Vienna light rail
The Wiener Stadtbahn , also known as the Wiener Stadt- undverbindungsbahn, was a public transport system opened in 1898 in the Austrian capital Vienna and its surroundings. Originally the Stadtschnellbahn was a standard-gauge railway operated by the Imperial and Royal State Railways with steam locomotives and classified as a full -gauge railway , which, in addition to passenger traffic, also served to transport mail , luggage and goods . Your 37.918 km long narrower network consisted of six individual sections, namely the Upper Wientallinie, the Lower Wientallinie, the Danube Canal line, the belt line, the connection bend and the suburban line . In 1925, the communally operated Wiener Elektro Stadtbahn took over a large part of this network, which in turn was incorporated into the Vienna U-Bahn between 1976 and 1989 . Only the suburban line remained with the state railway, it has been part of the Vienna S-Bahn since 1987 .
The closer network is thus now fully electrified and is served by Wiener Linien (WL) with the U4 and U6 lines and the Austrian Federal Railways (ÖBB) with the S45. Only a short section of the belt line, most of the connecting arch and the Unter-Döbling intermediate station are closed today.
Even in the densely built-up urban area, the light rail system was consistently free of crossings from the start , i.e. without level crossings , and was therefore very laboriously laid out. It received numerous elevated sections on bridges , viaducts and the characteristic brick-walled city railway arches, as well as further subsections in low-lying areas in incisions , in galleries or as a paved railway directly under the road surface.
It is one of the main works of the architect Otto Wagner , who not only designed the substructure and all building structures such as retaining walls , lining walls , bridges, viaducts, tunnel portals and stations , but also all associated ticket and baggage counters , floor coverings, railings , elevators , grids, Gates, furniture, water pipes as well as heating and lighting fixtures. The infrastructure was largely preserved and, as a total work of art in the transition style between late historicism and early art nouveau, is one of the city's sights . All of the facilities are now listed .
history
prehistory
Starting position
.jpg)
In the middle of the 19th century, a railway line led to Vienna from every direction. These were the Northern Railway opened in 1837 , the Southern Railway opened in 1841 and the Eastern Railway opened in the same year and the Western Railway opened in 1858 . In 1870, 1872 and 1881 the Franz-Josefs-Bahn , the Nordwestbahn and the Aspangbahn were added. Each of the seven routes belonged to a different railway company and each had its own train station in the capital, some of which were built far outside the city center in an area that was still undeveloped at the time for spatial, fiscal and military reasons. Six of them were also designed as - difficult to expand - terminal stations , only the last opened Aspang station was a through station from the start . While the comparatively few passengers who did not have the capital as their starting or destination were able to switch between the stations with the Vienna tram , which was set up in 1865 , this turned out to be far more difficult for transit goods traffic .
In addition, at the end of the 19th century it became apparent that the terminal stations themselves - including above all the Westbahnhof and Franz-Josefs-Bahnhof - urgently needed relief. In the long run, they no longer met the complicated demands of parallel long-distance and local traffic and would have had to be costly rebuilt without the construction of the light rail.
While the competing railway companies had no interest in a central urban solution at the time - today's Vienna Central Station ultimately only went into operation in 2012 - the Austrian military demanded measures after the March Revolution of 1848 to prevent such events from happening again. Although the connecting line Meidling – Nordbahnhof from 1859, the connecting line Penzing – Meidling from 1860, the Donauländebahn from 1872 and the Danube shore line from 1875 provided a certain remedy, not least the loss-making battle of Königgrätz in 1866 showed that further cross-connections between the Long-distance railways were missing. After only 18 kilometers of the Austrian railway network - including the connecting railway - were in state hands in 1867, another wave of nationalization began in 1874. The standardization of operations associated with the de-privatization as well as the new links in the capital should make it easier to move troops, weapons and ammunition in the event of mobilization - especially in the case of a two-front war . But the so-called approval traffic - that is, supplying the city and soldiers with food - also played a major role in the future of Vienna's light rail system. Equally important was the possibility of connecting the large inner-city barracks to the main railways in the event of war , including in particular the arsenal built between 1849 and 1856, also as a result of the March Revolution .
Another important aspect in the construction of the light rail was the razing of the line wall , a fortification around the suburbs of Vienna. It had become militarily obsolete in the middle of the 19th century, which initially led to the construction of the 75 to 80 meter wide belt road from 1873 , with the inner belt running inside the wall and the outer belt outside the wall. The demolition of the fortifications, which began in 1894, then made way for new urban railway lines. Therefore, an early alternative name for the light rail is belt rail or short belt path .
It also became clear early on that, for reasons of synergy, it would make sense to link the light rail construction with two other major urban projects in the second half of the 19th century. On the one hand, this was the regulation of the Vienna river, including partial bulging, and on the other hand, the further expansion of the Danube Canal . Both measures primarily served the purpose of flood protection , with a commercial and winter port also being built on the Danube Canal in Freudenau , which is also flood-proof. In addition, the Danube Canal in the course of progressive was parallel to the city railway construction Wiener channeling two collection channels, the left main collection channel and the right-hand main collecting duct . The area gained by straightening the two rivers could thus be used for the tram routes, the expensive purchase of private land and the demolition of existing buildings was not necessary.
Early projects on the occasion of the first city expansion in 1850
In Vienna, relevant projects for railway lines in the urban area existed very early on. The oldest dates back to 1844, when the engineer Heinrich von Sichrowsky designed an atmospheric railway based on the system of George Medhurst and Samuel Clegg based on the London and Paris model . This should lead from Lobkowitzplatz below the Wiener Glacis on to the Wien River and to Hütteldorf. In 1849, Julius Pollack finally proposed that the Vienna connecting railway, which was still in the planning stage at the time, also be operated atmospherically.
The next plans followed in connection with the first city expansion in 1850, including a project preferred by the Wiener Baugesellschaft and the Wiener Bankverein in 1852 . Count Henckel von Donnersmarck presented the second proposal, which had already been worked out in detail, in 1867. In 1869, building councilor Baron Carl von Schwarz finally brought in a third "urban railway design". A name was thus fixed for the project, which soon became common parlance. In addition, the term “Stadtbahn” was also common in Berlin by 1872 at the latest. Outside the two capitals, however, “Stadtbahn” established itself at the end of the 19th century as an alternative term for a classic electric tram . In Vienna, as in Berlin, people spoke of a city railway in the 19th century . Another term popular in Vienna at the time was the metropolitan (iron) railway , derived from the Metropolitan Railway , which opened in London in 1863 and was the world's first underground railway .
Aside from the financial resources, the complex communication and ownership relationships involved in urban railway construction also presented all those involved with major challenges, which is why the project did not progress for years. As early as Carl Ritter von Ghega , who built both the complicated Semmering Railway and the Vienna connecting railway parallel to one another in the 1850s, the saying has been passed down:
“I would rather build two Semmering trams than this light rail. [Meant is the connecting line.] "
Competition of the Ministry of Commerce on the occasion of the world exhibition (1873)
As a result of the economic upswing from 1871, the light rail came back on the agenda. As a result of a competition launched by the Ministry of Commerce, 23 new plans were received by March 1, 1873, when Vienna wanted to position itself as a modern city on the occasion of the World Exhibition that opened on May 1, 1873 . This included, for the first time, a proposal for a pure tunnel runway, presented by Emil Winkler . Its planning was also based on the first systematic traffic census in Vienna. Even then, the ministry expressed the principle that level crossings with existing roads could not be permitted, so that only elevated, underground or gallery railways came into question.
As a result of the economic crisis that occurred in May 1873 as a result of the Vienna stock market crash , interest in the so-called light rail issue subsided somewhat. None of the 23 drafts received a concession , even though the municipality judged that of Count Edmund Zichy's consortium to be the most appropriate to public interests, both in terms of the local railway network applied for and the proposed regulation of the Vienna River. The project by Zichy and his colleagues Baron Rothschild, Baron von Schey, Baron Carl von Schwarz, Achilles Melingo, Otto Wagner and Georg Scheyer envisaged an exclusively elevated railway with a central station between Aspernbrücke and Augartenbrücke . From there the light rail should lead on the one hand to Baumgarten on the Westbahn, on the other hand along the Danube Canal to the Franz-Josefs-Bahnhof and along the existing line ramparts to Rennweg . Further routes were planned to the Reichsbrücke , to Hernals , to the Südbahnhof, to Brigittenau or to Floridsdorf .
Model Berlin (1882)
After almost ten years without any progress, the German capital Berlin finally gave the immediate impetus for a renewed discussion of the Viennese light rail issue. The Berlin Stadtbahn operated there as early as February 7, 1882 , and later served as a model for the Viennese Stadtbahn in several ways. Although it was routed exclusively in an elevated position on viaduct arches , it was also operated by the responsible state railway with steam locomotives and a short train sequence and connected several previously existing terminal stations with one another. In contrast to what happened later with the Vienna Steam Light Railroad, Berlin already had a rigid schedule .
In this context, three new drafts were submitted to the Austrian government, the first even in the year before the opening of the Berlin facility. This was presented in August 1881 by a consortium of British engineers James Clarke Bunten and Joseph Fogerty, which - as the thirtieth light rail project in total - led for the first time to the concession stage on January 25, 1883. A main station on the Danube Canal and a double-track belt railway with branches to all Vienna train stations and to Hietzing were planned . The construction of the approximately 13 kilometer long ring was planned along the Danube Canal and Vienna River as an elevated railway on iron viaducts, on the belt partly as a viaduct, partly as an open or covered incision. The branch lines should all be built as elevated railways, mostly on viaducts. However, the concession of the two British was declared expired on March 14, 1886 by the Austrian government because financial evidence of the estimated costs of 719 million Austrian crowns could not be provided.
In competition with Bunten and Fogerty was the project presented by the municipal building authority in 1883 for the installation of a light rail system in Vienna , which the municipality of Vienna preferred. It should be composed of the following three main lines:
- a double-track belt line from the Südbahnhof to the connection to the Nordbahn and the Nordwestbahn, mostly intended as an elevated railway
- a central four-track underground railway, as the diameter line should open in a north-south direction, the Inner City
- a Wientalline to be built as an elevated railway from the Westbahnhof to the former Schickaneder Bridge at today's Getreidemarkt
In addition, in 1884 Siemens & Halske submitted the project for a network of electric light rail vehicles for Vienna . The latter, however, was narrow gauge and was therefore not accepted because the responsible authorities feared that this could prevent the creation of further light rail vehicles with steam operation.
Planning by Bunten and Fogerty, 1881
Project of a metropolitan, central and peripheral railway by AM Leinwather & Consorten, 1882
Planning by the Vienna City Building Office from 1883
Project by Siemens & Halske from 1884
.gif)
Planning and construction
Another attempt on the occasion of the second major city expansion in 1892
The light rail project became concrete for the first time in 1890, when the former Krauss & Comp. The drafts submitted were approved as a basis for the official negotiations, although these suffered numerous changes in the course of the following years. One of the reasons for the renewed attempt to build the tram was the continuing economic upswing in Austria. In 1889 and 1890 - after a long deficit period - this led to a balanced state budget again, and in 1891 a surplus was even achieved. On the other hand, the Lower Austrian Landtag decided that Vienna was still part of the Province of Lower Austria , and in December 1890 the capital was to be united with its suburbs to form Greater Vienna .
During this second major city expansion, the existing districts 1 to 10 were added to the new districts 11 to 19, which lost their independence with effect from January 1, 1892. As a result, the urban area increased from 55 to 179 square kilometers, the population rose from 800,000 to 1,300,000. As the city grew, the light rail project became even more urgent. At the same time, the western expansion of the city required the extension of the light rail project to include the suburban line.
Finally found later in kk Ministry of Railways , from October 5 to November 16, 1891 one, which was the Commerce Department until 1896 still part of inquiry instead. It turned out that the decision to build would only have to be made jointly by the state, state and municipality. Therefore, the Ministry proposed the creation of an equal occupied Commission before.
In agreement with the Province of Lower Austria and the City of Vienna, the government of Prime Minister Eduard Taaffe therefore submitted to the Reichsrat on February 6, 1892 an extensive bill on the implementation of the transport facilities in Vienna , which also laid down the urban railway lines. Both houses of the Reichsrat accepted this and promulgated it as a law of July 18, 1892. The credit for this goes primarily to Dr. Heinrich Ritter von Wittek , 1897–1905 kk railway minister.
The Commission for Transport Systems in Vienna , proposed by the Ministry , was finally constituted on July 25, 1892 and acted as the building contractor for the construction of the city railway, the Vienna river regulation and the Danube Canal expansion. On October 27, 1892 the ministerial decision was made, whereby the alignment of all lines received approval. On December 18, 1892, the commission finally received the official concession for the operation of the light rail. The construction work itself, however, was transferred to the state railway. This was done for the main lines by agreement of May 27, 1893 and for the local railway lines by means of a supplementary agreement of September 27, 1894.
Plan of the steam tramway company formerly Krauss & Comp. from 1890, still without the suburb line
The light rail lines for Vienna based on the government project of 1891
Proposal by Anton Waldvogel , 1892
Differentiation between main and local railways
The light rail network planned in 1892 was divided into two main groups. These included main railways, which would allow the transfer of the running equipment of the railways flowing into Vienna and which were to have connections to them, as well as local railways that were much cheaper to build. The latter were to be routed as branch lines and operated by private railways . For the local railways, the option of transferring the main railroad's operating equipment was only limited and a connection to the other railways was not planned at all. The total cost was then estimated at 73 million Austrian guilders . In detail, the two route categories differ as follows:
| Fee distribution: | Minimum radius on free route: |
Minimum radius in the station area: |
Maximum gradient: |
Track spacing on straight sections: |
Clearance profile over top of rail : |
|
| Main lines: |
State : 87.5 percent, city: 7.5 percent, country: 5 percent |
160 meters | 150 meters | 20 per mille | 4.00 meters | 4.8 meters |
| Local railways: | State: 85 percent, city: 10 percent, country: 5 percent |
150 meters | 120 meters | 25 per mille | 3.80 meters | 4.4 meters |
The latter distinguishing feature would, however, have ruled out a transfer of trains from the main lines to the local lines. But those in charge later decided to also build the local railways with a clearance height of 4.8 meters. Thus, the clearance profile of the light rail was ultimately not subject to any restrictions in comparison to the other main lines in the country. The maximum gradient of 25 per mille corresponded to that on the Semmering Railway. In the first construction phase - to be completed by the end of 1897 - six routes with a total length of 47.4 kilometers were originally planned:
- As main lines:
- The 15.3 kilometer long and 25,415,000 Austrian guilders expensive belt line , also known as the belt line , from Heiligenstadt to the southern line in Matzleinsdorf , plus a branch line running parallel to the western line between the western station and Penzing
- The 5.6 kilometer long and 3,600,000 Austrian guilders expensive Danube city line from Praterstern to the Donauuferbahn and on to Nussdorf, whereby an elevated railway was planned between Praterstern and the marshalling yard of the northern railway on Vorgartenstraße, but initially only a provisional level railway was planned at street level
- The 9.3 kilometer long and 9,700,000 Austrian guilders expensive suburban line from Penzing via Ottakring and Hernals to Heiligenstadt
- As local railways:
- The 7.2 kilometer long and 9,360,000 Austrian guilders expensive Wientallinie or Wientalbahn , at that time still written Wienthallinie or Wienthalbahn , from the Westbahnhof over the Gürtel to the Gumpendorfer slaughterhouse and from there along the Wien River to the main customs office, along with a branch from Gumpendorf to the steam tramway from the Schönbrunn line to Mödling
- The 6.0 kilometer long and 7,900,000 Austrian guilders expensive Danube Canal Line , at that time still written Danube Canal Line , from the main customs office to Heiligenstadt - in the early days of the Stadtbahn after the Franz-Josefs-Kai sometimes also called Quailinie or Quaiinie , with only one alternative here 3.8 kilometers long and only 5,700,000 Austrian guilders expensive variant from the main customs office to Franz-Josefs-Bahnhof was under discussion
- The 4.0 kilometer long inner ring line , which costs 5,400,000 Austrian guilders , branches off the Wientallinie at Karlsplatz and runs along Museumsstrasse, Landesgerichtsstrasse, Universitätsstrasse and Schottenring to the connection to the Danube Canal line at the Kaiserbad
When the traffic demand arose, the following supplementary routes were planned in a second construction phase from 1898 to 1900:
- As main lines:
- A stretch along the Danube Canal to link the Franz-Josefs-Bahn with the connecting railway
- The execution of the Donaustadtlinie in a definitive way, that means also to the north of the marshalling yard of the Nordbahn on the Vorgartenstraße as an elevated railway, this should extend over the entire length of the Danube city
- As local railways:
- A cemetery line, branching off the Wientallinie, to the central cemetery and on to Schwechat using the private railway Vienna-Aspang (EWA)
- Branches from the inner ring line to the belt and suburb line with continuations towards Dornbach and Pötzleinsdorf
- two radial tracks through the inner city, for which electrical operation was planned from the start
In connection with the connection to the central cemetery, it was even planned to transport corpses by light rail towards the end of the 19th century ; the permit for this was expressly stated in the concession conditions. However, this request was later turned down because the then very numerous private funeral homes vehemently objected to it. Alternatively, from 1918 onwards, the tram was used to transport coffins for several years.
Start of construction (1892)
Ultimately, the suburban line, which in places has the character of a mountain railway, was the most difficult section and was therefore postponed until December 1893. As a result, the light rail construction began on February 16, 1893 with the belt line in Michelbeuern station . Before that, however, the groundbreaking ceremony on November 7th, 1892 began with the removal of the water reservoir of the former Kaiser-Ferdinand aqueduct in front of the Western Railway. So this day can already be seen as the start of construction. On August 1, 1892, kk Oberbaurat Albert Gatnar was appointed site manager for the suburb line, while kk Oberbaurat Anton Millemoth was responsible for the belt line and kk Oberbaurat Professor Arthur Oelwein was responsible for the Vienna line and the Danube Canal line.
At the end of 1894, the Hütteldorf-Hacking-Hietzing section of the Upper Wiental Line was already under construction, and the Lower Wiental Line finally followed in 1896. The last to begin with was the construction of the Danube Canal Line on January 13, 1898, although no separate date has been handed down for the connecting arch that was built together with it.
In advance, the commission had to acquire numerous plots of land ranging in size from a minimum of eight square meters to a maximum of 35,700 square meters. The compensation ranged between two and a half and 153 Austrian guilders per square meter, depending on the location. In 436 cases, an amicable settlement was achieved with the previous owners, only in 22 other cases had to be expropriated by court decision . However, the value of the houses and land along the railway increased significantly as a result of their construction, that is, the light rail - which caused this increase in value - had to pay the higher prices itself when redeemed. Individual buildings also had to give way to the tram. Among them, for example, one of the line chapels on the Gürtel in 1893 , the so-called bridge chapel . As a substitute, Otto Wagner built the St. Johannes Nepomuk Chapel in the immediate vicinity of the old location from 1895 ; it was consecrated in 1897. In general, the light rail system had a considerable influence on the streets and squares in its vicinity as well as the economic conditions of the affected districts. For example, the existing Gürtelstraße was freed from the many protruding old buildings and the tram arches were erected on its mirrored grounds, where building materials, stones, scrap iron and the like were previously stored behind wooden crates and dilapidated fences. The remaining part of the belt mirror was then converted into gardens.
The new inner-city transport network of the capital was regarded as a state prestige object of Cisleithania, which is why the state guaranteed all the necessary funds and thus made it possible to implement it quickly. In addition, cheap labor from all over the monarchy was available; At times, up to 100,000 people were working at the same time. These included mainly Czechs, Slovaks, Italians, Slovenes, Lower Austrians and Styrians, and to a lesser extent also workers from other parts of Austria-Hungary and even from abroad, including France, Greece and Italy. Furthermore, women were already working as mortar mixers in the construction of the light rail. In the years 1893 to 1896, the weekly and daily wages of workers and craftsmen increased significantly. The reason for this increase was that other very extensive structures were being carried out in Vienna at the same time as the construction of the urban railway. The workforce required for this could only gradually be brought in in the required number.
Separate material runways were created for the construction of the light rail . Including one from the companies Peregrini, Calderai and Giuseppe Feltrinelle & Co. from Schikanedersteg to the Danube Canal for the construction of the Wientallinie and a second from the company Rabas & F. Rummel from Penzing to Breitensee, where the Linzer Straße was even crossed on a wooden viaduct .
The state railway also takes over the local railways, the inner ring line is no longer available (1894)
The steam tramway company formerly Krauss & Comp originally applied for the concession of the three lines of the first construction phase to be operated as local railways . She hoped for a link with the routes she already operated to Mödling in the south and Stammersdorf in the north, but could not prove the necessary funds. As early as January 16, 1894, all three boards of the Commission for Transport Systems decided unanimously to run the local railway lines themselves. This was approved by law of April 9, 1894, and by the ultimate decision of August 3, 1894 , the State Railways finally also received the concession for the Wiental line and the Danube Canal line.
The two routes then had to be rescheduled to enable the trains to transfer from the main lines to the local lines. In return, the steam tramway company suffered a disadvantage due to the rescheduling. Because in order to clear the construction site for the Stadtbahn, it had to shut down its 3.221 kilometer stretch of Hietzing – Schönbrunn line on December 31, 1894 - which was only opened on December 22, 1886 - and also to build a new terminus in Hietzing. Furthermore, in 1894 the Hütteldorf-Hacking-Hietzing section, which was not originally planned for the first construction phase, was brought forward in order to link the Wiental line with the Western Railway. As a result, the Westbahnhof – Penzing side branch of the belt line was obsolete and disappeared from the planning. As an alternative, a connecting curve between the stations Gumpendorfer Straße and Meidling-Hauptstraße was newly included in the planning. Despite the missing track triangle at the Westbahnhof, it should enable direct train journeys between the belt line and the Westbahn.
The third local line of the first construction phase, the inner ring line , was completely discarded in 1894. Although it should continue to be reserved for a private railway, the concession should only be granted when the line can be run electrically. Ultimately, this connection, with a partially similar route, was not created until 1966, initially as a sub-paving tram in the course of the so-called two -way line , which finally mutated into underground line 2 in 1980 .
Constraints on financial savings in the project (1895–1897)
_IMG_5358.jpg)
The rescheduling of the Vienna and Danube Canal lines made the project more complicated and expensive. Due to the architectural quality required by Otto Wagner, the high-rise buildings on the more important routes were also much more expensive than planned before 1894. The second construction phase was a long way off. In addition, on July 11, 1895, the commission decided to postpone the Donaustadt line , which was still assigned to the first construction phase , for which 264,915 Austrian crowns had already been incurred for preliminary work, projection costs and land acquisition. The four intermediate stations planned on this route - Kronprinz-Rudolfs-Brücke , Gaswerk , Lederfabrik and Donau-Kaltbad - were thus obsolete.
The plans were further specified by the law of May 23, 1896. In addition, in August 1896, a kk building department for the Vienna Stadtbahn was established as a separate department in the railway ministry and Friedrich Bischoff Edler von Klammstein was appointed as kk section head or building director, replacing it the then dissolved General Directorate of the Imperial and Royal State Railways . Von Klammstein was responsible for the three construction managers for the suburb line, the belt line and the Vienna line. Furthermore, the belt line was divided into nine, the suburban line and the Wiental line each into five and the Danube Canal line into three construction sections , these construction sections in turn into smaller working sections.
The various construction managers employed around 70 civil servants, including 50 technicians. The kk Bauräthe Tlach, Hugo Koestler, Christian Lang, Josef Zuffer and Alexander Linnemann acted as speakers for the substructure, superstructure, building construction and materials management of this building department. The kk Hofrath Dr. Victor Edler von Pflügl. The administrative business of the Commission for Transportation Systems was initially headed by the Lieutenancy Council Baron von Hock, later the Lieutenancy Council Lobmeyr. Ministerialrat Doppler acted as technical advisor .
Also in 1896 the project operators reduced the plans for the construction of the belt line. It was actually supposed to lead from the Gumpendorfer Straße station - the wall approaches built as preliminary construction work are still visible there today - via the unrealized Arbeitergasse station in the Gaudenzdorfer Gürtel / Margaretengürtel area to the Matzleinsdorf freight station of the southern railway. From there, a continuation over the Laaer Berg to the Ostbahn was considered. The problem was the not yet nationalized Südbahn-Gesellschaft , whose infrastructure was to be used by the light rail trains in the so-called péage traffic . That is why it was determined at the time:
"The construction of the Gumpendorferstrasse – Matzleinsdorf belt line is only to be carried out when the relationship between the Southern Railway and the State Railways has been finally settled."
The saved connection between Gumpendorfer Strasse and Matzleinsdorf, however, threatened to have a negative impact on future operations because the belt line from the main customs office would not have been accessible without changing the direction of travel . In order to compensate for this shortcoming, those responsible therefore integrated the connecting sheet into the planning at short notice in 1896. Another saving measure concerned the arches of the viaduct. The plaster facade originally planned by Otto Wagner was dropped in favor of the exposed bricks , as was previously the case with the connecting railway and the Berlin urban railway.
