Infrastructure development in the coming decades
Infrastructure development in the coming decades
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Canals[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Transportation was a huge problem for both parties during the war, more so for the US. The British managed to gain and keep control of the Lakes, which was a huge advantage, and the only reason that she was able to win the war so decisively. Still, getting goods and men up the St. Lawrence from Montreal, then into the various Lakes was hard and expensive.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The US problem was even worse. They lost control of the lakes, so much of their supply had to go overland on bad roads (if any).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]It is obvious that little could be finished during the course of the war, so both sides basically limited themselves to some road building/improvement and studies of canal routes.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Immediately, once the war is over, both sides start digging canals. (Road building continues, too, but the only good all-weather road system known is very slow to build and expensive. The US National Road continues, slowly, and work is started near Pittsburgh to improve the portage between the Ohio and the east.) While money is tight, in 1816 farmers (on both sides) whose crops have failed are put to work on digging the canals, and they and their families are at least fed.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The main US effort is focussed on the Erie Canal (a barge canal) to connect the Hudson River (and therefore New York City) with Lake Erie (and Lake Ontario). [OTL, started 1817 finished 1825], lock size is 90'x15'x4' Construction started in the summer of 1815 and was finished in time to send a few barges through in the fall of 1824. It took a year longer than OTL, because the Oswego canal connecting the Erie Canal (and thus the Hudson) to Lake Ontario was constructed at the same time (due to the extreme strategic importance of Oswego iTTL) In fact the Oswego canal iTTL is finished before the Erie canal reaches Buffalo, (thus before it was approved iOTL) While the financial condition of the US was pretty miserable, these canals were one of the Government's top priorities. Note that there is significant Federal funding for these canals, iTTL, unlike OTL where it was an entirely New York project. Canals 1) connecting the Hudson river north to Whitehall on Lake Champlain, and 2) branching from the Erie Canal at Rome leading north to the Black River, and hence Sackett's Harbor, are also given high priority.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The British work primarily on a series of short canals along the St. Lawrence, to allow (small) ocean-going vessels to sail all the way to Chicago. (As they did OTL. This is a forerunner of OTL's St Lawrence Seaway. They will later build a canal at Sault Ste. Marie to allow access to Lake Superior, but that is a project of no military and far less commercial interest.) Since this is being run as a unified project, all the locks and channels are built to the same specifications. They really want to be able to bring full-sized warships in, but that's out of the question at the moment. Work started on the Lachine canal already in 1814 near the end of the war, but the other canals start in the spring of 1815. The standardized size of of the locks in the system are 100'x20'x7'. [This is essentially the length and width of the first Lachine canal OTL, but deeper. It is smaller in all dimensions than the first Welland Canal.] Due to a shortage of masons many of the first locks, especially upstream, are made of wood. These will be replaced over the years by stone. (It's relatively easy to find men who can stick a shovel in the ground, some of the more demanding crafts are in rather shorter supply.) Work is started on all the canals at once, the 7 shorter canals on the St. Lawrence and the longer Niagara Canal [OTL's Welland canal]. The canals are all open for business by fall of 1821, almost 6½ years after the sod turning of most of the canals. [Note, the OTL First Welland Canal, with slightly larger locks and canals, took only 5 years, start to finish. It takes longer because they're working on more canals at once, thus there is more competition for labour; because the canal is built almost a decade earlier than OTL, so the OTL canal could make use of experience gained elsewhere. It doesn't take any longer than it does because it's a high priority.] With the British/Canadian canals completed some 3 years before the Erie canal, much of the US trade from New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio is carried in those years through the Canadian canals. When the Erie Canal opens, much of that trade goes there, but the Canadian St. Lawrence system allows much larger boats, and connects directly to the sea. Since the Erie canal charges fee by weight and the St. Lawrence system by lock transit (i.e. it costs the same to run the lock whether you've got a big boat or a small one, so the same fee is charged), smaller loads use the Erie and larger ones are more likely to use the St. Lawrence.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]True, most goods are transshipped to bigger ocean-going vessels either at Montreal (for the St. Lawrence system) or New York (for the Erie system), but for goods being exported to Europe or further, the St. Lawrence system is easier, faster and cheaper. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The British/Canadians also work on the Rideau Canal system connecting the Ottawa River at [OTL's] Ottawa with Kingston on Lake Ontario. This would allow the conveyance of goods and materiel even in event of war, if the Americans managed to cut the St. Lawrence system. As it was a back-up plan iTTL, it was started later, and not pushed quite so hard, so it wasn't ready until 1830 or so. Other canals that are of medium high priority are canals connecting the Illinois river to Lake Michigan (at Chicago – essentially the same as OTL's Sanitary and Ship Canal), and canals connecting Lake Champlain to the St. Lawrence.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The British also build a few special 6th rate frigates that will fit in the new canals, so that at least some of the RN can then be shifted from lake to lake if they should be needed.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]roads[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Both sides cut roads to all their border forts, and improve the roads as time and finances permit. The frontier forts are initially supplied (in terms of food, at least) by local settler/militias. But any future conflict will require ammunition and other military supplies, as well as reinforcements, to be brought forward in volume lots, and wounded to be evacuated. So the best roads that are possible/affordable are built. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]In the early 1820s, once word of Macadam's new method of road construction (developed ~1820) comes out, it is seized on avidly. With a method of road construction that provides the same all-weather benefits, but is much cheaper, road construction makes a huge leap forward. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Rail[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Rail roads are the next major transport project. Once railways are proven in England, experiments start in North America. The US starts building a railway from Baltimore towards the Ohio River and the Canadians build one at Montreal. Molson expands from the steam boat business to building locomotives and track. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The Americans mostly build their railways in the East connecting their major cities, but the Pittsburgh portage is a prime military bottleneck to fix. While British capital and engineers are welcome to finance the commercial networks, the military roads are strictly American financed and built. This slows the progress. Also, Congress demands that if these are US roads, they have to be built with US rail and equipment. Since British rail, e.g., was MUCH cheaper, this, too, slowed the project. The expense, the US financial condition, and Ohio river providing an excellent artery for most of the supply needs of their border forts mean that the fort road network is more a series of roads to the river than an actual network, and little of it is connected by rail. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The British are certainly interested in connecting their cities, so track is laid from Montreal to Kingston, then York, then Detroit and Chicago and St. Louis. Among other things, this provides a back-up to the canals when those are iced over. However, they, too, have military interests in mind, and during the 1830's track creeps out to connect the border forts on the frontier. Rail to St. Louis would never have happened in this time period if it was just a commercial proposition. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Of course, these early railways are nothing like modern rail. The rails are still wrought iron, and light weight. Engines are small, pulling only a few cars, and the cars don't carry much cargo. Speed is sometimes as slow as 10 mph. Still, it is a huge advance over animal drawn wagons.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Edit: while the various rail and canal projects are of intense military value, and thus are supported by the Crown/Federal Government, they obviously have vast commercial value, too, and much of the construction is public/private with some government investment and oversight, but much of the capital being private. Sometimes (part of) the government contribution is guaranteeing loans one way or another (the easiest being to guarantee a certain rate of government traffic using the canal or RR or road). Some of the monies come from Provincial/State sources as well as 'Federal' sources. E.g. the Erie canal is largely funded by NY state, although not entirely so, unlike OTL.
[/FONT]
Infrastructure development in the coming decades
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Canals[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Transportation was a huge problem for both parties during the war, more so for the US. The British managed to gain and keep control of the Lakes, which was a huge advantage, and the only reason that she was able to win the war so decisively. Still, getting goods and men up the St. Lawrence from Montreal, then into the various Lakes was hard and expensive.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The US problem was even worse. They lost control of the lakes, so much of their supply had to go overland on bad roads (if any).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]It is obvious that little could be finished during the course of the war, so both sides basically limited themselves to some road building/improvement and studies of canal routes.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Immediately, once the war is over, both sides start digging canals. (Road building continues, too, but the only good all-weather road system known is very slow to build and expensive. The US National Road continues, slowly, and work is started near Pittsburgh to improve the portage between the Ohio and the east.) While money is tight, in 1816 farmers (on both sides) whose crops have failed are put to work on digging the canals, and they and their families are at least fed.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The main US effort is focussed on the Erie Canal (a barge canal) to connect the Hudson River (and therefore New York City) with Lake Erie (and Lake Ontario). [OTL, started 1817 finished 1825], lock size is 90'x15'x4' Construction started in the summer of 1815 and was finished in time to send a few barges through in the fall of 1824. It took a year longer than OTL, because the Oswego canal connecting the Erie Canal (and thus the Hudson) to Lake Ontario was constructed at the same time (due to the extreme strategic importance of Oswego iTTL) In fact the Oswego canal iTTL is finished before the Erie canal reaches Buffalo, (thus before it was approved iOTL) While the financial condition of the US was pretty miserable, these canals were one of the Government's top priorities. Note that there is significant Federal funding for these canals, iTTL, unlike OTL where it was an entirely New York project. Canals 1) connecting the Hudson river north to Whitehall on Lake Champlain, and 2) branching from the Erie Canal at Rome leading north to the Black River, and hence Sackett's Harbor, are also given high priority.