Belgrade – Bar railway line

Belgrade – Bar railway line
Belgrade Bar railway line, stops not shown
Route length:	476.059 km
Gauge :	1435 mm ( standard gauge )
Power system :	25 kV 50 Hz  ~
Maximum slope :	25  ‰
Top speed:	Serbia : individual sections: 100 km / h many sections: 50 km / h Montenegro : border Montenegro – Kolašin: 80 km / h Kolašin – Bratonoţići: 50 km / h Bratonoţići – Podgorica: 60 km / h Podgorica – Bar: 70 km / H
Legend to Pančevo 0.0 Beograd Gl. from Zagreb : Old bridge to Pančevo New bridge Beograd Centar Senjak 2.6 Topčider 5.1 Dedinje tunnel (3,111 m) Topčider Rbf 6.4 Abzw G 6.8 8.5 Rakovica Belgrade Rbf 10.7 Kneževac 10.9 Abzw A 11.7 Kijevo to Zagreb to Požarevac 14.1 0.4 Resnik 105  m. i. J. to Niš and Kragujevac 7.6 Bela Reka 171  m. i. J. Tunnel 4 (3,820 m) 12.2 Nenadovac 15.7 Barajevo 153  m. i. J. 17.9 Barajevo centar Nikola Tesla A. 23.1 Veliki Borak 118  m. i. J. Nikola Tesla B. 27.7 Leskovac Kolubarski 30.6 Stepojevac 95  m. i. J. Coal mine Kolubara A. 37.3 Vreoci 94  m. i. J. Kolubara coal mine 45.4 Lazarevac 109  m. i. J. 52.6 Lajkovac 111  m. i. J. 59.0 Slovac 124  m. i. J. 63.9 Mlađevo 67.2 Divci sports airport 145  m. i. J. 69.2 Lukavac Kolubarski 73.7 Iverak 77.7 Valjevo 186  m. i. J. 84.6 Valjevski Gradac 264  m. i. J. 91.6 Leskovice 94.0 Lastra 389  m. i. J. 103.1 Samari 501  m. i. J. Drenovački-kik tunnel (3,918 m) 107.7 Drenovački Kik 111.4 Ražana 487  m. i. J. Cement plant 118.9 Kosjeric 412  m. i. J. 123.4 Tubići 129.8 Kalenic 352  m. i. J. 133.6 Otanj 135.8 Glumač 140.8 Požega 312  m. i. J. 142.9 to Kraljevo 145.6 Rasna 149.3 Uzići 151.5 Zlakusa 154.2 Bukovička rampa 157.0 Sevojno 363  m. i. J. Aluwerk Impol 161.9 Užice Gbf 401  m. i. J. 163.9 Užice 418  m. i. J. 170.6 Stapari 521  m. i. J. 173.4 Ristanovića Polje 176.0 Tripkova 178.3 Sušica 631  m. i. J. 185.2 Branesci Zlatibor tunnel, 6170 m 193.3 Zlatibor 784  m. i. J. 200.3 Ribnica Zlatiborska 204.5 Jablanica 613  m. i. J. border Serbia / Bosnia and Herzegovina Goleš tunnel (4950 m) 211.6 Goleš 214.8 Štrpci 532  m. i. J. border Bosnia and Herzegovina / Serbia Uvac 219.5 Rača 225.3 Priboj na Limu 390  m. i. J. 228.3 Poljice 232.8 Pribojska Banja 241.3 Bistrica na Limu 448  m. i. J. Lim 246.3 Džurovo 252.6 Prijepolje 453  m. i. J. 255.9 Prijepolje Teretna (Gbf) 259.6 Velika Zupa 264.6 Lučice 505  m. i. J. 273.3 Brodarevo 562  m. i. J. 285.2 Vrbnica 554  m. i. J. border 287.4 Serbia / Montenegro 292.3 Sutivan 296.9 Bijelo Polje border station 299.8 Lješnica 304.2 Kruševo Jugopetrol tank farm 308.3 Ravna Rijeka 310.4 Slijepač must 313.6 Mijatovo Kolo 316.6 Žari Mojkovac tunnel (3243 m) 321.4 Mojkovac 324.4 Štitarička Rijeka 331.1 Trebaljevo 334.8 Oblutak 340.6 Kolašin 343.8 Padež Tare , vertex 1032  m. i. J. 347.1 Mateševo 369.5 Ostrovica tunnel (3827 m) 351.5 Kos 354.0 Selište 358.8 Trebešica Trebešica tunnel (5122 m) 364.5 Kruševački Potok 369.6 Lutovo 373.9 Pelev Brijeg 379.1 Bratonižići 383.6 Podkrš Mala Rijeka Viaduct (498 m) 389.6 Bioče 400.3 Zlatica after Nikšić 405.1 Podgorica Aluminum plant Zetatrans to Shkodra 413.1 Aerodrom Podgorica Airport 415.8 Golubovci 419.0 Morača 424.3 Zeta Morača 427.5 Vranjina Skadar Lake 434.1 Virpazar 437.5 Crmnica Sozina tunnel (6170 m) 464.1 Sutomore 452.0 Šušanj Bar Gbf 454.8 bar Harbor bar Swell:

The Belgrade – Bar railway is a 476 km long electrified main line in Serbia and Montenegro , which was completed in 1976 and connects Belgrade with the Mediterranean port of Bar . It was built by the Yugoslav State Railways (JŽ) in 25 years of construction and is now operated by their successor companies Železnice Srbije (ŽS), Željeznice Republike Srpske (ŽRS) and Željeznica Crne Gore (ŽCG).

The mountain railway crosses three mountain ranges in the Dinaric Mountains and has its apex at 1032 m. South of this the maximum gradient of the route is 25 ‰, north of it 17 ‰. The route in difficult terrain made 254 tunnels and over 243 bridges necessary. The route is considered to be one of the most difficult in Europe.

The connection from the Serbian capital to the Adriatic coast was one of the major railway projects in Europe in the second half of the 20th century. In its time it was regarded as the most important railway construction after the Second World War and the most expensive infrastructure project of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia . Today it is Serbia's shortest connection to a Mediterranean port and the only international passenger transport connection in Montenegro. Albania has also been connected to the European rail network since 1986 via the Belgrade – Bar line. From the opening until June 15, 2018, all trains with the exception of the Subotica operated from the historically most important railway station in Serbia, Beograd-Glavna , ran for 42 years . With the timetable of June 16, 2018, the Topčider train station is temporarily the starting point for motorail trains. A pair of seasonal trains will be offered via Beograd Centar station with the 2018 season . The last train to Montenegro from Beograd-Glavna left the station on June 15, 2018.

Route description

Mala Rijeka Viaduct

The leading through scenic canyons and mountainous regions of the Mediterranean route is an important feeder to the Montenegrin coast in summer tourism as well as in freight transport as a connection for the car -, heavy -, chemical and engineering industries of the Serbian industrial regions of Šumadija , Pomoravlje , Polimlje and the Greater Belgrade to the port bar.

Geography and landscape

The Belgrade – Bar line is the southernmost railway transversal on the Balkan Peninsula, which connects the Danube plain with the Mediterranean coast. The greatest obstacle to such a connection is the Dinaric Mountains, which the route crosses at its widest point. The route runs along the deeply cut valleys, which in places hardly have a valley bottom. The route was particularly difficult because of the mountain ranges running across the connection from northwest to southeast.

Snowfall and precipitation can affect rail traffic. The congestion on the mountain bar leads to precipitation values ​​that are among the highest in Europe. In Crkvice up to 5000 l / m² are measured annually.

Routing

Play media file

on the ride in the Morača Canyon

The railway line changes its technical characteristics several times because of the very different landscapes it traverses. Starting as a hilly route in the Šumadija , it is a flat railway in the wide Kolubara valley , turns into a mountain railway to Valjevo in the western Serbian mountains until it reaches the gorge-like valley of the Lim river at Priboj . There the route has the character of a sometimes very difficult valley railway and between Bijelo Polje and Podgorica it is again a mountain railway under difficult conditions, as it passes through the high karst zone here . Between Podgorica and the distance bar extends only in one plane, then passes through the coastal mountain with a base tunnel built sozina tunnel and, after a short distance the port shore bar.

It touches almost all types of relief in Southeastern Europe, but for the most part it runs through mountainous landscapes. The most difficult are the sections between Užice and Priboj, where the 1500 m high Zlatibor chain is crossed, and between Bijelo Polje and Podgorica, where the 2100 m high Dinarides are crossed. The route has three peaks: the first is in the Drenovački-kik tunnel at 539 m, the second in the Zlatibor tunnel at 701 m and the third in the Kolašin station at 1032 m.

Crossing the Dinaric Mountains

After Belgrade and passing the oak forests of the Šumadija ( Avala and Kosmaj ), the route crosses the brazier near Lazarevac . In the lower Kolubara valley , after Valjevo, the first section of the gorge in the Kolubara tributary Gradac is negotiated. Then the catchment area of Western Morava and Užice is reached. In a winding course with numerous tunnels through the open, pine-covered plateaus of Zlatar and Zlatibor , it briefly runs over Bosnian territory near Štrpci over spruce-covered mountain ranges and leads down into the Lims valley. Following the Lim to Bijelo Polje, the course of the river between Priboj and Prijepolje is crossed several times and the railway leaves Serbian territory at the Kumanica monastery . From Bijelo Polje it leads through Montenegro. With the Mojkovac tunnel, the route leaves the Lim valley and reaches the upper reaches of the Tara near Mojkovac . Following the valley with dense beech forests, the route crosses the primeval forest of the Biogradska Gora National Park and runs between the Sinjajevina planina and the Moračka planina for the first time between 2000 m high mountains of the Durmitor ceiling . Behind Kolašin , the railway breaks through the northern Montenegrin highlands and leads into the most technically demanding geological area for railway construction in the rugged high karst of the Morača Canyon. Between the over 2200 m high Karlingen of the Moračka planina, the route runs through numerous galleries and tunnels into the subtropical realms of the Zeta plain , which after crossing the 202 m high viaduct of the Mala Rijeka with cypresses, figs and beach pines, the striking climatic change to the Mediterranean Announce habitat. After a short drive, following the lower reaches of the Morača, the railway reaches Podgorica . Over the lower zeta level with expansive wine plantations of Agro Combine July 13 the railway crossing on a dam the area, the largest lake on the Balkan Peninsula, the Skadar Lake . After Virpazar , the karstified Rumija Mountains are crossed in the Sozina tunnel, the longest tunnel on the route. The terminus of the railway in Bar is located on the Montenegrin Riviera. On the journey between the Sava-Danube lowland in Belgrade, at an altitude of approx. 75 m, and Bar, which is 11 m, the railway overcomes a difference in altitude of over 1000 m . The highest station on the railway line is Kolašin at 1024 m above sea level, the apex of the line is south of Kolašin on the upper reaches of the Tara at the Mateševo ​​stop at 1032 m above sea level ( 42 ° 46 ′ 10.4 ″  N , 19 ° 32 ′ 7.3 ″  O ). The steepest ascent on the section from Podgorica to Bijelo Polje is 25 ‰, all other ramps on the route have a maximum gradient of 18 ‰.

technology

Route profile

In the 400 m high drop of the Sjeverica, the railway runs along the most difficult slope. In the picture the Lutovo slope bridge.

It is a standard gauge single-track railway line with a length of 476 kilometers (Belgrade-Bar) (the total length of the actual new line of Resnik up bar is 454.8 km, of which 277.6 km in Serbia, 9.8 km in Bosnia and Herzegovina and 167.4 km in Montenegro). The entire length of the line is electrified with single-phase alternating voltage of 25 kV at 50 Hz. The design speed is 75 to 120 km / h, depending on the terrain, some sections allow 160 km / h. The terrain specifications required an unprecedented technical effort. The route has a total of three pairs of ramps: 539 m between Samari and Ražana, 791 m in the Zlatibor tunnel, 1032 m behind Kolašin. Apart from voluminous rock and earth movements, the alignment of the single-track full-gauge line required the construction of 254 tunnels with a total length of 114.435 km and over 435 bridges with a total length of 14.593 km. This means that almost a quarter of the route is in tunnels. In particular, all higher mountain complexes had to be crossed under, so that the longest tunnels can be found under the coastal and Zlatibor chain as well as in the Montenegrin highlands. The accumulation of engineering structures means that the Belgrade – Bar line can claim the superlative of Europe's most bridges and tunnels. The longest tunnels are the Sozina tunnel (6.171 km) and the Zlatibor tunnel (6.169 km), Trebešica tunnel (5.172 km), Goleš tunnel (4.949 km), Ostrovica tunnel (3.831 km), Mojkovac tunnel ( 3.263 km). With a further seven tunnels, with a total of 49 km, these already take up 42% of the total underground route length.

The route options in the Hochkarst between Kolašin and Podgorica with a height difference of 1000 m were examined by route groups made up of twelve engineers and 28 technicians and workers in more than 30 route variants in 18 months. Stereo aerial photo pairs from the VGI ( Vojnogeografski Institut Beograd ) served as the basis for mapping in the extraordinarily rugged, waterless and pathless Karst of Montenegro, but a large part of the work still had to be mapped tachymetrically in the pathless mountains. Those involved camped in the area and could only be supplied with pack animals. The route options were explored in a mountaineering manner. Three route variants were investigated: "Upper Morača variant" (M 3) with an apex tunnel through a foothill of the Sinjavina Mountains with a double loop, the "Lower Upper Morača variant" (M 10) with a very long tunnel through the Sinjavina -Massiv and the later "Ostrovica variant" (M 14) with the Ostrovica apex tunnel - where the route crosses the main European watershed. The Trebešica tunnel in the Bratonožiči plateau and the Mala-Rijeka viaduct posed the greatest technical challenges in order to lead the route into the Zeta plain as quickly as possible and not too laboriously with a maximum gradient of 25 ‰ and structurally most difficult route section. The slope route descending at 25 ‰ in the Bratonožiči plateau on the slope of the Morača had to be accomplished through numerous tunnels, slope bridges, galleries and retaining walls. When a large and very deep cave lake opened up when drilling in the Trebešica tunnel, it was crossed by a bridge inside the tunnel. In the previous attempt to fill the cave lake on the tunnel route, the loss of a human life was lamented because the excavator disappeared in the bottom of the cave. One of the five stations on this section, the Duboščica siding, is located entirely in the tunnel and on a slope bridge in the steep drop to Morača. The previously completely inaccessible karst highlands of the Bratonožić massif had to be opened up through a large number of access roads before construction work could begin. The workers and engineers employed in the construction of the route had to be housed in their own residential camps, far from any human settlement near the construction sites. Their daily work repeatedly required the use of mountaineering movement and safety techniques.

