Canada Wank (YACW)

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Dathi

The armed neutrality league was what I was trying to remember.

Its less that I object, i.e. say that the idea is unrealistic. More that I think the antagonism it is likely to cause will put a lot of backs up and encourage other groups to combine to form a counter block. If some of the large German states and after the war the US were to get together with the coalition and impose serious restrictions on league ships trading via their ports they would be hurt but so would the league and they might be angry enough to do something like that.

I know OTL most nations imposed high tariffs so their industries could complete with Britain. Fearing that you could see some form of trade block as well. You will probably get some of this anyway but likely to increase the probability and the speed and determination with which it is done if the league looks like its abusing its position of power.

Not entirely sure where I want to take this. There will be lots of opportunity for diplomatic and commercial quarrels.

Prussia will probably be part of the Coalition. Which probably means Sweden ends up in the League camp (if Prussia and Russia are Coalition), which means Denmark.... Hmm... Probably stays out of both camps and profits by transshipping? Let me think about that.

US and Mexico will want to be Coalition...

A couple of comments/questions. If Britain is the leading power in opening up China, as OTL, then a counter block could make play of supporting China as a counter and seek preferential trade as a result.

The French are in a lousy position to try - they don't have anything nearby. The Spanish have the Philippines, so they certainly could. OTL the Americans were a major trading force - but iTTL, the US is a minor player, and New England (which does trade) is part of the league.

IF Spain offered e.g. France the Philippines for a base and/or made a serious effort themselves, they might, possibly be able to do something with China.

Also you mentioned colonies. Has France move on N Africa TTL?

Hadn't looked into that yet. .... Yes, as OTL, probably near the same time and for the same reasons (Charles X's brief reign). They're also quite friendly with Egypt, as OTL. The Saint Simeons are agitating for a Suez Canal, but they don't have a de Lesseps to take the idea and run with it. (of course, in the 1840s, de Lesseps wasn't getting far with it iOTL).

Steve

PS - How is a certain quartermaster doing in Canada? We don't seem to have heard about him since the shooting started.

Hmmm... I've kind of forgotten about him. Given the amount of logistics that need to be dealt with, he certainly could reasonably show up. Let me think about that.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Indiana theatre, part 4

mildly out of sequence (lot's of stuff isn't written to the part 3 stage) - but it's done, so here goes....

Indiana theatre, part 4

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif](Ft. Francis: February-April 2, 1843)[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Siege of Ft. Francis. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Continued push. When spring comes and the snow melts, the Americans switch miseries – it is now easier to dig the no longer frozen ground, which makes new trenches easier, but all the melting snow runs into the existing trenches, making small canals and then mud. COLD mud. Walls of the trenches collapse due to wet, and some of the shield roofs, suddenly inadequately rooted, also collapse.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Moreover, the roofs of the trenches were originally built up, rather like a shed open on one side (namely the trench). However, these were very vulnerable to solid cannon shot, so the roofs had to be redesigned so they were more like a lean-to, where, if they were lucky, the shot would ricochet up and off, and at worst, would fall down and cover the trench. Still, this meant that the trenches needed to be even deeper (to deal with the lower roofs) – about 6' deep, which meant that the existing trenches had to be redug. Of course, they mostly had to be redug anyway because of the mud and collapsing walls. Some of the besiegers from Ft. Liverpool and Ft. Brock were pulled back to re-work the trenches at Ft. Francis. The redesign and rework meant that no forward progress was made on any of the trench systems from mid-February (when the first major thaw hit) to mid-March. By this time spring break up on the Ohio and lower Wabash had happened, and they can now get supplies from e.g. Pittsburgh. On the other hand, the upper Wabash is breaking up, and soon the Brits will be able to get reinforcements in.... (Not to Ft. Francis, of course....)[/FONT]