Apart from the completely saved sections of the route, by a resolution of the municipal council in 1897, the intermediate stations “ Spittelau ” on the belt line and “Rampengasse” on the Danube Canal line were also canceled without replacement. In the end, both went into operation as the Spittelau traffic station in 1996 , in a heavily modified form and a little further south than originally planned.
Construction problems in the Wiental and at the main customs office (1897)
While the construction of the suburban line, the Upper Wiental Line and the Belt Line only caused minor difficulties, the Lower Wiental Line caused significantly greater problems due to complications in connection with the regulation and partial bulging of the Vienna River. The course of the river often had to be completely relocated in order to create space for both objects. In some places whole groups of houses were demolished. The construction was most difficult at those points where the foundations of the light rail walls often reached six to seven meters below the foundations of the old neighboring houses. In addition, the flood events that occurred at the time caused extensive damage to the buildings that were in the critical stage of their foundations and led to construction interruptions. This was particularly true of the so-called flood of the century in July 1897.
The second major difficulty in building the Wientallinie was the complex lowering of the Hauptzollamt station, which was originally in an elevated position and had to be lowered by 6.82 meters for the tram because both adjacent new lines were underground. This project was made even more difficult by the existing connection to the Praterstern, which in turn remained an elevated railway.
Postponement of the opening date
Originally, all lines of the first construction phase were to go into operation together at the end of 1897. Due to the varying degrees of delays, the client finally decided not to open the entire network at the same time. As an alternative, the following completion plan applied at the beginning of 1898:
- Suburban line until the end of April 1898
- Upper Viennese line and belt line until June 1, 1898
- Lower Wientallinie and connecting line until June 1, 1899
- Danube Canal Line until the end of 1899
Ultimately, however, the postponed opening date could only be met for the Upper Wiental Line and the Belt Line, while the other sections were delayed even further.
Short-term rescheduling of the Danube Canal line and the connecting arch (1898)
Due to resident protests in the IX. In the course of 1898, and thus in a very late phase of the project, the Schottenring – Brigittabrücke section, originally intended as an elevated railway, had to be rescheduled into a more expensive underground line. The associated additional costs of 4.6 million Austrian crowns, however, were taken over by the municipality of Vienna by resolution of the municipal council on June 1, 1898. This measure made the opening of the Danube Canal line obsolete before the turn of the century, because the section in question could only be tackled in autumn 1898 while the rest of the Danube Canal line had been under construction since the beginning of the year.
The lowering of the route was also structurally challenging. The reasons for this were the foundations of the city-side retaining walls at Morzinplatz and the translation of the Alserbach . At Morzinplatz, the workers first encountered the old fortification walls on the surface, underneath the floating sand there made the construction work more difficult. The right main collecting canal, which had been built recently, posed a further problem. It was close to the route, but at a higher position than the railway, so that its existence would have been endangered with the slightest settlement. During the construction of the railway retaining wall, which was to be founded five to six meters deeper, neither water could be pumped out of the foundation pits nor could it be piloted - also because of the vibration. For this reason, cast iron well wreaths with a diameter of two meters were sunk, concreted out and the walls were first placed on top of them.
The extension of the gallery route along the Danube Canal, in turn, required a rescheduling of the connecting arch. In order to prevent too great a slope, this had to be extended to the north. It therefore no longer started directly at the Nussdorfer Straße station, but instead about 300 meters further on at a junction of the same name .
Participating construction companies
The following companies were involved in the construction of the light rail:
| Substructure and building construction: | Union-Baugesellschaft , Redlich & Berger, Wiener Baugesellschaft, Allgemeine Österreichische Baugesellschaft , Josef Prokop, Oettwert & Dittel, Doderer & Göhl, Alois Schuhmacher , Rabas & Rummel |
| Substructure: | Peter Kraus |
| Buildings: | Karl Brodhag, Friedrich Haas, Christian Speidel, Julius Stättermayer, Hans Schätz, Karl Stigler |
| Superstructure: | Franz Burian |
| Concrete structures: | Pittel + Brausewetter , Gustav Adolf Wayss |
| Pavings and roofing: | Lederer & Nessényi , N. Schefftel |
| Art locksmith work: | Kammerer & Filzamer |
| Gas and water pipes: | Karl Dumont, Teudloff & Dittrich Armaturen- und Maschinenfabrik |
| Mechanical facilities: | Anton Freissler , Stephan Götz & Sons, Josef Friedländer, Märky, Bromovsky & Schulz, C. Schember & Sons |
| Electrical facilities: | Siemens & Halske, Robert Bartelmus & Co. |
| Iron structures: | Anton Biró , Albert Milde , Ignaz Gridl , Rudolph Philip Waagner , Prague Machine and Bridge Construction Company of the First Bohemian-Moravian Machine Factory , Archducal Industrial Administration Teschen (Karlshütte), Witkowitz Mining and Ironworks Union , Škodawerke Actiengesellschaft , Breitfeld, Daněk & Co. |
Albert Milde himself also mentions the Prager Maschinenbau-Aktiengesellschaft, vorm. Ruston & Co. , the Prašil brothers , the Österreichisch-Alpine Montangesellschaft and the Zöptau trade union as other bridge construction companies involved in the construction.
From the opening to the takeover by the municipality of Vienna
Grand opening
After successful staff training trips, which took place from May 3rd to 5th on the suburb line and after the official ceremony on May 26th and 27th on the Upper Wientallinie and the belt line, the Viennese Stadtbahn was officially opened on May 9th, 1898 in Michelbeuern become. In addition to Emperor Franz Joseph I, the Viennese Archbishop Anton Josef Cardinal Gruscha , Imperial and Royal Railway Minister Dr. Heinrich von Wittek, the Lower Austrian Land Marshal Joseph Freiherr von Gudenus (1841–1919) and the Mayor of Vienna Karl Lueger . On that day the monarch drove with the kuk court salon train , which consisted of his saloon car and three other cars, from Michelbeuern over the belt line to Heiligenstadt, then over the suburb line and the western line to Hütteldorf-Hacking, then over the upper Wientall line to Meidling- Hauptstraße and finally on the belt line to the Alser Straße stop , with which he traveled to all sections completed by then. According to another source, the premiere drive again ended in Michelbeuern. In the last car of the special train, the Kaiser had a viewing platform; only there he was spared the smoke of the steam locomotive. The following quote from the emperor has come down to us from that ceremony:
"Created by the harmonious cooperation of the autonomous Curiae and the state, this railway construction will - as I confidently hope - bring the population manifold advantages and effectively promote the prosperous development of Vienna, which is dear to me."
After the London Underground (1863), the Liverpool Overhead Railway (1893), the Budapest Földalatti (1896) and the Glasgow Subway (also 1896), the Viennese light rail system was the world's fifth express transport system that ran - at least partially - underground . Vienna, for example, overtook Paris (1900), Berlin (1902) and New York (1904). The total construction and installation costs for the closer network of the light rail ultimately amounted to around 138 million crowns .
Hasnerstrasse was the only street that was cut through by the Stadtbahn. The city administration, which during the construction process insisted that no urban “communication” should be interrupted, only allowed this one exception.
Operating agreement
The steam light railway was operated by the Vienna State Railway Directorate on behalf of and for the account of the Commission for Transport Systems in Vienna . The latter was considered a private railway, which also owned part of the rolling stock used on the light rail, but did not carry out any transport services itself . The light rail operation was initially carried out in accordance with the protocol of April 23, 1898 "regarding provisional provisions on the management of the successive opening of the sections of the belt line, suburb line, Wiental line and Danube canal line of the Vienna light rail by the Imperial and Royal State Railway Administration". In return, it received the entire operating income of the tram, the rent and lease interest from real estate and land as well as the income from the use of the industrial tracks and towing tracks connected to the tram . This agreement was only approved by the Ministry of Railways on the first day of regular operation, May 11, 1898, and was valid until the end of 1901.
However , the two partners did not conclude the final affiliation and operating agreement until June 25, 1902, which then came into effect retrospectively on January 1, 1902. According to this, the Commission for Transport Systems of the State Railways reimbursed the cost of running the operation in accordance with the "regulation concerning the determination of the incomes and expenses of the Viennese Stadtbahn and their offsetting" integrated in the contract. This agreement was initially valid until December 31, 1911. The dissolution of the kk building department for the Wiener Stadtbahn by decree of June 23, 1902 followed on June 30, 1902. The transactions still to be carried out were partly the redemption commissioner of the Wiener Stadtbahn and partly the CW section transferred to the kk construction management of the Wiener Stadtbahn.
Gradual start of regular operation
The closer network of the steam light rail system finally started its regular operation as follows:
| date | Surname | route | concession | Overall length | Operating length | Intermediate stations | Mean station distance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 11, 1898 | Suburban line | Penzing - Heiligenstadt |
Main line | 9.949 kilometers |
9.584 kilometers |
six | 1369 meters |
| June 1, 1898 | Upper Viennese line | Hütteldorf-Hacking - Meidling-Hauptstrasse |
Local railway | 5.879 kilometers |
5.409 kilometers |
five | 902 meters |
| Waistline | Meidling main street - Heiligenstadt |
Main line | 8.888 kilometers |
8.407 kilometers |
without Michelbeuern: seven with Michelbeuern: eight |
without Michelbeuern: 1051 meters with Michelbeuern: 934 meters |
|
| Suburban line | Heiligenstadt - Brigittenau-Floridsdorf |
Main line | 1.357 kilometers |
2.028 kilometers |
no | 2028 meters | |
| June 30, 1899 | Lower Viennese line | Meidling-Hauptstrasse - main customs office |
Local railway | 5.650 kilometers |
5.443 kilometers |
five | 907 meters |
| August 6, 1901 | Danube Canal Line | Main customs office - Heiligenstadt |
Local railway | 5.874 kilometers |
5.632 kilometers |
four | 1126 meters |
| Connecting bow | Junction Nussdorfer Straße - Brigittabrücke |
Local railway | 1.235 kilometers |
1.415 kilometers |
no | - |
Note 1: the length specification of 2.028 kilometers for the Heiligenstadt - Brigittenau-Floridsdorf section also includes the 0.260 kilometer current route to the middle of the waiting hall of the Brigittenau-Floridsdorf station, which was used together with the Donauuferbahn.
Note 2: The Heiligenstadt – Brigittenau-Floridsdorf section was originally intended only for freight traffic and should actually become part of the external network. On the occasion of the anniversary exhibition in the Prater in 1898 , which lasted from May 6th to October 18th, 1898, however, it then also showed passenger traffic from the start.
The Untere Wientallinie, the Obere Wientallinie and the Donaukanallinie were, in this order, continuously kilometers and had their common zero point in Hütteldorf-Hacking. The suburb line and the belt line were also kilometers upwards in the direction of Heiligenstadt; they had their zero points accordingly in Penzing and Meidling-Hauptstrasse. The connecting curve in turn took over the kilometering of the belt line at the Nussdorfer Strasse junction, which means that its zero point was Meidling-Hauptstrasse. On the elevated railway lines, the kilometrage was displayed on cast-iron square boards with a red border. They were attached to the railings parallel to the direction of travel.
With a length of only 517 meters, the Alser Straße – Michelbeuern section represented the shortest distance between stations for the light rail system, while the Brigittabrücke – Heiligenstadt connection, at 2590 meters, was the longest section in the narrow light rail network. The mean station distance was 620 meters.
In the course book , the two Wiental lines, the belt line and the section Hauptzollamt-Praterstern of the connecting line were to be found under table number 1b, while the outer belt line was number 1c, the suburb line was number 2 and the section Hütteldorf-Hacking-Hauptzollamt of the connecting line was number 2a was assigned. From its opening in 1901, the Danube Canal line and the connecting arch were listed under 1b, while the main customs office-Praterstern received the new table 1d.
When the route was opened, the operator intentionally chose the simplest possible names for the individual route sections. They differed in part from those from the planning phase, including the division of the Wientallinie into an upper and a lower section. The names should not only simplify internal communication, but also serve to provide an easier overview and convenience for the audience.
For light rail accidents , the Vienna Voluntary Rescue Society also put a special railway ambulance into operation in 1900 , which was stationed at the main customs office.
First electrification attempt in 1901
In view of the problems with steam operation that became apparent early on, those responsible considered electrifying the Vienna light rail as early as 1897, when the last sections were still under construction. Ultimately, Siemens & Halske did not begin to prepare for a trial run with electric multiple units , which were made up of up to ten - appropriately adapted - regular light rail vehicles . For this purpose, the engineers selected the 3.8 kilometer stretch between Heiligenstadt and the Michelbeuern freight station; a total of 8.5 kilometers of track had been electrified by spring 1901 and a temporary hall was built in Heiligenstadt for the maintenance of the test trains.
The first test drives took place in July 1901 without passengers during the nightly shutdown between 1:00 and 4:00 a.m. The maximum speed was 45 km / h, the journey time was nine minutes south and eight minutes north. Since the test drives were successful, the kk Staatsbahndirektion also permitted day trips without passenger transport from July 1, 1902, which were completed according to a fixed timetable with four daily train pairs. However, for financial reasons, the experiment ended soon afterwards, and no economic advantage over steam operation could be determined. The last trip took place on July 12, 1902 in the presence of the representative of the railway minister, Ritter von Pichler, representatives of the Commission for Transport Systems and numerous journalists; the electrical systems were dismantled by 1906.
In the first attempt at electrification, the London-style tracks were provided with a U-shaped conductor rail running centrally between the rails . It had a cross-section of 44.4 square millimeters, was mounted on insulators made of porcelain or hard rubber that were screwed to the sleepers and protruded 40 millimeters above the top of the rail. Wooden planks were attached to the side to protect against accidental contact. The third rail was interrupted at points, crossings and crossings and connected by cables laid underground. At both ends of a busbar section, wooden run-up pieces for the busbar current collectors were attached.
The test route was supplied with 500 volts direct current by the Engerthstrasse steam power plant of the Allgemeine Österreichische Elektrizitätsgesellschaft (AÖEG) via two feed points in the Währinger Strasse and Nussdorfer Strasse stations. The return circuit respectively Earthing carried by the rails, the gelaschten rail joints were bridged with copper connectors. During the electrification test, the insulating rails of the block device were exchanged for mercury bending contacts.
Second electrification attempt in 1906
The Prague company Křizík & Co made a second attempt at electrification between the main customs office and Praterstern stations between 1906–1907. For this purpose, Křizík built his own substation , which fed the line with two times 1500 volts direct current in a three-wire arrangement, whereby the rails were required as a central conductor in addition to the double-pole overhead line . A two-axle locomotive with a central driver's cab was used as the test vehicle , which was designated as VIENNA 1 and later went to the Czechoslovak State Railways .
First World War
.jpg){kind=spacer}
The outbreak of the First World War was a severe setback for the light rail system. Their entire network was now actually used for troop transports for the military, and civilian passenger transport was temporarily only possible with restrictions. However, she was able to fully fulfill her military task. Immediately after the outbreak of war, the Stadtbahn had to surrender ten locomotives and 413 cars, and in 1915 another 22 locomotives. In October 1914, 461 light rail vehicles were already in service with the army.
Another reason for the limitation of the operation was the lack of personnel, as more and more employees their convening received. As a replacement, women had to be employed on the tram for the first time from June 1915, as was previously the case with conductors on the tram. However, they only took over the station services. In order to ensure that the changeover was as quick and smooth as possible, the administration only engaged the wives and daughters of male employees.
As a result of the general mobilization of July 31, 1914, light rail passenger traffic was completely stopped for the first time between August 6 and August 25, 1914. From August 26 to August 31, 1914, operations only took place in the morning, noon and evening for a period of two to three hours. From September 1, 1914, this so-called group traffic was extended to all hours of the day from 5:15 a.m. departure in Hütteldorf-Hacking to midnight arrival there. On September 15, 1914, limited passenger traffic followed on the connecting railway with a transition from and to the Danube Canal line, which lasted until May 25, 1915. From May 26, 1915 to June 11, 1915, passenger traffic on the entire light rail and connecting tramway was completely stopped for the second time, before limited passenger traffic in the morning, noon and evening hours to the again from June 12, 1915 Duration of approximately three hours was offered.
Extensive cessation of operations on December 8, 1918
Less than a month after the end of the war, the light rail system had to be almost completely shut down again on December 8, 1918 due to a lack of coal and because the operating resources were needed for other purposes. The coal now had to be imported at great expense from the mining districts lost in the war ; it was no longer possible to raise the daily amount of 240 tons. Only the connecting railway and the suburban line remained in operation almost continuously - both during and after the war, albeit at times heavily thinned out.
In addition, even after the extensive cessation of passenger traffic, goods traffic continued between Heiligenstadt and the main customs office on the one hand and between Heiligenstadt and Michelbeuern on the other. Meanwhile, the unused reception building served other purposes. At that time, the Karlsplatz station was home to a ticket sales office for the Austrian Travel Agency in order to save the city public from having to go to the train stations if they wanted to buy tickets before the day of travel. Other station buildings on the Wientallinie were used by foreign railway workers who came to the capital for meetings and negotiations on official matters and found accommodation only with difficulty and at high cost, for a relatively small fee as a place to stay. For this purpose, the service and waiting rooms, if they were suitable, were equipped with iron beds and the most necessary furnishings so that they met the modest demands. In other reception buildings nearby offices established offices and a considerable part of the other light rail buildings served as storage space for goods or as food stores for the railway organizations.
Disinterest of the operator after the collapse of the monarchy
As a result of the collapse of the Habsburg Monarchy and the dissolution of Austria-Hungary, which took place in autumn 1918 and was confirmed in peace treaties in 1919/1920, the earlier military considerations in connection with the Vienna light rail system no longer played a role. In addition, the Federal Constitution passed on November 10, 1920 and the separation law of December 29, 1921 based on it , ensured that the municipality of Vienna was separated from the federal state of Lower Austria, so that from then on two federal states had to coordinate with each other for light rail traffic to the Vienna area.
In the meantime, the attitude of the politicians towards the Vienna Stadtbahn had changed fundamentally, whereby the changed political majority in the Vienna City Council and Landtag , in which the Social Democrats dominated from then on, contributed to a large extent . In this context, the improvement of living conditions, and thus also of the transport facilities, had become a first-rate local political issue in Vienna. At the same time, also for political reasons, the interest of the other bodies involved in the Stadtbahn fell. Because the federal government, the state of Lower Austria and the state railway were in opposition to the social democratic government of Vienna. The previously weak federalism struck with all its might and prevented a generous transport solution for Vienna and the surrounding area.
Due to the new peripheral location of Vienna in the still young Republic of Austria, the traffic flows had changed significantly, especially traffic to the north and east collapsed almost completely. In addition, as a result of the war, the population of the capital fell for the first time in history. The prospect that Vienna would grow to four million inhabitants was no longer realistic. Hence - from the point of view of the operator at the time - no profitable light rail traffic was to be expected. Furthermore, as feared at the opening, the smoke gases from the steam operation had over the years severely damaged the reinforced concrete ceilings and metal girders in the flat tunnels on the Wiental and Danube Canal lines. As a result, the light rail infrastructure was in poor condition after the end of the war. The tunnel ceilings then had to be repaired with the so-called Torkret method , i.e. the use of sprayed cement . Because there was a lack of both money and material, the state railroad contented itself with removing the wear and tear by keeping the lines only sparse.
Establishment of a provisional transfer traffic
After the planned electrification of the Stadtbahn was delayed, steam light rail trains ran provisionally again from June 1, 1922 on the Upper Wiental Line and the Belt Line, initially 25 pairs of trains a day. On that day, due to the increased passenger traffic as well as to relieve the tram, the Westbahnhof and the Franz-Josefs-Bahnhof, the state railway set up a so-called transfer traffic in the relation Hütteldorf-Hacking - Heiligenstadt and back. Most of these trains ran continuously from Neulengbach, Rekawinkel or Purkersdorf via Meidling-Hauptstraße to Kritzendorf, St. Andrä-WIERT or Tulln and vice versa, later the frequency was increased to 37 train pairs per day.
The trains of the transition traffic only served selected intermediate stations, these were Unter St. Veit-Baumgarten, Hietzing, Meidling-Hauptstraße, Gumpendorfer Straße, Westbahnhof stop, Währinger Straße and Nussdorfer Straße. The tariff of the state railway was applied, whereby the following stations were treated equally: Under St. Veit-Baumgarten for Baumgarten, Hietzing for Penzing, Meidling-Hauptstraße, Gumpendorfer Straße and the Westbahnhof stop for Vienna Westbahnhof as well as Währinger Straße and Nussdorfer Straße for Vienna Franz -Josefs-Bahnhof. For the route Westbahnhof - Währinger Straße an additional fare of 160 kroner in the second class or 80 kroner in the III. Class are paid.
When the summer timetable came into effect on June 1, 1923, the trains of the transfer traffic also stopped in the stations Ober St. Veit and Josefstädter Strasse, but the station Nussdorfer Strasse was omitted and the frequency was reduced to 32 daily train pairs. From January 1924, the state railway only served the Hütteldorf-Hacking-Meidling-Hauptstrasse-Michelbeuern route as a branch line , with passengers only being transported to and from the Alser Strasse station. With the end of the summer timetable on September 30, 1924, the transfer traffic finally ended completely as a result of the ongoing electrification work.
From the steam light rail to the subway
After the full integration of the Stadtbahn into the tram network, originally planned by the municipality of Vienna, was discarded in the course of 1923, the Vienna Electric Stadtbahn , or WESt for short , was also available . Formally a classic railway. After the comparatively rapid electrification and numerous smaller adaptations, it went into operation in stages between June 3, 1925 and October 20, 1925. From the latter date, the new community tariff for the tram also applied, which brought the new means of transport an economic success.
From 1925 the electrified network was completely separated from the rest of the railway network and instead linked to the urban tram network at two points by the mixed-operation line 18G . Classic two-axle tram cars, which had been the trademark of the electric light rail over the decades, were used - also in pure light rail traffic. The new operator built three new depots in Michelbeuern, Heiligenstadt and Hütteldorf-Hacking for the 450 railcars and sidecars purchased at the time, and hired 823 new employees for the new branch of the company.
The dissolution of the Commission for Transport Systems in Vienna in 1934 finally sealed the end of the existence of the original steam light rail. Thereupon the municipality of Vienna also took over the infrastructure of the electrified network, which from then on was only licensed as a small railway without freight traffic, while the suburban line fell completely to the state railway. The Second World War also hit the electric light rail system hard, especially in the final year of the war in 1945; it was not fully reactivated until 1954. In the 1960s at the latest, the light rail system was subject to a modernization jam because the subway planning was only progressing slowly at the time. It was not until 1976 that the first section of the Stadtbahn could be converted to underground operation. On October 7, 1989, the two belt lines G and GD, which are the last two light rail lines at all, received the new U6 line signal. This ended - apart from the remaining infrastructure - the history of the Vienna light rail system after 91 years.
From the steam light rail to the S-Bahn
Regular passenger traffic on the steam light rail on the suburban line ended on July 11, 1932, which is why the second track was removed from 1936. However, freight traffic was retained. In addition, the summer bath trains ran until August 27, 1939, when they no longer served the Ober-Döbling and Unter-Döbling stops . In the years 1950 and 1951, then stretch again toured the largely undamaged during World War II, baths trains . It then fell into disrepair and was partially completely out of order. It was not until 1979 that the municipality of Vienna, the Austrian Federal Railways and the federal government agreed to revive it. So the suburban line was finally electrified, expanded to double-track again and converted to drive on the right. The stations Ober-Döbling and Breitensee as well as the originally non-existent Krottenbachstraße stop were rebuilt, while Unter-Döbling remained permanently open. On May 31, 1987, passenger traffic was finally resumed with the S45 line.
The Hauptzollamt – Praterstern connection has been part of the main S-Bahn line since 1959, the busiest section in the Vienna S-Bahn network, and has been electrified since 1962. Today it is served by lines S1, S2, S3, S4 and S7. The Radetzkyplatz station has not been in operation since the interwar period and was razed after the Second World War.
On the Western Railway, in turn, the light rail trains were replaced by the so-called Purkersdorfer Pendler after the First World War , which, however, did not start operating until May 1931. This shuttle service between Hütteldorf-Hacking and Unter Purkersdorf existed until May 27, 1972. As late as 1944, for example, this relation was listed under the separate course book table 459e, with a rigid 30-minute cycle throughout the entire operating time. At times it even drove every 15 minutes. In the meantime, the Hütteldorf – Neulengbach section of the Westbahn electrified in 1952 is served by the S50.
The Franz-Josefs-Bahn to Tulln is now used by the S40, this section has been electrified since 1978.