The largest and best-known bridge and the most recognizable feature of the route is the Mala-Rijeka viaduct , which is 498 m long and rises a maximum of 198 m above ground. It has four pillars with a maximum span of 150.8 m between the two central pillars. The pillars are 60 m, 136 m, 126 m and 42 m high. Paul Delacroix highlighted the bridge as a landmark in the tradition of Gustave Eiffel's Paris Eiffel Tower. The 498 m long metal girders were assembled in their individual segments in a factory, then dismantled and carried to the site on foot. The bridge is at a slope of 3 ‰, in the last yoke on the side towards Podgorica at 5 ‰. This is followed by an arc with a 300 m radius. The next two longest bridges are Ljubovija (450 m) and Uvac (388 m).

There are 54 stations along the route: 34 are access points for passenger and freight traffic, 9 are pure crossing stations, the remaining marshalling yards. The theoretical capacity was calculated to be 58 to 66 pairs of trains per day, the permissible axle load is 22 t, the subgrade is 5.7 m wide. Rail profile 49A was laid on the line and in the main station tracks, and profile 45A was laid in the other station tracks.

On the Montenegrin section, the maximum speed between Kolašin and Podgorica in 2014 is 50 to 60 km / h, on the other sections 70 to 80 km / h.

history

See also : Danube-Adria-Bahn

See also : Sandschakbahn

overview

The Sanjak and Danube-Adriatic Railway were the core projects of political opponents on the Balkan Peninsula at the beginning of the 20th century

Lexa von Aehrenthal was the Austro-Hungarian Foreign Minister between 1906 and 1912. Under Aehrenthal the concession of the Sandschakbahn and in particular the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina were operated, which led to the international conflict over the great power interests on the Balkan peninsula.

In 1912, a route variant presented by Jovan Cvijic appeared, which provided for the Adriatic connection from Meradare via Kosovo Polje to the Drin Gulf on the Albanian coast through the results of the First Balkan War

Montenegro proposed a route for the Danube-Adriatic Railway, which was later to be implemented with the end point in Bar

Serbia was the last independent country in Europe to start building railways in the 19th century. Before the First World War, there were only a few rail connections to neighboring countries, to Austria-Hungary only via the Savebrücke near Belgrade. The Bosnian Eastern Railway was still led to the Serbian border at the beginning of the 20th century, which aroused more suspicion here than was seen as an opportunity. Overall, the Serbian railway network did not meet the military requirements of the time, as the only main line built in standard gauge was easy to cut and offered little opportunity for rapid mobilization. Connections offered by Austria-Hungary to Serbia to the Bosnian narrow-gauge network and the Adriatic ports Gruž and Zelenika , which can be reached via it, would have left Serbia dependent on Austria-Hungary and were not really discussed.

In the results of the Russo-Turkish War in the Berlin Congress in 1878, Austria-Hungary received not only the right to administer Bosnia and Herzegovina as a protectorate, but also the permission to set up garrisons in the Ottoman Sanjak in Priboj, Prijepolje and Pljevlja , which were a territorial union of Serbia and Helped prevent Montenegro. Through an agreement with the Sublime Porte, Austria-Hungary wanted to allow the standard-gauge Sandschak Railway to run on Ottoman territory, which would connect in its western part to the narrow-gauge Austrian Bosnian Eastern Railway from Uvac to Sarajewo , which was completed in 1906, and on its eastern part in Kosovska Mitrovica , the end point of the Ottoman Orient Railway , which ended here in 1874 , via Skopje to Thessaloniki on the Aegean Sea. Only 160 km separated the endpoints of the railways.

This project was viewed with suspicion by Serbia, which after the customs war of 1906 sought independent access to the Adriatic as a strategic priority of its foreign policy, as it was hoped that a connection independent of Austro-Hungarian influence would free Serbian trade from the trade pressure of the neighboring superpower. However, the last impetus for realizing the Adriatic Railway idea promoted by Serbia's protective power, Russia, came directly as a reaction to the advance of Lexa von Aehrenthal , the Ottoman concessions for route studies in the construction of the Sandschak Railway on January 27, 1908, in a speech that turned out to be highly explosive in terms of foreign policy revealed to the Hungarian delegations, which received a similar echo in the foreign press that was otherwise only characteristic of Bismarck's great foreign policy speeches:

“This Uvac-Mitrovica line should definitely be retained as a transport policy idea, because it not only brings the Bosnian railway network into contact with the transport routes of neighboring countries, but it also opens up new transport policy perspectives for us. After completion of the connection of the Bosnian railway network to the Turkish one, trade from the monarchy will be able to gravitate directly via Sarajevo to the Aegean and Mediterranean Sea. Hopefully, within a short time it will be possible to connect the Turkish and Greek railways at Larissa. In this way there would be a direct connection Vienna-Budapest-Sarajevo-Athens-Piraeus. That would also be the shortest route from Central Europe to Egypt and India. "

- Aehrenthal, January 27, 1908, before the Hungarian delegates

This speech immediately staged a diplomatic action that called the entire diplomacy of the great powers on the scene. Worse than the diplomatic disagreements, however, were the reactions of public opinion in the entire European press, which was particularly in France, Russia, Serbia, Italy and Great Britain in the front against the Sanjak Railway and had a significant impact on the diplomatic representatives of the countries and thus the wedge between deepened the powers.

From the diplomatic surprise of Russia in the Sandschakbahn question, the geopolitical contradiction on the Balkan Peninsula turned into a world-political question of the first order, into which German politics on Austria's side was finally drawn. Inspired by the reputation Austria-Hungary gained in the Sandschakbahn concession as an active player in great power issues, Aehrenthal wanted a far greater success - the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina . Germany stood with its ally on this question, too, which led the other great powers to suspect that Austria had only acted as a puppet of Germany in the “Sanjak adventure”. With the Sanjak Railway concession and the annexation of Bosnia, Austria had gained a political advantage in the Balkans, but had damaged its relationship with the powers of the Triple Alliance and Serbia. In the thinking of those responsible for the Austrian leadership, the Sandschakbahn project was only the first stage of a broader strategic offensive in the Balkans; and Conrad of Hötzendorf stressed in his annual memorandum end of 1907 the need for a future Balkan offensive as an obligation to protect nearby markets. The Sandschakbahn question was thus based on the overarching strategic-political motives of Austria.

Russia, which suffered a serious diplomatic defeat on the Sanjak Railway question and had been duped again by Aehrenthal's actions in the annexation crisis, played the Adriatic Railway question in favor of Serbia in the course of the Balkan Wars. After the Serbian army was able to prevail in the First Balkan War against the Ottoman army at Kumanovo , Prilep and Bitola (Monastir), two armies were commissioned to advance to the Adriatic Sea via Albania. With this advance the possibilities of the railway line on the relation Prahovo – Zaječar – Niš – Pristina – Bar (via Durrës ) were updated in the following political negotiations. Via the natural breakthroughs of Timok , Nišava , Toplica and Drim , the most difficult mountain routes should now finally be bypassed at topographically favorable waymarks and the railway should lead over the Albanian coast to the sea, as recommended by Jovan Cvijić :

“For a Serbian-Adriatic rail link, only the Drim and Matja contour line can be considered. Even if you want to take the train from Serbia only to the Montenegrin port of Antivari [Bar], you have to guide it through the contours of the Drim and Mtja. Another line of rails further north would have to cross the Dinaric mountain ranges of over 2000 m. Hardly feasible, it would in any case not represent an economic, but only a tourist train. "

- Jovan Cvijić (1912): Serbia's access to the Adriatic . In Petermann's Mitteilungen from Justus Perthes' Geographischer Anstalt, 58, Berlin. Here p. 362)

The two competing railway projects thus reflected the foreign policy rivalries of the great powers in the Balkans, whereby Austria-Hungary tried until 1914 to vehemently prevent Serbia from establishing an access to the Adriatic, while at the same time steadily expanding its own routes between the Danube plain and the Mediterranean. In the diplomatic phases in the battle for the two transport projects, the conflict between Great Britain and Germany finally cast its shadow and included them in the series of causes of the conflict in the First World War. In the meantime, the Antivari railway in Montenegro had been completed with Italian funding by 1908. The narrow-gauge railway with a gauge of 750 mm, however, was only of poor performance and could not be considered as a section of a main line in the long term.

Idea phase

The idea of ​​the railway line connecting Serbia to the Adriatic Sea, which affected the country's territorial aspirations towards the great powers surrounding these in the 19th century - Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire - had become too deep in the course of the 19th and early 20th centuries Conflicts of interest between the principles of national self-determination and historical legitimation. The conflict exemplifies the modern history of the Balkans. Serbia's aspiration to gain access to the Adriatic Sea via a railway line has resulted from both self-defense and nationalism. The idea of ​​a connection with the Adriatic came into the focus of Serbian foreign policy after the settlement of the Oriental question . From 1912 to 1914 this led to the intensification of relations with Austria-Hungary on the Yugoslav question from the union of the Habsburg southern Slavs with Serbia in one state, which in 1914 also led to a clash with the Central European powers. The diplomatic and military interventions to prevent the construction of the railway line before the First World War finally postponed its completion to the late second half of the 20th century.

The basic political program behind the Adriatic access came from the ideas of the Polish émigré and revolutionary Adam Jerzy Czartoryski , who saw in this the possibility of achieving Serbia's economic independence and the unification of the Slavs of the Balkan Peninsula. This program was worked out in Ilja Garašanins Načertanje (1844). Czartoryski's agent in Belgrade, Franjo Zach , further elaborated the program of access to the Adriatic via union with Montenegro, which was accepted by the Serbian government and the prince. As Serbia's foreign minister, Garašanin created the idea of ​​“free access to the Adriatic” for economic emancipation from Austria-Hungary with the help of an Adriatic port as the constant that determined Serbia's foreign policy until 1918.

The first mention of the so-called Transbalkan Railway (Transbalkanska Železnica) dates from December 15, 1855 in Srpske Novine . While the Serbian proposal provided for a route from Scutari via Bosnia to Belgrade, the Ottoman Empire had expressed the wish two months earlier to build a railway between Wallachia via the Principality of Serbia and the Adriatic Sea near the Bay of Kotor . This should connect Bucharest with Belgrade and this in turn with Kotor. Since this planned railway connection from southern Russia via Romania, Serbia, the Ottoman Empire to Montenegro should reach, it was called the "Trans-Balkan Railway".

Realization attempt 1919–1941

After the First World War, work on rebuilding the destroyed lines was initially given priority. The country did not yet have a concept of the priorities for further railway expansion. Since the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes had not received the Adriatic port of Rijeka, a substitute was sought for the port facilities and rail connections of Fiume / Rijeka that had fallen to Italy. The Croatians therefore opted for a quick connection to the port of Bakar, one of the main ports in the Kvarner Gulf. However, the route here was completed so late in 1931 that the political results of the negotiations between Italy and Yugoslavia on the use of the port of Sušak near Rijeka from 1924 onwards did not offer the country any profit.

Two other Adriatic projects in the interwar period were the connection of Split and Šibenik via the Lika Railway and the competing project of connecting Belgrade via the Bosnian narrow-gauge railway to Sarajevo and via the Neretva Valley to Ploče, for which only the missing section of the Šarganska osmica between Užice and Vardište (54.7 km) had to end. Both railways opened in 1925.

Nevertheless, work continued on the actual Adriatic Railway. In 1930, Blair & Co. Inc. took out a loan of 70 million gold dollars for the railway route (out of a total credit of 100 million dollars) for the construction of the Transbalkan Railway in New York. A partial relation between Kosovo Polje and Peć was ended in 1935. Afterwards, a tunnel through the Prokletije connecting to Rožaje and a route via Lim and Tara should be built.

In 1936, however, another route variant was decided, which differed from that of the Danube-Adriatic Railway. This direct route was presented in 1939 as an official project as the Adriatic Railway through a direct route from Belgrade to Kotor via Ripanj – Lajkovac – Valjevo – Požega – Zlatibor – Prijepolje – Ravna Rijeka – Vojnik – Nikšić – Grahovo – Kotor, smaller works began before that the Second World War, which prevented all further work. However, the draft plans from the 1930s served to further develop the two main variants:

• over the Drina valley
• across the Lim valley

The very extensive documentation was completely destroyed by the fascist occupiers in World War II.

The construction of the railway 1951–1976

background

Vrbnica border station, Serbia

The Mala-Rijeka bridge is equipped with metal windshields on the sides. These enable safe passage even during hurricane-like bora storms .