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The British work primarily on a series of short canals along the St. Lawrence, to allow (small) ocean-going vessels to sail all the way to Chicago. (As they did OTL. This is a forerunner of OTL's St Lawrence Seaway. They will later build a canal at Sault Ste. Marie to allow access to Lake Superior, but that is a project of no military and far less commercial interest.) Since this is being run as a unified project, all the locks and channels are built to the same specifications. They really want to be able to bring full-sized warships in, but that's out of the question at the moment. Work started on the Lachine canal already in 1814 near the end of the war, but the other canals start in the spring of 1815. The standardized size of of the locks in the system are 100'x20'x7'. [This is essentially the length and width of the first Lachine canal OTL, but deeper. It is smaller in all dimensions than the first Welland Canal.] Due to a shortage of masons many of the first locks, especially upstream, are made of wood. These will be replaced over the years by stone. (It's relatively easy to find men who can stick a shovel in the ground, some of the more demanding crafts are in rather shorter supply.) Work is started on all the canals at once, the 7 shorter canals on the St. Lawrence and the longer Niagara Canal [OTL's Welland canal]. The canals are all open for business by fall of 1821, almost 6½ years after the sod turning of most of the canals. [Note, the OTL First Welland Canal, with slightly larger locks and canals, took only 5 years, start to finish. It takes longer because they're working on more canals at once, thus there is more competition for labour; because the canal is built almost a decade earlier than OTL, so the OTL canal could make use of experience gained elsewhere. It doesn't take any longer than it does because it's a high priority.] With the British/Canadian canals completed some 3 years before the Erie canal, much of the US trade from New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio is carried in those years through the Canadian canals. When the Erie Canal opens, much of that trade goes there, but the Canadian St. Lawrence system allows much larger boats, and connects directly to the sea. Since the Erie canal charges fee by weight and the St. Lawrence system by lock transit (i.e. it costs the same to run the lock whether you've got a big boat or a small one, so the same fee is charged), smaller loads use the Erie and larger ones are more likely to use the St. Lawrence.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]True, most goods are transshipped to bigger ocean-going vessels either at Montreal (for the St. Lawrence system) or New York (for the Erie system), but for goods being exported to Europe or further, the St. Lawrence system is easier, faster and cheaper. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The British/Canadians also work on the Rideau Canal system connecting the Ottawa River at [OTL's] Ottawa with Kingston on Lake Ontario. This would allow the conveyance of goods and materiel even in event of war, if the Americans managed to cut the St. Lawrence system. As it was a back-up plan iTTL, it was started later, and not pushed quite so hard, so it wasn't ready until 1830 or so. Other canals that are of medium high priority are canals connecting the Illinois river to Lake Michigan (at Chicago – essentially the same as OTL's Sanitary and Ship Canal), and canals connecting Lake Champlain to the St. Lawrence.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The British also build a few special 6th rate frigates that will fit in the new canals, so that at least some of the RN can then be shifted from lake to lake if they should be needed.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]roads[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Both sides cut roads to all their border forts, and improve the roads as time and finances permit. The frontier forts are initially supplied (in terms of food, at least) by local settler/militias. But any future conflict will require ammunition and other military supplies, as well as reinforcements, to be brought forward in volume lots, and wounded to be evacuated. So the best roads that are possible/affordable are built. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]In the early 1820s, once word of Macadam's new method of road construction (developed ~1820) comes out, it is seized on avidly. With a method of road construction that provides the same all-weather benefits, but is much cheaper, road construction makes a huge leap forward. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Rail[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Rail roads are the next major transport project. Once railways are proven in England, experiments start in North America. The US starts building a railway from Baltimore towards the Ohio River and the Canadians build one at Montreal. Molson expands from the steam boat business to building locomotives and track. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The Americans mostly build their railways in the East connecting their major cities, but the Pittsburgh portage is a prime military bottleneck to fix. While British capital and engineers are welcome to finance the commercial networks, the military roads are strictly American financed and built. This slows the progress. Also, Congress demands that if these are US roads, they have to be built with US rail and equipment. Since British rail, e.g., was MUCH cheaper, this, too, slowed the project. The expense, the US financial condition, and Ohio river providing an excellent artery for most of the supply needs of their border forts mean that the fort road network is more a series of roads to the river than an actual network, and little of it is connected by rail. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The British are certainly interested in connecting their cities, so track is laid from Montreal to Kingston, then York, then Detroit and Chicago and St. Louis. Among other things, this provides a back-up to the canals when those are iced over. However, they, too, have military interests in mind, and during the 1830's track creeps out to connect the border forts on the frontier. Rail to St. Louis would never have happened in this time period if it was just a commercial proposition. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Of course, these early railways are nothing like modern rail. The rails are still wrought iron, and light weight. Engines are small, pulling only a few cars, and the cars don't carry much cargo. Speed is sometimes as slow as 10 mph. Still, it is a huge advance over animal drawn wagons.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Edit: while the various rail and canal projects are of intense military value, and thus are supported by the Crown/Federal Government, they obviously have vast commercial value, too, and much of the construction is public/private with some government investment and oversight, but much of the capital being private. Sometimes (part of) the government contribution is guaranteeing loans one way or another (the easiest being to guarantee a certain rate of government traffic using the canal or RR or road). Some of the monies come from Provincial/State sources as well as 'Federal' sources. E.g. the Erie canal is largely funded by NY state, although not entirely so, unlike OTL.
[/FONT]
Last edited: