Leaving out the resounding question of why they would do this could the British have built a Canal connecting Lake Superior to the Hudson Bay in the 1850's to 1900?
pre 1900 Canal Between Lake Superior and the Hudson Bay
- Thread starter Virginia Liberal
- Start date
Skallagrim
Banned
You'd have to go Michipicoten - Wawa Lake - Hawk Lake - Hawk River - Whitefish Lake - Dog Lake - Crooked Lake - Missinaibi Lake - Missinaibi River - Moose River - James Bay.
I suppose it's theoretically possible, if you simply don't care about the absurd costs or the vast amount of people who will die trying to get it done. But it's completely insane to even try. Bypassing the difficult bits of the Missinaibi and Moose rivers and then laying a railtrack between Michipicoten and Missinaibi Lake would make more sense. And even that's insane.
I suppose it's theoretically possible, if you simply don't care about the absurd costs or the vast amount of people who will die trying to get it done. But it's completely insane to even try. Bypassing the difficult bits of the Missinaibi and Moose rivers and then laying a railtrack between Michipicoten and Missinaibi Lake would make more sense. And even that's insane.
Lusitania
Donor
Series of canals along Nelson River which links lake Winnipeg to Hudson Bay. Then several along Winnipeg River gets us to lake of woods.
Now several canals linking lake of woods and Lake Superior accomplished the task. Take a billion dollars at that time and couple hundred thousand lives.
First off thanks for someone taking the time to answer this silly question.
yeah that was the approach that jumped out to me too.
That had never occurred to me
I asked becasue in my planning to have Quebec gain independence which would close the St. Lawrence Seaway to the British, thusly this crazy idea popped into my head. but I think I'll mention it as a though study by someone in London and just have them Build a Railroad from Ontario to New England which is still affiliated with the BE in ttl. ( I will be cutting a strip out of Qubec Ny and Vermont via treaty to achieve this. )
Thank you all for the thoughts.
yeah that was the approach that jumped out to me too.
That had never occurred to me
I asked becasue in my planning to have Quebec gain independence which would close the St. Lawrence Seaway to the British, thusly this crazy idea popped into my head. but I think I'll mention it as a though study by someone in London and just have them Build a Railroad from Ontario to New England which is still affiliated with the BE in ttl. ( I will be cutting a strip out of Qubec Ny and Vermont via treaty to achieve this. )
Thank you all for the thoughts.
That is an interesting Idea would accomplish the task and open up more traffic to Great lakes traffic.
That is an Idea that I may use, and just looking on Google maps most of the needed Canals would be short, using the natural lakes in the area, Some may need to be dredged same for the Rivers involved.
You would need to give Canada a meglomaniac, somewhat insane, dictator who likes to do projects like this.
The Canadian Shield is also in the way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Shield
The Canadian Shield is also in the way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Shield
I have something similar (minus the Hudson Bay link) in a TL of mine. Go Lake Superior - St. Croix River (the Chippewa River might work too) - Mississippi River - Minnesota River - Red River - Lake Winnipeg. At that point you have the most usable portion complete since the Nelson River is full of rapids and can sail from New Orleans to Duluth to Winnipeg. Probably better than linking Lake Superior directly to Lake Winnipeg via the Rainy River - Lake of the Woods - Winnipeg River route.
Looking at some topo maps, going along the Lake Superior-Pigeon River-Boundary Waters-Rainy Lake/River then down doesn't seem too hard actually. The 800 feet elevation change from Lake Superior to Pigeon lakes source isn't exactly easy, but the Erie canal pulled off a total elevation change of 560 some feet, so the tech to do it is there. Still going to need locks on the way down to the Rainy River, and then probably some more down to the Lake of the Woods, but that opens up a huge area of the Minnesota-Ontario interior to travel to the Great Lakes. The lakes in the Boundary Waters are rather deep too, so you can get some pretty good sized ships on them if there was actually a way for them to get there. It wouldn't be a cheap proposition, but it seems doable.
Last edited:
I would say impossible. It cost Britain 800,000 pounds and took six years to do the Rideau, and that was a military and economic necessity which was only 200km long. What you're describing would be 10x as long with no local labour pool to draw from and through much harsher country and few logistical centers nearby for something that offers almost no benefit.
Britain would get much more from the Trent-Severn or even the more crazy French River-Georgian Bay proposal for a fraction of the cost.
Britain would get much more from the Trent-Severn or even the more crazy French River-Georgian Bay proposal for a fraction of the cost.
Over a thousand workers died building the Rideau, too.
Shudder to think of the losses of trying something as ambitious as a Lake Winnepeg or a Hudson Bay canal in that era.
That said, a large chunk of that cost was land acquisition, which isn't near as much an issue from say Winnipeg to Superior. The Nelson river portion is probably insane though. Huge and frequent drops in elevation, plus lots of rapids to deal with, and most of it is in Sub-Arctic conditions. Winnipeg to Superior on the otherhand wouldn't be a walk in the park, but apart from the Pigeon river portion, most of the route is probably easier than Rideau was. The Pigeon River section would need a couple 100 ft step locks, and that sure as hell won't be cheap or easy. Doable if there's a reason to though.
unprincipled peter
Donor
usable a month or two a year? I guess during the loooooooong winter it could be used by ice road wagoneers.
On second thought, a canal at Thunder Bay going up the Kaministiquia-Matawin-Shebandowan to Shebandowan Lake is amost certainly easier than going through the Pigeon River Canyon (and it doesn't disturb that beauty). From there its a short canal to Lac des Mille Lacs and you go down Seine-Rainy Lake-Rainy River-Lake of the Woods-Winnipeg. Thunder Bay has a great natural harbour breaking bulk from canal ships to lakers so that's another plus. Significantly less dramatic rises in terrain as well, so its more viable earlier.
I don't think viable means what you think it means. Any canal west of the Great Lakes is the opposite of viable, you're going from edge of civilization into literal wilderness. Where are the workers coming from? What exactly is the point of the canal when rail is starting to come into play?
That's kinda the point of canals in this era though, they open up the interior to civilization. The Mississippi tributaries in the great plains are in literal wilderness, but were channelized to open them to navigation and it directly led to development anywhere navigation was improved. A Winnipeg-Superior Canal does exactly that, it opens the interior for easier settlement. If you do it before the railroad craze starts in earnest it is indeed perfectly viable.
Route mileage is ~220 miles from Thunder Bay to Rainy Lake (if you go Atokokan River for most of the length instead of the windy Seine, which you should), ~110 from there to the Lake of the Woods, and a further 230ish from there to Lake Winnipeg. Total of ~560 miles from Thunder Bay to Lake Winnipeg. Long compared to Erie's 360 miles, but we're really talking a series of canals which open up huge chunks of the North American interior. The nice thing about canals (or railroads) is you can ship in labour along each finished section, in this case, the Great Lakes Waterways. Clinton's ditch certainly proved itself useful for getting people to the Great Lakes, this sort of canal gets them beyond. Would it be cheap? No. Would it be worth it over a railroad? Its going to depend, but there is certainly a benefit to being able to take a steamboat from Montreal/New York clear to Winnipeg without need of breaking bulk. It probably comes down more than anything to when you do it.