Mysteries of Tuapse History

 Home         Britain        Germany      France    Poland      Italy      Japan     USA       

The material presented on the site, of course, cannot pretend to be complete. There are many questions, the answers to which are not yet known to the creators of this site . However, the matter does not stand still, new questions appear and new versions and answers to old ones are found.

Construction narrow-gauge railway Tuapsinki

At the beginning of the 20th century, road transport was quite expensive to operate, and did not yet allow transporting large masses of goods. Therefore, for the construction of large facilities, such as railways, temporary narrow-gauge railways were widely used. The carrying capacity of a narrow-gauge trolley, and even more so a train, was significantly higher than carts or a truck. At the same time, in operation, each pood transported along the narrow-gauge railway was cheaper. The construction of a narrow-gauge railway was more expensive than a dirt road, but much cheaper than a wide-gauge branch line, especially in mountainous areas. In addition, the movement on the narrow-gauge railway did not depend on the weather.

Usually, temporary narrow-gauge tracks were laid from the places of procurement of building materials to the nearest station of the railway under construction, from where they were delivered along a wide track to the construction site. Were there such narrow-gauge railways on Tuapse?

On the website of the Hotel Molniya, in the description of the excursion to Mount Indyuk, such a narrow-gauge railway is mentioned, laid from Tuapseinka to Mount Indyuk, where a stone was harvested for the construction of tunnels and retaining walls of Tuapseinka. This was also confirmed by a resident of one of the villages in the Tuapse river valley. However, the old people living in the village near the Indyuk station, who know very well the surrounding mountains by their words and who fought in them during the war, deny the existence of the railway, and argue that the delivery of the stone from Mount Indyuk was carried out by local residents on carts along the usual horse-drawn road.

Signs of an existing, possibly temporary, narrow-gauge railway Tuapse were also found near Stavropol, in the area of ​​x. Verkhnegorlyksky. For more details, see below, in the section Mysteries of the New Caucasus Bridge .

When was the Palagiada - Staromaryevskaya branch and railways to the east of Stavropol built?

This site contains a version according to which 2 independent and competing companies built 2 railways with two stations through Stavropol. The first was the JSC of the Vladikavkaz railway, which built the Stavropol-Palagiada-Kavkazskaya branch with a dead-end station (now the Stavropol station). The Armavir-Tuapse railway JSC built in 1916 through Stavropol a through railway Tuapse - Stavropol - Petrovskoe (Svetlograd), which also has its own station. The Armavir-Tuapse road project provided for a connecting branch within the city of Stavropol with the station of the Vladikavkaz road. At the same time, the Vladikavkaz road promoted the project of the Palagiada - Staromaryevskaya branch in the government. In the Article by N.I. Lebedikit is indicated that this project was never implemented before the revolution. This is also indicated by the fact that such a branch is not marked on the pre-revolutionary map of Tuapse . According to the recollections of the Stavropol pensioner-railroad worker Vyacheslav Nikolaevich Kataev, this line was built in the mid-20s-30s, and before that all trains to Svetlograd went through Stavropol. On the 1931 map, the Stavropol-Armavir section is already marked as dismantled, while the Stavropol-Staromaryevskaya and Palagiada-Staromaryevskaya branches are simultaneously shown as active. All this allows us to roughly determine the date of construction of the Palagiada - Staromaryevskaya branch as 1930.

At the same time, in the author's abstract of the dissertation of Yu. G. Kharin it is mentioned that in the same 1916 the JSC of the Vladikavkaz railway opened the Palagiada - Vinodelnoe (Ipatovo) railway. The same version is presented in the textbook on the history of Stavropol, published in 1972 , as well as in the Encyclopedia "Railway Transport" (Scientific publishing house "Big Russian Encyclopedia", 1995). The assignment of the Staromaryevskaya - Petrovskoye section to the Vladikavkaz road is an absolute mistake. However, it is quite possible to assume that the Vladikavkaz road in 1916 nevertheless managed to carry out the construction of the Palagiada - Staromaryevskaya branch in order to pull cargo from the Stavropol - Petrovskoye section onto its road and port.