Problems, criticism and controversy
Criticism of the steam operation
From the beginning, the steam operation was heavily criticized by both experts and the population. Even when it opened in 1898, the concept of a steam-powered subway was considered technically out of date. Otherwise there was only one in London, where the City and South London Railway ran electrically from 1890 , before all older lines were converted between 1901 and 1908. All other underground railways around the world, on the other hand, were electric from the start or, as in Glasgow, were operated as a cable car or, as in Istanbul and Lyon , as a funicular .
But not only on the long stretches of Vienna tunnels, but also above ground, the use of steam locomotives in the densely built-up urban areas was a nuisance. The steam operation contradicted the goal of a hygienic way of life in the big city, which is why the architect and urban planner Eugen Fassbender criticized at the time:
"... that now the locomotives stiffen the air day and night, while here [meaning the newly developed belt road] a strip of green Angers , which is highly desirable for sanitary reasons, could have been preserved."
The Illustrierte Über Land und Meer expressed its criticism as follows:
“Now the Viennese can take the long-awaited tram from the heart of the city - from the opera building, for example - to the wonderful Vienna Woods in a few minutes ; he will not be able to move his home from the big city gears to the rural surroundings of the city just for the summer in order to live with his family in better hygienic conditions. "
The steam light rail operation also exposed passengers and train staff to the smoke on the underground sections largely unprotected . The dreaded plague of smoke was particularly noticeable in the tunnel between the Chain Bridge and the city park. The flat, rather than curved, tunnel ceiling turned out to be problematic, as this enabled the smoke to settle in the corners, which made ventilation very difficult. In addition, the soot settled on the seats and soiled them, and with it the passengers' clothing, even before the journey began. In addition, the locomotives also damaged the infrastructure of the light rail itself, because the smoke or combustion gases accelerated the corrosion of the exposed iron construction parts and the superstructure and generated dust that penetrated the cars. The problem of rusting was exacerbated by the steam that escaped from the locomotive and, in winter, from the heating cables . The resulting heavy mass of smoke and steam could only escape very slowly from the tunnel sections due to the dense train sequence in both directions, especially in cloudy and foggy weather. In the Ferdinandsbrücke station, the operator even experimented with powerful fans at times to bring the smoke to the surface before it exited the underground station, but these attempts were only very unsuccessful.
In addition, the white plastered station buildings in particular quickly became soiled. The facade of the Hietzinger Hofpavillon had to be repaired for the first time three years after it was opened. But all surrounding buildings were also affected. This problem became particularly apparent when looking at the marble statues of the former Elisabeth Bridge . After the bridge was demolished in 1897, they were first erected at Karlsplatz station. There they polluted so quickly that they were nicknamed The Eight Chimney Sweeps among the population and had to be transferred to Rathausplatz as early as 1902 . Only in midsummer did the exhaust emissions not pose a problem; at 30 degrees Celsius and 19 degrees Celsius in the tunnels, the locomotives were almost smoke-free.
The steam light railway right outside their front door was also not particularly popular with the residents, as the satirical weekly magazine Kikeriki scoffed in May 1898, when it opened:
“How did B. become deaf so suddenly? He had his apartment window open on his belt for half an hour! "
And the relatively low speed of the steam trains also inspired the humorists:
"Why do you have such a sad face? My hat, stick and glasses fell out of the wagon from the express train of the light rail during the fastest journey! So what? And I could only pick up the stick and glasses! "
Ultimately, the Vienna Stadtbahn was built too late as a steam train and too early for electrical operation. Only the lower building costs and the strategic military function of the light rail spoke in favor of steam operation. The chosen form of operation appeared to be more flexible in this regard, because in Central Europe there was no network of electrified railway lines for decades.
Strategic railway with limited benefits for the population
Ultimately, the routing of the Vienna Stadtbahn was strongly influenced by the above-mentioned military considerations, so it had the character of a strategic railway . This was especially true after the reduction of the project in 1895 and 1896, in which only sections of little military relevance were omitted. The same applied to the omitted intermediate stations, which were also of no importance for the army - but significantly reduced the utility of the light rail for the population.
However, the military-strategic importance of the light rail was for a long time - by contemporary and later authors - often overrated. In fact, it was a multifunctional railway in its concept and design, which served the inner-city area as well as local transport in the summer on the Franz-Josefs-Bahn and the Westbahn, which could also be used for freight transport and, in a strategic emergency, for troops and Material transport. The military argument was deliberately used to justify the high state share in the financing of a light rail system for the imperial capital, for example to the Czechs and Hungarians.
Regardless of the strategic function, the choice of location of the stations was not always a good one; in terms of location and structure, they did not always meet the needs of urban mass traffic. The Karlsplatz stop would have been better placed between Getreidemarkt and Kärntner Straße instead of on Akademiestraße, and a Schwarzenbergplatz stop would have been more advantageous than the one in the extended Johannesgasse near the city park. Likewise, the access to the main customs office, which was from Henslerstrasse instead of Landstrasse Hauptstrasse , was unfavorable. At Karlsplatz and Schwedenplatz, on the other hand, the station pavilions were presumably aligned with the expected new road from Akademiestraße-Laurenzerberg, which however was not realized. As a result, they came to be located away from the main traffic flows in Wiedner Hauptstrasse and Rotenturmstrasse . The way of the passengers was often lengthened by the fact that the stops in the lower position usually only had one entrance or exit. This means that if someone got off at the end of the train at the end of the train at Kettenbrückengasse, for example, and wanted to continue in the opposite direction, they still had to make a detour of around 200 meters.
The conception as a strategic railway, however, resulted in the massive construction of the routes required by the military and the high load-bearing capacity of the bridges, which decades later accommodated the conversion to underground operation. In addition, the planning was based - in the tradition of main railways - more towards favorable topographical opportunities such as the two rivers and the former line wall, but did not correspond to the actual municipal transport needs. In the end, the light rail system remained a torso because there were no radial lines directly into the city center, instead one that ran around the city center on three sides and two parallel tangential lines on the western edge of the city . So the journalist coined Eduard Pötzl even at the light rail opening the derogatory term round-the-city train , which later dictum in the vernacular was:
“Berlin and Paris have a light rail, Vienna a round-the-city train. "
Other critical titles were "military track" and "artificial track". Originally, the Stadtbahn was also intended as a stimulus for residential construction, in which the important radial lines should have opened up old and new residential areas . However, due to the omitted sections of the route, it could not do justice to this task. Nevertheless, the steam light rail ran through the majority of the 20 municipal districts that existed around the turn of the century and had at least one station in each of them. Only the VI. District Mariahilf , VII. District Neubau and XIV. District Rudolfsheim had no direct access to either the narrow or the outer light rail network.
Economic failure and competition from the electric tram
Ultimately, the Vienna Stadtbahn did not have the great success that was hoped for, not least because of the unpopular steam operation and the associated problems, and was never particularly popular with the population. Although it was not an outright failure of the project, it could never really meet the expectations placed in it and did not develop into a second-level means of mass transport. The main traffic areas of the patchy light rail network were on the one hand on the periphery and not in the center; on the other hand, the highest train density prevailed on routes that led through sparse settlements. One of the reasons for this was the cramped location of the Meidling-Hauptstraße station. Since it was not suitable as a turning station, and due to lack of space, no reversing track could be created in Hietzing, many trains had to be run to Hütteldorf-Hacking without any operational necessity. As a result, the Obere Wientallinie, which had by far the lowest passenger frequency on weekdays, was the busiest. But even there some trains could not return directly. Because the turnaround time in the turning stations was only nine minutes at the beginning, one was forced to run additional trains to Purkersdorf during rush hour.
Furthermore, the tickets for the steam light rail were comparatively expensive, a common tariff system with the cheaper trams did not exist until 1925. The fact that one was not allowed to change from the tram to the light rail without buying a new ticket was ultimately the decisive factor for many passengers in staying with the tram. The tariff reform of 1901, which reduced long tram journeys over eight kilometers by a third, did not bring any improvement in this regard.
Especially after the electrification of the tram, which began in 1897 and was quickly completed, the last horse-drawn tram already ran in 1903, the intervals of the light rail were longer than on the largely parallel tram, which at that time ran every two to five minutes. Apart from that, the tram also served a much more dense network and had much smaller distances between stops. In addition, wherever the tram ran, the tram also ran nearby. However, numerous station entrances of the tram were 100 to 200 meters away from the tram stops, which made it even more difficult to change trains. As early as 1904, Arthur Oelwein, one of the three site managers for the Stadtbahn, stated:
"If these trams had existed in their current layout [meaning the electric tram network] before the construction of the light rail began, the program for the light rail system drawn up in 1892 would probably have undergone a major change."
The tram line 8, so called from 1907, developed into a special competition for the light rail. It covered almost the entire belt line, but served about twice as many intermediate stations. Since there were no elevators or escalators in the tram stations at the time and there were up to 80 steps to climb, many passengers avoided climbing the stairs twice - especially on short routes - and instead opted for the tram. However, at least in winter, some passengers preferred the light rail due to their heated cars, while the first heated tram cars were not used until 1910 and the first sidecars with heating only from 1951. In general, passengers tended to cover longer distances with the light rail. In 1909, for example, the average travel distance on the tram was three to four kilometers, while on the tram it was 7.5 kilometers. The transfer traffic from the trains of the state railway was insignificant. In 1908, around 81,000 passengers a day arrived at Vienna's seven long-distance train stations, but only nine percent of them, that is 7,300 people, switched to the tram.
The lack of a connecting curve between the belt line and the lower Wiental line, in turn, had a negative effect on the operation of the light rail in the Gumpendorf area because no direct ring traffic from the belt to the Wiental, the Danube Canal and the belt was possible. The State Railways as the operator had approached the Commission for Transport Systems in this matter and studies were also being drawn up, but no agreement could be reached. On the one hand, the costs for the connecting curve Gumpendorfer Straße - Margaretengürtel were ten million crowns, and on the other hand, some experts expressed technical concerns about the project because it would have resulted in a gradient of 48 per thousand. Irrespective of this, however, there was limited ring traffic on the steam light rail, because some trains coming from Hütteldorf-Hacking ran continuously back to Hütteldorf-Hacking via Meidling-Hauptstrasse, Wiental, Danube Canal, Gürtel, Meidling-Hauptstrasse.
In the first eleven years of operation, the number of passengers on the Stadtbahn stagnated to a large extent - regardless of the then rapidly increasing population of Vienna - although 1902 was the first full year of operation of the entire network. The first decline in passenger traffic from 1902 to 1903 is a direct result of competition from the electric tram. Ultimately, the tram operation, which was unprofitable from the start, caused increasingly increasing deficits. This means that no investment reserves could be generated, especially for the increasingly urgent need for electrification. In the first eleven years of operation, the economic situation developed as follows, although the first full financial year was not until 1899 :
| year | Transported people | Medium travel route | Passenger kilometers | Income in Austrian crowns |
Issues in Austrian crowns |
Deficit in Austrian crowns |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1898 | 6,922,382 | 6.54 kilometers | 45.238.620 | 1,218,616 | 1,531,828 | 313.212 |
| 1899 | 19,046,337 | 5.88 kilometers | 111.964.211 | 3,357,396 | 3,873,252 | 615.856 |
| 1900 | 28.245.436 | 4.47 kilometers | 126.128.082 | 4,681,518 | 4,833,203 | 151,685 |
| 1901 | 32.222.266 | 5.53 kilometers | 178.218.844 | 5,333,851 | 5,520,323 | 186,472 |
| 1902 | 33,807,873 | 7.08 kilometers | 239.395.531 | 6,453,874 | 5,911,599 | 457.725 |
| 1903 | 32.012.240 | 7.39 kilometers | 236.590.860 | 5,287,042 | 6,918,663 | 546.996 |
| 1904 | 29,953,067 | 7.36 kilometers | 220.522.560 | 5,158,039 | 6,001,844 | 843.805 |
| 1905 | 29,649,077 | 7.25 kilometers | 214.925.643 | 5,387,899 | 5,811,859 | 423.960 |
| 1906 | 31,147,771 | 7.74 kilometers | 241.157.604 | 5,669,392 | 6,393,437 | 724.045 |
| 1907 | 33,703,566 | 7.26 kilometers | 244,641,828 | 5,673,621 | 7.007.731 | 1,334,110 |
| 1908 | 32,490,582 | 7.17 kilometers | 232.876.914 | 5,667,620 | 7,253,377 | 1,590,757 |
In 1909, at least 34.4 million passengers were carried, and by 1913 the operator finally managed to increase this number to 47 million. This meant that the Stadtbahn was still far behind the competing trams, which were able to increase the number of its transport cases from 133 to 323 million annually between 1902 and 1913 alone.
Viewed overall, the steam light rail system only played a subordinate role in inner-city traffic. While in 1910 the respective rapid transit trains in Paris already reached 22 percent , in Boston 29 and in New York even 36 percent of the frequency of all public transport, in Vienna this share was only eleven percent. In 1903, on the other hand, the share of the light rail system was still 15 percent, while the tram came to 74 percent and the Stellwagen to eight percent.
The low average occupancy of Vienna's light rail trains in turn led to relatively high operating costs . While the Paris light rail system, which was particularly successful in this regard, only spent five pfennigs for each passenger carried in 1905 , this value in Vienna was 16 pfennigs. The comparison with regard to vehicle kilometers is similar . Of the eleven light rail vehicles examined, the Viennese system took last place with only 1.8 passengers per car-kilometer, while the first-placed London Waterloo & City Line , for example , came in at 7.9 passengers per car-kilometer. In addition, the operating expenses for steam operation, again based on the vehicle kilometers, were by no means lower than for the comparable electric railways of that time.
Heavy excursion traffic
While the number of passengers on the Vienna Stadtbahn in everyday traffic fell short of expectations, it was often overloaded in the seasonal summer and bathing traffic on the afternoons of beautiful Sundays and public holidays in the warm season, which earned it the nickname excursion train . On these days there were up to three times as many travelers to be carried as usual, which caused great worries for train transport. Sometimes the trains were occupied by up to 1000 people. Considered over the whole year, the following statistics emerged in the first eleven years of operation:
| 1898 | 1899 | 1900 | 1901 | 1902 | 1903 | 1904 | 1905 | 1906 | 1907 | 1908 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Travelers on working days: | 25,638 | 45,042 | 64,805 | 76,983 | 86,871 | 82,300 | 77,716 | 77,394 | 81,701 | 87,629 | 85,634 |
| Travelers on Sundays and Holidays: | 45,146 | 82,810 | 133,336 | 140.422 | 118,687 | 112.188 | 100,238 | 98.292 | 101.505 | 114.074 | 103.303 |
The frequency was strongly dependent on the weather, which was ultimately reflected in the balance sheet. For example, the number of passengers in 1902 was adversely affected by bad weather on Sundays and public holidays. In addition, the strong Sunday and public holiday peaks required the uneconomical provision of a large fleet of vehicles that was only insufficiently used in the relatively weak everyday traffic. In the summer season, the timetable was also slightly extended, shown below as an example for the year 1903:
| Upper Viennese line | Waistline | Lower Viennese line | Danube Canal Line | Connecting track | Suburban line | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Daily train journeys in summer: | 398 | 258 | 288 | 288 | 233 | 64 |
| Daily train journeys in winter: | 348 | 238 | 268 | 268 | 217 | 60 |
For particularly large crowds were temporary Perron locks , while these were the passengers forced to wait or to use the tram. This was especially true in the evenings. Because while the mass of day trippers left the city in two hours in the morning and three in the afternoon, the return traffic was concentrated in just three hours. The short distance of the Westbahn was often burdened with up to 36,000 returnees between 7:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. The few sidings in Neulengbach, Rekawinkel and Purkersdorf were not enough to provide enough empty wagons. The trains had to be returned empty to Hütteldorf-Hacking in the morning and returned to Purkersdorf or Rekawinkel in the evening. The industrialist, politician and publicist Gustav Pacher von Theinburg therefore introduced his relevant lecture at the Lower Austrian Trade Association in 1903 with the following words: “Do we actually have a tram in Vienna? [...] For ninety-nine hundredths of this population, this train is of no importance for daily business life - at most a kind of Sunday afternoon pleasure train to escape from the thick city air for a few hours to Schönbrunn, Hütteldorf, Purkersdorf or Klosterneuburg. "
Infrastructure
Route description
General alignment parameters
Almost the entire narrower network of the Stadtbahn was double- tracked, only the short section Heiligenstadt - Brigittenau-Floridsdorf was single-track. In accordance with the customs of the time in Austrian rail traffic, the steam light rail operated exclusively on the left . Almost all of the route separations were level, that is, using overpass structures . Only at the Nussdorfer Straße junction did the trains in the direction of Brigittabrücke have to cross the opposite track coming from Heiligenstadt at the same height.
The superstructure normals of the light rail generally corresponded to the Austrian standard of the time. The originally used thresholds of hardwood were 2.4 meters long, 25 centimeters wide and 15 centimeters high. As early as 1902, however, it was reported that steel sleepers were used for replacements . The 12.5 meter long Vignole rails weighed 35.4 kilograms per running meter and each rested on 16 cross sleepers. These were thus regularly 81 centimeters apart, only the rail joints were only 50 centimeters apart . In order to avoid the impacts at the joints as much as possible, the outer flap was supplemented by a bumper rail , over which the wheel sets ran over the joint gap. The space between the two rails was filled with a special bracket which transferred the wheel loads and prevented the bracket bolts from being subjected to bending. This construction, which was used on a trial basis on the Berlin Stadtbahn in 1895, proved its worth and ensured a long service life for the rails.
Although the light rail trains were designed to operate at a maximum of 60 km / h, the maximum speed on the narrow network of the steam light rail was initially limited to 40 km / h. In order to be able to introduce three-minute intervals, however, 50 km / h were permitted on the Wiental and belt lines as early as 1899. The greatest inclination was 20 per thousand and the smallest arc radius 150 meters - a radius of curvature of only 120 meters was used only on one exit track at the main customs office, while in the Aspernbrücke - Augarten section of the Danube Canal line, as an exception, 180 meters.
The overall length, i.e. the total length of the track structure, of the narrower network totaled 38.832 kilometers and was 0.914 kilometers longer than the operational length. The length of the straight was 21.758 kilometers, 17.074 kilometers in arcs, including 11.016 kilometers with a radius of up to 300 meters. It accounted for 8.595 kilometers of the entire network on horizontal routes and 30.237 kilometers on inclines. The length of these upward or downward slopes of 12.50 to 16.67 per thousand, that is to say with an incline ratio of 1:80 to 1:60, was 5.534 kilometers. There were 19.723 kilometers on dams and 19.109 kilometers in cuts. The greatest height of the dams was 15.9 meters and the greatest depth of the incisions was 30.4 meters. Passages up to and including two meters clear height per opening were 107 with a total width of 78 meters. The total length of all tracks, including the station, sidings and other side tracks , was 111.779 kilometers.
In total, 50 percent of the narrow light rail network was originally laid out in an elevated position, while 18 percent ran in tunnels and 32 percent in open cuts. In the case of the suburban line, which from the beginning was mainly intended for freight traffic, the intended main use was also reflected in the routing. It was therefore less representative than the other routes; instead of retaining walls and viaducts, embankments and sloping cuttings were allowed. However, in the area of the Gunoldstrasse overpass, the Danube Canal line - which runs parallel to the suburb line - ran on a short section on a rubble embankment. This had to be removed in the early 1970s on the occasion of the start of trial operation of the underground.
The difference in altitude in the narrow light rail network was around 70 meters, with the highest point 228.365 meters above sea level and the lowest point 158.600 meters above sea level. According to another source, the tram network had its apex at 236.5 meters above sea level on the suburb line, in the cut in the terrain at Arnethgasse.
Cross-section of a stop flap joint based on the Berlin model
Preserved inclination pointer from steam light rail times at the Alser Straße stop, the 111 meters refer to the horizontal station area, the 104 meters to the subsequent ten-per-thousand gradient in the direction of Michelbeuern
Track plan of the closer network plus selected connecting routes
Elevated railway lines
Characteristic of the Viennese Stadtbahn are the elevated railway lines that can be seen from afar with the - once over 400 - masonry and numbered viaduct arches, most of which have been preserved. The vaults are mainly to be found on the belt line, their exposed bricks stand in stark contrast to the white plaster of the stations, except for the urban railway, Otto Wagner did not plan or build any brick facades. Furthermore, the architect avoided ramps in built-up areas wherever possible in order to align the urban railway lines with the horizontal lines of the surrounding residential buildings. For Wagner, this horizontality represented the clearest and most calm form of intervention in the urban space, while diagonal lines would have disturbed the cityscape. Wherever this was not possible, he at least had the exterior decorations of the sloping sections set off in steps in order to establish a dialogue with the houses opposite the tram route.
Cuts
In view of the steam operation, the planners of the Stadtbahn decided to build a considerable part of the network as an open cut in the lower ground. On the one hand, the smoke from the steam locomotives could easily escape upwards; on the other hand, it was comparatively easy to lead crossing traffic routes over the tram routes using short bridges without access ramps. The open incisions could also be covered later more easily if necessary. Similar to the tunnel sections created using the cut-and-cover method, the open cuts are also 8.1 meters wide. Its side walls are lining walls made of quarry stone in the style of the Trier Moëllon masonry .
The majority of the open cuts can be found in the course of the Wientallinie, whereby the right boundary wall of the canalized Vienna also represents the left boundary wall of the low-lying urban railway. Further sections in open, low-lying areas are located on the belt line in the area of the Mariahilfer belt, the new building belt and the Lerchenfeld belt, as well as on the suburb line.
Bridges and viaducts
The majority of the - consistently iron - bridges and viaducts of the Vienna Stadtbahn, which are up to 16 meters above street level, are located on the belt line and the suburb line. In contrast, the Untere Wientallinie, for example, does not have a single overpass due to its exclusively low location. In its original state, the major urban railway structure comprised a total of 78 bridges, which were divided as follows:
- with a clear width of the largest opening between two and ten meters: 22 pieces
- with a clear width of the largest opening between ten and 30 meters: 40 pieces
- with a clear width of the largest opening over 30 meters: 16 pieces
The largest bridge reached a length of 127.26 meters. There were 42 viaducts, their total length was 4548.72 meters. The longest measured 566.40 meters, the greatest height of such was 14.79 meters. The shorter structures are designed as girder bridges , while the longer ones are designed as arched bridges or parabolic girders . The two largest spans of the latter type of construction are 56 meters when the belt line is passed over Heiligenstädter Straße and 52 meters when the suburb line is passed over Hernalser Hauptstraße, while the longest arch bridge crosses Döblinger Hauptstraße and is 33 meters long.
The common feature of the bridges and viaducts is the horizontal positioning of the main girders, analogous to the design of the masonry viaduct sections, which are set off in steps in the incline and slope in the exterior decoration in order to always maintain horizontal lines as on the neighboring house fronts. This requirement was also based on the principles established by Otto Wagner; his express request were for slim, horizontally mounted longitudinal members with cladding that should not obstruct the unobstructed view from the car windows. On the initiative of the architect, extremely complex road constructions were created even for bridges with inclined leveling in order to achieve the horizontal support. This was only rarely done, for example for static reasons.
With regard to the height of their means of transport, the municipality of Vienna managed to achieve a clear height of the tram bridges of 5.10 meters on the main roads that cross , while in Berlin, for example, this was only 4.40 meters. However, this led to higher construction costs and more stairs in the elevated railway stations.
In the case of certain bridges and viaducts, the location of which made it appear desirable to attenuate the noise effects of the train traffic, the roadway was additionally covered with hump plates, which actually achieved the intended effect. With this type of construction, the ballast bed, which is usually 30 centimeters deep, is continuous and supported by hanging plates that are attached to the longitudinal and cross members. However, this increased the relative dead weight by around 50 percent compared to bridges and viaducts without a continuous ballast bedding, where the bridge beams are supported directly on the carriageway girders. The bridges are drained through iron longitudinal and transverse channels. These take the dripping water from the hump plates, which for this purpose are perforated at their lowest points and provided with attachment tubes, and guide it against the abutments . There, iron downpipes ensure that the water is forwarded into the street canals. The most waterproof cover possible should prevent rainwater from dripping down on passers-by. On the other hand, constructions with normal cross-sleeper superstructures only occur occasionally, namely when translating tracks and watercourses. In these cases the noiseless passage was not considered necessary.