Play media file

Drive over the Mala rijeka

In the SFR Yugoslavia , too, the ambitious and cost-intensive construction project for the Belgrade – Bar railway line, which was planned as a prestigious socialist project of the Union of Communists of Yugoslavia, had a strongly polarizing function among the republics. The rivalries between the republics for federal funds for their own railway lines and other infrastructure projects led to an intense discussion about the Belgrade – Bar railway line between Slovenia and Croatia on the one hand and Serbia and Montenegro on the other. Although the Belgrade – Bar railway line, mostly abbreviated as BB, was the most expensive and largest strategic project of the state as a whole and was planned and implemented through the joint federal structural fund, the two republics of Serbia and Montenegro had to bear two thirds of the financing themselves. The route also formed the last major project in Yugoslavia to be financed by federal funds. Under pressure from the two formerly richest republics of Yugoslavia, the federal fund was suspended for political reasons during the construction of the Belgrade – Bar line on December 31, 1970, which delayed the completion of the line by several years and also called its realization into question several times. The Republic of Serbia was able to secure the lack of funds with a nationwide tendered and extremely successful public loan and donation campaign, which "made the Belgrade – Bar line primarily a collective act of belief in the railroad" . Along with this, the national dream of Serbia was realized.

After the Second World War, all the documents on the technical characteristics and others with the studies on the routing and detailed analyzes of the route disappeared. The new socialist rulers wanted to hold on to the route, especially for economic reasons. As early as 1948, the two variants about the Drina and Lim valleys were discussed again. The Drina variant provided for a route from Belgrade to Bar via Obrenovac, Šabac, Zvornik, Bajna Bašta, Hum, Priboj, Prijepolje, Bijelo Polje, Kolašin and Titograd (Podgorica). It would have been 100 km longer than the Lim variant. The Drina variant was dropped because of the river's hydroenergetic potential, as a number of large hydropower plants and reservoirs were to be built here. In 1951 the Federation's Chamber of Commerce accepted the planning of the Lim variant in the railway lines to be built. Then the line from Belgrade to Bar via Lajkovac, Valjevo, Požega, Titovo Užice (Užice), Priboj, Prijepolje, Gostun, Bijelo Polje and Titograd should be built. The first work began immediately after the proposal was accepted.

realization

A 461 in Bijelo Polje station. 45 of the special locomotives suitable for mountain routes were ordered before the completion of the BB relation in Romania.

Viaduct over the Tara in Montenegro

The routing variants made in the 1930s were used to build the railway line. Within the Serbian Ministry of Transport, Zavod za Projektovanje, founded in 1948, was responsible for the development and planning of all Yugoslavian railways as well as the new lines. In 1954 was in Železničko Preduzece Beograd in Odeljenje za Investiranje (Department of investment) the Biro za projektovanje established that the 1963 Biro za studije i nadzor za građanje has been renamed. This was the responsibility of the two project groups in the Belgrade railway junction and in the BB Railway. In 1974 both project groups were merged into the CIP (Centrum za Investiranje i Projektovanje) , which was responsible for the final execution of the BB. In addition, ŽTP Beograd (Železničko Transportno Preduzeče Beograd) founded the directorate for the construction of the Belgrade – Bar railway line in May 1967. Two years later, the company BB Komerc was founded as the parent company of all companies commercially interested in the railway line (ŽTP Beograd, Luka Beograd, Luka Bar, Jugooceanija Kotor, Železnički Institute Beograd). The ŽTP Beograd remained the investor in the construction of the entire route during the entire construction work. For the first time in the history of the Yugoslav railways, special locomotives were ordered for the completion of a railway line, which were suitable for high gradient rates. For this purpose, ŽTP Beograd had placed an order for 45 locomotives of the JŽ series 461 in Romania.

The railway line was built in phases. The individual sections without the existing Belgrade – Resnik Railway were completed as follows:

section	Length (km)	Opened	annotation
Resnik - Vreoci	38	1958
Podgorica - bar	51	1959
Vreoci - Valjevo	40.2	1968	World Bank 50 million dollar loan for expansion in 1968
Valjevo– Užice	88.1	1972	People's loan for 900 million dinars
Užice – Podgorica	243.3	May 30, 1976	Passing over the Dinarides

Opening phases

In the years before the Second World War, the first real stage work between Valjevo and Kosjerić began. After the Second World War, the Economic Commission of the SFR Yugoslavia adopted the current route. In 1952, work began on the Resnik – Valjevo and Titograd – Bar sections, and in 1955 on the Priboj – Prijepolje section. In 1958 there was a lengthy break in work.

The final realization of the entire railway line was decided with the adoption of the five-year plan 1961-1965, in which the completion of the line from 1965 was planned at the fastest possible speed. The decision of the federal government of the SFRY then took place in 1966. It was intended to create a direct connection between the Yugoslav capital and the seaport of Bar. This decision was repealed in 1971. The republics of Serbia and Montenegro then took over the completion of the line. Although the line also runs over its territory over a length of 9 km, the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina practically did not participate in the construction. The Štrpci stop built on this section is currently served by five pairs of trains a day.

The planning office Saobraćajni Biro CIP (Centar za ispitivanje i projektovanje) in Belgrade was responsible for planning and executing the entire railway line .

Controversy

View from the train into the Morača canyon

Play media file

Route detail near Lutovo

The construction of the railway line has been one of the highly polarizing projects within the SFR Yugoslavia since the mid-1960s, from which the reforms in the inner-Yugoslav economic system with advancing political and economic decentralization and growing conflicts of interest between the republics can be seen.

The route and catchment area of ​​the Belgrade – Bar line in one of the structurally least developed, most isolated regions of Yugoslavia with a low population density, completely inadequate traffic penetration and severely neglected communication routes should help narrow the gap to the more developed parts of the country with the rail connection. While for the Yugoslav leadership under Tito structural equalization was a pillar of overall economic development and political stability of the state, fundamental criticism of this system had established itself within the most developed republics. This resulted in an economic and political decentralization of the federation, in which the individual republics were to be responsible for their further political and economic development. One of the most important points of criticism was the system of development funds made available for infrastructural needs by the regions that were more developed on average in Yugoslavia, which the SR Slovenia and SR Croatia obtained on 31 January 1971.

As a result, SR Croatia and SR Slovenia no longer wanted to participate in the financing of the route, although in the Council of Republics they had given the political commitment to implement the new building at the personal pressure of Josip Broz Tito, in particular to the party leadership of Slovenia, in 1966 . The law on the construction of the line stipulated that 85% of the funds are to be paid by the Federation and 15% by the SR Serbia and SR Montenegro.

However, SR Croatia preferred to rebuild the technically outdated Rijeka – Karlovac route, as it did not harmonize with the Yugoslavian network, which is based on 25 kV and is based on Italian railway standards and operated with direct current of 3 kV, due to the high rate of increase, an unfavorable winding route, inhibited the development of the largest port in the republic and the country. The JAZU (Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti i umetnosti) convened a congress in Zagreb in 1970, the results of which, however, no longer met with any echo in the Yugoslav government. At the same time, Slovenia saw the port of Koper and the connection to the Central European railway network as a priority.

The SR Croatia and SR Slovenia also feared competition in the sea terminal of Bar in the further expansion of the Belgrade – Bar route, as part of the total Yugoslav cargo handling could shift here. The fact that the sea route via Bar was economically viable was due solely to the shortening of the transport routes from the Serbian and Macedonian industrial areas, which could shift a large part of the imports and exports to the new seaport. The sea route from Bar to Rijeka was shortened by 299, to Šibenik by 181, to Split by 158 and to Ploče by 130 nautical miles. At the same time, the rail transport routes between Belgrade, Niš and Skopje also shrank when they took the route to Bar.

Due to the dominant positioning of the Croatian and Slovenian railway networks (in relation to the Yugoslav cargo handling), the two northern republics had also implemented a decentralization of the Yugoslav railway network in the Council of Republics by establishing 22 individual companies, eight of them in the territory of Serbia. This benefited their railway companies in particular, since the entire sea-loading cargo handling was concentrated in the two republics. At the political level in the Council of Republics, the representatives of SR Croatia and SR Slovenia pushed for the cessation of the construction of the railway line, with the President of the Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia, Boris Krajger, appearing as their most vehement opponent. In particular, the financing of the route was undermined, although a binding government decision of 1966 was available, which guaranteed the financing until 1972. The construction of the route thus became a major political problem in Yugoslavia, as the dispute over the state funding of infrastructure projects of national importance divided the republics. Ultimately, this led to the fact that the Belgrade – Bar infrastructure project, which was given priority for the whole of the state, was ultimately financed mainly by funds from SR Serbia. Only the section of the route on Montenegrin territory was then secured by the other republics with a loan from the federal state.

Since SR Serbia was left in the lurch at the federal level in financing the route, a loan was requested from the World Bank. The World Bank gave the loan application the green light on March 6, 1968 after detailed analyzes of its economic plausibility, but demanded a simultaneous network from Požega via Čačak with the Ibar route in Kraljevo in order to enable access from Kraljevo to Niš and Skopje. In its analysis, in the justification for lending, the World Bank particularly emphasized the value of networking less developed regions on the Adriatic with those of the more developed inland areas and also highlighted the shortening of the route from Belgrade to the Adriatic ports. The new route made it possible to rationalize the transport routes between the industrial and mining centers of Belgrade, Zrenjanin, Niš, Kraljevo, Kosovska Mitrovica, Skopje and the port of Bar, which meant a shortening of the transport routes between 153 and 432 km to the alternative port in Ploće. This would result in considerable savings in transport costs, as would large reserves of forest regions.

Final expansion

The Lutovo station is partly located in the tunnel and on two hillside bridges. Only the station building has solid ground. Lutovo is on the most difficult passage in the Montenegrin section of the route. Here rates of increase of 25 ‰ have to be overcome.

Railway construction was one of the major social issues in Yugoslavia in the late 1960s and early 1970s. As a motivation, it served tens of thousands of young people to participate in a monumental project that was felt to be epoch-making. In the final phase of the work on the railway line, voluntary labor brigades (ORA - omladinske radne akcije) were created. From July 11, 1971 to 1975, up to 14,000 mostly young people, pioneers, students and workers from home and abroad worked in 234 work brigades in the ORA Beograd-Bar on the route. On the Jabuka, a mountain between Prijepolje and Pljevlja, a settlement was built in 1971, through which all 14,000 volunteers, who came from the country and from abroad, passed through. For the youth, the construction of the route meant a life's work, the slogan We build the railroad, build the railroad us was the winged word of the volunteers who poured into the Lim valley by the thousands. Even old veterans of the Radne Akcije came back as volunteers for the construction of the railway. In the five-year participation of thousands of young volunteers, the Belgrade – Bar railway line was christened Pruga mladosti (Youth Railway), which is also the official title of the Serbian Railways Exhibition for the 40th anniversary of the line and the 45th anniversary of the ORA Beograd –Bar held in the Salon of Belgrade Central Station, in the Prijepoljes Cultural Center and in the Bar Cultural Center.

A real "railroad fever" spurred the final expansion: Captured by a true railroad fever, the peoples of Yugoslavia felt the realization of this rail link as fateful, as a personal concern . 240 youth brigades now worked continuously on the route. According to unofficial information, 103 people died during construction.

The railway line was designed for speeds of 80 to 120 km / h. 73 stations were set up. An axle load of 22.5 tonnes (international axle load for new and upgraded routes) was implemented for the new building. Curve radii are 300 m. The electrification was carried out with alternating current of 25 kV and 50 Hz.

The last meter of rail was laid on November 24, 1975 at 4 p.m. at the exit of the Mili tunnel behind Brodarevo at km 292.5 at a height of 561 m, which had given the builders the greatest headache among all objects on the route - the route was thus completed .

Public loan

“Dawn in Belgrade”, Petar Lubarda's donation to the city of Belgrade during the 1971 public loan to build the line

“Sun and olive tree”, Petar Lubarda's donation to the city of Bar during the 1971 public loan for the construction of the route

In the postage stamp issue of the Yugoslav Post from 1976 for the opening of the Belgrade-Bar Railway, the color scheme in Lumbarda's two paintings for Serbia-red and Montenegro-blue is quoted

Due to the difficulties that became noticeable in the construction progress in the late 1960s and early 1970s due to the sharp rise in loan repayments as well as political intrigues around the existing structural funds within Yugoslavia, the political leadership of Serbia started a broad media campaign to seek financing through the Issue of securities was advertised. This was all the more necessary because on January 1, 1971, federal funding for the Serbian route section was canceled due to pressure from SR Slovenia and SR Croatia, which put the completion of the work into question. SR Serbia did not have its own funds to open the route to the public as planned by 1972. While the state had formal pledges to complete the project by 1972, government bonds were no longer issued. As a result, the further development depended on a people's loan, which SR Serbia passed in a parliamentary resolution in February 1971 and which was opened on April 1, 1971. As a result, a social phenomenon known as “railway fever” spread, particularly in the populations of Serbia and Montenegro. With the launch of commercials and slogans supported by the cultural elites, representatives of popular culture and athletes, a question of national pride arose in the task of completing the route. Honorary donations came from Miloš Crnjanski , who had dreamed of the route forty years earlier and donated his 10,000 dinars from the Serbian Literature Association from April 1971 for his life's work, from the Yugoslav Nobel Prize for Literature Ivo Andrić , who paid 20,000 dinars, or the opera singer Radmila Bakočević , who donated the ticket proceeds from some concerts to the fund; the composer Žarko Petrović composed the Marš pruge “Beograd – Bar” , which was released on a single with a song by Olivera Katarina (To je naše more, to su naše gore…) by the Yugoslav major label Jugoton, and also that was released internationally Most important Yugoslav painter Petar Lubarda bought two paintings (Zora nad Beogradom, Maslina i sunce) for the construction of the railway line in 1971 .