[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Inside Ft. Francis.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The constant attacks mostly by Maceroni rockets has smashed most of the wooden buildings by now, and they really don't have any access to good building stone from within the fort. Sturdy wooden barracks are now replaced by tents and lean-tos scavenged from the shattered walls of broken buildings. The rockets occasionally start fires (especially in the dry wood of smashed buildings), but for some time it's fairly easy to put them out, as they have a decent supply of well water – at first.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]However, the fort was not designed for the number of people that are currently living there. The need to put fires out also adds to the water needs. Slowly, the level of water in the wells drops. The main well in the centre of the fort was dug deep – and is still producing water at a good rate, but there were a couple of secondary wells dug that aren't doing so well. These wells were added partly as a back up and partly as a convenience – the fort is pretty big place. Still, because these wells were back up, they weren't as big, nor dug so deep. For the beginning of the siege, there was 'lots' of water, and so water wasn't rationed, nor seen to be a problem. Even as the water-levels in the well started dropping, it was initially seen more as a matter of 'a very little more work to get the water up' than a real problem – in fact, the matter was never brought to an officer's attention until one happened to notice new rope attaching the bucket to the old rope. [/FONT]

• [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Why?[/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The old rope was too short. [/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Too short? Did it break?[/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Dunno. Maybe the water level's lower or somethin'.[/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]But there's 3 feet of new rope![/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Ya, that sounds about right[/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]AAAAAARGH![/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Once the problem was discovered, water rationing was put into effect, and the rate of drop of the water level improved – but didn't go away. People still needed a minimum amount of water, and every time a rocket attack or heated shot started fires, water had to be used to put them out.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Still, the water levels continued to drop, slowly. The first of the secondary wells ran dry, and some men were sent down the well to dig it out further, but that didn't work out. Firstly, digging in wet soil and then water in winter time is extremely hazardous to the health, and then, as they went a bit deeper, dirt from the sides fell in and the casing of the well was undermined at the bottom. The workers tried to shore up the casing from the bottom, but that didn't work and eventually the lower part of the casing just collapsed. At this point, it became obvious that the well was totally unsafe and work stopped. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]In fact, even when the snow melted, and the water table rose some again, that well was no longer usable due to the mound of collapsed casing at the bottom. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Between the risen water table due to snow melt and some spring rains, and the increased water rationing, the fort held out for a while longer. But, once the initial snow melt effect was gone, the water table dropped again and kept on going down, slowly.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Moreover, the closer the US forces got, the more cannon fire and rocket fire attacks the fort suffers and the more fires need to be put out. Wounded people, especially those who have suffered significant blood loss also need more water than healthy people. And shooting guns (biting cartridges and getting the gunpowder in your mouth) is very thirsty work. Again, if there isn't a major attack, a fire can be put out with a minimal amount of water, however if rockets and cannon balls are dropping all around, the bucket brigade lines drop buckets, throw water wildly and require a lot more water per individual fire. All of which means that the amount of water consumed goes up quite a bit as the US attacks are pressed.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]By the end of March, the US forces actually had cannon in place to pound the walls, and had stepped up their attacks with hundreds of rockets a day. These continual attacks increased water usage (as mentioned above), and by now all the secondary wells were dry. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The main well was actually in a stone well house to protect it and anyone drawing water from it. It had served its purpose well, having been hit a couple of times by rockets and even once by a lucky cannon shot. As long as those attacks were scattered, the walls and roof could be repaired. Once or twice, the fort had to rely on the secondary wells while repairs were happening. Now, however, with the secondary wells dry, and continual and increasing attacks happening, the repair work was less successful. And finally the US got lucky and 3 rockets hit in close succession, bringing down the well-house around the will, smashing the winch assembly and dumping roof materials into the well itself. This was on April 2.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Since the well was already being used at maximum capacity at the time to fight fires, this is a disaster. In fact the fires were only just barely being kept in check. Militia General Thomas Standingpine[ATL character] quickly calls his staff together, and they try to figure out a solution. They try clear access to the well, and to jury-rig a new windlass for it, but there is enough junk in the well that the buckets keep getting caught, and the water's fouled anyway. Meanwhile, not only are fires growing out of control, but the fire is approaching the ammunition storage. That is, of course, stone and concrete, but there have been wooden structures built on top and around it (walkways for people shooting over the wall, makeshift housing for the inhabitants of the fort, etc.). Any time fire had came near there before, it was absolute top priority and was extinguished quickly. Now, there isn't water for even the top priority, and the fire keeps advancing.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Standingpine decides he can't stop the fires, and he needs to evacuate his people. Throwing open all the doors to the fort, he sends his people pouring out the gates, with as many people as possible waving white flags of surrender. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]As the defenders are so pouring out of the gates, that they are essentially blocked, the Americans come over the (now undefended) walls to take possession of the fort. Standingpine officially surrenders the fort, to the young Captain in charge of that first wave, and tries to explain the problems to him. However, he doesn't have the authority to tell his men to stop investing the fort, and by the time messengers get sent back and forth explaining the situation, and the US general comes over the wall (not believing the seriousness of the situation), it's too late. There's now over a thousand US soldiers, including the General commanding the US force, inside the fort when the fire hits the first barrel of gunpowder....[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The explosion could be heard a hundred miles away. Pieces of the stone walls flew up, and landed hundreds of yards away, as did wood, stones and burning debris. Almost all the US soldiers inside the fort were killed, including the General in charge. The British attempting to surrender were mostly out of the fort, and so missed the direct blast, but they were all near and in the open and many were injured by falling debris.[/FONT]