All Austrian bridge construction companies at the time participated in the execution of the iron structures . The material of the bridges is consistently basic Martin flux iron with a strength of 3500 to 4500 kilograms per square centimeter and an elongation at break between 28 and 22 percent, which was subjected to the prescribed quality tests before it was used. The price per ton of fully assembled sheet metal bridges fluctuated between 225 and 265 Austrian guilders. The costs for the iron structures alone averaged 150,000 Austrian guilders per kilometer, which corresponds to around a tenth of the total costs per kilometer of light rail. The following table gives an overview of the largest bridges and viaducts:
| Waistline (38) | Storchengasse / Gierstergasse (demolished) Stiegergasse / Längenfeldgasse (demolished) Untere Wientallinie (demolished) Kobingergasse (demolished) Kleine Gumpendorferzeile Untere Wientallinie / Wienfluss / Linke Wienzeile Sechshauser Gürtel / Graumanngasse (tripartite) Lerchengasse / Gumpendorfer Straße / Mollardgasse Sechendorfer Straße Pfeilgasse Neulerchenfelder Straße / Sanettystraße Josefstädter Straße |
Friedmanngasse Schellhammergasse / Laudongasse Thelemangasse / Breitenfelder Gasse Ottakringer Strasse / Alser Strasse Hernalser Hauptstrasse / Kinderspitalgasse Jörgerstrasse / Lazarettgasse Leo-Slezak-Gasse / Borschkegasse Schopenhauerstrasse / Severingasse Klammergasse Schulgasse Währinger Strasse Gentzghallergasse / Sechsghallergasse |
Säulengasse Michaelerstraße / Canisiusgasse Sternwartestraße / Pulverturmgasse Anastasius-Grün-Gasse / Sporkenbühelgasse Marsanogasse Lustkandlgasse Döblinger Hauptstraße / Nußdorfer Straße Glatzgasse Heiligenstädter Straße (closed) Rampengasse (closed) Gunoldstraße (closed) Franz-Josefs-Bahn (closed) |
| Suburban line (17) | Linzer Strasse Hasnerstrasse Thaliastrasse Ottakringer Strasse Arnethgasse Paletzgasse |
Hernalser Hauptstrasse (demolished, replaced by a new building) Schultheßgasse Halirschgasse Gilmgasse Richthausenstrasse Währinger Strasse |
Gentzgasse Heiligenstädter Strasse Franz-Josefs-Bahn Gunoldstrasse suburb line Danube Canal Bridge |
| Connecting bend (6) | Danube Canal Line / access to the Danube Canal (demolished) Access to the Danube Canal (closed) |
Spittelauer Lände (closed) Danube Canal Line (demolished, replaced by new construction) |
Franz-Josefs-Bahn (demolished, replaced by a new building) Heiligenstädter Straße |
| Upper Vienna Line (3) | Hadikgasse | Vienna River | Deutschordenstrasse / Zufferbrücke |
| Danube Canal Line (3) | Vienna River | Rampengasse (omitted in 1969 due to lowering of the route) | Gunoldstrasse |
The Zollamtsbrücke over the Wien River is one of only three bridges on the Danube Canal line, over which the Zollamtssteg runs
A typical girder bridge, here the beltline overpass over Hernalser Hauptstraße
Upper Wientallinie, bridge over Hadikgasse and the Wien River
The longest arched bridge of the light rail runs over the Döblinger Hauptstraße
The old suburban line Danube Canal Bridge designed as a parabolic beam
_IMG_3564.jpg)
Tunnel sections
Most of the underground light rail lines were built using the cut-and-cover method , only three sections were excavated by mining. Initially, there were a total of 39 vaulted sections with a total length of 4090.13 meters, of which 15 were longer tunnels and galleries with a total length of 2788.81 meters, with the longest cut section being 728.50 meters long. There were also 39 bridges, 14 railroad crossings and 121 crossings. Almost all the tram sections created using the cut-and-cover method run under previously existing streets or green spaces. Wherever there was road traffic, the random load - depending on the importance of the road - was prescribed for a two-axle wagon with a maximum weight of 20 or 39 tons, based on a load-bearing capacity of up to 2400 kilograms per square meter of tunnel roof. In contrast, where the ceilings were only used as footpaths, a random load of 480 kilograms per square meter was used.
Only in the area of the buildings Vordere Zollamtsstrasse 5 and 7, today the tax office for fees and traffic taxes Vienna , does the tunnel of the Danube Canal line lead through the basement of the two houses mentioned. This was only possible with the technical means available at the time, because both were built between 1898 and 1901 and their foundation therefore took place at the same time as the construction of this section of the urban railway. In the Wiental valley, the right boundary wall of the canalised Vienna, analogous to the open cuts, also formed the left tunnel wall of the light rail. A total of three different tunnel construction methods were used:
- T-beam construction
- The tunnels on the Wientallinie and the Donaukanallinie have predominantly a rectangular floor plan, have concrete side walls, are closed with plate beam ceilings made of reinforced concrete and have no portals . Coupled rolled girders were used for clearances of up to 8.8 meters, whereas box girders were used for larger widths . In the particularly wide Meidling-Hauptstrasse station, the box girders also had to be supported by beams and cast-iron columns. Initially, it was rolled or riveted carrier, between which the ceiling of compressed concrete was filled. Cement constructions with an iron insert were also used later. These worked well and could also be produced more cheaply than the concrete ceilings. A great advantage of the cement-iron structures was that the combustion gases from the steam locomotives did not attack them. In contrast to this, all other exposed iron parts suffered from the rusting - despite different paints. The T-beam construction was used wherever the construction height for a vault was not available. The tunnels built in this way have a clear height of 4.8 meters above the top of the rails and a width of at least 8.1 meters. In total, they were 5.4 meters high and had a cross-section of 48 square meters. The German civil engineer Gustav Adolf Wayss , who is considered a pioneer of reinforced concrete construction , was responsible for the construction of the T-beam sections . For this he used beams with spans of up to 13.5 meters according to his calculations and his design.
- Monier construction
- The tunnels of the suburban line - if not driven by a miner - and those of the belt line, on the other hand, have a round profile built using rubble stones with a vault radius of 4.5 meters and have classically designed portals. For the construction of the vault, bent iron grids were inserted into concrete as reinforcing steel according to the so-called Monier construction . These tunnels are 6.5 meters high and 9.0 meters wide. In addition, the Untere Wientallinie has three sections in Monier construction. These are the tunneling under the fruit market (following the 185 meter long T-beam section Schleifmühlgasse – Getreidemarkt), the roofing along the extended Kärntner Straße and the short tunnel between the two directional platforms of the Academiestraße station.
- Mining construction
- The three tunnel sections of the suburb line, which were driven in the classic way by miners, are also 6.5 meters high and 9.0 meters wide. The overlap between the tube and street level at the Great Turkenschanz Tunnel is up to 30 meters; it is the only one of the three mined tunnels that also crosses buildings.
The following table gives an overview of the 13 longest tunnel sections that existed in 1901; subsequently built or extended roofs are not taken into account:
| route | section | Passing under | length |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower Viennese line | Confluence with Karl-Walther-Gasse> Margarethengürtel stop |
Right Wienzeile | 296 meters |
| Confluence with Schleifmühlgasse> Academiestraße (West) stop |
Right Wienzeile | about 500 meters | |
| Academiestraße (West) stop > Academiestraße (East) stop |
Karlsplatz | about 50 meters | |
| Academiestraße (Ost) stop > Stadtpark stop |
Right Wienzeile | about 700 meters | |
| Stadtpark stop> Hauptzollamt station |
city Park | about 300 meters | |
| Danube Canal Line | Hauptzollamt station> Zollamtsbrücke |
Buildings Vordere Zollamtsstrasse 5 and 7 | about 200 meters |
| Zollamtsbrücke> Beginning of the gallery section |
Reischachstrasse, Julius-Raab-Platz, Franz-Josefs-Kai | about 300 meters | |
| Waistline | Aegidigasse junction> Westbahnhof stop |
Mariahilfer belt , new building belt | about 300 meters |
| Westbahnhof station> Emil-Maurer-Platz |
New building belt | about 150 meters | |
| Suburban line | Breitenseer tunnel | Meiselstrasse, Ludwig-Zatzka-Park, Hütteldorfer Strasse, Spallartgasse, Ordeltpark, Zennerstrasse, Breitenseer Strasse, Huttengasse | 812.72 meters, of which 746 meters are mining |
| Small Türkenschanz tunnel | Severin-Schreiber-Gasse, Hasenauerstraße, Türkenschanzpark | 244.68 meters, of which 212 meters are mining |
|
| Big Türkenschanz tunnel | Türkenschanzpark, Peter Jordan-Strasse, Dänenstrasse, Nedergasse, Hartäckerstrasse, Telekygasse | 704.56 meters, of which 688 meters are mining |
|
| Zehenthoftunnel even lower Döblinger tunnel called | Strauss-Lanner-Park, Zehenthofgasse | 71.10 meters |
Roofing at the Stadtpark station: rectangular cross-section, tunnel mouth without portal
Directly after the Zollamtsbrücke, the Danube Canal line passes under the Vordere Zollamtsstrasse 5 building
Roofing at the Burggasse station: arched cross-section
The small and large Türkenschanz tunnels, two of a total of three mined tunnels for the Stadtbahn
Gallery on the Danube Canal
A special feature of the Stadtbahn network is the approximately 2.2 kilometers long gallery stretch of the Danube Canal Line, also known as the Stadtbahngalerie , which also goes back to Otto Wagner. It begins between the confluence of the Biberstraße and the confluence of the Dominikanerbastei street and connects directly to the tunnel leading from the Zollamtsbrücke. Then it follows the entire length of the Franz-Josefs-Kai and the Rossauer Lände upstream to the Friedensbrücke. The Schwedenplatz, Schottenring and Roßauer Lände stations are also located in the gallery section. The latter two were originally open to the top and thus interrupted the gallery route, while the Schwedenplatz stop was covered from the start.
The gallery route is open to the Danube Canal , similar to an avalanche protection barriers on mountain railways. It was also built as an open-plan paving slab directly under the carriageway and covered with T-beams. Instead of a tunnel wall, however, stone and iron pillars are built on the canal side, on which an iron longitudinal beam rests. This in turn forms the channel-side support for covering the web. A positive side effect of this route, in addition to the view and the incidence of daylight for the passengers, was that the smoke could escape better during the earlier steam operation than on the completely closed tunnel sections. In addition, this enabled the Schwedenplatz stop - the only station of the steam light rail to be located directly below the road surface, while all other underground stations were open at the top.
At its lowest point, the level of the Danube Canal line is only 1.20 meters above the zero water level. In order for floods to avoid flooding of the route was therefore after plans by Otto Wagner simultaneously with the railway construction the somewhat more northerly nussdorf weir and lock built. In parallel to the construction of the light rail, the quay and retaining walls between the Augarten Bridge and the connecting railway bridge were also built between 1899 and 1903 . On the right bank, the 15 to 26 meter wide front quay was built at the level of the tram route . It serves as a promenade and is connected to the traffic area above the tram by numerous stairs, some of which are also accessible by ramps.
In the course of the conversion to subway operation, the original gallery construction proved to be unsuitable. The reason for this was the higher load on the new building design due to the route widening and the road load . The gallery was therefore partly replaced by a heavy reinforced concrete structure in the 1970s. A large part of the wrought-iron-decorated concrete supports were cast into square, smooth blocks or completely removed. The banisters installed above the gallery and the retaining walls, which were formerly clad with natural stone , were also redesigned, which were left in exposed concrete after renovation . In addition, the half-height protective grilles were replaced by high grilles that completely close the gallery openings.
Detailed view of the columns in their original state
Ferdinandsbrücke station a few days before its opening
Artist's impression of the gallery route with steam operation, around 1910
The gallery route today
The openings to the Danube Canal at night
Gallery from the inside near the Schwedenplatz station
.jpg)
railing
The kilometer-long cast-iron railings along all the routes and the structures connected to them are a feature of the Vienna light rail system that is associated with a particularly high recognition effect and characterizes the cityscape. Above all, they secure the elevated railway lines from the ground level environment and the ground level area from the underground railway lines. Its design also goes back to Otto Wagner, who had it manufactured in series . In addition to the predominantly used standard model, the so-called sunflower railing , there are also a few alternative designs. The tram railings are now also painted reseda green , they too were originally light beige.
Stations
Overview
The steam light railway served a total of 32 passenger transport stations in the narrower network, four of which were connected to the rest of the Austrian railway network and operated jointly with the kk Staatsbahnen . For this purpose, 29 new stations were built and three existing ones, these were the main customs office, Hütteldorf-Hacking and Penzing, were extensively rebuilt and expanded. In addition to the renovation of the Hauptzollamt and Hütteldorf-Hacking stations, the construction of the Heiligenstadt station, which was the only new light rail station on an existing railway line, was comparatively complex. In contrast, Penzing, as the only one of the three converted stations, kept its reception building from 1858. Only a new central platform and an underpass were built there for the tram.
Because of its importance, the three main stations Heiligenstadt, Hütteldorf-Hacking and main customs office were in the planning phase and in the first years of operation as main railway stations or Central Stations respectively Centralstationen referred. Heiligenstadt and Hütteldorf-Hacking also functioned as so-called disposition stations , the name for train formation stations at the time , i.e. locomotives were changed and wagons were relocated there .
Reception building
.jpg)
The architecture chosen by Otto Wagner for his high-rise buildings largely relied on previously existing architectural styles . It generally follows the taste of the Paris École des Beaux-Arts , but some details are reminiscent of the Empire , while others reveal Japanese or Pompeian influences. The need to be thrifty, however, forced Wagner to exercise a certain restraint, which is why he chose a relatively simple style with few decorations and no ornamental figures at all. When it came to the exterior of his buildings, Wagner made a conscious decision to use plastered facades, the type of construction that has prevailed in Vienna since the Middle Ages due to the richness of lime in the area . The blinding white color, which is actually not suitable for railway construction, should gradually darken to a light sandstone gray.
While the architect still designed an individual reception building for each station on the suburban line , he designed a basic type for the intermediate stations of the other routes for elevated and one for underground stations, which differ from each other only in minor architectural details:
| Elevated train stations | The three-storey elevated railway stations on the Gürtel consist of two symmetrically constructed building halves, which are upstream side extensions to a viaduct section. The outer platforms are located between the two sub-buildings; they are located on the top floor behind glazed pillar colonnades and are structurally directly connected to the buildings. The massive, classifying central structure of the station building is designed with pylon- like, raised corner projections in the manner of a gate . Here Wagner plays on the former line goals - that is, the gates of the line Walls - to, in their place together five high stations of the belt occurred. However, their appearance had nothing to do with the simple line gates, their design was based more on the outer castle gate built between 1821 and 1824 . Likewise, the neighboring New Castle , designed from 1869 and built between 1881 and 1913, can be seen as a contemporary of Wagner's light rail construction in its generous size. In details it shows similarity to the belt stations as well as other Art Nouveau buildings.
At the high stations, mighty pillars that span all three floors create a rough vertical division of the façades, much narrower pillars combine the street level and the mezzanine , and even more delicate pillars divide the railway floor above. The entrances to the high stations in the basement are accessible from both sides of the street and are located in the middle of the building. They are marked with Doric columns at the Alser, Währinger and Nußdorfer Straße stations . Circular shapes, which alternate with vertically notched fields, so-called triglyphs , and which vary the frieze of the Doric temple, can be found at the Alser and Währinger Straße stations and in Michelbeuern. Plates and strips with small circular shapes, mutuli and regulae - also to be found on the Doric temple - appear numerous in Wagner's stucco and wood. Other typical features are lion heads as a cornice , acanthus leaves and egg rods . The high vestibule , the representative ticket hall, houses the ticket offices, the toilets and the stairways to the platforms, which are arranged at right angles to the entrances. In relation to the original left-hand traffic, the stairs were each aligned in such a way that the passenger always left in the direction in which the staircase led to the platform when viewed from the ticket hall. The ticket inspection took place at the elevated train stations on the ground floor, shortly before entering the platform. While the compact elevated railway stations on the suburb line still have the character of a villa in the countryside - here Wagner took into account that this route still led through rural areas with predominantly agricultural and commercial use when it opened - the elevated railway stations on the Gürtel are extremely long. Furthermore, the platform facades on the suburban line still rest on rustic natural stone plinths, while this is only the case at the Gumpendorfer Straße station on the Gürtel. |
| Underground stations | At underground stations, the relatively low, single-storey vestibule is designed as a square pavilion with a side length of 16 meters and is always enthroned above the tracks at street level. The covering of the railway line underneath the building consists of horizontal steel girders - analogous to the sub-paved lines. The centrally arranged large waiting room is eight meters long and eight meters wide and is entered through a vestibule. The two toilets for men and women are accessible from here, while the front of the large waiting room opposite the only entrance is the ticket office and the office for the station master, and to the side is a lounge for the station servants and a storage room. From the large waiting room, one exit each leads to the two directional platforms, whereby the ticket inspection took place before entering the stairs. The descents are closed to the railway line by glass walls. The platforms themselves are designed as an extension of the stairs and are therefore in front of the reception building, while they are part of the usual central platforms at the Berlin sister facility .
The design of the lower stations is a bit more modern than that of the high stations, they tend towards the then new style of the Vienna Secession artists' association . Wagner himself was actually not a Secessionist, since his buildings did not give up monumentality and only rarely gave up symmetry. In 1899, however, he left the conservative Künstlerhaus in Vienna to temporarily join the more modern Secessionists. This, in turn, earned the Stadtbahn the title “secessionist” railway, although Wagner had designed most of its buildings beforehand. He himself called his variant of historicism a "certain free renaissance ", thereby pointing to the classical foundation of his architecture. The main design accent of the underground train stations is the pent roof over the entrances in the form of a supporting grid construction , which rests on two openwork metal pillars and is kept in Japanese style. The closer they are to the city, the more exuberant Art Nouveau ornamentation characterized the buildings. Pilgramgasse, Kettenbrückengasse and Stadtpark were most extensively equipped in this regard. In total, Wagner designed three sub-variants of his basic type for station buildings over incisions:
Only the underground stations Meidling-Hauptstraße, Academiestraße and Ferdinandsbrücke did not correspond to the basic type. The former required a somewhat larger building as a branch station, in the latter two cases Wagner opted for two reception buildings each, separated according to the direction of travel. But while two particularly ornately designed, mirror-inverted and semicircular pavilions in steel frame construction with suspended marble slabs and gilding were used on the centrally located Academiestrasse , the two buildings on Ferdinand's Bridge were made of wood and sandstone panels. Because it was a matter of temporary arrangements with regard to the new construction of the bridge there, which was already planned when the light rail was built . This took place in 1911, but then had no effect on Wagner's buildings. |
All station buildings have corrugated iron roofs , the shape of which guarantees high stability despite the thin material. Another common feature is the avoidance of level access to the platforms, which means that passengers were able to use underpasses or overpasses from the start.
The interiors of the reception building were comparatively simple. A wallpapering were originally only the small waiting rooms , while the larger traffic areas throughout with gypsum were plastered. In order to avoid footprints on the lower wall areas, these had wooden - or iron on the corners - protective strips. The bases were painted in oil paint. The walls of the passenger tunnels and the stairs were given a white tile cladding with a granite base.
Less ornamented reception building in Ober St. Veit due to the great distance to the inner city
Average ornamented reception building in Schönbrunn due to the medium distance to the inner city
Heavily ornamented reception building on Kettenbrückengasse due to the short distance to the inner city
The Meidling-Hauptstrasse station was given a larger building due to its operational importance
One of the two reception buildings at Ferdinand's Bridge, designed as a temporary measure and therefore only constructed using wood
Stairs
Further characteristic features of Wagner's light rail stations are the low height and the generous tread width of the steps of the - partially glazed on the side - stairs to and from the platforms, which enable passengers to climb comfortably. On the Wiental and Danube Canal lines, the steps are twelve centimeters high and 36 centimeters deep, i.e. the ratio was exactly one to three. But even at the elevated railway stations of the Gürtel and the suburbs, Otto Wagner did not raise the steps more than 14 centimeters at the same depth of 36 centimeters, i.e. the ratio there is one to 2.6. Another source even mentions a width of 40 centimeters.
The steps of the larger stations are made of hard Karst stone from Repentabor , while those of the smaller ones are made of Bohemian or Silesian granite . The stone steps, which rest on roller iron with felt strips, have been left rough below and then cleaned smooth. The passengers were asked to keep to the left on the stairs so that arriving and departing people would not hinder each other. In addition, Wagner even equipped the Academiestraße and Breitensee stops with separate staircases for those arriving and departing.
Exit to the Friedensbrücke underground station
Ascent to the elevated railway station Gumpendorfer Straße
Stairway in Hernals with the explicit notice to have your tickets ready and to go left
Low and wide steps were a characteristic of Otto Wagner, here on Währinger Straße
Stairs decorated with a Bacchus mask at the Rossauer Lände station
Hietzing court pavilion
The design of the Hietzing station was particularly complex. Because of its proximity to Schönbrunn Palace , Wagner built a so-called pavilion of the Imperial and Royal Highest Court in the classic Baroque style in addition to the regular reception building . It served as a special waiting room for the emperor and his entourage and had its own platform access. The courtyard pavilion was not included in the original urban railway plans and is based on Wagner's personal initiative.
Platforms
_IMG_6439.jpg)
Most of the platforms of the steam light railroad were only 120 meters long, so they were sufficient for the trains - including the locomotive - a maximum of 111.3 meters long. However, it was not possible, as originally intended, to allow long-distance trains , which at that time were up to 180 meters long, to be transferred to the light rail. Irrespective of this, however, the intensive utilization of the light rail routes as well as problems with taxation and baggage transport would have made such traffic more difficult. At four stops on the belt line, the platforms were even shorter for structural reasons, including Gumpendorfer Straße with 108 meters, Nußdorfer Straße with 106.15 meters, Währinger Straße with 104 meters and Alser Straße with 101.17 meters. The junction stations, on the other hand, had platform lengths between 120 and 180 meters, the latter being the standard length on Austrian main lines at the time.
In the high stations, entry and exit took place exclusively in the middle of the platform, while in the low stations this was only the case at the end of the platform facing the reception building. Accordingly, the shorter trains stopped in the high stations while they came to a stop in the lower stations so that there was no gap between the stairs and the locomotive or the last car. At least 70 meters of each platform was protected by a sloping canopy , while the rest was in the open air. The covered area corresponded to the originally planned length of a normal weekday train, consisting of seven cars. The platform roofing is supported on the street side at the high stations at the reception building and at the lower stations on the retaining walls of the route cut. On the track side, it rests on cast-iron pillars that end with capitals .
The surface of the platforms consists of heavily grooved clay tiles on concrete bedding in light gray or black and white, laid in a checkerboard pattern . The dark joints always cross in the black field. The platforms, as well as the other public spaces of the light rail stations, were usually electrically illuminated from the start. For this purpose, there was a power station built especially for this purpose next to the Heiligenstadt train station . It also fed the elevators for freight cars at the main customs office and had an annual standard working capacity of around 1,800,000 kilowatt hours , of which 1,300,000 were used for lighting and 500,000 for power transmission. In the event of a power failure, five battery stations could also be switched on. Only the waiting rooms were originally only lit by incandescent gas .
The platform height was a uniform 50 centimeters. This was a compromise between Berlin with only 23 centimeters high platforms on the one hand and London and Liverpool with 70 centimeters or New York and Chicago with one meter high platforms on the other. Although the engineers in Vienna also considered such elevated platforms to be advantageous, they decided against them due to the mixed operation with normal passenger trains on the Franz-Josefs-Bahn and the Westbahn and the high construction costs. It had to be ensured that the bottom step of the car is at the same height as the platform.
As a rule, two outer platforms were used, which were mostly directly opposite each other. Only on Academiestrasse and Ferdinandsbrücke were they offset by 50 and 60 meters, respectively. With this staggered arrangement, the passengers reached the platform - similar to the elevated train stations - also in the direction in which they then left. At the junction stations Brigittabrücke, Heiligenstadt, Hütteldorf-Hacking and Penzing as well as at the terminus Praterstern, however, the planners opted for central platforms, while at the separation station Meidling-Hauptstraße there were three tracks, each with an outside platform. Praterstern was the only elevated railway station with a central platform and was unique for the light rail lines.
Originally, all stations were open at the top or at the side. In contrast to the Berlin Stadtbahn, the building management in Vienna deliberately avoided completely closed station halls because soot and steam affected them too much. The waiver of the halls was made easier by the fact that no central platforms had to be covered in Vienna. However, this was not clear from the start; for example, there is an early design by Otto Wagner for the Währinger Straße station with a covered central hall. In accordance with the customs of the time, a spanning iron structure with a flat gable roof on lattice girders was planned for elevated railway stations, which should end with the corner profiles designed as pylons.
Freight transport facilities
In addition to the 34 stations for passenger traffic, the Stadtbahn also served the pure freight station in Michelbeuern, in whose station building a freight store and a market hall were integrated. In addition, the junction stations Hauptzollamt, Heiligenstadt and Hütteldorf-Hacking as well as the intermediate stations Gersthof, Hernals and Ottakring received appropriate freight transport systems. In addition to the main customs office, the stations mentioned also housed the so-called kk consumption tax line offices , while at the smaller stations without freight transport facilities, only the inspection and taxation of luggage was provided.