Not everything is clear with the opening date of the Petrovskoe - Vinodelnoe branch. Most sources give the date 1916. However, General Wrangel, who fought with the Red Army in the civil war in the Stavropol Territory, mentions the Petrovskoye station in his memoirs as the final one.

So far, the most likely version is the version set forth on this site that the entire Stavropol - Petrovskoe - Vinodelnoe road was built by the Armavir-Tuapse road JSC in 1916 . After 1917, when the Russian railways had a new owner, the Stavropol-Armavir section was closed, and the only way to Petrovskoye remained, from Kavkazskaya through 2 Stavropol railway stations with two changes in direction along branches with a very complex track profile. There was an urgent need to build a bypass line along the plain north of Stavropol. Then the Palagiada - Staromaryevskaya branch appeared, proposed by the Vladikavkaz Railway JSC 15 years ago, but not built at that time.

Where were the stations on the Staromaryevskaya - Stavropol - Armavir section?

For a steam locomotive, overcoming a track with a very heavy profile, more than 100 versts long between Stavropol and Armavir, was a difficult task. It was necessary to replenish supplies of fuel and water on the way. In addition, the road passed through several villages and stanitsas, which were potential sources of not only passengers, but also agricultural goods. Obviously, there should have been stations on this section of Tuapsinki.

And there were such stations. They are marked on the map of Tuapse in 1916 and described in the comments to it. These are "Ubezhenskaya", "Nikolaevskaya", "Sengilevskaya", "Temnoleskaya", as well as "Ula" between Stavropol and Staromaryevskaya.

The articles by A.A. Vlasov, the stations "Ubezhenskaya", "Derzhavnaya", "Nedremennaya", "Tatarka" and the siding "Bazny" are also mentioned about the armored trains of the Volunteer Army, located on the road in the listed order. The relevant excerpts from these materials are given in the section "The Civil War in Tuapse" .

But where could they be? "Ula" (or "Chla"?) Could be located northeast of Stavropol. But no traces have yet been found there.

Station buildings have been preserved in the southern part of Stavropol and in the village. Demino . One of them, apparently, was the Ozernaya station. Or "Darkwood".

Traces of some kind of foundation remained in Upper Tatarka on the slope of Stavropol Mountain and Tatarka gully. However, at this point, the foundation is too far from the embankment.

There is also a strange fork in the embankments for the tracks in Nizhnaya Tatarka. But one of the ways was a dead end, the neck was from the side of Stavropol. Apparently, the Tatarka station was in one of these places. In Upper Tatarka, there could also be "Temnoleskaya".

A relatively convenient place for arranging a crossing can be called a hollow between the mountains north of x. Verkhnegorlyksky. But no traces have yet been found there.

The next convenient place is on the other bank of the Yegorlyk, and there really are foundations of two buildings, the area around which was probably an artificially leveled area (for laying tracks?). Logically, there could be "Tatarka" (the only intelligible station found near the village), "Nedremennaya" (as it stands near Nedremennaya mountains), "Temnoleskaya" or even "Sengilevskaya" (along Yegorlyk there could be roads to the villages of Temnolesskaya and Sengileevskaya) ...

Remains of the foundations of the station structures are also found on the southern slope of the Nedremenny ridge near the village of Nadzorny. (Maybe "Sengilevskaya" is it here?).

A full-fledged railway station with a track development, a cargo terminal and a refueling point for steam locomotives was discovered near the village of Nikolaevskaya. For more details see the page "Station Nikolaevskaya" .

Found also a foundation in the area x. Sovereign . Obviously, this is the "Sovereign" mentioned by Vlasov.

The situation with the Bazny junction is more unclear. In the description of the battle and the death of an armored train on this siding in the article by A.A. Vlasov it is mentioned that he was between Stavropol and s. Tatarka, at the exit from it in the direction of Stavropol there was a notch, and on the right (along the train?) There was a valley. Only one place fits this description - on the roundabout between the beams of the rivers 1st and 2nd Mamayki. But no traces were found there.