 

[stevep]

Dathi

Well, even when their winning things are going badly for the yanks.

Also, with the current state of chaos and probably a lot of confusion what is going to happen to the civilians who have just surrendered. Could be the danger that some Americans, thinking their colleagues have been lured into a trap take some revenge on them. If this is avoided what happens to them? They need to be moved out of the combat zone simply because they will be in the way and drain resources, to keep an eye on them and feed them. However would the Americans seek to drive them northwards or send them south.

Steve

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Dathi

Well, even when their winning things are going badly for the yanks.

Also, with the current state of chaos and probably a lot of confusion what is going to happen to the civilians who have just surrendered. Could be the danger that some Americans, thinking their colleagues have been lured into a trap take some revenge on them. If this is avoided what happens to them? They need to be moved out of the combat zone simply because they will be in the way and drain resources, to keep an eye on them and feed them. However would the Americans seek to drive them northwards or send them south.

Steve

Thought of having the Americans run amok. Decided not to.
There are few 'civilians' in the fort, depending on your definition. Everyone older than about 5 directly helped the military effort. Still. Very many are wounded to some degree or other, the bombardment's been pretty intense. My guess is they get exchanged for some of the Mississippi River prisoners. But I haven't written that yet.

 

[phx1138]

However, I really doubt the OTL Canadian prairies will have significant settlement any time really soon now. Getting your produce to market really requires a good transportation system - water or rail. Moreover, there's all this wonderful, fertile land that actually gets RAINFALL in OTL's Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota (and that's just the land the Brits will be claiming for themselves).

Given the hassle of the Palliser Triangle, I agree, ag is pretty questionable (tho TTL you might avoid the lunacy of suggesting it's prime ag land 80). What about ranching? Lumbering?

Also, don't forget, HBC was around this time trying to dump off much of Rupert's Land on somebody. Suppose Ottawa (unlike OTL) takes them up on it? Or London does, then hands off to Ottawa just to piss of the Americans? Or the French (a potential threat from Louisiana)?

I'm a Saskatchewanian born and bred myself

Ditto. Which is why I'm hoping for serious advances here TTL. ;D ;D The rivers are wide & deep enough for paddlewheelers, & they can mostly follow the HBC/NWC routes, & mostly use their forts as stations. And there were paddlewheelers on the Lakes as early as the 1820s. (Molson's Accommodation around 1810 comes to mind...)

 

[foresterab]

Given the hassle of the Palliser Triangle, I agree, ag is pretty questionable (tho TTL you might avoid the lunacy of suggesting it's prime ag land 80). What about ranching? Lumbering?