Station building of the former Michelbeuern freight station
Freight traffic systems in Hernals train station
Freight traffic systems in Ottakring station
Station list
The following table gives an overview of the total of 33 stations, including eleven train stations , in the narrower network of the light rail network.The name valid at the time of opening is listed in each case:
| opening | route | station | Abbreviation | district | function | design type | genesis | later names |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 11, 1898 | Suburban line | Penzing | PZ | XIII. | Passenger and freight station |
Terrain level | modification | |
| May 11, 1898 | Suburban line | Breitensee | BE | XIII. | bus stop | Low altitude | New building | Breitenseer Strasse |
| May 11, 1898 | Suburban line | Ottakring | OT | XVI. | Passenger and freight station |
High altitude | New building | |
| May 11, 1898 | Suburban line | Hernals | HN | XVII. | Passenger and freight station |
High altitude | New building | |
| May 11, 1898 | Suburban line | Gersthof | GH | XVIII. | Passenger and freight station |
High altitude | New building | |
| May 11, 1898 | Suburban line | Ober-Döbling | OD | XIX. | bus stop | Low altitude | New building | |
| May 11, 1898 | Suburban line | Unter-Döbling | UD | XIX. | bus stop | Low altitude | New building | |
| May 11, 1898 | Suburb line, belt line, Danube canal line |
Heiligenstadt | HS | XIX. | Passenger and freight station |
High altitude | New building | |
| June 1, 1898 | Upper Viennese line | Hütteldorf hacking | HH | XIII. | Passenger and freight station |
High altitude | modification | |
| June 1, 1898 | Upper Viennese line | Upper St. Veit | OV | XIII. | bus stop | Low altitude | New building | |
| June 1, 1898 | Upper Viennese line | Under St. Veit-Baumgarten | UV | XIII. | bus stop | Low altitude | New building | |
| June 1, 1898 | Upper Viennese line | Braunschweiggasse | BR | XIII. | bus stop | Low altitude | New building | |
| June 1, 1898 | Upper Viennese line | Hietzing | HI | XIII. | bus stop | Low altitude | New building | |
| June 1, 1898 | Upper Viennese line | Schönbrunn | SB | XIII. | bus stop | Low altitude | New building | |
| June 1, 1898 | Upper Viennese line, belt line, lower Viennese line |
Meidling main street | MH | XII. | Passenger station | Low altitude | New building | |
| June 1, 1898 | Waistline | Gumpendorfer Strasse | GS | XV. | bus stop | High altitude | New building | Gumpendorfer Strasse |
| June 1, 1898 | Waistline | Westbahnhof stop | WB | XV. | bus stop | Low altitude | New building | |
| June 1, 1898 | Waistline | Burggasse | BU | XIV. | bus stop | Low altitude | New building | |
| June 1, 1898 | Waistline | Josefstädter Strasse | JS | VIII. | bus stop | High altitude | New building | Josefstädter Strasse |
| June 1, 1898 | Waistline | Alser street | AS | IX. | bus stop | High altitude | New building | Alser Strasse |
| June 1, 1898 | Waistline | Michelbeuern | MB | IX. | Freight Station with a market hall |
Low altitude | New building | |
| June 1, 1898 | Waistline | Währinger Strasse | WS | XVIII. | bus stop | High altitude | New building | Währinger Strasse |
| June 1, 1898 | Waistline | Nussdorfer Strasse | NS | XVIII. | bus stop | High altitude | New building | Nussdorfer Strasse |
| June 30, 1899 | Lower Viennese line | Margaret Belt | MG | V. | bus stop | Low altitude | New building | Margaret Belt |
| June 30, 1899 | Lower Viennese line | Pilgram Alley | PG | V. | bus stop | Low altitude | New building | |
| June 30, 1899 | Lower Viennese line | Kettenbrückengasse | KG | V. | bus stop | Low altitude | New building | |
| June 30, 1899 | Lower Viennese line | Academiestrasse | AK | IV. | bus stop | Low altitude | New building | Karlsplatz |
| June 30, 1899 | Lower Viennese line | city Park | ST | III. | bus stop | Low altitude | New building | |
| June 30, 1899 | Lower Viennese line, Danube canal line |
Main customs office | HZ | III. | Passenger and freight station |
Low altitude | modification | |
| Aug 6, 1901 | Danube Canal Line | Ferdinand's Bridge | FB | I. | bus stop | Low altitude | New building | |
| Aug 6, 1901 | Danube Canal Line | Schottenring | SR | I. | bus stop | Low altitude | New building | |
| Aug 6, 1901 | Danube Canal Line | Rossauer Lände | RL | IX. | bus stop | Low altitude | New building | Roßauer Lände, Elisabeth Promenade |
| Aug 6, 1901 | Danube Canal Line, connecting arch |
Brigitta Bridge | BB | IX. | Passenger station | Low altitude | New building |
- Note: the Breitensee, Penzing and Hütteldorf-Hacking stations now belong to the 14th district .
Transfer points
Some stations of the steam light rail were classified as stops, but had transfer points between the two direction tracks:
- Hietzing, two transfer points before and after the station
- Under St. Veit-Baumgarten
- Kettenbrückengasse
- Westbahnhof stop
- Josefstädter Strasse
- Nussdorfer Strasse
Construction trains , for example, could use these track changes to reach the opposite track. Their switches, which were used by the regular trains, were only manually operated. As was customary at the time, there were no safeguards for them. According to other sources, the Schottenring and Schönbrunn stations were also equipped accordingly.
Otto Wagner's work for Vienna
Vocation and achievements of Wagner
The then responsible for the railways trade minister, Count Ladislaus Gundacker of Wurmbrand-Stuppach , who was considered a friend of art, commissioned in his capacity as Chairman of the Commission for traffic installations in Vienna in the spring of 1894 Association of Visual Artists Vienna artistic, one of its members as " Advisory Board "for the light rail construction. As a result, all buildings should be designed in a uniform style and also meet artistic standards. This was mainly necessary because the Vienna Stadtbahn had a comparatively high proportion of above-ground route sections, so that it was an important aesthetic factor in the cityscape from the start.
Ultimately, the artists' association decided in favor of Otto Wagner, who had also participated in the early urban railway planning in 1873. Wagner was 52 years old at the time and already a renowned Viennese architect, whom the Academy of Fine Arts Vienna also appointed professor - also in 1894 . It was presented to the General Assembly of the Commission for Transport Systems in Vienna on April 25, 1894 - that is, more than a year after the start of construction - and was unanimously adopted by them. The fact that an architect was commissioned with the artistic planning of an inner-city railway network is considered a Viennese specialty. In contrast to this, the subways built in other cities such as Berlin, London, New York or Paris were, apart from details, purely engineering structures .
As early as April 30, 1894, just a few days after Wagner's order, the Commission for Transportation Systems approved the drafts for the architectural design of the belt line, which Wagner presented together with the construction management of the State Railways. However, the architect was not satisfied with the role originally intended for him as artistic advisory council, but negotiated a higher position than kk Ober- Baurath with the kk General Directorate of the Austrian State Railways nomine of the Commission for Transport Systems in Vienna by agreement of May 22, 1894 . This agreement initially only applied to the belt line, the suburban line and the two Viennese lines. A second agreement followed on December 22nd, 1899, now with the kk Baudirection for the Viennese Stadtbahn as an agent of the Commission for Transport Systems in Vienna , over the Danube Canal line and the connecting arch .
Wagner received a lump sum of 120,000 Austrian guilders for his commitment. He then changed the official construction plans, among other things, as he did not agree with the originally planned neo-Gothic style including crenellated wreaths. At the same time he fought against the then outdated historicist Ringstrasse style of the late 19th century. Typical of Wagner's distinctive style are the elegant masonry, Art Nouveau motifs such as sunflower rosettes and wreaths, stylized letters and lacquered wrought iron - from balustrades and lanterns to window and door grilles. Further features are the characteristic platform roofs, the black and white tiled floor coverings and the wooden handrails at the platform entrances.
However, the work was already in full swing in May 1894, that is, Wagner had to take into account the existing floor plan sketches of the buildings and the data sheets for the substructures . His visionary plans for an exclusively underground railway were also ignored at that time. However, he still had an influence on the choice of various constructions for the substructure work. With the high-rise buildings, he even enjoyed complete freedom of design; they were subject to Wagner's planning alone.
However, the rescheduling of the project, which had already started, put the architects under great time pressure, as around 2,000 plans had to be worked out and drawn and the light rail system was to be opened in 1897 as it was then. To this end, Wagner increased his studio to around 70 employees, including Jože Plečnik , Karl Fischl , Leopold Bauer , Max Fabiani and Joseph Maria Olbrich , who acted as chief draftsman. Wagner's commitment to the Stadtbahn finally ended after more than six years in autumn 1900.
Reseda green light rail and alternatively used colors
A characteristic trademark of the Viennese light rail system is the largely uniform paintwork of all lettering, metal parts and wooden surfaces such as doors and windows in Reseda green . This design element is also attributed to Otto Wagner, which is why in Vienna - in addition to Stadtbahngrün - the designation Otto Wagner Grün has become established. However, recent stratigraphic studies have shown that originally the metal parts were light beige and the wooden parts were brown. They received their current paintwork only after the Second World War, when the color tone was able to establish itself as the standard paintwork for machines and other technical systems. In addition, the earliest green coatings with titanium white contained a pigment that was not synthesized until the late 1930s and was therefore not yet available at the time of Otto Wagner.
According to a contemporary source, all wooden and iron parts outside of the railway buildings, including the roofs and pillars of the platforms, the iron railings on the stairs and on both sides of the open track, and all iron bridges, were painted in light yellow-gray oil paint . Individual parts were also set off with lines with a slight change in color.
On the suburban line, on the other hand, wooden windows and doors, but also the billboards there, are dominated by the traditional brown of the kk state railways, while the tramway green is already evident on the platform supports and the large iron windows of the platform facades.
The station buildings of the Danube Canal Line, on the other hand, were originally marked in different colors, which was a practical innovation compared to the previously opened lines on the Gürtel, in the suburbs and in the Wiental. At the Schottenring, the entrance gate and platform roof were made of reddish-brown wood, the latter also being vaulted with yellow plaques. At the provisional Ferdinandsbrücke station, the wooden beams and roofs of the two reception buildings were deep brown with light yellow stripes, supplemented by yellow wooden rings à la Secession and station signs with yellow letters on a brown background. The color codes on the Roßauer Lände were dark green and on the Brgittabrücke light green.
Dealing with Wagner's work to this day
After Otto Wagner's death in 1918, his remarkable architecture of the light rail stations was disregarded for a long time. The entire light rail system was automatically listed from the start because it was a public corporation . However, only the Monument Protection Act of 1923, published in the Federal Law Gazette under number 533/1923, became relevant for this. Up to this point in time there had been no changes to the light rail structures. But as early as October 1934, the Federal Monuments Office lifted the protection status for a large part of the light rail structures. The only exceptions were the entire suburban line and the Alser Straße, Karlsplatz, Schönbrunn and Stadtpark stops. For the latter, a separate monument protection has been in effect since 1932 as part of the ensemble of the city and children's park, including all the buildings integrated into it.
The reception buildings in Braunschweiggasse, Heiligenstadt, Unter St. Veit-Baumgarten, Radetzkyplatz and Praterstern were later destroyed or badly damaged during World War II and later demolished or only rebuilt in a simplified form due to cost reasons and a lack of understanding of their architectural value.
Further Otto Wagner buildings had to make way for new traffic structures in the post-war period. For example, at the Westbahnhof in 1951, there was no above-ground access to the underground station of the light rail because it was covered and from then on it was directly accessible from the new terminus station through underground corridors. In 1955, the two wooden station buildings on Schwedenplatz were converted due to their dilapidation. The original main customs office building gave way to the exhibition and shopping center (AEZ) and the better connection with the new rapid transit system in 1959 . The Hietzing reception building gave way to the new Kennedy Bridge in 1961 . The architecturally particularly valuable station building Meidling-Hauptstrasse was demolished despite protests by citizens and architects in August 1968 in order to make the city motorway planned there possible.
The turnaround was not achieved by those interested in architecture until the following year, when they fought for the preservation of the two station buildings on central Karlsplatz with actions and a student demonstration organized by Ottokar Uhl on April 24, 1969, and won through with this demand against the city administration. Thanks mainly to the appeal of the Viennese architect and architectural theorist Professor Günther Feuerstein , they were listed as a historical monument in the same year. However, the two pavilions had to be relocated a little in 1977 for the construction of the subway and were given a location one and a half meters higher.
At the Schottenring, on the other hand, the new transfer station to the U2 was built from 1975, with an original Otto Wagner reception building disappearing for the last time. When the Wiental and Danube Canal lines were integrated into the subway network from 1976 onwards, most of the stations were still relatively heavily modernized and most of them were completely rebuilt. Only Schönbrunn and the city park have remained in their original state as much as possible due to the monument protection. However, at least all the reception buildings that were still in existence were preserved, even if some of them are no longer used as such.
With the entry into force of the so-called Old Town Conservation Amendment in 1972 and the amendment of the Monument Protection Act in 1978, the legal situation changed again in favor of the historic light rail structures. In the 1980s, for example, a complete rethink began with the modernization of the belt line and the reactivation of the suburban line. In both cases, the stations received only one very careful change; with the Krottenbachstrasse station, a completely new stop was even created in the style of Otto Wagner. Only the former station buildings Breitensee and Ober-Döbling were so dilapidated after decades of inactivity that they had to be replaced by replicas in the historicizing style.
Of the original 35 Wagner's station buildings, the reception buildings of which had a built-up area of 19,428 square meters, 20 were ultimately preserved, plus the Hietzinger court pavilion and the wooden platform roof in Penzing.
Schwedenplatz: Simplified post-war building from 1955, added in 1978
Stadtpark: Type V multiple unit in a historic station from 1899
Burggasse-Stadthalle, the roofs have been preserved, although the station today by the main library is covered
The Krottenbachstrasse station, reopened in 1987, in the historic turn of the century style
The reception building of the Gersthof station with the typical black and white tiled flooring of all Otto Wagner stations
Today's Breitensee station building is a replica from the 1980s
The Ober-Döbling station was designed by Alois Machatschek based on Otto Wagner
Restored wooden platform roof in Penzing
vehicles
Locomotives
Row 30
The steam rail has been mainly with the 112, specially 1895-1901 assembled, rail locomotives of the row 30 operated, whereby it accounts 62 of the Commission for transport facilities in Vienna and 50 of the state railway among themselves. The heavy five-axle and triple-coupled wet steam tank locomotives were able to accelerate trains with the largest envisaged weight of 135 tons to a speed of 35 km / h in around one minute, even on an incline of 20 per thousand. According to other sources, the total weight of a train consisting of ten fully occupied light rail cars was 150 tons. The strong drive was particularly important in view of the numerous ramps when changing between high and low positions. In terms of performance, the series 30 corresponded to locomotives on mountain railways and was also tested on the Arlbergbahn before being used in Vienna . The station spacing - which is comparatively close for railways - as well as the sometimes narrow curved tracks on the light rail system were other major demands on the machines. For inner-city operation, the machines were also designed in such a way that they avoided sparks and had a particularly steam-free and smoke-free combustion . For this purpose, all machines had a so-called smoke consumption device from the Langer or Marek systems, only locomotive number 3002 had a Schleyder type. In addition, the engineers experimented on the first locomotive with a kerosene furnace based on the Holden system , as was previously common on the Arlberg. Ultimately, however, they decided in Vienna to use coke firing based on the Berlin model instead of the - cheaper - use of hard coal . Row 30 was also equipped with a so-called silencer crown on the chimney to reduce noise . This distinctive silencer ring for the suction air brake was later replaced by a silencer on the upright boiler. It had given rise to constant complaints, in winter the outlets froze over, in summer the travelers were soiled by the spray of sooty water.
Although the series 30 fully met expectations, it ultimately did not prove itself on the light rail. As a result of the inadequate manning of the passenger trains - some of which only consisted of three cars - the machines turned out to be oversized and therefore uneconomical. Later, however, they served well in freight transport and during the First World War. Because like the light rail itself, its locomotives were partly designed according to military principles. For example, they had an unusually large water supply in order to be able to cope with mass transports, even over long distances, in the event of a crisis.
Other series
As a replacement for the too large light rail locomotives, machines of the 99 series were stationed in Hütteldorf-Hacking for lighter trains on the suburban line . In 1905 a total of 17 of these locomotives were in operation on the light rail, in the same year eight series 88 units were added. For this purpose, 13 series 30 locomotives were withdrawn and used elsewhere in the state railroad network. In 1906 six more machines from the 178 series followed . In 1909, 15 of the 178 series, seven of the 88 series and two of the 99 series were in use on the light rail in addition to the 30 series. However, in terms of probation, none of them could compare with the 30 series. The 88 series in particular suffered from broken crank pins due to frequent start- ups and had to be shut down in 1910.
In 1913 and 1914, the number of locomotives on the Stadtbahn reached an absolute high with 135 units, and that year two machines from the 229 series also helped out. When the war broke out, the Stadtbahn had to surrender ten series 30 machines, five series 178 and two series 99, in 1915/1916 another 22 series 30 machines, three series 178 and one series 99. It was assigned older locomotives as replacements. including twelve of row 102 , six of row 229, two of row 1 , one of row 21 and one of row 26 . The 102 series was used on the Wiental, Danube Canal and Gürtellinie, but could only pull a maximum of eight cars, especially the approximately 500 meter long ramp between Meidling-Hauptstraße and Gumpendorfer Straße was very difficult.
The heating house line Vienna-West also tried to use dispensable express train locomotives of the series 206 on the Vienna line. But even on the first trip, a machine of this type derailed in a tight arc between Kettenbrückengasse and Karlsplatz. This was due to the fact that the long bogie had no side play of the pivot . In 1915 and 1916, the Stadtbahn then only had 113 locomotives in stock. For operational reasons, some of the 30 series had to be ordered back as replacements for the very old machines. In 1918 there were also five ku k. Class 578 army railway locomotives for freight train services on the suburban line.
Otherwise, the series 170 , 270 and 82 were mostly used for goods traffic on the light rail , although the latter was only available from 1922. On the suburban line, on the other hand, tests were carried out with the 85 and 86 series as well as steam railcars.
Passenger cars
.JPG)
In terms of passenger cars , the steam light railroad had access to the 864 between 1895 and 1902 specially designed for them and built by five different manufacturers, with a central aisle and open entry platforms, 372 of which belonged to the light rail and the rest of the state railroad. All of them could be used freely in the entire Austrian railway network, but had a number of equipment and comfort features that were largely unusual at the time for urban rapid transit. The three sub-types B u , C u and CD u existed , with the superscript symbol u standing for underground traffic.
In particular, the light rail cars had a low dead weight for operation on steep inclines with short distances between stations, but still had a high capacity. To make this possible, the platforms protruded beyond the buffers , for example , which resulted in a length saving of over eight meters in a ten-car train.
The doors between the compartment and the platforms were initially designed as so-called switching doors and could be opened on both sides. As a result, the entry platforms were narrower and four additional seats could be offered per car. Thanks to their club's steering axles with a short wheelbase , the wagons were able to travel even the smallest radius of 120 meters found in the light rail network without any problems, while disc wheels ensured less dust was generated.
In contrast to Berlin and London, a conscious decision was made in Vienna for cars with passage and transition options based on the New York model in order to achieve better distribution of passengers on the train and short passenger switching times. The car crossings were therefore particularly wide and closed on the sides, their use by travelers was expressly desired. Staying on the platforms was also allowed in light rail traffic for reasons of capacity. Last but not least, the three steps, which were comparatively flat with a height difference of only 23 centimeters each, ensured short stays at the station.
In addition, open-plan cars were cheaper to maintain and maintain and easier to illuminate, the latter in Vienna using gas lighting . Due to the numerous tunnel sections, the lighting was also permanently on during the day.
Another advantage of the open-plan cars was that they could be heated more easily in winter, using steam heating . Furthermore, trains with a passage need fewer toilets because not all cars in the train had to be equipped with one. Ultimately, the Viennese light rail trains only had toilets in the first and last car , they were necessary mainly because of the transition from light rail trains to the Westbahn and the Franz Josefs Bahn.
The wooden body of the light rail cars was clad with teak , optically Vienna followed the London model. Otherwise, the wood paneling was more of a trademark of luxury trains at the time . The noble wood should make the light rail trains visible in the city area appear as attractive as possible. With their double windows and skylights, the light rail cars were also considered to be real observation cars . The barrel roofs covered with light canvas were also typical of them .
The wagon requirement for the narrow light rail network was 250 on weekdays in winter and 360 in summer, while 600 cars were required on Sundays and public holidays. Since the Stadtbahn also had to cope with most of the local traffic on the Westbahn and the Franz-Josefs-Bahn, these railways provided the Stadtbahn with 288 of their own cars as compensation. They were mainly used in rush hour traffic on Sundays and public holidays. Even on the suburban line, older compartment cars with walking boards drove in the early morning peak.
Operations service
Boiler houses and coaling
The steam locomotives of the Viennese Stadtbahn were mainly stationed in the two heating houses built for them in Heiligenstadt and Hütteldorf-Hacking, with the heating house line being relocated from Heiligenstadt to Hütteldorf-Hacking on May 25, 1899. While in Heiligenstadt a very modern mechanical coal finishing plant was available for the time , the machines in Hütteldorf-Hacking were still charred manually using baskets. The following types of locomotive coal were used on the Stadtbahn:
- Petrzkowitz unwashed coal from the Guttmann company in Vienna
- Libuschiner washed coal from the Prague Iron Industry Company and the Bohemian Mining Company from Prague
- Buschtěhrad washed nut coal I from the Buschtěhrad- Kladno coalfield railway companies in Prague
- Lump coke from the Vienna municipal gas works
- Staaber Austria and Austria I Medium and washed cube of coal from the West Bohemian Mining Stock Association from Aussig ad Elbe in smaller quantities for the steam railcars
- Bohemian lignite means I and II from the Brüxer Bergbaugesellschaft from Aussig ad Elbe
The Libuschiner and Buschtěhrad coal types were burned as mixed coal to Petrzkowitz coal, the Brüxer lignite as an additive to hard coal for passenger and freight trains on the suburban line. To alleviate the dreaded smoke plague, a mixture of 1/6 coke, 1/3 Ostrauer and 2/3 coal was fired. At times, larger quantities of English coal had to be imported, but this - like coal from remote parts of the country - contributed significantly to the increase in the freight charges for locomotive fuel .
Water supply
The watering of the steam locomotives was a problem at the beginning . Under the influence of the very hard Viennese spring water , the locomotive boilers suffered considerably, and boiler damage occurred. This led to the extensive conversion of the water supply to Wiental water. For this purpose, a reservoir was built in Breitensee that fed the water supply systems in the Hütteldorf-Hacking, Meidling-Hauptstrasse and Hauptzollamt stations. In Heiligenstadt, in turn, the Danube Canal water was supplied.
Securing train journeys
Line safety systems
In terms of safety , the light rail lines were equipped for 20 to 24 trains in each direction, i.e. one train every three to two and a half minutes. The Viennese layout was thus initially more advanced than its model in Berlin, where only a maximum of 16 trains could run an hour. It was not until 1905 that a train headway time of two and a half minutes was also implemented in the German capital.
Each line of the Stadtbahn was equipped with the line block system from Siemens & Halske. The block guards for driving within spatial distance with advance notice were mostly located in the stations, with the block signal usually at the end of the platform. Entry and exit signals , on the other hand, were only used at stations with several tracks. Advance signals were only set up in exceptional cases when the signal visibility was insufficient. According to the guidelines at the time, these were main signals that were not visible on the length of the braking distance ; this only affected individual block signals in the tunnel area.
Only where the station spacing was greater than 800 meters did additional block points have to be set up on the open route, sometimes only for one direction of travel. With these so-called intermediate blocks, however, only the signal itself was on the open route, which was also operated by the block attendant of the nearest station - together with the block signal in the station. The main reasons for this were cost reasons. Apart from the additional personnel required, intermediate signals would have had to be in places in tunnels or on viaducts where a guard could not be accommodated in order to be visible in the area of bends or inclines. All block booths were interconnected by telephones , there were no Morse code writers .
