ordubad, a cart road from Ordubad to Meghri, and a trail for pack animals from Meghri along the Araks. The modern Syunik region, as part of the Elizavetpol Governorate, was connected to the provincial capital via the Goris-Shushi (Geryus-Shusha)Read More »REGIONAL TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS: HISTORY AND PROSPECTS (Parts 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6)<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":6102,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[151],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6106","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-analysis"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ypc.am\/lineofcontact\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6106","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ypc.am\/lineofcontact\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ypc.am\/lineofcontact\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ypc.am\/lineofcontact\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ypc.am\/lineofcontact\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6106"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.ypc.am\/lineofcontact\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6106\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6155,"href":"https:\/\/www.ypc.am\/lineofcontact\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6106\/revisions\/6155"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ypc.am\/lineofcontact\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6102"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ypc.am\/lineofcontact\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6106"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ypc.am\/lineofcontact\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6106"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ypc.am\/lineofcontact\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6106"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}