Re: farming
The issue with the Palliser triangle is not so much water as temperature and growing degree days. You have lots of growing degree days but they are in a really condensed timeframe making frost kill a major risk. Until you have a more cold hardy strain of wheat then farming is not an option on a large scale.

The other big issue with the Palliser triangle is the sod/clay content of the soils. As you move north the clay content increases making for a heavy soil compounded by a heavy mix of grasses...basically you need a heavy, deep breaking plow to at least intially till the ground.

Re: lumbering
Until the advent of the combustion engine you are restricted to a couple of factors: (1) hand logging is very labour and animal power intensive. unless you have a large labor pool it's not effective (2) need locations in close proximity to the population (3) even more so than farming you need a transportation means such as rivers for log drives (4) a market for the wood (rail ties are a common starting point here in canada)

I can easily see the lumbering of the shores of the Great Lakes and major rivers off of them but as you move closer to the prairies their basically exists no large scale forest until you get the northern half of OTL provinces or hit the foothills of the Rocky Mountains. Keep in mind that the eastern US and Canada have more forest today in North America than they did back in the early 1800's (it grew up from the native managed lands after they died/killed off/left, was basically wiped out post US ACW industrial development, and much of it was replanted in the Depression)

re ranching:
this may be the starting point for settlement assuming there is a way to control stock. Barb wire has not been invented yet and in the absence land surveys water rights and grazing boundaries are going to be contentious. But as this has some similarities with buffalo hunting/nomadic life I can see parts of the prairies settled with stock being moved to the railhead annually for transport east for slaughter. This also allows for those people who did reside to get a large stake in the west before being overrun by easterner's...

Also, don't forget, HBC was around this time trying to dump off much of Rupert's Land on somebody. Suppose Ottawa (unlike OTL) takes them up on it? Or London does, then hands off to Ottawa just to piss of the Americans? Or the French (a potential threat from Louisiana)?

Or have HBC screw up (victorian uprising over native wives? and illicit marriges?, screw over the settlers?) and have their charter revoked similar to the East India Company...

Ditto. Which is why I'm hoping for serious advances here TTL. ;D ;D The rivers are wide & deep enough for paddlewheelers, & they can mostly follow the HBC/NWC routes, & mostly use their forts as stations. And there were paddlewheelers on the Lakes as early as the 1820s. (Molson's Accommodation around 1810 comes to mind...)

Between paddlewheelers, red river carts, and a few major portage improvements you can easilly open up the entire west especially if there is an earlier incentive to do so.

 

[phx1138]

Between paddlewheelers, red river carts, and a few major portage improvements you can easilly open up the entire west especially if there is an earlier incentive to do so.

My thought was, since the Palliser (contrary to the published report, which was written based on the wettest year{s} in about a generation, IIRC) is no good for anything but ranching (at least til irrigation becomes practical, & we can debate the good sense of it another day ), don't even bother. So, ranching. Use the rivers to ship cattle to slaughter in Chicago (with perhaps a canal from the Mississippi? or around Winnipeg?).

On lumbering, I'll defer, except to say it wasn't a dead loss. Ships needed timbers, & if rivers were halfway accessible, they could provide some timber (if not cut lumber). As I understand it, that's SOP in BC today.

In any case, I forsee a faster Canadian expansion, which means a) less violence between HBC & NWC & b) less violence in the West generally. (The U.S. taking the example of using police rather than army to keep order? No Wild West at all?) I can also maybe imagine the Fraser or Barkerville being the first major West Coast Gold Rush; maybe Timmins or Red Lake (Ontario), first? Given that, the demand for infrastructure (canal & railway) would be high, if only to prevent the U.S. from getting greedy (which IIRC was a major reason for the Ontario canal projects: troop movement).

Dare I suggest Saskatoon becoming the largest city between Toronto & Vancouver? (I acknowledge some bias, seeing I live there. ;D It is, nevertheless, centrally located, so not an unreasonable outcome.)

