In the 19th to early 20th century, steel production was a crucial indicator of a country’s national strength. As the grain of industry, it could measure the scale of a country’s industrial and infrastructure construction. This was also the main reason why East Africa prioritized the steel industry in its industrial development plans.

As a major power, East Africa undeniably achieved remarkable results in many fields. However, the steel production figures reveal that East Africa’s industry still has a long way to go. Although East Africa ranks third or fourth in steel production, its per capita steel consumption is the lowest among the top-ranking countries.

This indicates that East Africa’s steel industry still has considerable room for growth in terms of scale. It also highlights the significant gap between East Africa’s current level of industrialization and that of advanced industrial nations. Therefore, during the second-phase plan, continuously increasing East Africa’s steel production capacity remains a constant goal.

Ernst concluded: "The steel industry provides the most basic raw materials for all industries, including railways, shipbuilding, automobile manufacturing, electrical equipment manufacturing, construction, engineering, and more, all requiring a large amount of steel. Hence, steel production is a key factor that constrains the development of other industries. During the accelerated industrialization phase, our steel enterprises must provide more steel production for national construction."

"Moreover, as times progress, East Africa also requires more specialized, high-quality, and diverse steel materials, which are particularly important for the development of emerging industries and national defense. Therefore, upgrading the steel industry must not only pursue quantity but also quality, striking a balance between quantity and quality, thereby promoting the rational development of the national steel industry."

Upon concluding the discussion on the direction of steel industry development, as per tradition, railway construction remained second. The Ministry of Railways summarized the national railway construction plan during the first-phase plan.

The Minister of Railways, Andre, stated: "Over the past thirty years, we have built approximately 150,000 kilometers of railways in total, of which 50,000 kilometers were completed during the first-phase plan. During this period, the speed of railway construction significantly accelerated, reaching an average of 10,000 kilometers per year."

"Globally, the railway construction situation is second only to the United States. Based on the data we have collected, the United States built over 10,000 kilometers of railway annually from 1880 to 1890."

"During our first-phase plan, the United States continued to perform strongly in railway construction, so our railway construction task remains arduous."

Putting aside the United States, this anomaly, East Africa’s railway construction is by no means inferior to that of any country. However, since the 20th century, East Africa is no longer satisfied with national comparisons, but rather regional comparisons.

Especially between North America and Europe, the world’s two largest railway networks, East Africa’s total railway mileage still ranks behind these regions as the world’s third-largest railway network.

Andre stated: "Our national territory is much larger than the United States and lacks the quality waterways like the Great Lakes or the Mississippi River, nor can it compare to Europe’s dense inland waterway network. So theoretically, our demand for railways should far exceed that of Europe and America."

"In our railway construction, the central and southern regions surpass the northern regions. The central region, including the West Coast and East Coast, is the area with the most developed economy and industry and the densest population. The southern region, due to its abundant mineral resources, has also constructed numerous railway lines."

This is normal; East Africa’s northern region is obviously inferior in terms of population, city density, economic development, or mineral resource distribution compared to other areas of East Africa. Therefore, the relatively sparse railway in the north is quite reasonable.

"Currently, in the northern region’s railway construction, apart from three mainline railways, there are only two important branch lines: one reaching the border between the Abyssinia Empire and our country, and another reaching the Nile River basin. Besides these, only the Northwest Somali area has a few secondary branch railways."

"However, the north possesses our longest land border, and with numerous northern countries, the situation is complex and intertwined. The lack of railway construction in the north poses significant security risks to East Africa’s national defense."

Andre’s comment was somewhat provoking for countries or colonies in East Africa’s northern region. As Africa’s only infrastructure fanatic, it’s safe to say that the transportation in the north, where railway construction is lacking according to Andre, cannot be compared to that of any other nations or colonies outside of East Africa on the African continent.

Among the neighboring countries, the most economically developed is Egypt, but Egypt has a very low demand for railways. Since Egypt’s core territory mainly stretches narrowly along the Nile River, it’s fair to say that constructing a railway along the Nile River essentially satisfies most of Egypt’s needs.

Primarily bordering East Africa is the Sultanate, which has no rail tracks within its borders. Given Egypt’s situation, other countries bordering East Africa only have meager railways, with just the Abyssinia Empire and the Southern German Kingdom having rail lines, and both countries’ railways are extensions of East Africa’s railway network outside its borders.

Based on historical context, even if East Africa’s railway did not develop further now, by the next century, little railway would be added across other African regions except for the North African region along the Mediterranean.

Thus, when Andre spoke of threatening national security, it should be understood in reverse; East Africa is the biggest threat to its surrounding countries and colonies.

Of course, national defense security requires caution; no one can be sure if East Africa’s neighbors might rise to power in the future, although this possibility is even lower than an alien invasion of Earth.

"To meet the northern region’s socio-economic development needs and national defense security requirements, during the second-phase plan, the Ministry of Railways plans to enhance railway construction in the northern region."

"Throughout the second-phase plan, our overall railway construction goal remains at 50,000 kilometers, meaning by the plan’s completion, the national railway will reach at least 200,000 kilometers."

"Additionally, certain railway lines will undergo optimization and upgrades, continuing the construction of the African continental bridge, linking the East and West Coasts and inland economic connections, stimulating regional industrial cooperation, and furthering East Africa’s industrialization process."

During the second-phase plan, East Africa’s railway construction still adopts a relatively conservative approach. After all, with the completion of the first-phase plan, East Africa’s industrial and infrastructure capabilities have significantly improved, completely capable of constructing more railways.

Though, even a conservative plan, in global terms, is only slightly more conservative than the railway companies in the United States; a 50,000-kilometer railway construction plan is almost akin to building another German railway.

And Germany is already Europe’s most developed railway country, considering East Africa’s railway construction situation, excluding some difficult-to-develop areas such as deserts in the Southwest and Northeast, tropical rainforests in the West, certain mountain ranges, and large lakes. When the second-phase plan is completed, the gap between East Africa and the entire European railway network will be almost negligible.

Furthermore, the internal situation of Europe’s railway network is complex. For example, Tsarist Russia and Nordic countries adopt different railway gauges, causing Europe’s railway mileage to be longer than East Africa’s, but the utilization efficiency may not be higher.

Of course, at present, East Africa’s total population and economy cannot compare to Europe as a whole, and economic development factors result in higher flow and logistics in Europe, meaning the economic benefits of Europe’s railway are undoubtedly higher than those of East Africa.

Europe’s population exceeds East Africa’s by more than four times, and East Africa’s landmass is also slightly larger than Europe’s. Coupled with the highly developed industries in many European countries, this ensures that East Africa’s railway revenue cannot compete with Europe in the short term.

In this era, only the United States can compete with Europe, yet even the United States holds a considerable gap with Europe as a whole, indicating that East Africa’s industrial development is still a long way off. Currently, East Africa can only compare with single European countries in terms of industry and national strength.