Mysteries of the Novokavkazsky bridge

On the way from Stavropol to Armavir, the road had to go down along the slopes from the Stavropol Mountain, cross the Yegorlyk valley, and again climb the slopes of the Nedremenny ridge in order to cross it. The high Novokavkazsky bridge was built, apparently, in order to minimize the height differences between the sections of the road on these slopes and in the Yegorlyk valley.

But to the west of Novokavkazsky there was another bridge across Yegorlyk, possibly unfinished or destroyed (see map ). There are also neat flat embankments leading to Tuapsinka, the railway purpose of which is beyond doubt.

Perhaps it was a construction track road. Such roads have always been built before the start of the construction of the railway line. Such a road went along Tuapseinki.

It is also possible that a narrow-gauge railway was running there, along which building materials were transported from quarries in the Mamaysky forest. After that, the main road was partially laid along the narrow-gauge track. Such temporary narrow-gauge railways were previously used by the builders of Tuapsinka at the Goytkh pass.

It can also be assumed that this was a temporary route of the main railway, since the construction of the Novokavkazsky bridge and high embankments required a large amount of work with a relative distance from the nearest sources of building stone and the absence of roads well suited for transporting large loads. The first trains had to overcome steep descents and ascents in the Yegorlyk valley, until the main route was put into operation, through the Novokavkazsky bridge.

This version is also supported by the embankments that are too low at the present time at the Novokavkazsky Bridge. Maybe they were not completed? The missing span of the bridge itself may have never existed either, since no debris can be seen underneath. Some Tatarka residents also say that the road was not completed, although trains did run along it.

There is another version: the Novokavkazsky bridge and the embankments to it were nevertheless built and operated. The bridge was blown up in the civil war, after which a temporary road route was built (possibly using the remnants of the Novokavkazsky bridge). Even the Germans in the 40s could do this (see "Tuapse during the German occupation" ). And the embankments just swam over time.

The question also arises, where did these 2 branches diverge and where did they merge? Where was the fork on the north side, i.e. from the side of Tatarka is not yet known. Numerous landslides over the past decades have greatly distorted the area and destroyed in many places the traces of Tuapse. Most likely, it was behind the Small Novokavkazsky Bridge . But it could be closer to Tatarka. On the southern side of the valley, the location of the fork is well marked - 2 embankments converge with each other. And it was in this place that traces of the station were found.

Another mystery - when and by whom was the northern span of the Novokavkazsky bridge destroyed? Apparently, it was blown up during the fighting in the Civil War .

The last train, the passage of which from Armavir to Stavropol is reliably known, was the armored train of the Volunteer Army "Sea Battery No. 2" . In the period from September 13 to October 14, 1918, he retreated under the onslaught of the Taman army from Armavir to Stavropol, where his base was located and where he regularly traveled to supply water and fuel. Probably during these battles by the Tamans, who, most likely, did not have armored trains, the Novokavkazsky bridge was blown up.

The bridge could also have been blown up at the end of October 1918 during the attack on Stavropol by the troops of General Wrangel. From Armavir he was supported by the armored trains "United Russia" and "1st Armored Train" . However, these armored trains did not take part in the storming of Stavropol, although they were urgently needed there. Is it because of the destroyed Novokavkazsky bridge?

Theoretically, the bridge could have been destroyed in 1920, during the retreat of the whites. But armored trains in those years, apparently, were not used in the region of Stavropol by either side, and therefore it made no sense to blow up a railway bridge across a small river.

Did the Germans restore Tuapse during the occupation of Stavropol in 1942-1943?

On the map of Stavropol, compiled by the Germans during the occupation , the dismantled Tuapsinka and the connecting branch between the stations are marked in the same way as the existing Stavropol - Caucasian branch. According to some reports, the rails lay on embankments within the city until the 40s, counting on the subsequent restoration of the road.

However, there is also such information that in the 40s the road was indeed partially restored in Stavropol. Precisely by the German occupation authorities. And the German map was, therefore, not far from the truth, and reflected, if not the present, then the imminent future, in the opinion of the occupation authorities.

Unfortunately, we still do not know what sections of the road and for what purposes were restored in those years.