In principle, the safety systems in the light rail sector have proven themselves very well. But already after a short period of operation it became clear that extensions were necessary in several places. This resulted in the following situation:
| Condition at opening: | Subsequent additions: | |
|---|---|---|
| Upper Viennese line: | Route block with block posts in all stops | * from 1899 additional block post between Hütteldorf-Hacking and Ober St. Veit (km 0.912) * from 1900 additional block post for one direction of travel between Hietzing and Schönbrunn (km 3.850) * from 1900 additional block post for one direction between Hietzing and Schönbrunn (km 4.547) |
| Lower Viennese line: | Route block with block posts in all stops | * from 1899 additional block post for one direction of travel between Meidling-Hauptstrasse and Margarethengürtel (km 5.986) * from 1900 additional block post between Margarethengürtel and Pilgramgasse (km 7.138) * from 1901 additional block post for one direction between Meidling-Hauptstrasse and Margarethengürtel (km 5.726) * from 1901 additional block post between Kettenbrückengasse and Karlsplatz (km 8.671) |
| Danube Canal Line: | Section block with block posts in all stops, additional posts between Brigittabrücke and Heiligenstadt |
no |
| Waistline: | Section block with block posts in all stops, except Alser Straße and Währinger Straße |
* from 1899 additional block post for one direction of travel between Meidling-Hauptstrasse and Gumpendorfer Strasse (km 0.641) * from 1900 an additional block post each for one direction at the Alser Strasse and Währinger Strasse stops * from 1901 additional block post at the junction at Nussdorfer Strasse (km 7.279 ) |
| Connecting bow: | Route block with one block post per direction of travel | no |
| Suburban line: | no route block and no block sections | * from 1899 route block with block posts in all stops from Penzing to Ottakring and from Gersthof to Heiligenstadt * from 1907 route block with block posts in all stops from Ottakring to Gersthof |
In the Viennese Stadtbahn, the block devices contained three block fields in each direction of travel, two of which were alternating current block fields and a release device equipped with a relay . One alternating current block field was used to release the block signal located backwards in the direction of travel, the second to lock one's own and to announce the next block post in the direction of travel. The triggering device prevented the depressing of the block buttons of the own block signal, which was on stop, as long as the train was not traveling on the isolated rail behind the block signal. This ensured that block processes could only be carried out depending on a train journey . This route block system was first introduced on the Wiener Stadtbahn and was still in use on some ÖBB routes in 1988.
Railway station security systems
In the Brigittabrücke, Ottakring, Hernals and Gersthof stations, classic mechanical signal boxes were still used, which had previously also been used at all other stations of the state railway. The 4079c design from Wiener Maschinenfabrik Stephan von Götz & Söhne with block plants from Siemens & Halske was used for the Wiener Stadtbahn . Except for Brigittabrücke, every station received signal boxes that were arranged in the respective switch area, they were equipped with a station block according to Rank's switching. These had the task of enabling the route clearance only by the traffic officer on duty . The switches and signals in these mechanical interlockings were operated by means of a double wire pull. The entry and exit signals of the stations worked together with the route block facility.
Two further mechanical signal boxes were located at the junction at Nussdorfer Straße, in the angle between the belt line and the connecting arch that branches off there, and Praterstern.
In contrast, the more heavily frequented train stations Hauptzollamt, Heiligenstadt, Hütteldorf-Hacking, Meidling-Hauptstraße, Michelbeuern and Penzing were equipped with Siemens & Halske electromechanical interlockings from the very beginning . The design of the electromechanical interlockings was chosen because it was easy to operate and the actuation of the small switches did not lead to fatigue of the interlocking operator, even with frequent turnouts. Previously, it was only used in a total of six train stations, especially with the very first such system, which went into operation in Prerau in 1895, had positive experiences. Since the design was still new, most of the systems were only completed after the light rail began operating, in Heiligenstadt, for example, not until April 14, 1901. Provisional safety systems existed until the respective commissioning. According to the Centralblatt der Bauverwaltung , the Brigittabrücke train station should also be equipped with a modern power station according to the planning status from 1899 , but when it opened in 1901 it was only given a conventional system.
Signals
The Viennese Stadtbahn basically used the same shape signals as were common on the Austrian railways at the time. However, the many bridges and incisions required some special constructions. For example, signal masts were not used on the underground railway lines; instead, a cast-iron console was attached to the retaining wall , which carried the upper part of the signal. On the bridges, the signals were screwed directly onto the bridge structure using special feet. The signals on the tunnel sections, on the other hand, represented a completely new development. While petroleum-operated signal lamps were used in the rest of the route network , in front of which the mechanically operated panels with the colored discs were moved past, the light rail system had modern light signals from the start. These were fitted with colored discs in front of electric light bulbs. The various signal aspects were achieved by switching on the respective light bulb. These simplest light signals represent the oldest known application of single light point signals and are considered the forerunners of all modern light signals. The signal colors also corresponded to the Austrian customs of the time, i.e. red = stop, white = free, green = caution and blue = shunt stop .
A safety-related special feature of the steam light rail - again based on the Berlin model - was the triple headlights , which were already in use in the two capitals decades before the nationwide introduction by law. Similarly, the train end signal consisted of three red glowing lanterns.
Ride offer
The following table provides an overview of the range of journeys offered by the light rail system in the first twelve years of operation, with the suburban line falling significantly behind the other route sections:
| Passenger trains per day | 1898 | 1899 | 1900 | 1901 | 1902 | 1903 | 1904 | 1905 | 1906 | 1907 | 1908 | 1909 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Upper Viennese line: | 123 | 222 | 351 | 356 | 390 | 387 | 380 | 379 | 403 | 426 | 433 | 431 |
| Lower Viennese line: | - | 254 | 237 | 243 | 273 | 282 | 283 | 283 | 299 | 311 | 313 | 313 |
| Danube Canal Line: | - | - | - | 262 | 273 | 282 | 283 | 283 | 299 | 326 | 377 | 378 |
| Waistline: | 123 | 147 | 192 | 215 | 243 | 244 | 243 | 243 | 248 | 258 | 270 | 273 |
| Suburban line: | 38 | 48 | 58 | 58 | 60 | 62 | 62 | 62 | 76 | 65 | 66 | 67 |
The steam light rail operated daily from 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. or 12:00 a.m. The main traffic took place between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. Between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., on the Gürtel until 5:00 p.m., and from 9:00 p.m., operations were restricted. The two different statements for the end of operations result from the fact that the operationally necessary transfer journeys of locomotives and wagons took place in the last hour of the day, which were, however, expressly released for passengers. The light rail trains did not wait for delayed connecting trains .
Intervals
The train schedule of the steam light rail was three to eleven minutes on the most important routes, eleven to 53 minutes on the suburban line and 14 to 18 minutes on the connecting line. The average train sequence was seven minutes on the Lower Wiental Line and eight minutes on the belt line, while a train ran every two to three minutes during peak times . In the specifications for the light rail locomotives, 20 to 22 trains per hour were required. According to another source, the shortest train sequence with the start of full service on August 6, 1901 was three minutes on the Upper Wiental Line, six minutes on the Lower Wiental Line and the Danube Canal Line and twelve minutes on the Belt Line and the connecting line.
Travel times
The following table provides an overview of the travel times of the steam light rail, whose average travel speed was 20 or 20 to 21 km / h depending on the source, as well as a comparison of the travel times of the means of transport currently on the corresponding routes:
| relation | May 1, 1914 | December 10, 2017 |
|---|---|---|
| Heiligenstadt <> Hütteldorf-Hacking via the main customs office: | 44-48 minutes 45 minutes |
29 minutes |
| Heiligenstadt <> Hütteldorf-Hacking via the belt line: | 37-43 minutes 40 minutes |
no comparison possible as it has been partially shut down |
| Heiligenstadt <> Hütteldorf-Hacking via suburban line: | 26-28 minutes | 20-23 minutes |
| Connecting railway: | 5 minutes | 3 minutes |
| Connecting bow: | 4-5 minutes | shut down |
Service of further railway lines by light rail trains
Local routes
|
Hütteldorf-Hacking Hütteldorf-Bad Hadersdorf-Weidlingau Weidlingau-Wurzbachtal Purkersdorf Sanatorium Purkersdorf Purkersdorf- Gablitz Unter Tullnerbach Tullnerbach- Preßbaum Preßbaum Dürrwien Rekawinkel Eichgraben - Altlengbach Unter Oberndorf Maria Anzbach Hofstatt Neulengbach Market Neulengbach |
32,160 kilometers | The trains of the Upper Wiental Line, coming from the direction of Meidling-Hauptstraße, changed from 1899 in Hütteldorf-Hacking to the Westbahn, on which some of them went far beyond the city limits of Vienna. In the timetable of May 1, 1903, for example, this affected 15 pairs of trains, ten of them to and from Purkersdorf - today Unter Purkersdorf , two to and from Rekawinkel and three to and from Neulengbach . In this way, the Stadtbahn served 17 other stations beyond Hütteldorf-Hacking.
The connection with the Westbahn was particularly relevant for the heavy excursion traffic into the Vienna Woods and led from 1908 to 1910 to the four-track expansion of the 5.993 kilometer long section Hütteldorf-Hacking - Purkersdorf, which until then had only two tracks. After several interruptions in construction, the two so-called short - distance tracks for the light rail finally went into operation on April 27, 1911. Before that, there were constant mutual hindrances on the Westbahn due to local and long-distance trains, which made the expansion essential. There was pure line operation, that is, the new southern pair of tracks was reserved exclusively for the light rail. In this context, Hadersdorf-Weidlingau station was also extensively expanded, with two platform tracks reserved for the light rail and two additional platform tracks and a through track for the other trains on the Western Railway. |
|
Vienna Heiligenstadt Vienna Nussdorf Kahlenbergerdorf Klosterneuburg - Weidling Klosterneuburg- Kierling Unter Kritzendorf Kritzendorf Höflein (Danube) Greifenstein -Altenberg St. Andrä ‑ Wierter Zeiselmauer - Königstetten Langenlebarn Tulln |
30.372 kilometers | As early as the opening year 1898, some of the light rail trains - coming from the Belt Line or the Danube Canal Line - were traveling on the Franz-Josefs-Bahn up the Danube to the Vienna district of Kahlenbergerdorf , which for this reason received a new reception building on the river side. From 1899 the tram also ran across the city limits to Tulln , with every second train only going to Klosterneuburg .
According to the timetable of May 1, 1903, a total of 23 pairs of trains on the Danube Canal line ran beyond Heiligenstadt, nine of them to Kritzendorf , eight to St. Andrä-Wierter and six to Tulln on the Danube. On Sundays and public holidays, three additional pairs of trains ran to Kritzendorf. The link with the Franz-Josefs-Bahn also served for excursion traffic into the Vienna Woods, but was also important for the development of the bathing beaches on the Danube, including the Kritzendorf river pool . In this way, the Stadtbahn served twelve other stations beyond Heiligenstadt. According to the magazine of the Austrian Association of Engineers and Architects from January 8, 1897, the Absdorf-Hippersdorf station , which is even further away, was planned as the end point of individual light rail trains, but that never happened. |
External network in the city of Vienna
Within Vienna, the light rail trains served other railway lines beyond the narrower network, all of which existed before 1898. This was referred to as the Outer Network or Additional Network . With a total of 51.081 kilometers, it was longer than the narrower light rail network itself. Although the supplementary lines were not declared as light rail lines, they were integrated into the light rail system in terms of traffic.
|
Main customs office at Radetzkyplatz Praterstern |
1,250 kilometers | The part of the connecting line, which was opened in 1859, was also called the Prater line or line to the II. District in the context of the Stadtbahn . This was originally a provisional name, which would have been dropped with the construction of the Danube city line. The main customs office – Praterstern section was served by light rail trains from June 30, 1899 - the opening day of the Untere Wientallinie - was integrated into the light rail tariff and represented the most heavily traveled section of the outer network. As an exception, the two existing stations at Radetzkyplatz (RP ) and Praterstern (PS), as the only ones in the outer network, converted by Otto Wagner according to light rail standards.
In the planning phase in the 1890s, the main customs office – Praterstern section was also part of the narrower urban railway network; it was to be expanded to three tracks for this purpose. But since this would have narrowed the Helenengasse, resistance arose. Ultimately, a renewed check of the timetable revealed that only one pull-out track between the main customs office and Radetzkyplatz was necessary to allow the freight trains to pass through the main customs office station without disrupting the passenger trains. Irrespective of this, the viaducts had to be renovated and reinforced and the safety systems replaced for the dense light rail operation. On the connecting line, trains connected from the Untere Wientallinie initially ran. From commissioning of the Danube Canal line in August 1901, coming from the direction Meidling main streets changed but then only to a very small part to the connecting web, mainly commuter trains between main customs office and Praterstern replace the canceled connections with one locomotive front and rear covered were. In the timetable of May 1, 1901, there were still 280 trains running between the main customs office and Praterstern, as of May 1, 1903, there were only 264. |
|
Penzing Baumgarten Hütteldorf-Hacking |
3.293 kilometers | The trains of the suburban line coming from the north drove via the Penzing station out on the Westbahn to Hütteldorf-Hacking in order to establish a direct connection to the Upper Wiental line. However, they were given a separate route north of the two western railway tracks. At first only one track was available before the second track went into operation on June 30, 1899, so that the section in question was henceforth four-track. In Hütteldorf-Hacking, the trains on the suburban line had the exclusive use of the right-hand reception building built for them, while the so-called river - side reception building served the Western Railway and the Upper Wiental Line.
The Baumgarten stop was also kept between Penzing and Hütteldorf-Hacking, not to be confused with the Unter St. Veit station on the Upper Wiental line, which was originally called Unter St. Veit-Baumgarten. The station on the Westbahn went into operation as early as 1881; from May 1, 1939, it was called Baumgartenstrasse and was finally discontinued in 1950 due to lack of use. The so-called suburban track between Penzing and Hütteldorf-Hacking was also part of the closer network in the planning phase, but ultimately did not come into the possession of the Commission for Transport Systems in Vienna. As a result, they had to pay route usage fees to the state railway for this section. |
|
Brigittenau-Floridsdorf intermediate bridges Communalbad - Reichsbrücke exhibition street Military swimming school Donauquai-Bahnhof Praterspitz Kaiser Ebersdorf (Albern) Klein-Schwechat Ober-Laa Rothneusiedl Laxenburgerstraße Inzersdorf Altmannsdorf Ober-Hetzendorf Maxing Speising Lainz St. Veit an der Wien Penzing Westbahnhof |
35.776 kilometers |
In Brigittenau-Floridsdorf, certain light rail trains on the suburban line were transferred to the Donauuferbahn, which before 1898 had no passenger traffic. They first drove to the former warehouse stop on today's exhibition grounds . In addition, so-called bath trains ran between June and September to the former Praterspitz stop at the confluence of the Danube Canal with the Danube . In later years these train routes were extended even further, with some of them even reaching the Westbahnhof via the Donauländebahn and the connecting line. Alternative names for this ring traffic were Äussere Gürtelbahn , Nordring or Nordringlinie . |
|
Hauptzollamt Rennweg Arsenal Favoriten Meidling Unter- Hetzendorf Ober-Hetzendorf Maxing Speising Lainz St. Veit an der Wien Baumgarten Hütteldorf Hacking |
15.014 kilometers | At Hauptzollamt station, the light rail trains coming from the north ran partly on the current S-Bahn line and the connecting Vienna Meidling – Vienna Penzing line to Hütteldorf-Hacking. The connection between the main customs office and Unter-Hetzendorf, not to be confused with the Hetzendorf stop on the Südbahn, which still exists today , was also integrated into the tram tariff. The connection between the main customs office and Hütteldorf-Hacking was also known as the Südring or Südringlinie in the context of the Stadtbahn .
Occasional shuttle trains also ran between Westbahnhof and Unter-Hetzendorf, which thus represented a combination of the north and south ring line. |
Note: for the kilometers in the table above, the 4.252 kilometer section Ober-Hetzendorf – St. Veit an der Wien listed twice.
Traffic service
Car classes
Similar to Berlin, the Wiener Stadtbahn also offered its passengers two different classes of car . The second class, which was half as expensive, had upholstered bench seats in a 2 + 2 arrangement with armrests , in contrast to this, the passengers of the III. Class on wooden bench seats in a 3 + 2 arrangement and without armrests. The interior of the upholstered class was also a bit more elegant, and it was better lit. In the stations, passengers of the better class were also provided with separate waiting rooms. However, the second class only played a subordinate role in city traffic, as there was hardly any demand for it on short journeys. In the first eleven years of operation the following relationship resulted:
| 1898 | 1899 | 1900 | 1901 | 1902 | 1903 | 1904 | 1905 | 1906 | 1907 | 1908 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of travelers in class II: | 4.01 | 4.79 | 5.67 | 6.65 | 6.68 | 6.98 | 8.05 | 8.20 | 7.90 | 7.70 | 7.80 |
| Percentage of travelers in the III. Class: | 95.99 | 95.21 | 94.33 | 93.35 | 93.32 | 93.02 | 91.95 | 91.80 | 92.10 | 92.30 | 92.20 |
In 1913 3.3 million tram passengers traveled in the second class, while 44.1 million passengers traveled in the III. Class decided. And despite the higher fare, the second class was also in deficit, generating only 720,000 kroner income with 890,000 kroner expenses. In the III. Class there were 3.8 million kroner income with 4.83 million kroner expenses. The upholstery class was therefore abolished on September 1, 1904 on the suburban line, which was already in low demand.
The even less popular first class, however, was deliberately not planned for the Stadtbahn, and in this respect too, Vienna once again followed the Berlin model. The reason for this was the limited platform length in the metropolitan area. In any case, it only allowed comparatively short trains, the capacity of which should not be further restricted. This also had the advantage of further reducing the dead load carried along . In connection with the opening of the Stadtbahn, the first class was also canceled in suburban traffic on the Westbahn and the Franz-Josefs-Bahn. In addition, special women's compartments were expressly not provided for on the Wiener Stadtbahn.
Train numbers
The Wiener Dampfstadtbahn used four-digit train numbers that were coded as follows:
| route | Number pad | odd numbers | even numbers |
|---|---|---|---|
| Upper Viennese line | 1xxx and 3xxx | Direction Hütteldorf-Hacking | Direction Meidling-Hauptstraße |
| Lower Viennese line | 1xxx and 3xxx | Direction Meidling-Hauptstraße | Direction of the main customs office |
| Danube Canal Line | 1xxx and 3xxx | Direction of the main customs office | Direction Heiligenstadt |
| Waistline | 1xxx and 3xxx | Meidling main street | Direction Heiligenstadt |
| Prater line | 2xxx | Direction of the main customs office | Direction Praterstern |
| Connecting bow | 3xxx | Direction junction Nußdorfer Straße | Direction Brigittabrücke |
| Suburban line | 4xxx | Direction Hütteldorf-Hacking | Direction Heiligenstadt |
| South ring line | 5xxx | Hütteldorf-Hacking> Meidling Praterstern> Meidling |
Meidling> Hütteldorf-Hacking Meidling> Praterstern |
| North ring line | 6xxx | Direction Heiligenstadt | Direction Westbahnhof |
| Südringlinie / Nordringlinie | 7xxx | Direction Unter-Hetzendorf | Direction Westbahnhof |
For systematic reasons, the trains in the ring traffic via the connecting bend had to change their train number at Brigittabrücke station, the same applied to the trains on the north ring line at Meidling station.
Tariff system and fares
General
Due to the legal classification as a private railway, an independent transport tariff was applied to the Vienna Stadtbahn from the beginning . This could later be recognized, among other things, by the fact that the general ticket tax introduced on January 1, 1903 did not affect the city railroad because it was classified as an inner-city means of transport from the start. Independently of this, there was a transport association with the state railway, as a result of which the light rail tariff also applied to a large part of the connecting railway.
The steam tram tariff originally provided for three price zones. In contrast to what is customary on the railways, the tickets were not valid for a specific route. Rather, they could be used between any two stations, as long as they were in the same price zone. Here, too, the Berlin Stadtbahn and Ringbahn served as a model, which at the time had a comparable tariff. The zone tariff was also a reaction to the competitive situation with the cheaper trams, where a single trip cost 20 Heller at the time or only ten in the early hours.
In contrast to the other customs in the Austrian railway traffic at the time, hardly any price reductions were planned for the Vienna Stadtbahn . Only officers were allowed to use III. Class use the second class. Furthermore, the Stadtbahn was not allowed to be used with nationally valid route network maps of the kk state railways. The creep was punished with double the fare, but at least 50 hellers.
Single trips
Originally, the following prices were payable in Austrian crowns for single journeys:
| Zone | II. Adult class | III. Class adults |
|---|---|---|
| up to three kilometers | 0.15 | 0.10 |
| three to eight kilometers | 0.30 | 0.20 |
| over eight kilometers | 0.45 | 0.30 |
Interruptions of the journey as well as round trips and return trips were not permitted, the cheapest tickets for ten Heller also served as platform tickets . The third price zone was abolished again on June 16, 1901, which means that from then on a ticket for the second price zone already had a network effect. From the same date, tickets in the first price zone were also no longer valid on Sundays and public holidays due to the heavy excursion traffic, i.e. a so-called standard tariff applied on these days . Furthermore, the operator replaced the originally used slip tickets with Edmondson cardboard cards on the specified date. Another tariff adjustment on November 1, 1905 included the stops up to a maximum of three and a half kilometers away in the first price zone.
Light rail fares remained stable for almost the entire period of the Empire . It was not until December 1, 1917 that the first increase took place as a result of the austerity measures caused by the war. From now on, instead of the kilometers traveled, the number of stops traveled through was decisive for the calculation. This led to a certain simplification; travelers could now more easily determine the scope themselves. Before that, it often happened that it was run over. As a result of the tariff reform, users of the first zone were also able to cover longer distances, up to two more stops. The following prices applied, not including the entry point:
| Zone | II. Adult class | III. Class adults | II. Class children | III. Great kids |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Near-weekday zone, up to the fourth stop, not valid on Sundays and public holidays |
0.30 | 0.16 | 0.30 | 0.16 |
| Far zone, from the fifth stop | 0.40 | 0.24 |
The children's tariff was valid for children from the age of four to the age of ten, or for younger children for whom a separate seat was required. As early as November 1, 1918, the Commission for Transport Systems in Vienna increased the fare again:
| Zone | II. Adult class | III. Class adults |
|---|---|---|
| Near-weekday zone, up to the fourth stop, not valid on Sundays and public holidays |
0.40 | 0.20 |
| Far zone, from the fifth stop | 0.50 | 0.30 |
Season tickets
Time tickets were also available for commuters on the Stadtbahn . The coefficient for calculating the monthly ticket price was 50 journeys per month, so that the following prices initially applied:
| Zone | Regular monthly ticket | Student monthly card | Weekly worker card |
|---|---|---|---|
| up to three kilometers | II. Class: 7.50 III. Class: 5.00 |
II. Class: 3.75 III. Class: 2.50 |
III. Class: 0.60 |
| three to eight kilometers | II. Class: 15.00 III. Class: 10.00 |
II. Class: 7.50 III. Class: 5.00 |
III. Class: 1.20 |
| over eight kilometers | II. Class: 22.50 III. Class: 15.00 |
II. Class: 11.25 III. Class: 7.50 |
III. Class: 1.80 |
The operator also offered quarterly tickets. With the abolition of the third price zone in 1901, the monthly tickets for distances of more than eight kilometers were also discontinued. On January 1, 1903, the Commission for Transport Systems in Vienna went one step further and no longer issued monthly tickets for the second price zone for certain routes, but instead converted them - without price increases - into fully valid network cards. On the same date, the sales system for monthly tickets was also significantly simplified. Instead of reprinting these month after month, the tram ticket offices now sold tokens - differentiated by calendar month - tokens . These had to be stuck on a master card with twelve fields valid from January 16 to January 15 of the following year.
In 1907 the Commission for Transport Systems in Vienna temporarily increased the above-mentioned coefficient for monthly tickets to 70 trips. However, this turned out to be too high, so that this innovation was withdrawn again in 1908 after only seven months. The following table provides an overview of the time cards issued in the first eleven years of operation:
| 1898 | 1899 | 1900 | 1901 | 1902 | 1903 | 1904 | 1905 | 1906 | 1907 | 1908 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weekly worker cards: | 27,366 | 110.414 | 199.934 | 216,416 | 237.978 | 242.144 | 214,554 | 211,556 | 223,870 | 236,584 | 223.143 |
| Season tickets for everyone: | 1,416 | 8.233 | 18,070 | 47,785 | 112,824 | 121,495 | 135,553 | 134,702 | 143,583 | 149.195 | 156.891 |
| Student monthly cards: | 965 | 4,689 | 9,077 | 12.005 | 13,613 | 14,029 | 14,787 | 15,835 | 17,534 | 18,444 | 19,890 |
Of the subscriptions sold in 1908 , 14,262 were in class II and 142,629 in class III. Great, the income from the season tickets was 988,502 Austrian crowns in the year mentioned. Similar to the single tickets, the season ticket prices have remained the same over the years; the first increase also took place on December 1, 1917:
| Zone | Regular monthly ticket | Student monthly card | Weekly worker card |
|---|---|---|---|
| Near-weekday zone, up to the fourth stop, not valid on Sundays and public holidays |
II. Class: 16.80 III. Class: 9.60 |
II. Class: 6.90 III. Class: 4.00 |
III. Class: 0.96 |
| Overall network | II. Class: 22.40 III. Class: 14.40 |
II. Class: 9.20 III. Class: 6.00 |
III. Class: 1.44 |
Ticket issuance and control
Most of the tickets on the steam light rail were issued by female employees who were designated manipulators and who were mostly widows or orphans of deceased servants. At each intermediate station, three women were employed who carried out the counter service throughout the entire operating time in such a way that both ticket counters were always manned. Tickets for long-distance traffic on the state railways could only be purchased at the main customs office, Heiligenstadt and Hütteldorf-Hacking stations. Light rail tickets, on the other hand, were available - like postage stamps - at many external sales points. In addition to manual sales, the operator set up ticket machines at the Hütteldorf-Hacking, Schönbrunn, Karlsplatz and Mariahilfer Straße stations as early as 1899 , followed by Heiligenstadt, Währinger Straße, Hietzing and Kettenbrückengasse in 1900. In addition, the tickets for the return journey could already be purchased at the departure station on the Wiener Stadtbahn.