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

My thought was, since the Palliser (contrary to the published report, which was written based on the wettest year{s} in about a generation, IIRC) is no good for anything but ranching (at least til irrigation becomes practical, & we can debate the good sense of it another day ), don't even bother. So, ranching. Use the rivers to ship cattle to slaughter in Chicago (with perhaps a canal from the Mississippi? or around Winnipeg?).

Not ignoring this, or the TL, just busy ATM.

Actually, Saskatoon is part of the Palliser triangle, as is Regina. Both are plenty fine for crops - IF you have quick growing wheat, which will take a while.

Dare I suggest Saskatoon becoming the largest city between Toronto & Vancouver? (I acknowledge some bias, seeing I live there. ;D It is, nevertheless, centrally located, so not an unreasonable outcome.)

heh. Winnipeg has obvious advantages, I'm not precisely sure why Saskatoon, Calgary and Edmonton are precisely where they are....

I went to Aden Bowman, did my batchelor's at the UofS. Mom and Dad are still in town, none of my sibs are.

 

[Glen]

In any case, I forsee a faster Canadian expansion, which means a) less violence between HBC & NWC

Why do you posit this? I would think that the rivalry will continue unabated until one or the other is no more.

& b) less violence in the West generally. (The U.S. taking the example of using police rather than army to keep order? No Wild West at all?)

Fast expansion probably doesn't equal less violence. If anything, it means acceleration of the clash of cultures and destruction of the native way of life. However, given that they are Canadians, there might be a modicum more of tolerance for Metis and indians willing to assimilate.

I doubt very much that the Americans will use police instead of cavalry.

Coast Gold Rush; maybe Timmins or Red Lake (Ontario), first?

All possible IMO.

Given that, the demand for infrastructure (canal & railway) would be high, if only to prevent the U.S. from getting greedy (which IIRC was a major reason for the Ontario canal projects: troop movement).

Well, earlier at the very least (due to gold being found earlier if they go that route. The troop movement need was already there OTL....

 

[foresterab]

My thought was, since the Palliser (contrary to the published report, which was written based on the wettest year{s} in about a generation, IIRC) is no good for anything but ranching (at least til irrigation becomes practical, & we can debate the good sense of it another day ), don't even bother. So, ranching. Use the rivers to ship cattle to slaughter in Chicago (with perhaps a canal from the Mississippi? or around Winnipeg?).

Part of it depends too on whether we are talking the drier short grass prairie with richer brown soils (more silt content) vs the fringe tall grass prairie with more grey (clay based) soils. The brown soils had major issues breaking the sod, the clay based soils require variations on farming techniques due to colder soils and erosion.

Most likely route would be to go the Lakehead (OTL Thunder Bay) or go to the southern end of Lake Michigan and barge the cattle to the larger eastern centers. At least until such time as sufficent rail stock get built to ship all the cattle.

On lumbering, I'll defer, except to say it wasn't a dead loss. Ships needed timbers, & if rivers were halfway accessible, they could provide some timber (if not cut lumber). As I understand it, that's SOP in BC today.

Even today you can find trees in Eastern Canada marked as crown property. Large white pine suitable for ship masts and spars were stamped with a crown icon reserving them for the Royal Navy. Part of the problem though is in OTL Canada most early lumbering was based upon the White and Red pine found in Eastern Canada and immediately around the great lakes...species such as jack/lodgepole pine and aspen were considered weed species until the mid 1950's. With the infrastructure in mines listed here and the increased canals there is potential for more water based sawmills...OTL this progression didn't really happen till the late 1800's when we stopped shipping rough squared timbers overseas in "coffin ships" some of which deadheaded back with poor immigrants.

In any case, I forsee a faster Canadian expansion, which means a) less violence between HBC & NWC & b) less violence in the West generally. (The U.S. taking the example of using police rather than army to keep order? No Wild West at all?) I can also maybe imagine the Fraser or Barkerville being the first major West Coast Gold Rush; maybe Timmins or Red Lake (Ontario), first? Given that, the demand for infrastructure (canal & railway) would be high, if only to prevent the U.S. from getting greedy (which IIRC was a major reason for the Ontario canal projects: troop movement).

