Just like it says, if steam engines don't become commercially effective until a few decades later, how extensive does the US canal transport network become? Where can, and more importantly, can't it reach?
No steam, how extensive is US canal network?
- Thread starter Escape Zeppelin
- Start date
Not always. For instance, there are power canals that divert water from a river and channel it through turbines for industrial purposes.
especially east of the Mississippi the USA has tremendous potential for river transport. There are lots of areas where canal interconnections are quite doable, a many connections that would be useful don't require dealing with substantial mountain ranges to make those connections. Using the Great Lakes you can connect to the Mississippi River system (through Chicago) or the Wisconsin River and thence to the Upper Mississippi (through Milwaukee area) that are easily as doable as the Erie Canal. The Mississippi is navigable up to Minneapolis/St Paul. Also, using the Ohio System you can then have some north/south canals to others. This can go around the flank of the Appalachians, canals through them would be a real issue.
Grey Wolf
Donor
Would you need much of that without steam? I know you have watermills etc, but you already had those for the mostpart
What other kind of energy are you going harness absent of steam in the time period of the 1800s?
Thats why most industry in this country was centered around rivers. Steam was a game changer that let you burn coal and harness the energy required by industry. Now factories could be located anywhere.
Which useful canals were not built OTL, at least east of the Mississippi?
West of the Mississippi, though, there's huge amounts of potential, only limited by the late era of settlement. For instance, take the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System, which goes to outside Tulsa. You could have done that in an earlier era. The Trinity River in Texas could have been made navigable up to the Dallas area. I'm not sure how big a canal system in Texas could go--once again, the late date of settlement is a huge impediment. The Osage River in Central Missouri likewise could've been made navigable. Are there any other good candidates for canals west of the Mississippi?
The biggest, of course, is the Missouri River, which I believe with significant infrastructure could be made reliably navigable up to Great Falls. Unfortunately, the economic situation for farming in much of the northern Great Plains limits the potential for major investment in the Missouri. And come to think of it, that's a problem for anything I've just mentioned. They are expensive projects with limited immediate benefit outside of the districts of a few congressmen. Pork barrel spending at its best.
The Mississippi is actually navigable as far north as St. Cloud, it's just there is no infrastructure to reliably allow that and nowadays dams on the northern Mississippi prevent any chance of that from happening.
West of the Mississippi, though, there's huge amounts of potential, only limited by the late era of settlement. For instance, take the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System, which goes to outside Tulsa. You could have done that in an earlier era. The Trinity River in Texas could have been made navigable up to the Dallas area. I'm not sure how big a canal system in Texas could go--once again, the late date of settlement is a huge impediment. The Osage River in Central Missouri likewise could've been made navigable. Are there any other good candidates for canals west of the Mississippi?
The biggest, of course, is the Missouri River, which I believe with significant infrastructure could be made reliably navigable up to Great Falls. Unfortunately, the economic situation for farming in much of the northern Great Plains limits the potential for major investment in the Missouri. And come to think of it, that's a problem for anything I've just mentioned. They are expensive projects with limited immediate benefit outside of the districts of a few congressmen. Pork barrel spending at its best.
The Mississippi is actually navigable as far north as St. Cloud, it's just there is no infrastructure to reliably allow that and nowadays dams on the northern Mississippi prevent any chance of that from happening.
I'm gonna bump this thread based on a few more thoughts.
So George Washington was a promoter of several canal companies. He promoted and was deeply involved with both the James River and Kanawha Canal as well as the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal. Both had the same point--linking the west with the east, beyond the Appalachian Mountains. Now, yes, both ran into difficulties, but if we both delay railroads a bit as well as have the federal government (and state governments) much more interested in canals, what could we achieve with these? Both have obvious potential, in that they'd be huge for Virginia (and Maryland/DC). Could they sever Virginia's link with the South even, and make a strong anti-secession movement that would rear its head anytime that idea came up?
And I propose the Tennessee-Tombigbee_Waterway as yet another canal that could have been built in earlier years, with important repercussions for the Deep South and Tennessee.
As for canals/river navigation projects which never happened, well, what could be done with the river network in northern Missouri and Iowa? From what I get it, some rivers have been canalised OTL, but it seems like much more human modification of those rivers could have been done.
Also, if the Trinity River could in theory (with political will) been made navigable up to Dallas or so, what about the other major Texas Rivers, the Colorado and the Brazos? The Brazos is (was?) apparently navigable as far inland as Washington-on-the-Brazos. How much further could that be if you modified the river?
So George Washington was a promoter of several canal companies. He promoted and was deeply involved with both the James River and Kanawha Canal as well as the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal. Both had the same point--linking the west with the east, beyond the Appalachian Mountains. Now, yes, both ran into difficulties, but if we both delay railroads a bit as well as have the federal government (and state governments) much more interested in canals, what could we achieve with these? Both have obvious potential, in that they'd be huge for Virginia (and Maryland/DC). Could they sever Virginia's link with the South even, and make a strong anti-secession movement that would rear its head anytime that idea came up?
And I propose the Tennessee-Tombigbee_Waterway as yet another canal that could have been built in earlier years, with important repercussions for the Deep South and Tennessee.
As for canals/river navigation projects which never happened, well, what could be done with the river network in northern Missouri and Iowa? From what I get it, some rivers have been canalised OTL, but it seems like much more human modification of those rivers could have been done.
Also, if the Trinity River could in theory (with political will) been made navigable up to Dallas or so, what about the other major Texas Rivers, the Colorado and the Brazos? The Brazos is (was?) apparently navigable as far inland as Washington-on-the-Brazos. How much further could that be if you modified the river?
Absent railways the wagon roads will develop as feeders & links in the canal system. Canals did not cross the Appalachians, but the National Road did. As with the Roman Empire a network f roads would develop to link economic nodes together.
unprincipled peter
Donor
the Mississippi River was not particularly navigable northward prior to the advent of steam. the flow was too great for sailing. the typical journey was float downstream, then go overland (typically the Natchez Trace) back north. Natchez was the realistic limit for upstream travel before steam.
Flow was typically an impediment to upstream travel. the canal I'm most familiar with, Erie Canal, often put a canal alongside a river because it was easier to pull a barge by mule on a canal than sail upstream, and the mules couldn't pull against current upstream.
Flow was typically an impediment to upstream travel. the canal I'm most familiar with, Erie Canal, often put a canal alongside a river because it was easier to pull a barge by mule on a canal than sail upstream, and the mules couldn't pull against current upstream.