So-called servants were responsible for checking tickets on the tram, the name used in Austria at the time for salaried workers. Each platform barrier was manned by two servants, one for arriving and one for departing travelers. On the two directional platforms together, there were always four platform conductors on duty at the same time. The devaluation of the tickets was made on most stations by double perforation at the same time pressing in the two-letter abbreviation station, the tongs number and date.
Train formation
The regular sets of the steam light rail originally had 292 seats, 80 of them in the II. And 212 in the III. Class. As planned, except on the suburban line, they consisted of two second-class cars, one of which was a non-smoking car and three third-class cars. Class, including a non-smoking car, and two half-luggage cars. The two non-smoking cars always bordered one another. However, there were also 50 mixed 2nd class cars in which the smoking and non-smoking areas were only separated by a glass partition.
For the excursion traffic on Sundays and public holidays in the summer months, the regular sets have been replaced by a further three carriages of the III. Class supplemented, with a total of ten cars, the maximum platform length of the light rail stations was fully utilized. A ten-car train had 436 seats, 80 of them in the II. And 356 in the III. Class. There was also standing room for 144 in the central aisles, plus standing room on the platforms. A total of 150 to 250 standing places were available per train.
The two cars of the II. Class were always in the middle of the trains queued . At least in the elevated train stations as well as in the junction stations Hauptzollamt, Heiligenstadt and Hütteldorf-Hacking, the upholstered class came to a stop near the staircase. This resulted in the following car status:
Working days:
| III. Class luggage compartment smoker |
III. class smoking |
II class smokers |
2nd class non-smokers |
III. Class non-smoker |
III. class smoking |
III. Class luggage compartment smoker |
Sundays and Holidays:
| III. Class luggage compartment smoker |
III. class smoking |
III. class smoking |
III. class smoking |
II class smokers |
2nd class non-smokers |
III. Class non-smoker |
III. class smoking |
III. class smoking |
III. Class luggage compartment smoker |
Soon after the opening, it turned out that the initial seven-car trains were too tight on working days. That is why eight-car trains were introduced into regular traffic on March 1, 1899. Only on the suburban line, which is much less frequented, did the trains initially consist of only five to six cars, and in later years only three cars. In the meantime, a reduction to two cars was even considered, which was also practiced during test drives in 1906.
Freight transport
When the Stadtbahn opened, it was planned to use freight trains to transport mainly coal and building materials into the city, as well as rubbish and snow, and, according to the planning status of 1893 , the Naschmarkt should even have its own siding. Although these projects were not carried out, only very few Austrian local railways achieved the volume of goods carried on the Vienna light rail. In principle, however, passenger traffic had priority, goods traffic only played a subordinate role in comparison and had to be carried out mainly during the night, including the market hall trains on the belt line. Only on the suburban line, which led through less densely populated areas on the outskirts of the city during the steam light railway times and was therefore less frequented by passenger traffic, did freight trains run during the day. The basic consideration here was to use the stations on the relatively high-altitude route for the downhill delivery of loads to the western urban areas in order to facilitate the local freight transport, which at that time was almost entirely dependent on human or horse power. On the other hand, in some years no freight trains ran on other sections of the network. The Commission for Transport Systems in Vienna did not have its own freight wagons . In the first eleven years of operation, freight traffic on the light rail system developed as follows:
| 1898 | 1899 | 1900 | 1901 | 1902 | 1903 | 1904 | 1905 | 1906 | 1907 | 1908 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Freight trains on the suburban line: | 1890 | 3883 | 3739 | 5263 | 3697 | 3687 | 3989 | 4287 | 4790 | 4520 | 4089 |
| Freight trains on the belt line: | 192 | 1352 | 1424 | 1583 | 1562 | 736 | 739 | 743 | 737 | 730 | 734 |
| Freight trains on the Upper Wientallinie: | 8th | - | 21st | - | - | 84 | 37 | 8th | 12 | 2 | 10 |
| Freight trains on the Lower Wientallinie: | - | 62 | 442 | - | - | 84 | 31 | 8th | 11 | 2 | 9 |
| Freight trains on the Danube Canal Line: | - | - | - | - | - | 120 | 1 | 2 | 156 | 551 | 924 |
| Goods transported in tons: | 103.181 | 274,746 | 407.386 | 380.288 | 398,536 | 411,671 | 403.343 | 448.394 | 464.670 | 379.730 | 348.179 |
| Income from goods transport in Austrian crowns: | 50.264 | 447.049 | 589.908 | 594.173 | 566,599 | 671.291 | 768.784 | 900.946 | 995.384 | 915.797 | 941,805 |
The volume of goods transported, shown as an example for the year 1908, accounted for:
| Express goods : | 2,105 tons |
| Freight : | 62,686 tons |
| Freight truck loads : | 268,585 tons |
| Live animals : | 13,348 tons |
| Director's goods: | 1,455 tons |
Baggage handling
The half-baggage cars per train, always two, were lined up at the start and end of the train. The luggage compartment equipped with sliding doors was always facing outwards. Although only the one in front, running directly behind the locomotive, was used as such, this meant that full luggage wagons and the time-consuming maneuvering of them in the turning stations were no longer required. Nevertheless, individual trains ran with an additional full baggage car of a different design than the eleventh car, for example in local traffic on the Franz-Josefs-Bahn.
Initially, it was planned to offer baggage drop-off at all light rail stations. However, this was not implemented because it would have involved a lot of personnel. Therefore, and in order not to unnecessarily extend travel times, baggage handling was only possible in the main customs office, Heiligenstadt and Hütteldorf-Hacking junction stations as well as at all stations on the suburban line, according to another source only in the Gersthof, Hernals and Ottakring stations. In addition, luggage was only accepted until 9:00 a.m. In the first eleven years of operation, baggage transport developed as follows:
| 1898 | 1899 | 1900 | 1901 | 1902 | 1903 | 1904 | 1905 | 1906 | 1907 | 1908 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baggage transported in tons: | 60 | 256 | 591 | 707 | 905 | 900 | 243 | 134 | 133 | 230 | 571 |
| Income in Austrian crowns: | 1,706 | 4,402 | 6,525 | 7,239 | 8,570 | 9,288 | 10,276 | 10,804 | 13,910 | 15,387 | 16,033 |
The operator issued special luggage stamps for luggage transport. It cost 0.4 Heller per kilometer and weighs ten kilograms, with hand luggage free. The bicycles were excluded from the light rail, dogs were taken for consideration. In 1903, the Imperial and Royal Railway Ministry also allowed passengers on Vienna's urban and connecting railways to take "cleaned" snowshoes with them in the last car of each train, for which a special 20 Heller ski pass had to be purchased.
Station service and passenger handling
A servant was assigned to each directional platform to maintain order and to instruct the travelers in the stations of the steam light rail, but he was not involved in handling the train. The same applied to the two actual station officials, who had the rank of sub-official . One of them acted as the station director while the other took over the field service on the platform.
The train crew, however, was solely responsible for handling the train. The train driver responsible for the punctual departure in the first car behind the locomotive, who was also a subordinate, first gave a signal to sit down with his whistle . Out of the final brakes in the last car use said Schaffner , known as Stockmann , with a horn shock , then turn the train operator with a differently tuned horn to Abfahrauftrag to the engine driver given. This method was chosen soon after the opening of the light rail system because the optical departure signal used initially led to problems. The reason for this was the partially sharply curved tram stations in which the conductor and train driver could not see each other.
From 1912 command staffs were then in use, with their introduction the stick man as a second train attendant could be saved. Including the stoker , every light rail train was now only manned by three railway workers. In this regard, too, the Viennese Stadtbahn copied its Berlin model one more time.
A seat instruction by the service personnel did not take place at the tram, the boarding passengers were expressly requested to let the disembarking go ahead.
Passenger information
The passenger information carried in the steam rail station platform side mainly by stationary train destination displays . These were mechanically fold-out metal signs in the manner of a signal arm, which indicated the respective train destination - elsewhere also called jumping jacks . An additional sign with the inscription "HERE HÄLT DIE II. CLASSE" in the middle of the platform indicated the expected stopping position of the upholstered class. However, on the steam light rail, there was neither a call up of the trains in the waiting rooms nor a call out of the station names and the length of stay, in this detail too there was an analogy to the Berlin model.
Another special feature of the steam light rail , again based on the Berlin model from 1882, were the train destination signs on the smoke chamber door and on the tender of the locomotives. Originally, as in Germany, it was a single-line panel. But Vienna soon switched to three-line boards, consisting of a large sign and two to three small supplementary signs. The staff no longer had to handle the heavy, large signs at each terminus, but only had to hang the small signs around. In addition to the destination, the new boards also indicated the route, typical signs were, for example, via the Donaukanallinie-Wientallinie to Hütteldorf-H. , via the belt line-Wiental line to Hütteldorf-H. or to Hütteldorf-Hacking via the suburban line . On the other hand, upside-down target boards indicated that these are invalid, which was done, for example, with freight trains. In addition to the locomotives, two cars also had train route signs.
Historical guide in Hietzing
Different destination signs of the steam light rail, in the first five lines the original single-line version, including the modified three-line version
Illustrated guide on the lines of the Wiener Stadtbahn , published around 1905 by the book and art print shop Steyrermühl
reception
Viennese light rail game
In 1910, the Viennese publishing house created the so-called Viennese light rail game for A. Pichler's widow and son as part of its “Heimatkundliche parlor games” series . This was a dice game for six people, which developed into the company's most famous board games. In the course of the board game , the players planned an excursion to well-known destinations in the city, the details of which could be found on the corresponding chromolithographic overview plan with all lines of the Vienna city railway and connecting railway. The foldable card was 61 by 83 centimeters in size, and its six segments were connected on the back by strips of linen. The numbered excursion destinations included, for example, the Bisamberg , the Franz-Josefs-Land, the Gloriette in Schönbrunn , the Jubiläumswarte at Ottakring , the K. uk artillery arsenal, the municipal pool, the Leopoldsberg , Neustift am Walde , the dairy in the sky , the Tivoli dairy , the menagerie , the rotunda in the Prater , Salmannsdorf , the Satzberg , the Spinnerin am Kreuz , the Stephaniewarte and the Türkenschanzpark .
In order to get to the agreed meeting point from their virtual place of residence, the participants first had to pay with coin-like tokens , depending on the number of stations . Then, controlled by the eight-sided wooden game cube , we continued first by train and then on foot. For each game included six colorfully painted characters from tin , nine steam locomotives, 18 tour card with the image of the destination, 14 tickets and a six-page printed game manual . The attached whistle for the game master, however, had no technical function.
Around 1930 the game was then reissued taking into account the Viennese electric light rail, the publisher replacing the steam locomotives with electric railcars and the whistle with a conductor's tongs. From then on, a type N railcar was also depicted on the cover .
Stamp
On the occasion of the 110th anniversary of the steam light rail, the Austrian Post issued a special stamp on June 20, 2008 with a circulation of 500,000 copies. Designed by Peter Sinawehl postage stamps with a face value of 0.75 euros based on an engraving by Professor Gerhart Schmirl and was supported by the Austrian State Printing produced in combination printing. The motif shows a class 30 locomotive with two light rail cars in the Gumpendorfer Strasse station.
literature
- Alfred Horn: Wiener Stadtbahn. 90 years of light rail, 10 years of underground. Bohmann-Verlag, Vienna 1988, ISBN 3-7002-0678-X .
- Alfred Horn: 75 years of the Wiener Stadtbahn. Between the 30s and the Silver Arrow. Bohmann-Verlag, Vienna 1974, ISBN 3-7002-0415-9 .
- Günter Kolb: Otto Wagner and the Wiener Stadtbahn (= contributions to art history. Volume 29). Scaneg, Munich 1989, ISBN 3-89235-029-9 , (also: Munich, Univ., Diss., 1978).
- Hans Peter Pawlik, Josef Otto Slezak: Wagner's work for Vienna. Total work of art Stadtbahn (= International Archive for Locomotive History. Volume 44). Slezak, Vienna 1999, ISBN 3-85416-185-9 .
- The Viennese Stadtbahn since its existence from 1898 to 1908 , edited by the Imperial and Royal Ministry of Railways, printing and publishing of the Imperial and Royal Court and State Printing Office, Vienna 1909.
- Harald Marincig: The Vienna light rail. Publication: Wiener Stadtwerke-Verkehrsbetriebe, Public Relations Department, Tram Museum Department. 1998.
- Harald Helml: Stadtbahn and U-Bahn in Vienna. On the history of a delayed means of mass transport. Thesis. Vienna 2011, ( available online on the website of the University Library of the University of Vienna )
- Erich Schlöss: The Vienna light rail. Wiental- und Donaukanallinie (= contributions to urban research, urban development and urban design. Volume 19). Magistrate, Vienna 1987. ( online )
- Alfred Fogarassy (Ed.): Otto Wagner. The Wiener Stadtbahn (with photographs by Nora Schoeller), Hatje Cantz publishing house, Berlin 2017.
- Sándor Békési, Johannes Hradecky: The Otto Wagner Year and the Vienna Light Rail. Transport history notes on the double anniversary, in: Wiener Geschichtsblätter, 73 (2018) 4, pp. 273–299.
Web links
Individual evidence
- ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Wiener Stadtbahn. In: Viktor von Röll (ed.): Encyclopedia of the Railway System . 2nd Edition. Volume 10: Transitional bridges - intermediate station . Urban & Schwarzenberg, Berlin / Vienna 1923, p. 396 ff.
- ^ The Wiener Stadtbahn since its existence from 1898 to 1908 , edited in the kk Eisenbahnministerium, printing and publishing house of the kk Hof- und Staatsdruckerei, Vienna 1909, p. 4.
- ^ A b c Alfred Wolf: 9 ways in the 9th district - overview from the subway. On: austria-forum.org. Retrieved October 9, 2017.
- ^ Journal of the Austrian Association of Engineers and Architects, year 1894, number 9, pp. 119–121.
- ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u Neue Wiener Vorortelinie . Brochure on the recommissioning of the suburban line in 1987, published by the Austrian Federal Railways and the Verkehrsverbund Ost-Region , unpaginated, Vienna 1987.
- ↑ a b c d e f g h i Roland Tusch: The Wiener Stadtbahn. In: Denkmail. News from the Monument Protection Initiative, number 10, February – March 2012, ISSN 2219-2417 , pp. 27–28.
- ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak Arthur Oelwein: Die Stadtbahn. In: Vienna at the beginning of the XX. Century - a leader in a technical and artistic direction. published by the Austrian Association of Engineers and Architects, edited by engineer Paul Kortz Stadtbaurat, first volume, Vienna 1905, published by Gerlach & Wiedling, Vienna, pp. 110–122.
- ↑ Peter Ryborz: Unter Wien 2 - Keller, Grüfte and G'scherte. P. 139.
- ↑ a b Stadtbahn in the Vienna History Wiki of the City of Vienna
- ↑ Berlin light rail. In: Viktor von Röll (ed.): Encyclopedia of the Railway System . 2nd Edition. Volume 2: Building Design - Brazil . Urban & Schwarzenberg, Berlin / Vienna 1912, p. 246 .
- ↑ a b Harald Helml: Stadtbahn and U-Bahn in Vienna. On the history of a delayed means of mass transport. Vienna 2011, p. 4 ( available online on the website of the University Library of the University of Vienna )
- ^ The Viennese light rail question. In: Schweizerische Bauzeitung . Volume 16/17, issue number 4, Zurich, January 28, 1882, pp. 45–49.
- ↑ a b c d e f g h i The Vienna light rail system. In: Schweizerische Bauzeitung . Volume 39/40, issue number 5, Zurich, February 1, 1902, pp. 20-22.
- ^ Harald Helml: Stadtbahn and U-Bahn in Vienna. On the history of a delayed means of mass transport. Vienna 2011, p. 22 ( available online on the website of the University Library of the University of Vienna )
- ↑ RGBl. No. 109/1892 (= p. 621 ff.)
- ↑ Dr. Ignaz Konta: On the railway history of Austria , Chapter VI, further consolidation of the state railway system until 1892, local railway issue, Viennese light rail, infrastructural expansion etc. online at obergger2.org, accessed on February 1, 2018
- ↑ a b c The Wiener Stadtbahn since its existence from 1898 to 1908 , edited in the kk Eisenbahnministerium, printing and publishing house of the kk Hof- und Staatsdruckerei, Vienna 1909, p. 2.
- ↑ a b Harald Marincig: 60 Years of the Vienna Electric City Railways 1925–1985 , Wiener Stadtwerke - Verkehrsbetriebe, Vienna 1985, p. 3
- ↑ a b c d e f operating facilities of the Vienna Stadtbahn (second part), In: Zentralblatt der Bauverwaltung . Year 1899, number 13, pp. 76–79.
- ↑ a b c d e f g h i j Journal of the Austrian Association of Engineers and Architects. Year 1897, number 2, pp. 17–26.
- ↑ a b c d e f g h Alfred Horn: Wiener Stadtbahn. 90 years of light rail, 10 years of underground. Bohmann-Verlag, Vienna 1988, ISBN 3-7002-0678-X , p. 24.
- ^ A b c Journal of the Austrian Association of Engineers and Architects, year 1897, number 1, pp. 1–29.
- ↑ a b Manfred Wehdorn: The inclusion of the former Viennese light rail lines in the route network of the underground system and the Austrian Federal Railways from a monument conservation point of view. Pp. 35-42.
- ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o The Vienna City Railway and its high-rise buildings (first part), In: Zentralblatt der Bauverwaltung . Year 1898, number 16, pp. 182–183.
- ↑ History of the St. Johannes Nepomuk Chapel on johanneskapelle.at, accessed on December 12, 2017
- ↑ A story of two cities on club.wien.at, accessed on September 29, 2018
- ↑ a b c d e f g h Hugo Koestler: The Vienna light rail. In: Hermann Strach: History of the railways of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy. For the fiftieth anniversary of the reign of his imperial and royal apostolic majesty Franz Joseph I. Vol. 1, 2, magnificent edition. Prochaska, Vienna 1898, pp. 426-466.
- ^ Alfred Horn: 75 years of the Vienna light rail. "Between the 30s Bock and the Silver Arrow". Bohmann-Verlag, Vienna 1974, ISBN 3-7002-0415-9 , p. 34.
- ↑ Steam tramway in the Vienna History Wiki of the City of Vienna
- ^ Alfred Horn: 75 years of the Vienna light rail. "Between the 30s Bock and the Silver Arrow". Bohmann-Verlag, Vienna 1974, ISBN 3-7002-0415-9 , p. 19.
- ↑ Manfred Wehdorn and Ute Georgeacopol-Winischhofer: Monuments of technology and industry in Austria. Part 1: Vienna, Lower Austria, Burgenland. Böhlau, Vienna 1984, p. 30.
- ↑ a b c d e f g h i The Viennese light rail. In: The water supply as well as the systems of the municipal electricity works, the Vienna river regulation, the main collecting canals, the light rail and the regulation of the Danube canal in Vienna. On behalf of Mayor Dr. Karl Lueger worked on from the city building authority. Vienna 1901. Self-published by the Vienna City Council. Printed by Paul Gerin, Vienna. Chapter IV, pp. 227-243.
- ↑ a b Harald Helml: Stadtbahn and U-Bahn in Vienna. On the history of a delayed means of mass transport. Vienna 2011, p. 29 ( available online on the website of the University Library of the University of Vienna )
- ^ Andreas Lehne, Stefan Oláh: Stadtbahnbogen. Metroverlag, Vienna 2012, ISBN 978-3-99300-085-1 , p. 12.
- ^ A b Albert Milde, imperial and royal court art building fitter and iron constructor in Vienna: Iron girder bridges of the Vienna City Railway, 1897–1914 , online at albertmilde.com, accessed on February 25, 2018
- ^ A b Alfred Horn: 75 years of the Vienna light rail. "Between the 30s Bock and the Silver Arrow". Bohmann-Verlag, Vienna 1974, ISBN 3-7002-0415-9 , p. 56.
- ↑ Reminder plaque at the Alser Straße station.
- ^ A b Technical article: Vienna, Stadtbahn. On: Moderne-regional.de. Retrieved October 31, 2017.
- ^ Hans Peter Pawlik, Josef Otto Slezak: Wagner's work for Vienna. Total work of art Stadtbahn (= International Archive for Locomotive History. Volume 44). Slezak, Vienna 1999, ISBN 3-85416-185-9 , p. 48
- ↑ a b c The Wiener Stadtbahn since its existence from 1898 to 1908 , edited in the kk Eisenbahnministerium, printing and publishing house of the kk Hof- und Staatsdruckerei, Vienna 1909, page 3.
- ^ Harald Helml: Stadtbahn and U-Bahn in Vienna. On the history of a delayed means of mass transport. Vienna 2011, p. 27 ( available online on the website of the University Library of the University of Vienna )
- ^ A b Ordinance sheet for railways and shipping, edited in the kk Ministry of Railways in agreement with the kk Ministry of Commerce, sixteenth year, Vienna 1903, p. 1294.
- ↑ a b c d e f g h i Alfred Horn: Wiener Stadtbahn. 90 years of light rail, 10 years of underground. Bohmann-Verlag, Vienna 1988, ISBN 3-7002-0678-X , p. 26.
- ↑ Schlöss, p. 17.
- ↑ a b c d Alfred Horn: 75 years of the Vienna light rail. "Between the 30s Bock and the Silver Arrow". Bohmann-Verlag, Vienna 1974, ISBN 3-7002-0415-9 , p. 80.
- ^ A b Alfred Horn: 75 years of the Vienna light rail. "Between the 30s Bock and the Silver Arrow". Bohmann-Verlag, Vienna 1974, ISBN 3-7002-0415-9 , pp. 60-68.
- ↑ Harald Marincig: 60 Years of the Vienna Electric City Railways 1925–1985 , Wiener Stadtwerke - Verkehrsbetriebe, Vienna 1985, p. 4
- ^ Alfred Horn: 75 years of the Vienna light rail. "Between the 30s Bock and the Silver Arrow". Bohmann-Verlag, Vienna 1974, ISBN 3-7002-0415-9 , p. 121.
- ↑ Martin Ortner, Franz Straka: The Vienna Light Rail - With the GD and WD through Vienna . Publishing house Railway-Media-Group, Vienna 2019, ISBN 978-3-902894-65-6 , pp. 2–3.
- ^ A b Alfred Horn: 75 years of the Vienna light rail. "Between the 30s Bock and the Silver Arrow". Bohmann-Verlag, Vienna 1974, ISBN 3-7002-0415-9 , p. 119.
- ^ A b c Alfred Horn: 75 years of the Vienna light rail. "Between the 30s Bock and the Silver Arrow". Bohmann-Verlag, Vienna 1974, ISBN 3-7002-0415-9 , p. 120.
- ^ A b Alfred Horn: 75 years of the Vienna light rail. "Between the 30s Bock and the Silver Arrow". Bohmann-Verlag, Vienna 1974, ISBN 3-7002-0415-9 , p. 132.
- ^ New Wiener Tagblatt dated June 26, 1915: Female railway employees on the light rail
- ↑ a b Neue Freie Presse of May 18, 1921.
- ^ Harald Helml: Stadtbahn and U-Bahn in Vienna. On the history of a delayed means of mass transport. Vienna 2011, p. 77 ( available online on the website of the University Library of the University of Vienna )
- ↑ a b c d e f Alfred Horn: 75 years of the Vienna light rail system. "Between the 30s Bock and the Silver Arrow". Bohmann-Verlag, Vienna 1974, ISBN 3-7002-0415-9 , p. 133.
- ↑ a b c Michael Suda: Der Nordbahnhof on tramway.at, accessed on November 24, 2019.
- ^ Alfred Horn: 75 years of the Vienna light rail. "Between the 30s Bock and the Silver Arrow". Bohmann-Verlag, Vienna 1974, ISBN 3-7002-0415-9 , p. 134.
- ^ Harald Helml: Stadtbahn and U-Bahn in Vienna. On the history of a delayed means of mass transport. Vienna 2011, p. 67 ( available online on the website of the University Library of the University of Vienna )
- ↑ Robert Otzen: The solid construction: stone, concrete and reinforced concrete. Springer Verlag, 1926, pp. 463-465.
