• Journal of the Korean Society for Railway
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.151-162
• /
• 2013

This paper presents a comparison of Korean and Manchurian railway system during the Japanese colonial era of Korea. While both railways share the common characteristics of an imperial railway, they revealed several differences. Firstly, the Manchurian railway was likely a private company, although it was operated half privately and half by the government. The Manchurian railway operated like the East Indian Company in India during the English colonial era. On the other hand, the Korean railway was fully operated by the government at a ministry level. While the Korean railway solely concentrated on the railway, the Manchurian railway was involved in regional development and the coal-mining industry as well. Secondly, in contrast to the Korean railway, the Manchurian railway was more lucrative, and was relatively more predominant regarding carriage of freights. Thirdly, railway officers in Korea were elected government bureaucrats, while Manchurian railway officers came from diverse political parties and social strata. After the annexation by the Kwantung Army, the Manchurian railway was mainly influenced by the military. The common characteristic here was that both railways were utilized for military purposes as imperial railways. In partilcular, the Manchurian railway executed military orders directly. Hereafter, through a comparative study between the Japanese and Taiwanese railways, a clear and accurate understanding of the characteristics of the Korean railway during the Japanese era will be revealed.

• Journal of the Korean Society for Railway
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.157-165
• /
• 2015

At the end of the 19th and in the early 20th centuries, Japan, Korea, and Manchuria, and areas throughout East Asia, suffered a number of cycles of growth and development, for which the railway was a very important development tool and was closely associated with national policy. East Asian affairs, especially at the time, seemed very important to the continent, and their influence on the advance of this remarkable era was especially prominent in Japan. In the midst of this period, the national railway may have evolved under national policy and railway policy and under a variety of organizations and persons of influence. In this paper, we have tried to find the similarities and differences among the three countries that built the East Asia Railway; we consider the characteristics of the East Asia Railway from the perspectives of these three countries. Comparing the characteristics of the three country's railways, first, Japan had the motives of continental expansion and modernization in its pursuit of the railway; in Korea, the railway played the role of a continental rail link; and in Manchuria there was a tendency to pursue direct domination of the railway. Second, the Japanese applied their railway model to Korea; the Korean railway may have been in operation, but it was an extension of the railway of Japan. The railway in Manchuria showed a similar pattern to that which can be found in the state of Asian domination of Europe ; Japan showed aspects of dominance over the railway because it had experience running a private railway.