We would need an earlier version of the NWMP to avoid the problems with rum runners, free lance fur traders, hunting disputes and the "happy medicine line" to ensure some order. But the potential remains.

The NWCo. and HBC would need to either merge or be focused on something other than warfare over fur rights. Where I used to work was known as Fort Waterloo until the NWC burnt the post forcing the HBC to move to the other end of the lake. They only got along once the companies were formally merged.

BC would be a more likely gold rush than Red Lake just due to access. North ontario with no roads....*shudder* on the logistics. Of course if dynamite was invented by that time and we had lots of money...then it's possible.

Dare I suggest Saskatoon becoming the largest city between Toronto & Vancouver? (I acknowledge some bias, seeing I live there. ;D It is, nevertheless, centrally located, so not an unreasonable outcome.)

I could easily see Saskatoon (which was on the original CPR proposed route until it was moved south in part to avoid US claims on the border) and Winnipeg being the big centers. Winnipeg as the trade terminus shipping out of the north seasonally and Saskatoon as the Agriculture center. But looking at today's western provinces and it seems that most major centers are about 3-500km apart which gives a person some idea as to how much influence a single center can have.

 

[Reddog794]

A canal connecting the Saskatchewan River, and Winnipeg Lake, with a canal connecting the Red River and Mississippi, could lead to horizontal shaped Alberta, and Saskatchewan. Being that that's their names, and not named after the Canadian Royal Family, or Native name.

 

[foresterab]

A canal connecting the Saskatchewan River, and Winnipeg Lake, with a canal connecting the Red River and Mississippi, could lead to horizontal shaped Alberta, and Saskatchewan. Being that that's their names, and not named after the Canadian Royal Family, or Native name.

That's a ton of digging however...why not build a railway that can be built easily and cheaply over the prairie and allow you to go right to the railhead/dock?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_Canadian_provinces_and_territories
gives Assiniboine and Athabaska as the names of the new provinces...if you check on e-bay you can sometimes see maps with these proposed provinces drawn in.

I like canals....but until you can get year round shipping from Churchill or Thunder Bay I wonder on the practicality of them in the west.

 

[RCAF Brat]

That's a ton of digging however...why not build a railway that can be built easily and cheaply over the prairie and allow you to go right to the railhead/dock?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_Canadian_provinces_and_territories
gives Assiniboine and Athabaska as the names of the new provinces...if you check on e-bay you can sometimes see maps with these proposed provinces drawn in.

I like canals....but until you can get year round shipping from Churchill or Thunder Bay I wonder on the practicality of them in the west.

The Saskatchewan River already flows into lake Winnipeg, at the extreme north end. Thus a canal isn't needed. On the other hand, a dredged shipping channel would be useful, especially in the summertime when river levels are low.

 

[foresterab]

The Saskatchewan River already flows into lake Winnipeg, at the extreme north end. Thus a canal isn't needed. On the other hand, a dredged shipping channel would be useful, especially in the summertime when river levels are low.

Mmm..now that I think of it the North and South Saskatchewan, Peace, Athabasca, Fraser, MacKenzie and Churchill rivers all had various spots where rapids interupted large boat traffic.

Anyone know how tough it would be to remove rapids from a flowing river channel? Coffer dams to regulate flow upstream would be a major undertaking but diversions could be built to work on portions of the stream at a time??? Some form of dredger anchored to the shore? If these obstructions are removed than long distance steamship routes are much more attractive and something I had not considered when thinking of railways

 

[SuperCanada]

You build dams and locks to back up the water. Great thread BTW.

 

[foresterab]

You build dams and locks to back up the water. Great thread BTW.

I can see how we do this kind of work today with modern bulldozers, explosives etc... but do this all by hand on a river like the Churchill or Peace River...I don't think it can be done in the early 1800's just due to the volume and pressures of water involved.

Partial diversions to create eddies while the main channel bypasses it? maybe...