“Yes, I am delighted with the Belgrade – Bar line, as we are all. The great enthusiasm for this railway line is no wonder, but completely understandable. And it is perfectly clear that this railway line also has a material component and advantages. As an artist, I observe this from the side, poetically, as it leads from Belgrade, that is, from the Danube to the gate of the Mediterranean ice, and past regions that can be said to be unique in Europe. "

- Petar Lubarda, BB-minut, Dragoljub Golubović (ed.) 1972: Beograd-Bar. P. 96

In order to effectively initiate the popular loan, an unusually broad campaign was launched for the Yugoslav media landscape at the time. The auditorium for the television and radio programs was controlled by targeted large advertising campaigns. So had Investiciona Banka Jugoslavije as the bearer of the bond not only the broadcasting rights of commercials in the then evaluated as century battle boxing match ( fight of the century ) between Joe Frazier and Muhammad Ali get but also financed the entire transmission. This started the spots in the breaks on March 9, 1971, which were broadcast by Jugoslavenska Radio Televizija (JRT) . Immediately before the boxing match, a film documentation was sent to the railway line, which was followed by the advertising slogans during the boxing match. During the broadcast at 4 a.m., the numerous viewers were informed about the official plans to build the route. The success of the campaign was rated as outstanding. This new form of advertising also aroused international interest in a socialist country. Special advertising films called BB-minut were placed on television , in which well-known athletes, artists, scientists, politicians and other public figures commented on the public loan and called for participation. The films also gave a lot of space to the representatives of workers' collectives as well as craftsmen, pioneers, retirees and the youth. The footballers of the popular club FK Red Star Belgrade also appeared in the spots:

“Two big Bs have been appearing on Belgrade TV screens for weeks. You can see these two letters on posters, in newspapers, actors, writers, workers and farmers as well as footballers from Belgrade clubs and the most famous singers stand up for the BB series. The composer Žarko Petrović composed a march for the BB railway line that became an overnight hit ... The two big Bs do not denote a renewed veneration for the famous French actress, but are the symbol for the beginning and the end of the railway line from Belgrade to to the Montenegrin Adriahafen bar. "

- Süddeutsche Zeitung, April 14, 1971

In the radio stations there were also targeted contributions to the railway line and to the public loan; catchy slogans, which were repeated many times, accompanied the daily emissions. The Umetnici pruzi Beograd – Bar donation campaign by the Yugoslav film and music stars and writers who visited the more important cities of SR Serbia, SR Montenegro, SAP Vojvodina and SAP Kosovo on a 15-day train journey attracted particular attention . The biggest stars of Yugoslav cinema took part: Milena Dravić , Bata Živojinović , Slavko Simić , Faruk Begoli , Stevo Žigon , Ljubiša Samardžić , Lepa Lukić , Ljuba Tadić , Desanka Maksimović , Oskar Davičo , Miloš Crnjanski and others. v. a.

During the six-month period of the public loan, two documentary films were made for the news channels (Pruga snova and Sa svim srcem) as well as a full-length film on the history of relations (Priča o pruzi). The diverse media campaigns continued to heat up the already euphoric mood, and the residents of Serbia and Montenegro in particular supported the public loan with great enthusiasm.

The popular loan was opened not only on the territory of SR Serbia, but also on a national level. Securities worth 500 million dinars were issued, 440,000 citizens and businesses ultimately took part, which by November 1971 brought in 872 million dinars and exceeded all expectations. 94.3% of the securities were subscribed in the territory of SR Serbia and 4.44% in the territory of SR Montenegro. All other republics thus accounted for only 1.26% of the national bond paid. The weekly magazine NIN (February 14, 1971) attributed the success of the bond to the magical effect of the project of the century : The approval of the population for the bond, practically on the edge of euphoria, is based on the… mythological magic of the Belgrade – Bar railway line, which during its slow and laborious creation became a historical dream .

The proceeds from the Volksanleihe guaranteed only a short-term financial consolidation, and by 1972 the proceeds from the Volksanlei were used up, which caused the opening to be postponed by several years. In 1975 and 1976 the financial bottlenecks accumulated, another popular loan in 1975 did not yield the hoped for 300 million dinars, although these were advertised with 10% interest. Therefore, the Serbian government had to use a more radical method of further funding. Parliament decided that all state-owned companies had to give 5% of all income from 1975 and 1976 to finance the railway line. The government had officially accepted the money from the companies as a loan, and only with this method was 500 million dinars secured for the final construction. All financial hurdles were taken to complete the route.

Costs and financing

Railway stations were built along the route in previously undeveloped areas. The highest station is in Kolašin at 1025 m.

An official announcement about the budget and costs of the railway line was never made public by the state. Research into financing the railroad has put the total cost at $ 449.6 million (at the 1970s exchange rate). These were significantly higher than the values ​​of 210 or 300 million dollars usually cited in the literature. In addition to the 449.6 million dollars, the costs incurred after the completion of the route, such as the electrification on the Titovo Užice – Bar route, which was not completed until 1977, as well as the work on the Bar port would also have to be added.

The studies also showed that the Federal Republics of Serbia and Montenegro invested significantly more money in the railway line than the federal government. This fact was new after publication in the press and previous scientific articles. Especially after 1971, the republics were left to their own devices when it came to financing. As a strategic project, the federal government would have been obliged to pay for the route from federal funds, since the representatives of all Yugoslav republics had also voted in favor of its establishment. Initially, the project was also financed from federal funds. Since the BB Railway, the largest and most costly federal project, was not supported by the Yugoslav economy of the 1950s and 1960s to provide sufficient resources for completion, it could not be handed over to the railway network on schedule. Ultimately, SR Serbia and SR Montenegro had to assume almost two thirds of the total costs. After 1972, the other Yugoslav republics also made funds available for the partial relation in Montenegro. The criticism of the SR Croatia and SR Slovenia of the project was not generally due to the purpose of the building project, but, in the opinion of the historian Danijel Kežić, should end the general practice of investing in structural funds from federal funds and thus had political implications that also affected the Cohesion of Yugoslavia.

Soon after the traffic handover, it became clear that the project was economically viable. In 1977, 3.198 million tons of goods were transported on the route, in 1981 the volume of goods increased to 5.827 million tons and 3.387 million passengers, and in 1985 6.9 million tons of goods and 4.8 million passengers were transported. Only after 1991 was this reversed when the state fell apart as a result of the war.

inauguration

The opening of the Belgrade – Bar line after 25 years of construction on May 28, 1976 by Josip Broz Tito was the longed-for main event of the post-war efforts to expand the Adriatic connection in the Serbian railways network

In addition to media coverage by the state media of Yugoslavia, numerous pioneers also welcomed Tito and his wife Jovanka on the inaugural journey of the railway line in Plavi voz

First day cover of the opening

Special letter from the Yugoslav Post on the inauguration of the route

The inauguration of the route was celebrated as a state act on May 28, 1976 with the opening voyage of the Plavi voz by Josip Broz Tito and his wife Jovanka and all the Prime Ministers of the Yugoslav republics. On May 30th the route was opened to general traffic.

The inauguration itself was celebrated as an important state act, at which between 100,000 and 200,000 people had already appeared on the Bratstva i Jedinstva station forecourt (today Savski trg) in Belgrade before the state train left . In addition to the President of the Belgrade City Parliament, who highlighted the route as a service of the system of workers' self-government in Yugoslavia, Tito underlined the strategic military importance of the railway in his speech.

During the journey, several thousand people greeted Tito at each of the train stations and in rows with crowds accompanying the train tracks. The course of the train was described as a journey through a human sea. Public acclamations such as the customary affirmation of favor in socialist Yugoslavia: Mi smo Titovi - Tito je naš (German: We belong to Tito - Tito is ours) shaped the contacts between the state leadership and the people who had come here. Even during the opening trip, the foreign press reported on the event, which was considered historic. The Yugoslav news agency Tanjug spread the news that American colleagues at United Press International compared the importance of the route with the transcontinental rail link in the USA and described it as the most attractive new rail link on the European continent. Tito's government train Plavi voz reached Bar after a two-day journey on May 29, 1976, where 20,000 people greeted the president euphorically.

In the run-up to the inauguration trip, all train stations along the route were festively decorated, and the inauguration was celebrated as a folk festival even in the towns along the route. During the inauguration run, the people of Prijepolje, who had been waiting for hours, “stopped” the state train in the pouring rain, whereupon Tito left the train outside the protocol and, out of respect for the population, decided to spend the night in Prijepolje. During his stays in the centers of Serbia and Montenegro as well as in Bar, Tito gave speeches in which the unity of Yugoslavia was evoked (Bratstvo i jedinstvo) , the economic progress of the entire state through the route, its military importance and the socialist social order as the basis for success were:

“What - as I said - had been dreamed about for over a century could not be realized in bourgeois Yugoslavia. That was only possible in the socialist Yugoslav community, a multiethnic, but united in all its work, which is working towards a better future in its endeavors and stability. "

- Josip Broz Tito: Ostvaren stoletni san

In Bar on May 29, 1976, Tito gave another speech to around 20,000 people. The entire top political and military state apparatus in the country had gathered. Among the special guests in the stands next to Tito were therefore: Svetozar Vuletić , Stane Dolanc , Dragoslav Marković , Sergei Krajger , Džavad Nimani , Mirko Milutinovic , Nikola Filipovic , Đorđije Pajković , Nikola Ljubičić , Pepca Kardelj , Franjo Herljević , Veljko Zeković , Krsto Popivoda , Džemal Bijedić , Danilo Jauković , Edvard Kardelj , Veljko Milatović , Budislav Šoškić , Veselin Đuranović , Kiro Gligorov , Hajka Milatović , Jovanka Broz .

The locomotive, which started the regular connection on May 30, 1976 at 9:40 a.m., was lavishly decorated with flower garlands and state insignia. In Bar, the opening of the Belgrade – Bar line in the European summer schedule on May 30th was celebrated as a folk festival with fireworks and carnival-like parades, the historic day was also seen as the entry of Montenegro into the European railway age, as there had been no international connection with standard gauge up to now .

When the European timetable changed on May 30, 1976, four express trains ran on the Belgrade – Bar Railway, two of which were international: Hamburg – Bar and Malmö – Bar. The latter only ran in the summer months.

Olaf Ihlau described the far-reaching hopes at the time: The most important infrastructural event of this century for Yugoslavia's smallest republic was the commissioning of the 476 km long railway line between Belgrade and the currently wildly expanding Adriatic port of Bar in the spring of 1976. This bold and probably most expensive rail route in Europe, in short Called "BB", it opens up new dimensions for both the Montenegrin and Serbian economies. After completion of the electrification work, far more than four million tons of freight and around 20 million passengers will be transported annually on this line by 1980. The tourism of Montenegro, which initially suffered from considerable isolation problems, is also hoping for a further boost from the new "BB Line" .

Ascanio Schneider warned as early as 1982, however, that success would depend on peaceful political developments: there are car runs from Malmö, Berlin, Prague, Sassnitz and Budapest that will give this line an international character. The expansion of the port of Bar (the geographically shortest access to the Adriatic for Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary), which has already taken place in part, underlines the importance of the Belgrade – Bar route as an international freight line. Of course, your operational success depends on the peaceful political development in that part of the Balkans .

business

1977-1990

After the line was opened to traffic in 1976, electrification work was completed in 1977. Until 1991 the traffic on the route increased steadily. This was primarily due to the tourist valorisation during the summer months, as well as the freight traffic, which flourished thanks to an agreement with the Soviet Union. An agreement on the use of the Belgrade – Bar line, which Yuriy Leonidovich Brezhnev , Deputy Foreign Trade Minister of the Soviet Union and son of Communist Party leader Leonid Brezhnev , had arranged, regulated exports and imports from the USSR and the Eastern Bloc. Leading via Hungary to the USSR, the Adriatic connection was established via the new route. The Soviet 5th Esquadron, the large naval unit of the Soviet Mediterranean Fleet (5-я Средиземноморская эскадра кораблей ВМФ), looked for a replacement after the last naval base in Egypt was cleared in 1976. Since the Syrian Tartus was unable to make up for this loss, Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union agreed in 1974 to use the Yugoslav-Montenegrin military ports of Tivat, Bijela and Kumbor in the Bay of Kotor for the maintenance of the fleet. The port of Bar was also called to supply Soviet military ships. The contracts between the United States and Yugoslavia for the export of Yugos , which were carried out in significant quantities from 1984 from the Zastava plant in Kragujevac via the Belgrade – Bar route to the port of Bar , also represented an important economic project .

1991-2014

The main lines in the core network of the Serbian railways are the pan-European transport corridor X and the Belgrade – Bar route

Reconnaissance photo of NATO from May 1, 1999 with the destroyed Lim Bridge near Donja Bistrica

With the collapse of the common state in 1991, the Belgrade – Bar relation gained new strategic importance, since the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, formed from Montenegro and Serbia, had to make a large part of its imports via the port of Bar with the loss of the northern Adriatic connections. The relation thus proved to be the most important open gateway to the world, especially during the UN embargo on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

On February 27, 1993, during the Bosnian War, 18 Bosniaks and one Croat were kidnapped by paramilitaries of the Republika Srpska in the Štrpci train station . They were later tortured and murdered in a camp near Višegrad .

During the Kosovo war in 1999, the SFOR, under the leadership of the German contingent, made the Bosnian part of the route deliberately unusable with the help of explosives in order to prevent the use of the Bosnian territory by the armed forces of Yugoslavia . During this operation called Operation ABIGAIL , which was accompanied by special units with Apache and Black Hawk helicopters, there was an incident in which a worker on the Bosnian railways was shot. The incident caused considerable irritation, as it had also led to fighting on Bosnian territory. The Presidium of the Republika Srpska under Milorad Dodik threatened to have the case investigated by the International Criminal Court , in particular since Vidoje Tomić had been shot from behind according to witness reports. In the related press conference of SFOR commander Montgomery Meigs the question arose why the trains were not checked at the border instead of being destroyed. There Meigs was not yet able to confirm Tomić's death, but said that SFOR units had opened fire on two armed civilians in self-defense. The leading Serbian military analyst and member of parliament, Miroslav Lazanski, described the incident as the one between a 70-year-old railroad employee in a blue railway uniform, who was carrying an old hunting rifle, and a NATO commando. At the same time, the weekly magazine Vreme spoke of Tomić being shot from behind. On February 21, 2015, eyewitnesses said on Serbian state television that Tomić had not fired a shot from his rifle and was shot from behind by a sniper who was in safe hiding and who was protecting the miners.