- ^ A b Hans Peter Pawlik, Josef Otto Slezak: Wagner's work for Vienna. Total work of art Stadtbahn (= International Archive for Locomotive History. Volume 44). Slezak, Vienna 1999, ISBN 3-85416-185-9 , p. 12
- ^ Alfred Horn: Wiener Stadtbahn. 90 years of light rail, 10 years of underground. Bohmann-Verlag, Vienna 1988, ISBN 3-7002-0678-X , p. 135.
- ^ Städtewerk: Das neue Wien. Elbemühl, Vienna, 1928, pp. 98–115.
- ↑ "The History of the Vienna Transport Company from 1903-1938". Diploma thesis by Markus Kaiser, Vienna, 2012, p. 81.
- ↑ Local history museum - commuters. On: purkersdorf-online.at. Retrieved October 9, 2017.
- ↑ Kursbuch 1944, timetable table 459e.
- ^ History of the railways of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy. VI. Volume by Hermann Strach: The Austrian Railway System in its General and Technical Development, 1898–1908. Pp. 417-418, Karl Prochaska Verlag, Vienna, 1908.
- ↑ a b Hygieia seduces Otto Wagner - examples of a hygienically motivated modern age. Master thesis by Alfred Angerer, Graz University of Technology, October 2015, p. 48.
- ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k l m Alfred Horn: 75 years of the Wiener Stadtbahn. "Between the 30s Bock and the Silver Arrow". Bohmann-Verlag, Vienna 1974, ISBN 3-7002-0415-9 , p. 71.
- ↑ a b c Ernst Freiherr von Nadherny: Memories from old Austria. Edited by Peter Panholzer and Christiane Reich-Rohrwig, Böhlau Verlag, p. 36.
- ↑ A “very first class” pavilion. Description of the Hietzing court pavilion on the website of the Federal Monuments Office, accessed on November 21, 2017.
- ↑ History of the Elisabeth Bridge Statues . On: viennatouristguide.at. Retrieved November 9, 2017.
- ^ Alfred Horn: Wiener Stadtbahn. 90 years of light rail, 10 years of underground. Bohmann-Verlag, Vienna 1988, ISBN 3-7002-0678-X , p. 23.
- ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k Sándor Békési, Johannes Hradecky: The Otto Wagner Year and the Vienna City Railroad - Notes on the history of traffic on the double anniversary. In: Wiener Geschichtsblätter , 73rd volume, issue 4/2018, pp. 273–299.
- ↑ a b c d e f g h i j Christa Veigl: Otto Wagner's Stadtbahn was 100 years old this year. ( Memento from April 20, 2006 in the Internet Archive ). In: WienerZeitung.at , November 27, 1998.
- ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Alfred Horn: 75 years of the Wiener Stadtbahn. "Between the 30s Bock and the Silver Arrow". Bohmann-Verlag, Vienna 1974, ISBN 3-7002-0415-9 , p. 73.
- ^ A b Karl Heinrich Brunner: Urban development and express traffic. Springer-Verlag Vienna, 1955, p. 22.
- ↑ Mag. Ursula Malina-Gerum: Art Education - Subject Didactics II, Viennese Architecture before '45. P. 19.
- ^ Alfred Horn: 75 years of the Vienna light rail. "Between the 30s Bock and the Silver Arrow". Bohmann-Verlag, Vienna 1974, ISBN 3-7002-0415-9 , p. 79.
- ↑ a b c Harald Helml: Stadtbahn and U-Bahn in Vienna. On the history of a delayed means of mass transport. Vienna 2011, p. 36 ( available online on the website of the University Library of the University of Vienna )
- ^ A b c d e Alfred Horn: 75 years of the Vienna light rail. "Between the 30s Bock and the Silver Arrow". Bohmann-Verlag, Vienna 1974, ISBN 3-7002-0415-9 , p. 72.
- ^ Vienna at the beginning of the XX. Century - a guide in the technical and artistic direction , published by the Austrian Association of Engineers and Architects, edited by engineer Paul Kortz Stadtbaurat, first volume, Vienna 1905, published by Gerlach & Wiedling, Vienna, p. 84.
- ↑ a b c d e f g Alfred Horn: 75 years of the Wiener Stadtbahn. "Between the 30s Bock and the Silver Arrow". Bohmann-Verlag, Vienna 1974, ISBN 3-7002-0415-9 , p. 78.
- ^ Alfred Horn: Wiener Stadtbahn. 90 years of light rail, 10 years of underground. Bohmann-Verlag, Vienna 1988, ISBN 3-7002-0678-X , p. 67.
- ^ The Wiener Stadtbahn since its existence from 1898 to 1908 , edited in the kk Eisenbahnministerium, printing and publishing house of the kk Hof- und Staatsdruckerei, Vienna 1909, p. 12.
- ^ Alfred Horn: 75 years of the Vienna light rail. "Between the 30s Bock and the Silver Arrow". Bohmann-Verlag, Vienna 1974, ISBN 3-7002-0415-9 , p. 77.
- ^ Harald Helml: Stadtbahn and U-Bahn in Vienna. On the history of a delayed means of mass transport. Vienna 2011, p. 50 ( available online on the website of the University Library of the University of Vienna )
- ^ Vienna at the beginning of the XX. Century - a guide in the technical and artistic direction , published by the Austrian Association of Engineers and Architects, edited by engineer Paul Kortz Stadtbaurat, first volume, Vienna 1905, published by Gerlach & Wiedling, Vienna, p. 83.
- ^ Ludwig Ritter von Stockert: Handbuch des Eisenbahnmaschinenwesens. Second volume, Zugförderung , Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg GmbH, 1908, pp. 733, 745 and 769
- ^ Harald Helml: Stadtbahn and U-Bahn in Vienna. On the history of a delayed means of mass transport. Vienna 2011, p. 191 ( available online on the website of the University Library of the University of Vienna )
- ↑ The Wiener Stadtbahn since its existence from 1898 to 1908 , edited by the Imperial and Royal Ministry of Railways, printing and publishing of the Imperial and Royal Court and State Printing Office, Vienna 1909, p. 14.
- ↑ a b Carl Hochenegg, project on the electrification of the rapid transit system in Vienna, pp. 729–734 in: Elektrotechnik und Maschinenbau, Zeitschrift des Elektrotechnisches Verein in Wien, Volume 41, Issue 51, Vienna, December 23, 1923.
- ↑ a b c d e f The Vienna City Railways. In: Schweizerische Bauzeitung . Volume 39/40, issue number 6, Zurich, February 8, 1902, pp. 55–60.
- ↑ a b c The Wiener Stadtbahn - Otto Wagner's most famous work. ( Memento from November 7, 2017 in the Internet Archive ) On: 1020-wien.at. Retrieved November 2, 2017.
- ↑ Stadtbahnbögen: From Otto Wagner to today on orf.at
- ↑ The Wiener Stadtbahn since its existence from 1898 to 1908 , edited by the Imperial and Royal Ministry of Railways, printing and publishing company of the Imperial and Royal Court and State Printing Office, Vienna 1909, p. 5.
- ↑ a b c d e f g Siegmund Kulka: Bridges of the Stadtbahn and the Imperial and Royal State Railways. In: Vienna at the beginning of the XX. Century - a leader in a technical and artistic direction. published by the Austrian Association of Engineers and Architects, edited by engineer Paul Kortz Stadtbaurat, first volume, Vienna 1905, published by Gerlach & Wiedling, Vienna, pp. 288–299.
- ↑ Ministerialrat Dipl-Ing. V. Schützenhofer: Leaves for the history of technology, Volume 10, p. 76.
- ↑ a b c d route 120 01, Vienna Brigittenau - Vienna Hütteldorf (suburban line). On: eisenbahntunnel.at.
- ↑ Schlöss, pp. 3–4.
- ↑ a b Schlöss, p. 14.
- ↑ a b c d Dieter Klein, Martin Kupf, Robert Schediwy: Stadtbildverluste Wien. A look back over five decades. LIT-Verlag, Vienna 2005.
- ↑ Not because of "Otto Wagner Green": It was white! , Article in Die Presse on April 11, 2018, p. 9
- ↑ a b The Wiener Stadtbahn since its existence from 1898 to 1908 , edited in the kk Eisenbahnministerium, printing and publishing house of the kk Hof- und Staatsdruckerei, Vienna 1909, p. 6.
- ^ The Vienna City Railway and its buildings (second part), In: Zentralblatt der Bauverwaltung . Year 1898, number 17, pp. 193–196.
- ↑ Alexandra Lauber: Otto Wagner's legacy. In: Wiener Zeitung. March 14, 2016. (wienerzeitung.at , accessed on January 25, 2018.)
- ↑ a b c d e f The Viennese light rail and its buildings (third part), In: Zentralblatt der Bauverwaltung . Year 1898, number 18, pp. 205–208.
- ↑ a b c Mag. Aleksander Narloch: The Development of the Railway in Vienna, Vienna Railway Stations from 1837 to 2000, an overview , seminar work within the framework of the lecture series "Architecture and Environmental Design", Vienna 1996, p. 23.
- ^ Alfred Horn: Wiener Stadtbahn. 90 years of light rail, 10 years of underground. Bohmann-Verlag, Vienna 1988, ISBN 3-7002-0678-X , p. 38.
- ↑ Schlöss, p. 13.
- ↑ Otto Wagner: From the early days to the Bauhaus on planet-wissen.de, accessed on November 26, 2017
- ↑ Georg Rigele: What the Viennese use - trams and other public transport from 1945 to the present , p. 115, online at studienverlag.at, accessed on January 29, 2019
- ↑ BilderBuchBogen - Stadtbahn - Strassenbahn 560: Otto Wagner - Stadtbahn Architektur, Railway-Media-Group, ISBN 978-3-902894-73-1 , p. 90
- ^ Friedrich Hauer: The consumption tax 1829–1913 as the basis of an environmental historical study of the metabolism of the city of Vienna , Vienna, December 2010
- ↑ stations of the light rail. In: Lehmann's general housing indicator, edition 1914, volume 1, Alfred Hölder, Vienna, December 1913, p. 92 (digitized: p. 132).
- ^ Alfred Horn: 75 years of the Vienna light rail. "Between the 30s Bock and the Silver Arrow". Bohmann-Verlag, Vienna 1974, ISBN 3-7002-0415-9 , p. 293.
- ^ Hans Peter Pawlik, Josef Otto Slezak: Wagner's work for Vienna. Total work of art Stadtbahn (= International Archive for Locomotive History. Volume 44). Slezak, Vienna 1999, ISBN 3-85416-185-9 , p. 107
- ^ Hans Peter Pawlik, Josef Otto Slezak: Wagner's work for Vienna. Total work of art Stadtbahn (= International Archive for Locomotive History. Volume 44). Slezak, Vienna 1999, ISBN 3-85416-185-9 , cover
- ^ Alfred Horn: 75 years of the Vienna light rail. "Between the 30s Bock and the Silver Arrow". Bohmann-Verlag, Vienna 1974, ISBN 3-7002-0415-9 , pp. 15 and 19.
- ↑ Schlöss, p. 11.
- ^ Harald Helml: Stadtbahn and U-Bahn in Vienna. On the history of a delayed means of mass transport. Vienna 2011, p. 34 ( available online on the website of the University Library of the University of Vienna )
- ^ Otto Wagner green: The Vienna light rail. On: bda.gv.at. Retrieved October 10, 2017.
- ↑ Johannes Luxner: Sehgewohnheiten und Reality , article from December 30, 2017 on orf.at, accessed on March 22, 2018
- ↑ a b Schlöss, p. 7.
- ↑ Schlöss, p. 48.
- ↑ Otto Wagner Pavillon Karlsplatz on wienmuseum.at, accessed on December 19, 2017
- ^ Kk Oberbaurath Victor Schützenhofer: The operating resources of the Viennese light rail. - I. The locomotive. In: Journal of the Austrian Association of Engineers and Architects, year 1897, number 38, pp. 541–544.
- ^ A b c Alfred Horn: 75 years of the Vienna light rail. "Between the 30s Bock and the Silver Arrow". Bohmann-Verlag, Vienna 1974, ISBN 3-7002-0415-9 , p. 81.
- ^ Hans Peter Pawlik, Josef Otto Slezak: Wagner's work for Vienna. Total work of art Stadtbahn (= International Archive for Locomotive History. Volume 44). Slezak, Vienna 1999, ISBN 3-85416-185-9 , p. 141
- ^ Harald Helml: Stadtbahn and U-Bahn in Vienna. On the history of a delayed means of mass transport. Vienna 2011, p. 33 ( available online on the website of the University Library of the University of Vienna )
- ^ A b Alfred Horn: 75 years of the Vienna light rail. "Between the 30s Bock and the Silver Arrow". Bohmann-Verlag, Vienna 1974, ISBN 3-7002-0415-9 , p. 84.
- ^ Alfred Horn: 75 years of the Vienna light rail. "Between the 30s Bock and the Silver Arrow". Bohmann-Verlag, Vienna 1974, ISBN 3-7002-0415-9 , p. 91.
- ↑ a b c d Alfred Horn: 75 years of the Vienna light rail. "Between the 30s Bock and the Silver Arrow". Bohmann-Verlag, Vienna 1974, ISBN 3-7002-0415-9 , p. 89.
- ↑ Stadtbahnwaggon Cu 9424 on bauforum.at, accessed on November 28, 2017
- ↑ a b c d K.k. Oberbaurath Victor Schützenhofer: The operating resources of the Viennese light rail. - II. Car of the Vienna light rail. In: Journal of the Austrian Association of Engineers and Architects, year 1897, number 39, pp. 549–553.
- ^ Alfred Horn: 75 years of the Vienna light rail. "Between the 30s Bock and the Silver Arrow". Bohmann-Verlag, Vienna 1974, ISBN 3-7002-0415-9 , p. 88.
- ↑ Passenger car of the Stadtbahn III. Class. On: technischesmuseum.at. Retrieved October 4, 2017.
- ^ Alfred Horn: 75 years of the Vienna light rail. "Between the 30s Bock and the Silver Arrow". Bohmann-Verlag, Vienna 1974, ISBN 3-7002-0415-9 , p. 69.
- ^ Alfred Horn: 75 years of the Vienna light rail. "Between the 30s Bock and the Silver Arrow". Bohmann-Verlag, Vienna 1974, ISBN 3-7002-0415-9 , p. 70.
- ↑ The Wiener Stadtbahn since its existence from 1898 to 1908 , edited by the Imperial and Royal Ministry of Railways, printing and publishing of the Imperial and Royal Court and State Printing House, Vienna 1909, p. 26.
- ^ A b Hans Peter Pawlik, Josef Otto Slezak: Wagner's work for Vienna. Total work of art Stadtbahn (= International Archive for Locomotive History. Volume 44). Slezak, Vienna 1999, ISBN 3-85416-185-9 , p. 30
- ^ DB Projekt Verkehrsbau GmbH (publisher): Berlin hub. Mushroom concept . 24-page brochure dated November 2001, p. 10 f.
- ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k l m operating facilities of the Vienna Stadtbahn (first part), In: Zentralblatt der Bauverwaltung . Year 1899, number 11, pp. 64–66.
- ^ Alfred Horn: 75 years of the Vienna light rail. "Between the 30s Bock and the Silver Arrow". Bohmann-Verlag, Vienna 1974, ISBN 3-7002-0415-9 , p. 294.
- ^ A b Hugo Koestler: The safety systems of the Viennese light rail. Alfred von Hölder-Verlag, Vienna 1903, pp. 16-18.
- ^ A b Alfred Horn: 75 years of the Vienna light rail. "Between the 30s Bock and the Silver Arrow". Bohmann-Verlag, Vienna 1974, ISBN 3-7002-0415-9 , pp. 294-295.
- ^ A b c Alfred Horn: Wiener Stadtbahn. 90 years of light rail, 10 years of underground. Bohmann-Verlag, Vienna 1988, ISBN 3-7002-0678-X , p. 291.
- ^ Alfred Horn: 75 years of the Vienna light rail. "Between the 30s Bock and the Silver Arrow". Bohmann-Verlag, Vienna 1974, ISBN 3-7002-0415-9 , p. 290.
- ^ A b Alfred Horn: 75 years of the Vienna light rail. "Between the 30s Bock and the Silver Arrow". Bohmann-Verlag, Vienna 1974, ISBN 3-7002-0415-9 , p. 292.
- ^ Alfred Horn: 75 years of the Vienna light rail. "Between the 30s Bock and the Silver Arrow". Bohmann-Verlag, Vienna 1974, ISBN 3-7002-0415-9 , pp. 293-294.
- ↑ a b The Wiener Stadtbahn since its existence from 1898 to 1908 , edited by the Imperial and Royal Ministry of Railways, printing and publishing of the Imperial and Royal Court and State Printing Office, Vienna 1909, pp. 9-10.
- ^ The Vienna light rail. Editor & publisher: Wiener Stadtwerke - Verkehrsbetriebe, Public Relations Department, Tram Museum Department, Vienna.
- ^ Alfred Horn: 75 years of the Vienna light rail. "Between the 30s Bock and the Silver Arrow". Bohmann-Verlag, Vienna 1974, ISBN 3-7002-0415-9 , p. 65.
- ↑ a b c d Alfred Horn: 75 years of the Vienna light rail. "Between the 30s Bock and the Silver Arrow". Bohmann-Verlag, Vienna 1974, ISBN 3-7002-0415-9 , p. 74.
- ^ The Viennese electric Stadtbahn by engineer Ludwig Spängler, director of the Viennese urban trams, special print from the Elektrotechnische Zeitschrift, issue 39, 1927, Julius Springer, Berlin ( digitized on Commons ).
- ↑ a b c d Hendschels Telegraph of May 1, 1914, Table 3016
- ↑ Hendschels Telegraph of May 1, 1914, Table 3023
- ↑ A look back at 130 years of the Eichgraben stop. On: noen.at. May 10, 2011, accessed November 23, 2019.
- ↑ a b c New Free Press . May 1, 1903, p. 20.
- ^ Peter Wegenstein: Multi-track railway lines in Austria. In: Eisenbahnverkehr aktuell, April 1991, p. 7
- ↑ Kahlenbergerdorfer Anniversaries. On: kahlenbergerdorf.at. Retrieved November 6, 2017.
- ↑ Excursions (in the vicinity of Vienna) in the Vienna History Wiki of the City of Vienna
- ^ Alfred Horn: 75 years of the Vienna light rail. "Between the 30s Bock and the Silver Arrow". Bohmann-Verlag, Vienna 1974, ISBN 3-7002-0415-9 , p. 55.
- ↑ See reports in the Neue Freie Presse of August 6 and 7, 1901.
- ↑ The conductor. Official cours book of the Austrian railways. Small edition , Verlag R. v. Waldheim, Vienna 1901 [Excerpts from special edition, magazine Der Spurkranz , Verlag Peter Pospischil, Vienna 1969, special issue 1]; P. 22 ff., Timetable 1b
- ^ Alfred Horn: Wiener Stadtbahn. 90 years of light rail, 10 years of underground. Bohmann-Verlag, Vienna 1988, ISBN 3-7002-0678-X , p. 137.
- ^ The Wiener Stadtbahn since its existence from 1898 to 1908 , edited by the Imperial and Royal Ministry of Railways, printing and publishing house of the Imperial and Royal Court and State Printing House, Vienna 1909, p. 13.
- ↑ Passenger traffic. In: Viktor von Röll (ed.): Encyclopedia of the Railway System . 2nd Edition. Volume 8: Passenger tunnel - Schynige Platte Railway . Urban & Schwarzenberg, Berlin / Vienna 1917, p. 5 ff.
- ↑ Personal tariffs . In: Viktor von Röll (ed.): Encyclopedia of the Railway System . 2nd Edition. Volume 7: Kronenbreite personal tariffs . Urban & Schwarzenberg, Berlin / Vienna 1915, p. 483 ff.
- ^ Austrian Railway Officials Association: History of the Railways of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. III. Volume, 1898, p. 163.
- ↑ a b c d e f g Advertisement for the Wiener Stadtbahn from 1902
- ↑ The light rail is getting more expensive. Introduction of a new tariff on the Vienna Stadtbahn and Vienna connecting railway. In: Illustrierte Kronen Zeitung . October 18, 1917, p. 5.
- ↑ a b Fremd-Blatt of November 18, 1917, page 46, online at digital.wienbibliothek.at, accessed on November 23, 2019
- ^ Ordinance sheet for railways and shipping, edited by the Imperial and Royal Ministry of Railways in agreement with the Imperial and Royal Ministry of Commerce, sixteenth year, Vienna 1903, pp. 154–155.
- ^ The Wiener Stadtbahn since its existence from 1898 to 1908 , edited in the kk Eisenbahnministerium, printing and publishing house of the kk Hof- und Staatsdruckerei, Vienna 1909, pp. 12-13.
- ↑ a b The Wiener Stadtbahn since its existence from 1898 to 1908 , edited by the Imperial and Royal Ministry of Railways, printing and publishing house of the Imperial and Royal Court and State Printing Office, Vienna 1909, p. 16.
- ^ A b Alfred Horn: 75 years of the Vienna light rail. "Between the 30s Bock and the Silver Arrow". Bohmann-Verlag, Vienna 1974, ISBN 3-7002-0415-9 , p. 62.
- ^ Alfred Horn: 75 years of the Vienna light rail. "Between the 30s Bock and the Silver Arrow". Bohmann-Verlag, Vienna 1974, ISBN 3-7002-0415-9 , p. 58.
- ^ Operating facilities of the Vienna Stadtbahn (third part), In: Zentralblatt der Bauverwaltung . Year 1899, number 15, pp. 85–86.
- ^ Hans Peter Pawlik, Josef Otto Slezak: Wagner's work for Vienna. Total work of art Stadtbahn (= International Archive for Locomotive History. Volume 44). Slezak, Vienna 1999, ISBN 3-85416-185-9 , p. 10
- ^ A b Hans Peter Pawlik, Josef Otto Slezak: Wagner's work for Vienna. Total work of art Stadtbahn (= International Archive for Locomotive History. Volume 44). Slezak, Vienna 1999, ISBN 3-85416-185-9 , p. 139
- ↑ a b c d The Wiener Stadtbahn since its existence from 1898 to 1908 , edited in the kk Eisenbahnministerium, printing and publishing house of the kk Hof- und Staatsdruckerei, Vienna 1909, p. 17.
- ^ Hans Peter Pawlik, Josef Otto Slezak: Wagner's work for Vienna. Total work of art Stadtbahn (= International Archive for Locomotive History. Volume 44). Slezak, Vienna 1999, ISBN 3-85416-185-9 , p. 70
- ↑ a b The Wiener Stadtbahn since its existence from 1898 to 1908 , edited by the Imperial and Royal Ministry of Railways, printing and publishing house of the Imperial and Royal Court and State Printing Office, Vienna 1909, p. 18.
- ^ Hans Peter Pawlik, Josef Otto Slezak: Wagner's work for Vienna. Total work of art Stadtbahn (= International Archive for Locomotive History. Volume 44). Slezak, Vienna 1999, ISBN 3-85416-185-9 , p. 138
- ^ A b Hans Peter Pawlik, Josef Otto Slezak: Wagner's work for Vienna. Total work of art Stadtbahn (= International Archive for Locomotive History. Volume 44). Slezak, Vienna 1999, ISBN 3-85416-185-9 , p. 147
- ↑ Pioneering spirit and superlatives in mountain sports - milestones of the Austrian Tourist Club on oetk.at, accessed on November 23, 2019
- ↑ a b command staff. In: Viktor von Röll (ed.): Encyclopedia of the Railway System . 2nd Edition. Volume 2: Building Design - Brazil . Urban & Schwarzenberg, Berlin / Vienna 1912, p. 105 ff.
- ↑ The railwaymen: Zentalorgan of railway workers in the Austrian Trade Union Federation , Volume 19, Issue number 31 of November 1, 1911 p 10
- ^ Alfred Horn: 75 years of the Vienna light rail. "Between the 30s Bock and the Silver Arrow". Bohmann-Verlag, Vienna 1974, ISBN 3-7002-0415-9 , p. 63.
- ^ Hans Peter Pawlik, Josef Otto Slezak: Wagner's work for Vienna. Total work of art Stadtbahn (= International Archive for Locomotive History. Volume 44). Slezak, Vienna 1999, ISBN 3-85416-185-9 , p. 142
- ↑ Vienna's long way to the game board , article in Die Presse from November 8, 2013, online at diepresse.com, accessed on November 8, 2019
- ↑ Wiener Stadtbahnspiel on viennaboardgames.wordpress.com, accessed on November 8, 2019
- ↑ Object September 2010 - Wiener Stadtbahnspiel. Complete dice game in the original edition. Vienna, Pichler's Wwe., (Around 1900). In an illustrated original case. online at antiquariat-donhofer.at, accessed on November 10, 2019
- ↑ Post.Philatelie , June 2008 edition, page V, online at post.at, accessed on December 2, 2019