Coffer dams are used on smaller drainages where they don't so much dam the water but retain portion of the water and usually a lock/gate mechanism is used to release the water if it gets too high or higher water levels are needed to float logs/ships etc.

I'm more familiar with bridge construction on smaller rivers/streams but I don't have experience with larger dredgers or in-channel work.

Only other thing I can think of is banning trapping so beaver numbers spike as they can construct some monster dams....but good luck wrangling them to build where you want them to.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

You build dams and locks to back up the water. Great thread BTW.

thanks

there should be another update 'soon', not sure precisely when.

cf http://esask.uregina.ca/entry/steamboats.html

The Northcote was a steamboat named after Sir Stafford Henry
Northcote, the Governor of the Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC) from 1869 to
1874. It was built above Grand Rapids, in what is now central Manitoba on
the northwestern shore of Lake Winnipeg, and was first launched on August
1, 1874. The Northcote was approximately 46 metres in length and had two
tall smoke stacks with a pilothouse located on its hurricane deck. It was the
first steamboat to travel from Grand Rapids to Edmonton, a distance of 1,513
kilometres. It took 181 days to make the trip, carrying 150 tons of freight.
The Northcote was used as a troop and munitions transport during the

So steamboats of (very) shallow draft were usable from Edmonton to Lake Winnipeg. If we built a canal around Grand rapids, you could run boats from the middle of OTL's Minnesota up the Red, up Lake Winnipeg, through the hypothetical canal, and on to Edmonton...

Mind you, some of that route is only usable during high water, probably.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

More on the Northcote. Note the draft of as little as 1'10'' (=.55m or so).

[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]Her hull dimensions were: 150' long, 28.5' in breadth, 4.5' deep, gross tonnage of 461.34 and registered tonnage of 290.63. She had a draft of 22" when carrying light cargo loads and 3.5' when carrying her maximum load of 150 tons.

...

[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]The water levels on the Saskatchewan were too shallow for the Northcote in the summer of 1886 which prevented her from navigating the river.[/FONT]

 

[foresterab]

More on the Northcote. Note the draft of as little as 1'10'' (=.55m or so
Originally Posted by http://dnelson.ca/dnelso8/ss_northcote.htm
[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]Her hull dimensions were: 150' long, 28.5' in breadth, 4.5' deep, gross tonnage of 461.34 and registered tonnage of 290.63. She had a draft of 22" when carrying light cargo loads and 3.5' when carrying her maximum load of 150 tons.[/FONT]

[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]...[/FONT]

[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]The water levels on the Saskatchewan were too shallow for the Northcote in the summer of 1886 which prevented her from navigating the river.).[/FONT]

does this mean the ship had a draft of 4.5 feet (as per hull dimmensions) or just a displacement of 1.8 to 3.5 feet draft? Either way this is alot shallower than I expected.

http://www.srd.alberta.ca/ImageLibrary/Historical.aspx Has a photo library of forestry and fire fighting in Alberta although there are other references to early Alberta as well..

If you put "boat" under the search function you come up with quite a few boats/steamships that operated on the Athabasca and Peace Rivers and/or various lakes at the turn of the century. These were operated by a mix of private industry and the federal government.

 

[Xavier]

does this mean the ship had a draft of 4.5 feet (as per hull dimmensions) or just a displacement of 1.8 to 3.5 feet draft? Either way this is alot shallower than I expected.

http://www.srd.alberta.ca/ImageLibrary/Historical.aspx Has a photo library of forestry and fire fighting in Alberta although there are other references to early Alberta as well..

If you put "boat" under the search function you come up with quite a few boats/steamships that operated on the Athabasca and Peace Rivers and/or various lakes at the turn of the century. These were operated by a mix of private industry and the federal government.

On a ship, or rather boat in this case, depth is the physical distance from bottom (i.e. keel) to top of the freeboard (i.e. distance from waterline to top of the hull). The draft is always less, otherwise you have a semi-submersible. This boat in particular thus has a freeboard of 1' when fully loaded.