Infrastructures in a Ameriwank USA

As far as the Erie canal goes it will be built but in a different place as New York is still going to want to get its hands on those grain shipments. Part of the canal will cut across the Niagara peninsula another from Lake Ontario to the Hudson.

At most I see two transcontinental railways being contructed with Canadian cities linking up to the northern one. They'll probably be built in the same place as OTL as the northern interests in New York and Chicago will not want to be muscled out by any trans-Mexico line.

We may see an earlier St. Lawrence Seaway constructed
 
In the scenerio that you mention, the Eerie canal will probably come about a litte sooner, say five years.
:confused:If you have the St. Lawrence, why not build a few miles of canal and locks and handle ocean going ships. Why build hundreds of miles of canal that can only deal with barges? ??

Edit: I can see the Erie (or at least a shortened version from Oswego, dropping the Buffalo bit) to connect the Lakes to New York, but the St. Lawrence would make FAR more sense to do first. You might get rail happening before the *Erie was done
 

Eurofed

Banned
So, in the revision of USAO, I've so far adopted some ideas from this thread: the national turnpike road network, the parallel construction of the Erie Canal and of the Welland Canal, which is soon expanded to the St. Lawrence Waterway.

As it concerns the first intercontinental railroads, I was turning in favor of a modified triple system: a Northern route, which connects the Great Lakes with Seattle-Vancouver, a Central route, which connects Chicago with St.Francisco, and a Southern route, which connects New Orleans with Veracruz. There are still three routes built at the same time, this is a political decision to balance the interests of the various sections (the USAO is wealthy enough to afford the multiple route and rather more favorable to government intervention in economy, especially as it concerns infrastructure development, than OTL USA), but the South gives up its own route to California in favor of the Gulf route. Does this look a bit more plausible ?
 
Last edited:
As it concerns the first intercontinental railroads, I was turning in favor of a modified triple system: a Northern route, which connects the Great Lakes with Seattle-Vancouver, a Central route, which connects Chicago with St.Francisco, and a Southern route, which connects New Orleans with Veracruz. There are still three routes built at the same time, this is a political decision to balance the interests of the various sections (the USAO is wealthy enough to afford the multiple route and rather more favorable to government intervention in economy, especially as it concerns infrastructure development, than OTL USA), but the South gives up its own route to California in favor of the Gulf route. Does this look a bit more plausible ?

I think the best eastern terminus for your northern route would be Chicago. Like previous posters have been saying, Canadian development would naturally proceed to Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin without the national border in the way. So, the main population center would still be somewhere around Chicago, causing both the northern and central transcontinentals to head out from somewhere around there. So, I'm thinking they might (at least at the beginning) have the northern line be simply a branch off the central line, something like the Oregon Short Line which IOTL was built in the 1880's.

I like the idea of a railway to Mexico for your southern route. Maybe they could still build it to the Pacific somewhere around Puerto Vallerta, though?
 

Eurofed

Banned
I think the best eastern terminus for your northern route would be Chicago. Like previous posters have been saying, Canadian development would naturally proceed to Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin without the national border in the way. So, the main population center would still be somewhere around Chicago, causing both the northern and central transcontinentals to head out from somewhere around there. So, I'm thinking they might (at least at the beginning) have the northern line be simply a branch off the central line, something like the Oregon Short Line which IOTL was built in the 1880's.

Well, it is true that ITTL development of American Canada is focused on the Great Lakes, but the states on the northern shore of the GL are established and developed only slightly slower than the ones on the southern shore. So there is justification either to have the northern GL-Seattle/Vancouver route start from Chicago like the central/OTL US route, or for it to run on the northern shore of the GL like the OTL Can route. It could go both ways.

I like the idea of a railway to Mexico for your southern route. Maybe they could still build it to the Pacific somewhere around Puerto Vallerta, though?

Interesting idea. :D
 
Well, it is true that ITTL development of American Canada is focused on the Great Lakes, but the states on the northern shore of the GL are established and developed only slightly slower than the ones on the southern shore. So there is justification either to have the northern GL-Seattle/Vancouver route start from Chicago like the central/OTL US route, or for it to run on the northern shore of the GL like the OTL Can route. It could go both ways.

Justification? Today, they aren't anywhere near as developed; I'd say the north would move even more slowly without the national border.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Justification? Today, they aren't anywhere near as developed; I'd say the north would move even more slowly without the national border.

Assimilation within the USA since the beginning exposes Canada to the American settlement policies, that as a rule were rather more efficient than the ones of the British Empire's settlement colonies. And ITTL the USA is adopting policies (e.g. massive government investment into infrastructure development) that are considerably accelerating the colonization of the West, which includes Canadian West. This author is convinced that the border was an obstacle, not an help, to optimal development of Canada.
 
Last edited:
So, in the revision of USAO, I've so far adopted some ideas from this thread: the national turnpike road network, the parallel construction of the Erie Canal and of the Welland Canal, which is soon expanded to the St. Lawrence Waterway.

As it concerns the first intercontinental railroads, I was turning in favor of a modified triple system: a Northern route, which connects the Great Lakes with Seattle-Vancouver, a Central route, which connects Chicago with St.Francisco, and a Southern route, which connects New Orleans with Veracruz. There are still three routes built at the same time, this is a political decision to balance the interests of the various sections (the USAO is wealthy enough to afford the multiple route and rather more favorable to government intervention in economy, especially as it concerns infrastructure development, than OTL USA), but the South gives up its own route to California in favor of the Gulf route. Does this look a bit more plausible ?


I think so.

Oh, does this mean you'll be restarting USAO soon? If so PM me, I'd like to talk about some ideas that this isn't the thread for.
 
Top