The Serbian part of the route has meanwhile been the target of NATO air strikes several times . On April 13, 1999, the first attack on the bridge over the Lim between Priboj and Bijelo Polje near Donja Bistrica took place. The bridge, which was only partially damaged, was then bombed again on April 14th. As a result, the railway was only passable as far as Prijepolje on the Montenegrin side, and only as far as Priboj on the Serbian side.

The route as a transport hub for Zastava and Fiat-Srbija:

In 1985, with the help of Lawrence Eagleburger , the Zastava -Automobilwerke began to export small Yugo cars for the American car market via the loading terminal Bar and the Belgrade – Bar railway line. After this cargo handling had come to a standstill during the Yugoslav wars and the economic embargo against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, a resumption of the transport relation Kragujevac-Bar, which was practically equivalent in volume, began in summer 2012 with the Fiat model 500L produced in Serbia . For 2014, a capacity of 160,000 cars was calculated for the Kragujevac – Bar route per year, which would correspond to 14 trains per week of 200 cars each.

Revitalization

Billboard for RŽD-International and Železnice Srbije, which draws attention to the joint work on the reconstruction of the Serbian railway network on the Terazije in Belgrade

Electric multiple units Stadler Flirt 3 have been running to Prijepolje since 2016. Here at Kosjerić station just before Užice.

For the complete overhaul of the route, the Serbian government in Russia took out a railway state loan of 800 million dollars, which provides for the overhaul of the Serbian section of the Belgrade – Bar route in Annex 4 of the contracts signed between the Republic of Serbia and RŽD-International . The subsidiary RŽD-International, which is responsible for international projects of the Russian Railways, is responsible for the implementation of the work. The work, like all work carried out in Serbia by RŽD-International, is coordinated and directed by the deputy director of RŽD-International Mansurbek Sultanov. The first individual contract for the reconstruction of the Valjevo – Resnik section over 77 km was signed on December 10, 2015 and started on July 15, 2016. The costs for the first section were put at 80 million euros and should last until June 2018. The total costs of the Serbian section Resnik – Vrbnica are estimated at a total of 250 million euros.

The China Civil Engineering Construction Corporation (CCECC) is currently overhauling an approximately 10 km long section of line for the railways of Montenegro. This work is financed by a loan from the EBRD and is the first railway infrastructure investment in Europe by a Chinese state-owned company. An interest on the part of China in the Bar Port and the rail link to Belgrade was mentioned in a Xinhua report from December 2012. In it, the agency reported that Chinese companies will modernize the port and rail infrastructure for the transport of goods to Serbia and Central Europe, which was severely dilapidated by the UN's economic sanctions in the 1990s.

Since the line is generally only a single track, the trains will be diverted as far as possible via the Požega – Kraljevo – Lapovo line during the work on the 130 km long Resnik – Požega section.

With the three-day visit of the President of China Xi Jinping to Serbia from June 17 to 19, 2016, more concrete statements were expected about the further infrastructure plans of China in Southeastern Europe and especially Serbia. After HBIS-Hesteel was the first Chinese company to make a strategic direct investment in a European company with the takeover of the Serbian steelworks Smederevo, the ambassador of China to Serbia, Li Manchang, said that Chinese companies were participating in a further expansion of the Belgrade-Bar relationship could. The railway line has also served as an important feeder to the Smederevo steelworks in the rail-bound freight transport of iron ore and refined materials with the Nikšić steelworks in Montenegro. The port of Bar with the rail connection to the Danube also moved into the focus of the Chinese export industry, which wants to realize its long-term economic interests in Europe by modernizing the transport routes from the Mediterranean ports via the interior of Southeastern Europe to the EU.

The only three feeder lines of the main Belgrade – Bar line are connections to Albania, the Požega – Čačak junction to the Ibar line and the Nikšić – Podgorica line . While the construction work on the Belgrade – Bar line was still in progress in 1974, the former narrow-gauge connection Belgrade – Sarajevo was closed. As it has the double railway loop in the so-called Šarganska osmica , which is astonishing in Europe and is one of the most spectacular lines ever built, it was later reactivated as a museum railway. Construction work is currently taking place on the Serbian line from Šargan Vitasi to Užice, which will restore the rail connection to the Belgrade – Bar line. A connecting line that has been under construction since 1992 is Valjevo – Loznica, which in Yugoslavia was planned as the second main line parallel to the Save Corridor through Bosnia (Sub-Save Corridor). A resumption of the construction work on the partially completed line has been in discussion for a long time. On January 17, 2019, the contract to plan the modernization of the 210 km long route from Valjevo to Vrbnitsa on the border with Montenegro was signed.

Timetable and vehicle fleet

Two night and one day trains commute between the end points of the railway in the high season. Night trains run from Subotica and Belgrade during the season. Here the late arrival of the day train at Belgrade station.

The high-speed trains between Bar and Belgrade run with a dining car in the main season. In 2017 there were only drinks in IC Tara, but there were also ashtrays for the smokers.

According to the schedule, the route is used by long-distance trains, regional trains and suburban trains. Two international direct connections, including one night train, are offered all year round. During the season, another night train (Panonia) runs as a car train from Subotica via Novi Sad . In 2016 it runs from June 3rd to September 4th. In the summer months, through coaches also run to and from Prague and Moscow.

Because the route now represents an international connection through three countries, border formalities and controls have been carried out at the Gostun stop on the Serbian side and in Bijelo Polje on the Montenegrin side since the independence of Montenegro in 2006. In 2017 the controls on the Serbian side will take place in Vrbnica. On the other hand, they do not take place during the short journey through the area of ​​Bosnia and Herzegovina ( Republika Srpska ), although it is possible to get off at the Štrpci train station .

So-called Čuvari pruge (line guards ) are employed by the respective railways to ensure the safety of the line . They walk through their surveillance areas every day and report dangers such as mudslides or falling rocks if necessary . The guards spend a large part of their working time in small huts next to the route. If they recognize a danger, warn the train drivers by spraying a colored marking on the track. One of the Čuvari , Vidoje Tomić, was on duty on the Bosnian section of the route near Štrpci at Easter 1999 when he encountered a special SFOR squad that mined part of the route in its section. Tomić was shot dead by a sniper during the incident; a previous warning from a colleague did not reach Tomić due to the nature of the terrain.

In the early days of the exploration of sections of the route, Uerdingen rail buses , mostly manufactured under license by GOŠA, ran . Diesel-electric locomotives of classes JŽ 661 and JŽ 662 were used for inauguration and in the first year of operation. From 1977 Romanian six-axle locomotives from Electroputere were used, which were specially procured for the conditions on the Belgrade – Bar line. Romania delivered a total of 103 Co'Co 'locomotives of the JŽ series 461. Between 1971 and 1973 45 machines of the 461.0 sub-series were built, and 58 of the 461.1 sub-series between 1978 and 1980.

model series	Manufacturer	Number of ŽS (ŽPCG)	Type	Power ( kW )	Wheel alignment	Top speed	Years of construction	Remarks	image
ŽS 461	Electroputere	29 (16)	electric	5100 kW	Co'Co '	120 km / h	1972-1980	In express transport between Belgrade and Bar
ŽPCG 412/416	Rīgas Vagonbūves Rūpnīca	5	electric	1360 kW	Bo'Bo '+ 2'2' + 2'2 '+ Bo'Bo'	130 km / h	1980-1990s	In regional traffic between Bar and Bijelo Polje
ŽS 413	Stadler Rail	21st	electric	2600 kW	Bo'2'2'2'Bo '	160 km / h	2014-2015	In intercity traffic between Belgrade and Prijepolje
ŽPCG 6111	CAF	3	electric	4000 kW	Bo'2'2'2'Bo '	200 km / h	2013	In regional traffic between Bar and Nikšić
ŽS 661	GM-EMD Đuro Đaković Slavonski Brod	25 (2)	diesel-electric	1454 kW	Co'Co '	114 km / h (124 km / h)	1960-1971	For heavy loads in freight transport

profitability

In passenger transport, the relation for the company Srbija Voz of the Serbian Railways earned an average of 21.5 million dinars in 2016 (September 2016 exchange rate 1 EUR = 123 dinars, which corresponds to 175,000 euros per month or 2.1 million euros per year). It is one of the profitable routes of the Serbian Railways, especially since no money has flowed from the proceeds into a general overhaul of the relation in forty years.

No factor had shaped the discussion about justification in the construction of the line both nationally and internationally like the discussion about profitability, economic benefits and long-term perspectives in the valuation of the investment. In a large study in 1968, the World Bank calculated an economic justification for the route by offsetting the transport costs of alternative railway lines in Yugoslavia and other means of transporting goods by vehicle and air in favor of the new route, which formed the basis of a loan for the construction of the route . After the relationship had been completed, the World Bank commissioned a review of the results of a profitability study that was published on October 9, 1981, but is not publicly available. In general, essential goals in the networking of the main line were missed by new branch lines to be built, which would allow the Belgrade – Bar route to be networked by feeders over partly started (Valjevo – Loznica – Tuzla – Doboj – Banja Luka) or branch lines that never got beyond the planning stage ( Priboj – Sarajevo and Kolasin – Peć). Only the Požega – Čačak feeder could still be connected in 1976. Surprisingly, however, in 1986 a feeder to Albania that was not planned in the planning of the route was completed, which brought in 1,000,000 tons of additional freight. Furthermore, the expansion of the railway lines across the national borders to Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria was neglected for a long time, an electrification of the main lines Pančevo – Vršac – Timișoara and Niš – Pirot – Dragoman was partly started after 2010 in parts.

In spite of everything, the route is not an ordinary route, as it offers many advantages. It connected some of the most isolated regions of Yugoslavia for the first time, shortened the routes of the southern regions of the country to one seaport and thus offered a credible alternative to the North Adriatic. The strategic importance of the port grew especially after 1991, when the port of Bar became the only sea access in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Even after Montenegro declared independence in 2006, when Serbia lost joint access to the Adriatic, the relationship remained the essential economic link between the two former federal states; the capacities of the port of Bar and the railway line to it are overdimensioned for the purposes of Montenegro alone; the line can only be managed profitably through traffic to and from Serbia.

Basically, the Belgrade – Bar Railway shortened the distance to the Adriatic ports of all cities in eastern Yugoslavia considerably: the transport route from Belgrade to Bar instead of via Ploče was shortened by 153 km, and between Skopje by 431 km instead of via Ploče to Bar. In the early 1970s, nine million Yugoslav citizens lived in the area of ​​influence of the railway line. Travel times have also been minimized: an express train from Belgrade to Rijeka took 8 hours, the narrow-gauge line from Belgrade to Dubrovnik via Sarajevo and Mostar 16 hours, from Belgrade to Split 11 hours, while a train from Belgrade took 7½ hours in Bar was.

Distance from Belgrade to selected Adriatic ports
port			distance	(in km)
bar			476
Ploče			637
Rijeka			650
Split			705
Dubrovnik *			710
* Belgrade – Dubrovnik as a narrow-gauge line via Mostar until 1966

Research subject

The "Tara-Express" on the journey from Montenegro to Serbia on the Slijepac bridge

A 461 pulls a regional train over the dam in Lake Skadar in Montenegro

Due to its special historical significance, its controversial effect on the relations between the Yugoslav republics as well as the internal Yugoslav discussions and disputes caused by a negative reception of the Belgrade-Bar route in Slovenia and Croatia on the one hand and positive emotions in Serbia and Montenegro, on the other hand, continue to have an impact to this day, an essential part of the entire Yugoslav history. Since this railway line is one of the most expensive and spectacular railways in Southeast Europe and at the same time represents one of the largest projects in Europe in the second half of the 20th century, the mobilization of the whole Yugoslav society was necessary for the completion of the route, which over the construction period of a quarter of a century with everyone Changes in the political system, the expansion of self-governing socialism and the rivalries of the partial republics, the public discussions and the dispute in socialist Yugoslavia offers a significant insight into the history of the socialist state. The historical seminar of the Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel had the following from a project that was carried out between 2006 and 2008 with the help of the Fritz-Thyssen Foundation : “The Beograd – Bar Railway: A success story or a wrong track? A comparative analysis of the discourse in Yugoslav media 1951–1976 ”, as well as a database of articles from all relevant Yugoslav media during the period of its establishment, which is publicly accessible.

As a prestige project of socialist Yugoslavia, the route also served to present and perceive the country's technological capabilities, which was particularly important for the non-aligned and socialist states. This largest new line built in Eastern Europe in the second half of the twentieth century was also an essential object of study on the economic development of the socialist countries, in which the railways, compared to developments such as in the USA and parts of Europe, have been rapidly in favor of motor transport since the end of the Second World War were dismantled. The work on the Belgrade – Bar route therefore attracted attention even in the USA at the end of the 1960s due to the size of the new building, especially because the World Bank made a loan available in 1968 for 1/4 of the total costs planned at the time. Ultimately, the building served an overall analysis of the economic development and planning of Yugoslavia by giving each republic a seaport connection, whereby all except Rijeka (Koper, Split, Šibenik, Ploče) worked far below the possible capacity. At the same time, SR Slovenia vigorously expanded the port of Koper not far from Trieste and connected it to the well-developed Slovenian rail network via a 26 km long rail link. In contrast, the route design of the Belgrade – Bar Railway, which led across a vast no man's land and in large sections through the inaccessible and economically desolate high karst of the subadriatic and subcontinental high Dinars, was considered to be a pioneering railway whose economic justification remained debatable.

Therefore, in the decision to build the route, political, psychological and strategic components were in the foreground over economic aspects, some of which represented a legacy of the strategic rail designs of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy for the hegemony of the Balkan Peninsula and, in the alternative, the Trans-Balkan Railway in Serbia . After the Second World War, the route was supposed to keep the promises of the communist leadership of Yugoslavia to free Montenegro from economic isolation due to its significant contribution in the partisan war in the People's Liberation War. The construction of the route was the fulfillment of these earlier promises and the symbol for the future development of Montenegro. On the other hand, the Belgrade route was connected to the Adriatic Sea in the shortest possible distance by means of a modern electrified rail link. This created a year-round navigable strategic route over the high Dinarides, which are covered in snow for several months.

In general, however, the importance of the route remained highly controversial, because both the economic wisdom in the further expansion of the Yugoslav port capacities, the alternatives in road construction, the further networking of the insufficiently developed Yugoslav railway system or the strategic aspects behind the historical plans of the Danube-Adriatic Connections remained superficial. In 1969, therefore, the English historian Norman JG Pounds recommended that American and European scientists attend a conference from April 18 to 20, 1969 at the University of Texas in Austin to discuss the Belgrade – Bar Railway arrived, should join forces again in 2019 in order to finally assess the result.

Track condition

Railway line at Priboj in the Lim Valley

The passages in the Hochdinariden are among the most spectacular on the railway. In winter, however, avalanches occur here, in summer after heavy rain rock falls and debris flows occur. These weather factors make year-round operation difficult.

Just two years after the line opened, on April 15, 1979, a catastrophic earthquake off the coast of Montenegro , which reached magnitude 7 on the Richter scale, practically destroyed the entire line infrastructure on the Bar – Podgorica section. The damage could soon be repaired by the earthquake aid of the Yugoslav republics as well as international aid with the massive deployment of workers.

The maintenance of the line was severely restricted in the 1990s due to chronic lack of money, which caused the condition to deteriorate and the line to become unsafe. At the time of full commissioning, a train took around seven hours from Belgrade to Bar, whereas today it is on the road for more than eleven hours due to speed restrictions, as the state of the route no longer allows the projected speeds.

Especially in the steep mountain sections or on river sections at risk of flooding, the railway line is at risk from extreme meteorological and hydrological situations. This can lead to interruptions, especially in the winter months. Due to avalanches, operations had to be discontinued in phases in the extreme winter of 2011/2012 . A passenger train was trapped in the snow for three days. The passengers trapped in an avalanche near Kolašin could only be rescued with an army helicopter. On September 17, 2013, operations were also interrupted after a disruption in the traction power supply caused by a strong summer thunderstorm at Lutovo station.

The worst railway accident in the history of Montenegro, the derailment of a multiple unit train on January 23, 2006 near Bioče north of Podgorica with 47 fatalities, had nothing to do with the condition of the line, but with a brake defect in the train. After the Bratonošiči station, the train lost control of the brakes and drove at a steadily increasing speed on the route with an average gradient of 24 ‰. He passed the Mala Rijeka viaduct at 70 km / h, the Bioče stop at 100 km / h. In the third Bioče tunnel, the train was already traveling 140 km / h and leaning against the right wall of the tunnel. Immediately after exiting the tunnel, it derailed on the slope to Morača. Two other locomotives and several wagons have derailed to this day in the most dangerous section of the route, four locomotive drivers were killed. On June 19, 1979, the diesel locomotive 661 229, the electric locomotive 461 128 and a car derailed just before the Lutovo station. The coupled locomotives plunged several hundred meters into the depths after the diesel locomotive failed to brake and the speed increased by up to 130 km / h. Zarko Knežević (* 1946), Miodrag Vuković (* 1940) and Stojan Karaičić (* 1932) lost their lives. The last fatal accident occurred on February 22, 2005, also near Lutovo, when Ilija Ivezić hit an avalanche cone behind a tunnel with the locomotive of a freight train. The locomotive derailed and also fell down the slope into the depths. However, it was possible to prevent a major accident, which threatened to leak 3720 kg of transformer oil from the transformer of the electric locomotive into the drinking water catchment area of ​​Zagorič on the Morača. The railways of Montenegro hired the Nikšić mountain rescue service , which, due to the difficult terrain and wintry weather, could only abseil to the crashed locomotive with alpine equipment. This enabled the oil to be collected from the locomotive.

After heavy rainfall, after an international passenger train had just passed, the 935 m long Petrovac tunnel between Prijepolje and Lučice collapsed on August 7, 2016. The catenary inside the tunnel was also torn down. The renovation and clearing work in the tunnel could only be started four days after the collapse due to constant rock movements. The continued operation was ensured by a rail replacement service between Prijepolje and Priboj by setting up a transfer between the border stations in buses. The freight traffic, however, was completely stopped. After seven freight trains got stuck in front of the collapsed tunnel in mid-August, the reopening of freight transport was the first priority. On August 22, 2016, the renovation work was largely over and normal operations were resumed.

Rehabilitation measures on the line, which are being carried out with significant international financial support, are under way. The 57 km long route to Nikšić that branches off in Podgorica was reopened on October 1, 2012 after a complete renovation.

For the safety of the line, large barrels of water were set up on the mountain stretches, as the high braking requirements and brake sparks during the summer heat often ignite the wooden sleepers. As soon as the track keeper notices a glowing railway sleeper, he can extinguish it with the available water. The Mala-Rijeka viaduct is secured by wind protection in the form of high metal shields. During meteorological situations that lead to the dreaded hurricane-like bora winds of the Dinarides, trains would otherwise not be able to pass the bridge safely in the cold season.

Wired fences were built with electric wires as an information system against falling rocks. If the signal cables were cut in a rockfall, all surrounding stations received a warning. However, this system is out of order today.

Break at Valjevo

As a result of the floods caused by the Yvette in the Balkans in May 2014, the railway line near the Serbian town of Valjevo was interrupted. The flood- bearing Kolubara between Lazarevac and Lajkovac and the right-hand Kolubara tributary Gradac in the difficult-to-access gorge stretch between Valjevo, Lastre and Samara completely destroyed large parts of the route and numerous bridges. The long-distance trains to Bar had to be diverted from Belgrade via Kragujevac and Kraljevo to Požega. This diversion route is not electrified between Lapovo and Kraljevo, so two locomotive changes were necessary. Shortly after the Požega train station , the trains returned to the original route. In addition, all day connections were given up, and only one pair of night trains ran on the entire route.

The 1.5 km connection between Lazarevac and Lajkovac was restored by September 15, 2014, and the interrupted operation of the Beovoz trains to Valjevo was resumed. According to the Ministry of Infrastructure, the remaining severe damage caused by debris flows and mudslides between Valjevo and Gradac should be repaired by the Serbian New Year celebrations on January 13, 2015.

Because of the diversion, the route was increased by 110 km and the travel time between Belgrade and Bar was increased to 17 hours. Despite this major disadvantage compared to other modes of transport, the trains remained overcrowded in the 2014 season, so bookings had to be made at least ten days in advance in order to receive a reservation during the season peaks in July and August.

In popular culture

Today the wagons of Tito's former state train Plavi voz, which are coupled to the end of the train on the daily night connection to Lovčen, are a reminder of the great times

The railway line and its construction were the subject of interpretations from the genre of folk music in Yugoslavia in particular in the 1960s and 1970s, such as Lepa Lukić ( Brzi voz Beograd Bar as well as Beograde, Bar te zove ), or the Braća Bajići (Sitan came do Kamena ) . In the last-mentioned song, meters of the Starogradska Muzika and the Kolos with the sounds of the Gusle stand for the symbolic connection of the republics. The same applied to the record by Dragan Antić Pruga Beograd-Bar , on which of the four songs the number Jadran Ekspres began with the solo singing of a Guslaren. Antić's album, like the album of the same name, Lepa Lukićs, was released on the Yugoslav major label RTB ( Radio Televizija Beograd - today's RTS ). These albums were financed by the Jugoslovenska Investiciona Banka and showed the railway line on the identical covers, one in blue and one in red.

Radio Televizija Beograd announced a musical competition to support the completion of the railway line in 1971, once for the best piece in the genre of folk music and once in the genre of light music. The former won the music producer, composer and arranger Aleksandar Aca Stepić, while Lepa Lukić won with Beograde, Bar te zove (text B. Timotijević) in the form of an audience award. Both Stepić and Lukić donated their fees for the construction of the track.

The construction and opening of the route were the subject of numerous documentary films, the Yugoslav newsreel Filmske Novosti had several programs dedicated to the topic: Tito prvi putnik (July 21, 1976), Prugom Beograd Bar (November 25, 1980), the construction work on the partial relation Bar-Titograd in the Sozina tunnel, Lovčen Film accompanied Između dva grada in 1957 . The memory of the building and opening has remained relevant decades after the first trip. In 2012, for example, the Serbian state television recalled the first train driver to drive the route, Slavoljub Potić, or broadcast a travel report explaining why the route remained popular with tourists despite the almost 17-hour journey between the terminal stops in 2014.

The last train from Beograd-Glavna on June 15, 2018 was bid farewell by playing the cult hit A sad adio at the station. The Serbian media spoke of the end of an era, the engine driver on the last run said goodbye to the station and those waiting with a siren.

Web links

Commons : Belgrade – Bar railway line  - collection of images, videos and audio files

• Study of the World Bank on the Belgrade-Bar Railway from 1968 with complete report (PDF)
• The building history of the Beograd – Bar railway. A documentation of the discourse in Yugoslav media 1952–1976. Project website and historical database of the Beograd – Bar Railway at the Christian Albrechts University in Kiel
• Photos from the state celebrations on May 28, 1976 in the Belgrade Central Station in the Museum of the History of Yugoslavia
• Beograd-Bar-Bahn in the encyclopedia on the railway history of the Alps-Danube-Adriatic region by Elmar Oberegger
• Branislav Marović: Beograd - Bar. In: 100 godina željeznice Crne Gore. Cetinje, 2009. (Montenegrin, PDF, 4.17 MB)
• Josip Broz Tito's speech at the opening of the Belgrade-Bar railway line: RTV audio material - "Prvi putnik na pruzi Beograd-Bar"
• Archive footage from May 29, 1976 about the arrival of Yugoslav President Josip Broz Tito in Bar for the opening of the railway line
• The Mala Rijeka Viaduct - the highest railway bridge in Europe: N24 documentary
• Last train to Montenegro on June 15, 2018 from Beograd-Glavna (YouTube)
• Drive on the stretch from Bar to Bijelo Polje with 102 tunnels, 96 bridges and 1,029 meters of difference in altitude (Youtube)

literature

Monographs

• Keith Chester: The Railways of Montenegro - the Quest for a Trans-Balkan Railway. Frank Stenvalls Förlag, Malmö 2016, ISBN 978-91-7266-194-3 .
• Dragoljub Golubović (ed.): Beograd-Bar. Novinsko- izdavčko preduzeće “Duga”, Belgrade 1972, p. 615.
• Ascanio Schneider: Mountain railways in Europe: Central Europe, Iberian Peninsula, Great Britain, Scandinavia, Italy, Yugoslavia, Greece. 3. Edition. Orell Füssli, Zurich 1982, p. 329 1982.

Essays

• Anonymous: La première décennie de la ligne Belgrade-Bar. In: Revue génerale des chemins de fer. June 1986.
• Herbert Büschenfeld: Case study: Belgrade-Bar railway line over the Dinaric Mountains. In: Herbert Büschenfeld: Yugoslavia. Klett, Stuttgart 1981, pp. 224-226.
• Jovan Cvijić: Serbia's access to the Adriatic. In: Petermann's communications from Justus Perthes' Geographischer Anstalt. No. 58/2, December 1912.
• Paul Delacroix: Le Défi de Belgrade-Bar. In: La vie du rail. No. 1554, Editions N. M., Paris 1er Aout 1976, pp. 8-14.
• Dimitrije Đorđević: Serbia and the Adriatic sea - One aspect of the Yugoslav question in the 19th century. In: Serbian Studies. North American Society for Serbian Studies, No. 1/1, 1980, pp. 5-16.
• Arthur J. May: Trans-Balkan Railway Schemes. In: The Journal of Modern History. No. 24/4, Dec. 1952, pp. 352-367.
• Reimar Holzinger: The Beograd-Bar Railway - Europe's most important railway construction after 1945. In: Railway technology. (I) 59-61, (II) pp. 97-101, Vienna 1972, ISSN  0013-2829 .
• Irmela Schnegge: From Belgrade to Bar - A new railway line connects Serbia with the Adriatic. In: Montenegro. = Merian. Vol. 30, 6, Hoffmann & Campe, Hamburg 1977, pp. 128-129.
• FB Singleton, J. Wilson: The Belgrade-Bar railway. In: Geography. No. 62/2, April 1977, pp. 121-125.
• Momir Samardžić: Trans-Balkan railway schemes and Italy (late 19th - early 20th century). In: Etudes balkaniques. No. 2-3, 2012, pp. 120-129.
• Branislav Šuica: Beograd-Bar, a new line of the Yugoslav Railways. In: Railway Yearbook. Transpress VEB-Verlag for Transport, Berlin 1976, pp. 58–70.
• Orme Wilson Jr., Guido G. Weigend: The Belgrade-Bar railroad: an essay in economic and political geography. In: GW Hofmann (Ed.): Eastern Europe. Essays in Geographical Problems. Methuen, London 1971, ISBN 0-416-15990-7 , pp. 365-393.
• Kurt Zimmermann: The Yugoslav mountain railway Belgrade-Bar. In: Railway amateur. Journal of the Swiss Amateur Railway Association. Zurich 2/92, 1992, pp. 97-99.

Individual evidence

1. ^ Paul Delacroix: Le défi de Belgrade-Bar. In: La vie du Rail. No. 1551, Paris, August 1, 1976, pp. 8-14.
2. ↑ ^{a b} Rail Network Conditions of Use 2014. (PDF (4.5 MB)) Željeznička Infrastruktura Crne Gore AD, January 1, 2013, accessed on August 6, 2014 . 
3. ↑ Network Statement 2016. (PDF) Railway Infrastructure Serbia AG, January 13, 2016, accessed on November 14, 2016 (Serbian).  | Network Statement 2015. (PDF) Željeznička infrastructura Crne Gore AD Podgorica, accessed on November 14, 2016 (English). 
4. ^ Reimar Holzinger (1972), p. 60.
5. ↑ Branislav Šuica: Beograd-Bar, a new range of Yugoslav railways. In: Railway Yearbook. Transpress VEB-Verlag for Transport, Berlin 1976, p. 61.
6. ↑ Olaf Ihlau: From Cinderella to Cinderella. In: Montenegro. = Merian. Vol. 30, 6, Hoffmann & Campe, Hamburg 1977, p. 113.
7. ^ Reimar Holzinger: The Beograd-Bar Railway - Europe's most important railway construction after 1945. In: Railway technology. 3/1972, (I) pp. 59-61, (II) pp. 97-101, Bohrmann, Vienna, ISSN  0013-2829 .
8. ↑ Danijel Kezic: Pruga Beograd-Bar 1952-1976 istorija finansiranja najvećeg infrastrukturnog projekta u socijalističkoj jugoslaviji. In: Istraživanja. No. 22, 2011, pp. 455-477. (PDF) ( Memento from October 6, 2014 in the Internet Archive )
9. ↑ N1, June 16, 2018 Na Glavnoj železničkoj "A sad adio" za poslednji voz za bar
10. ↑ Reimar Holzinger, p. 60.
11. ^ Ascanio Schneider: Mountain railways in Europe . Orell Füssli, Zurich 1982, p. 260.
12. ↑ FB Singleton, J. Wilson 1977, p. 121.
13. ↑ Vecernje novosti, Jan. 28, 2010 Voz “tutnji” 30 na sat
14. ^ Paul Delacroix: La défi de Belgrade-Bar . La vie du rail, No. 1554, August 1, 1976, pp. 10-11.
15. ^ Paul Delacroix: La défi de Belgrade-Bar 1976. pp. 8-9.
16. ↑ Herbert Büschenfeld 1981, p. 224.
17. ↑ Branislav Šuica, p. 59.
18. ^ Paul Delacroix: La défi de Belgrade-Bar. 1976, p. 11.
19. ^ Reimar Holzinger, p. 97.
20. ↑ Reimer Holzinger, p. 100.
21. ↑ Branislav Šuica, p. 65.
22. ^ Paul Delacroix: La défi de Belgrade-Bar 1976. p. 10.
23. ^ Paul Delacroix: La défi de Belgrade-Bar. 1976, pp. 10-11.
24. ↑ Branislav Šuica, p. 59.
25. ↑ Branislav Šuica, p. 59.
26. ↑ G. Kuchinka: The railways and fortifications of Serbia. In: Petermann's Mitteilungen from Justus Perthes' Geographischer Anstalt, 58, December 1912 1912, pp. 242–243, Berlin.
27. ↑ G. Kuchinka 1912, p. 243.
28. ↑ Norman JG Pounds, A historical geography of Europe 1800-1914 . Historical Geography of Europe, 3, pp. 457-460, Cambridge University Press.
29. ↑ Norman JG Pounds, ibid. 458
30. ^ Jovan Cvijić : Serbia's access to the Adriatic. In: Petermanns Geographische Mitteilungen. 58 (2), 1912, pp. 361-364.
31. ↑ Orme Wilson: The Belgrade-Bar Railroad: An Essay in Economic and Political Geography. In: GW Hoffmann (Ed.): Eastern Europe: Essays in Geographical Problems. London 1971.
32. ↑ Oscar Remy: Sandšak Railway and Danube-Adriatic Railway, a chapter from the prehistory of the world war. First part: 1189–1247. In: Archives for railways. Issue 5, Springer, Berlin, September-October 1927, p. 1236.
33. ↑ Oscar Remy: Sandšak Railway and Danube-Adriatic Railway, a chapter from the prehistory of the world war . Second part: 1521–1586. In: Archives for railways. 1927, No. 6, Springer, Berlin, November-December 1927, p. 1522.
34. ^ Arthur J. May: The Novibazar Railway Project. The Journal of Modern History Volume 10, No. 4 (December 1938) 1938, pp. 496-527, Chicago University Press. ( Limited preview JSTOR ) Here pp. 506–507.
35. ↑ Oscar Remy 1927, pp. 1239-1242.
36. ↑ Oscar Remy 1927, pp. 1240-1242.
37. ↑ Oscar Remy 1927, p. 1189.
38. ↑ Arthur J. May 1938, p. 527.
39. ↑ Arthur J. May 1938, p. 527.
40. ^ Arthur J. May: The Novibazar Railway Project. In: The Journal of Modern History. Volume 10, Chicago University Press, No. 4, December 1938, 1938, pp. 496-527. ( Limited preview JSTOR )
41. ^ Konrad Canis: The way into the abyss: German foreign policy 1902-1914 . Schöningh, Paderborn 2011, ISBN 978-3-506-77120-9 , p. 252.
42. ^ Jovan Cvijić: Serbia's access to the Adriatic. In: Petermann's Mitteilungen from Justus Perthes' Geographischer Anstalt, December 58, 1912 1912, p. 361, Berlin.
43. ↑ Arthur J. May: Trans-Balkan Railway Schemes. In: The Journal of Modern History. Vol. 24, No. 4 (Dec. 1952), p. 352, University of Chicago Press . (JSTR)
44. ^ NI Newbigin: Geographical Aspects of the Balkan Problem. In: Journal of Modern History. 24, 1952, pp. 36-65.
45. ^ Norman JG Pounds: 459
46. ↑ Oscar Remy 1927, p. 1190.
47. ↑ Dimitrije Đorđević: Serbia and the Adriatic sea - One aspect of the Yugoslav question in the 19th century . Serbian Studies, North American Society for Serbian Studies, Volume 1, No. 1 (1980). (ACADEMIA: PDF)
48. ↑ Dimitrije Đorđević 1980, p. 5.
49. ↑ Dimitrije Đorđević 1980, p. 7.
50. ↑ Dimitrije Đorđević 1980, p. 7.
51. ↑ Branislav Marovic: Belgrade Bar . Slavko Burzanović (Ed.): 100 Godina Železnice Crne Gore. Cetinje, 2001, p. 97.
52. ↑ Dimitrije Đorđević 1980, p. 8.
53. ↑ Dimitrije Đorđević 1980, p. 8.
54. ↑ Dimitrije Đorđević 1980, p. 8.
55. ↑ Branislav Marovic, p. 97.
56. ^ FB Singleton, J. Wilson: The Belgrade-Bar railway . In: Geography. Vol. 62, No. 2, April 1977, pp. 121-125, Published by: Geographical Association (JSTOR)
57. ^ Jezdimir C. Nikolić: Istorija Železnica - Srbije, Vojvodine, Crne Gore i Kosova. Želnid, Belgrade 1980, p. 139.
58. ↑ Arthur J. May: Trans-Balkan Railway Schemes. In: The Journal of Modern History. Volume 24, No. 4, Dec. 1952, pp. 352-367, The University of Chicago Press. (JSTR)
59. ↑ Momir Samardžić: Transbalkan railway schemes and Italy (late 19th early 20th century) . Balkan Studies (Etudes balkaniques), Volume 2–3 / 2012, pp. 120–129 Sofia
60. ^ Henry Jacolin: Serbia's Access to the Sea, 1830-2006. Pp. 78-79.
61. ↑ FB Singleton, J. Wilson (1977), p. 123.
62. ^ Ascanio Schneider: Mountain railways in Europe . Oell Füssli, Zurich 1982, p. 258.
63. ^ Orme Wilson: The Belgrade-Bar Railroad: An Essay in Economic and Political Geography 1971. p. 371.
64. ↑ Mirko Dokić: Sto godina bitke za prugu. In: Dragoljub Golubović (ed.): Beograd-Bar . Novinsko Izdavačko preduzeče Duga 1972, pp. 6-10. Here p. 9 1972.
65. ↑ Ascanio Schneider 1982, p. 259.
66. ↑ Branislav Šuica, p. 59.
67. ↑ Danijel Kežić 2011, p. 456.
68. ↑ Danijel Kežić 2011, p. 471.
69. ↑ Danijel Kežić 2011, p. 464.
70. ↑ Danijel Kežić 2011, p. 464.
71. ^ Paul Delacroix: La défi de Belgrade-Var . La vie du rail, No. 1554, August 1, 1976, pp. 8-14.
72. ^ Henry Jacolin: Serbia's Access to the Sea, 1830-2006. In: Ralf Roth, Henry Jacolin (Eds.): Eastern European Railways in Transition: Nineteenth to Twenty-First Centuries. Modern Economic and Social History Series; Ashgate, Farnham 2006, ISBN 1-4094-2782-X , p. 84.
73. ^ FB Singleton, J. Wilson 1977: The Belgrade-Bar railway . In: Geography. Volume 62, No. 2, April 1977, Published by: Geographical Association (JSTOR)
74. ^ Paul Delacroix: Le défi de Belgrade-Bar 1976. p. 9.
75. ^ Paul Delacroix: Le défi de Belgrade-Bar 1976. p. 9.
76. ↑ Vidosav Novaković Zoran & Borčević: Oni su gradili prugu . In Dragoljub Stojanović (ed.) 1972: Beograd-Bar : Novinsko-Izdavačko Preduzee Duga 1972, pp. 133-178. Here p. 173.
77. ↑ Vidosav Novaković Zoran Borčević: Oni su gradili prugu 1972. S. 173rd
78. ↑ Henry Jacolin 2006, pp. 82-83.
79. ↑ Đorđe Pilčević, Revija Kolubara Trideset godina pruge Beograd-Bar
80. ↑ Timetable information for the Serbian railways ( Memento of the original from January 7, 2012 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. 
81. ↑ CIP online Pruga Beograd - Bar - OPŠTI PODACI O PRUZI ( Memento from September 22, 2014 in the Internet Archive )
82. ↑ Orne Wilson Jr .: The Belgrade-Bar Railroad: An Essay in Economic and Political Geography. In: George W. Hoffman (ed.): Eastern Europe: Essays in Geographical Problems 1971. Methuen & Co., London 1971, ISBN 0-416-15990-7 , pp. 365-394, here p. 375 ff.
83. ^ Orne Wilson Jr .: The Belgrade-Bar Railroad: An Essay in Economic and Political Geography 1971. p. 376.
84. ^ Henry Jacolin: Serbia's Access to the sea, 1830-2006. In: Ralf Roth, Henry Jacolin (Eds.): Eastern European Railways in Transition, Nineteenth to Twenty-First Centuries. Ashgate, Farnham 2013, ISBN 978-1-4094-2782-7 , p. 83.
85. ↑ Dragi Stamenkovic, Vecernje novosti, Jan. 17, 2003 Krajgeru Pruga - promašaj
86. ↑ Dragutin Hamarija, Nedeljni Vestnik, June 27, 2004 Naša ideja je bila izgraditi ono što smo zvali 'hrvatski kriz' ( Memento from July 16, 2007 in the Internet Archive )
87. ↑ ibid. Dragutin Hamarija
88. ↑ Dragi Stamenkovic, Vecernje novosti, Jan. 17, 2003 Krajgeru Pruga - promašaj
89. ^ FB Singleton, J. Wilson: The Belgrade-Bar Railway . In: Geography. Vol. 62/2, April 1977, pp. 121-125. Here p. 123.
90. ↑ World Bank, March 6, 1968 Appraisal of the Belgrade-Bar Railway Project - Yugoslavia (PDF)
91. ↑ World Bank, March 6, 1968: Appraisal of the Belgrade-Bar Railway Project - Yugoslavia, p. 11
92. ↑ World Bank, March 6, 1968: Appraisal of the Belgrade-Bar Railway Project - Yugoslavia, S. 29th
93. ↑ World Bank, March 6, 1968: Appraisal of the Belgrade-Bar Railway Project - Yugoslavia, p. 18
94. ↑ Indira Hadžagić-Duraković, Danas, May 20, 2016 BELEŠKA: 40 godina od prolaska "plavog voza" i pruge Beograd-Bar "Mi gradimo prugu, pruga gradi nas"
95. ↑ Pruga Mladosti - pet godina omladinske radne akcije Beograd - Bar Scans of the book Pruga mladosti pet godina omladinske radne akcije Beograd - Bar
96. ↑ DANAS, September 12, 2016 Manifestacija Pruga Mladosti
97. ↑ Indira Hadžagić-Duraković, Danas, May 20, 2016.
98. ↑ Zeleznice Srbije, September 12, 2016 Manifestacijom "Pruga mladosti" obeležava se 45 godina omladinske radne akcije Beograd - Bar i četiri decenije Barske pruge ( Memento from September 15, 2016 in the Internet Archive )
99. ↑ Ascanio Schneider 1982, p. 260.
100. ↑ Ascanio Schneider 1982, p. 260.
101. ↑ Transitions online, June 11 1996 Anniversaries: 20 Years of the Belgrade-Bar Railway: Headaches on Rails
102. ↑ Indira Hadžagić-Duraković, Danas, May 20, 2016.
103. ↑ Danijel Kezic: Pruga Beograd-Bar 1952-1976 Istorija finansiranja najvećeg infrastrukturnog projekta u socijalističkoj jugoslaviji 2011. p. 13
104. ↑ RTS Oko, October 24, 2013 Bog i đavo srpske reči
105. ↑ Novosti, February 18, 2008 “Seobe” posle “Avlije”
106. ^ Petar Lubarda
107. ↑ Žika Minović: Zajam se vrača - pruga ostaje. In: Dragoljub Golubović (ed.): Beograd-Bar 1971. pp. 89–111, Novinsko-izdavačko preduzeče “Duga”, Belgrad Hier p. 95 1972.
108. ↑ Žika Minović: Zajam se vrača - pruga ostaje. In: Dragoljub Golubović F (ed.) 1972: Beograd-Bar 1971. pp. 89–111, Novinsko-izdavačko preduzeče “Duga”, Belgrade.
109. ↑ Žika Minović: Zajam se vrača - pruga ostaje 1971. p. 94.
110. ↑ Žika Minović: Zajam se vrača - pruga ostaje 1971. p. 89.
111. ↑ Žika Minović: Zajam se vrača - pruga ostaje 1971. p. 94.
112. ↑ Žika Minović: Zajam se vrača - pruga ostaje 1971. p. 94.
113. ↑ Žika Minović: Zajam se vrača - pruga ostaje 1971. p. 94.
114. ↑ Žika Minović: Zajam se vrača - pruga ostaje 1971. p. 94.
115. ↑ Žika Minović: Zajam se vrača - pruga ostaje 1971. p. 95.
116. ↑ Žika Minović: Zajam se vrača - pruga ostaje 1971. p. 94.
117. ↑ Žika Minović: Zajam se vrača - pruga ostaje 1971. p. 89.
118. ↑ Irmela Schnegge: From Belgrade to Bar - A new railway line connects Serbia with the Adriatic. In: Montenegro. = Merian. Vol. 30, 6, Hoffmann & Campe, Hamburg 1977, pp. 128-129.
119. ↑ Danijel Kezic: Pruga Beograd-Bar 1952-1976 Istorija finansiranja najvećeg infrastrukturnog projekta u socijalističkoj jugoslaviji 2011. p. 14
120. ↑ Politika, May 28, 1976, No. 22502, pp. 1–2 Where novine = 'Politika' And datum> = '1976-1-1' AND datum <= '2014-10-5' ( Memento from 8. October 2014 in the Internet Archive )
121. ↑ Politika, May 29, 1976, No. 22502, pp. 1–2 Where novine = 'Politika' And datum> = '1976-1-1' AND datum <= '2014-10-5' ( Memento from 9. October 2014 in the Internet Archive )
122. ↑ Tanjug, May 29, 1976 Where novine = 'Politika' And datum> = '1976-1-1' AND datum <= '2014-10-5' ( Memento from October 8, 2014 in the Internet Archive )
123. ↑ Borba, May 30, 1976, No. 147, p. 6: Strane agencije o pruzi Beograd-Bar. Najatraktivnija pruga Evrope Where datum> = '1976-5-1' AND datum <= '2014-10-5' ( Memento from January 3, 2016 in the Internet Archive )
124. ↑ Indira Hadžagić-Duraković, Danas, May 30, 2016 BELEŠKA: 40 godina od prolaska "plavog voza" i pruge Beograd-Bar "Mi gradimo prugu, pruga gradi nas"
125. ↑ Josip Broz Tito: Borba, May 30, 1976, No. 147, p. 6 (* To o čemu se, kao što rekoh, sanjalo više od jednog stoljeća, nije moglo biti ostvareno u buržoaskoj Jugoslaviji. To je bilo mogućičko u socijalist jugoslovenskoj zajednici, mnogonacionalnoj, ali jedinstvenoj po svojim težnjama, svome radu i svojoj upornosti da izradi ljepšu budućnost).
126. ↑ Muzej Istorije Jugoslavije Otvaranje pruge Beograd-Bar: govor predsednika Tita na svečanosti povodom otvaranja pruge u Baru
127. ↑ Borba, May 25, 1976: Jugoslovenske železnice. Od 30. maja novi red vožnje , No. 142, p. 12 Where datum> = '1976-5-1' AND datum <= '2014-10-5' Jugoslovenske železnice. Od 30. maja novi red vožnje ( Memento from October 8, 2014 in the Internet Archive )
128. ↑ Josef Ihlau: From Cinderella to Hätschelkind. In: Montenegro. = Merian, Jg. 30, 6, Hoffmann & Campe, Hamburg 1977, pp. 128-129.
129. ↑ Ascanio Schneider 1982, p. 260.
130. ^ Der Spiegel, April 26, 1982 Locomotive at sea
131. ^ Gordon H. McCormick: The Soviet Presence in the Mediterranean . Ed .: Rand Corporation, 1987. Santa Monica October 1987, p. 1–22 , here p. 15 ( rand.org [PDF]).
132. ↑ Der Spiegel, April 26, 1982.
133. ^ Henry Jacolin: Serbia's Access to the Sey 1830-2006. In: Ralf Roth, Henry Jacolin (Eds.): Eastern European Railways in Transition - Nineteenth to Twenty-First Centuries. Ashgate, Farnham, England 2013.
134. ↑ Godišnjica zločina u Štrpcima., B92.net , February 27, 2011.
135. ↑ Omerovic, Elvedina. 2003. "Terrorism, Violence and Organized Crime in Sandzak", pp. 44-49 in Crushing Crime in South East Europe: A Struggle of Domestic, Regional and European Dimensions ed. by Predrag Jureković and Frédéric Labarre. Vienna: Federal Army, p. 44.
136. ↑ "Thirteen Years since Kidnapping in Strpci Occurred" ( Memento of September 26, 2008 in the Internet Archive ), Humanitarian Law Center, Belgrade (2006), last accessed: February 18, 2008.
137. ↑ Vreme, Vanredno izdanje 4, April 7, 1999 Kako per minirana Pruga Beograd - Bar
138. ↑ Monthly report April 1999, website of the Federal Government Commissioner for Refugee Return, Reintegration and Reconstruction Accompanying Return in Bosnia and Herzegovina ( Memento of June 27, 2009 in the Internet Archive )
139. ↑ Miroslav Lazanski, Politika March 31, 2007 Cica Vidoje i NATO
140. ↑ bnet, July 1999 Forgotten front: Bosnia-Herzegovina during Operation Allied Force ( Memento from July 9, 2012 in the web archive archive.today )
141. ^ SFOR Transcript, April 3, 1999 Transcript: COMSFOR Press Conference April 3, 1999, 14:37 Hours, Coalition Press Information Center, Tito Barracks
142. ↑ ibid. Miroslav Lazanski, Politika March 31, 2007 politika.rs
143. ↑ Vreme, Vanredno izdanje 4, April 7, 1999 Kako per minirana Pruga Beograd - Bar
144. ↑ RTS, Feb. 21, 2015 Čuvar pruge, rizičan posao bez beneficija
145. ^ The Irish Times, April 16, 1999 Apocalyptic scenes in the wake of the NATO bombing of Kosovo refugees
146. ^ NIN, 2541, Sep. 9. 1999 Zeleznica - Daleko je Bar ... - September 9, 1999
147. ^ Yugo in the US . The National, Nov. 27, 2010 ( Memento of December 10, 2010 in the Internet Archive )
148. ↑ Fiat vozom do hatch bar. Radio Televizija Srbije, February 15, 2012
149. ^ Activities - Serbia
150. ^ Agreement on the reconstruction of the 1st section of Belgrad - Bar railway line signed
151. ↑ RTS, July 15, 2016 Почела обнова барске пруге после четири деценије
152. ↑ RTS, December 20, 2015 Kapitalni remont pruge Beograd – Bar posle 40 godina
153. ↑ ibid. RTS, July 15, 2016 rts.rs
154. ↑ 7 Stanje Infrastrukturne Mreze - "Infrastrukture železnica Srbije" a. d.
155. ↑ Global Construction Review: China gets foothold in Europe with Montenegro rail Job , October 16, 2015.
156. ↑ Xinhua: Chinese companies show interest to invest in Montenegrin port, railway , Dec. 21, 2012.
157. ↑ Politika, June 4, 2016 Vučić i Mihajlovićka obišli radove na Koridoru 11
158. ↑ CCTV, June 17, 2016 Ambassador: President Xi's visit to boost strategic cooperation
159. ^ Geopolitics of the Balkans: China and Serbia Expanding Cooperation, Strategic and Economic Implications. May 26, 2016.
160. ↑ ProBahn, 1/2016 Das Wunder vom Šargan, p. 18 (PDF)
161. ↑ ibid. ProBahn, 1/2016, p. 18.
162. ↑ Serbian infrastructure contracts signed during Putin visit , January 18, 2019.
163. ↑ Zeleznice Srbije, June 2, 2016 Od 3.juna kreće međunarodni sezonski voz "Panonija" između Subotice i Bara ( Memento from June 2, 2016 in the Internet Archive )
164. ↑ ZS-Kursna Kola 2015/16
165. ^ TJ Howkins: Changing hegemonies and new external pressures: South East European railway Networks in Transition. Journal of Transport Geography, 13 (2005), pp. 187-197. Here p. 190.
166. ↑ RTS, Feb. 21, 2015 Čuvar pruge, rizičan posao bez beneficija
167. ↑ Paul Delacroix 1976, p. 11.
168. ↑ Dragana Nikoletic September 8, 2016: Četiri decenije pruge Beograd bar . NIN, No. 3428, September 8, 2016, pp. 18–22, here p. 22.
169. ^ Appraisal of the Belgrade-Bar Project
170. ^ Project assessment report - Belgrade-Bar railway Project
171. ^ Henry Jacolin: Serbia's Access to the Sea, 1830-2006. Pp. 83-84.
172. ^ Henry Jacolin: Serbia's Access to the Sea, 1830-2006. P. 84.
173. ^ Henry Jacolin: Serbia's Access to the Sea, 1830-2006. P. 84.
174. ↑ Orme Wilson (1971), p. 381.
175. ↑ FB Singleton, B. Wilson (1977), p. 121.
176. ^ Dragoljub Golubović: I vreme i novac, Mirko Dokić . In: Beograd bar. 1972, p. 14 .
177. ^ Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel - History seminar - Eastern European history - About the project. (The building history of the Beograd – Bar railway. A documentation of the discourse in Yugoslav media 1952–1976.)
178. ↑ Guido G. Weigend: Comments on the Essay of Orne Wilson Jr. - The Belgrade-Bar Railroad: An Essay in Economic and Political Geography. In: George W. Hoffman (Ed.): Eastern Europe: Essays in Geographical Problems. Methuen & Co., London 1971, ISBN 0-416-15990-7 , pp. 385-389, here pp. 385 ff.
179. ↑ Guido G. Weigend: Comments on the Essay of Orne Wilson Jr. - The Belgrade-Bar Railroad: An Essay in Economic and Political Geography 1971. p. 386.
180. ↑ Guido G. Weigend: Comments on the Essay of Orne Wilson Jr. - The Belgrade-Bar Railroad: An Essay in Economic and Political Geography 1971. p. 387.
181. ↑ Guido G. Weigend: Comments on the Essay of Orne Wilson Jr. - The Belgrade-Bar Railroad: An Essay in Economic and Political Geography 1971. p. 387.
182. ↑ Guido G. Weigend: Comments on the Essay of Orne Wilson Jr. - The Belgrade-Bar Railroad: An Essay in Economic and Political Geography 1971. p. 388.
183. ↑ George W. Hoffman: Remarks on Guido G. Weigend's Comments on the Essay of Orne Wilson Jr. - The Belgrade-Bar Railroad: An Essay in Economic and Political Geography 1971. p. 393.
184. ↑ Branislav Marovic: Belgrade Bar . Slavko Burzanović (Ed.) (2001): 100 Godina Železnice Crne Gore. Cetinje, p. 108.
185. ↑ Drama zavejanog voza. In: Vreme . February 14, 2012.
186. ↑ Željeznički saobraćaj u prekidu, preminula jedna osoba u zaglavljenom vozu ( Memento from September 12, 2012 in the web archive archive.today )
187. ↑ Nema zeleznickog saobracaja izmedu Srbije i Crne Gore Press online. Feb 13, 2012
188. ↑ Novosti, Feb. 13, 2012 Kolasin pocela evakuacija putnika iz voza
189. ^ Vlada Republike Crne Gore, Nacionalna strategija za vanredne situacije - Ministarstvo unutrašnjih poslova sektor za vanredne situacije i civilnu bezbjednost. Podgorica, here p. 71.
190. ↑ RTS, August 7, 2016 Odron u tunelu na pruzi Beograd bar
191. ↑ N1, August 22, 2016 Barska pruga ponovo prohodna
192. ↑ Vijesti, August 10, 2016 Vozom do Srbije tek za desetak dana
193. ↑ Železnice Srbije, August 12, 2016 Uskoro uspostava teretnog saobraćaja na barskoj pruzi ( Memento from August 15, 2016 in the Internet Archive )
194. ↑ Montenegro: railway Nikšic - Podgorica reopened. October 5, 2012, accessed November 15, 2012 . 
195. ↑ Belgrade estimates flood damage at over one billion euros , ORF , May 22, 2014.
196. ↑ Blic, September 15, 2014 Barska pruga bice popravljena do Srpske nove godine
197. ↑ RTS, August 18, 2014 Beograd-Bar krivo je more
198. ↑ Žika Minović: Zajam se vrača - pruga ostaje 1971. p. 103.
199. ↑ Žika Minović: Zajam se vrača - pruga ostaje 1971. p. 103.
200. ↑ Napravio himnu za Beograd prugu bar
201. ↑ Crnogroska Kinoteka Između dva grada
202. ↑ Prvi mašinovođa pruge Beograd – Bar
203. ↑ Лагана вожња српским пругама
204. ^ N1, June 16, 2018 Na Glavnoj železničkoj “A sad adio” za poslednji voz za bar
205. ↑ Blic, June 16, 2018 Emotivni ispraćaj sa železničke stanice Poslednji voz za Bar otišao uz dugu sirenu i pesmu "A sad adio"
206. ↑ b92, June 16, 2018 Kraj jedne ere - ispraćen poslednji voz za Bar