Panama Canal

Keywatin · Jan 30, 2015

What are some reasons the Panama Canal would have never been built? I mean, the obvious one is that nobody ever continued it after the French abandoned it.

What are some butterflies of having no Panama Canal? I'm thinking some possibilities include a much stronger Argentina and Chile, as well as increased settlement and possibly even a dominion in the Falkland Islands. In North America, cities like Winnipeg would be much larger and stronger given their importance for rail transport.

Delta Force · Jan 30, 2015

Keywatin said:
What are some reasons the Panama Canal would have never been built? I mean, the obvious one is that nobody ever continued it after the French abandoned it.

What are some butterflies of having no Panama Canal? I'm thinking some possibilities include a much stronger Argentina and Chile, as well as increased settlement and possibly even a dominion in the Falkland Islands. In North America, cities like Winnipeg would be much larger and stronger given their importance for rail transport.

The Nicaragua Canal was historically the favored American canal. There were also proposals for a canal through Mexico.

Keywatin · Jan 30, 2015

Delta Force said:
The Nicaragua Canal was historically the favored American canal. There were also proposals for a canal through Mexico.

So you don't foresee much difference then.

Delta Force · Jan 30, 2015

Keywatin said:
So you don't foresee much difference then.

The Nicaragua Canal would be closer to the United States and Europe, so it would shorten travel distance and times even more.

Driftless · Jan 30, 2015

More of a delay to construction, rather than no canal at all: encounter more delays in developing treatment for Yellow Fever. I believe Nicaragua is also in the Yellow Fever zone as well as Panama.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_fever

Carlos Finlay, a Cuban doctor and scientist, first proposed in 1881 that yellow fever might be transmitted by mosquitoes rather than direct human contact.[55][56] Since the losses from yellow fever in the Spanish–American War in the 1890s were extremely high, Army doctors began research experiments with a team led by Walter Reed, composed of doctors James Carroll, Aristides Agramonte, and Jesse William Lazear. They successfully proved Finlay's ″mosquito hypothesis″. Yellow fever was the first virus shown to be transmitted by mosquitoes. The physician William Gorgas applied these insights and eradicated yellow fever from Havana. He also campaigned against yellow fever during the construction of the Panama Canal, after a previous effort on the part of the French failed (in part due to mortality from the high incidence of yellow fever and malaria, which decimated the workers).[6]

Dathi THorfinnsson · Jan 30, 2015

There WILL be an interoceanic canal tthrough the isthmus. It just makes too much sense, and is too cost effective for it not to happen. It could be in Nicaragua, it could be delayed a couple of years. But it's going to happen.

NHBL · Jan 30, 2015

Balance of Power

In Turtledove's TL-191, there was no canal because the USA wouldn't stand for one being built, and Teddy Roosevelt let people know that, if a single shovelful of dirt was dug, the digging country would find itself at war. Basically, if a canal is a big enough threat that a major power would go to war to prevent it, it's not getting built...

Delta Force · Jan 30, 2015

I wonder if a canal could have been built by one of the European powers? After all, France was the first country to make an attempt.

Driftless · Jan 30, 2015

Yellow Fever played a significant part in derailing the French project in the 1880's

Later, after the experience with the USS Oregon's trek from San Francisco to Florida during the early days of the Spanish American War; I could see the US pressing for a canal only built by the US.

Superman · Jan 30, 2015

NHBL said:
In Turtledove's TL-191, there was no canal because the USA wouldn't stand for one being built, and Teddy Roosevelt let people know that, if a single shovelful of dirt was dug, the digging country would find itself at war. Basically, if a canal is a big enough threat that a major power would go to war to prevent it, it's not getting built...

Why didn't TTL's USA build the canal itself, like IOTL?

GeographyDude · Jan 30, 2015

and/or rail is more successful earlier, reducing the need for the canal.

usertron2020 · Jan 30, 2015

NHBL said:
In Turtledove's TL-191, there was no canal because the USA wouldn't stand for one being built, and Teddy Roosevelt let people know that, if a single shovelful of dirt was dug, the digging country would find itself at war. Basically, if a canal is a big enough threat that a major power would go to war to prevent it, it's not getting built...

Superman said:
Why didn't TTL's USA build the canal itself, like IOTL?

I wouldn't take a series meant to satisfy Neo-Confederate sexual self-gratification fantasies too seriously...

At least "Guns of the South" had an ASB basis that made the impossible "plausible".

NHBL · Jan 30, 2015

Confederat lake

Superman said:
Why didn't TTL's USA build the canal itself, like IOTL?

The Caribbean was nearly a Confederate lake in that series, so, at BEST, the canal gets blown up at the start of the war--worst case, CSA captures it.

CDurham · Jan 31, 2015

Superman said:
Why didn't TTL's USA build the canal itself, like IOTL?

Also, the CSA was saying much the same thing. Basically if any of the CSA's allies had tried digging then the USA would have declared war and if any of the USA's allies had tried digging then the CSA would have declared war. About the only neutral who would have had the ability to build the canal would be Spain and they have their own issues with Latin America which may not have needed the USA or the CSA to threaten war because Latin America doesn't want any part of themselves to become New Spain version 2.0

Also, any Latin American government that authorized a Spanish built canal would have about 20 minutes left after the announcement before they are not longer in power

marathag · Feb 1, 2015

GeographyDude said:
and/or rail is more successful earlier, reducing the need for the canal.

Behold.........

The Eads Ship railway

By the early 1880s two rival teams had their own solution to the problem. Each was competing to build a canal, one across an isthmus in Panama, the other across Nicaragua. At this point Eads entered the fray with a third possible location and a much more audacious concept -- a multi-track railroad designed to carry ocean liners across the Tehuantepec isthmus in Mexico. The ships were to be carried on 350-foot-long cradles, which Eads compared to dry-docks. The cradles would be backed down a railway until they reached deep enough water for the ships to be floated and securely attached to them. Two powerful locomotive engines would then pull the ships across Mexico.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/eads/sfeature/sf_shiprr.html#

joeferrito · Feb 1, 2015

marathag said:
The Eads Ship railway

By the early 1880s two rival teams had their own solution to the problem. Each was competing to build a canal, one across an isthmus in Panama, the other across Nicaragua. At this point Eads entered the fray with a third possible location and a much more audacious concept -- a multi-track railroad designed to carry ocean liners across the Tehuantepec isthmus in Mexico. The ships were to be carried on 350-foot-long cradles, which Eads compared to dry-docks. The cradles would be backed down a railway until they reached deep enough water for the ships to be floated and securely attached to them. Two powerful locomotive engines would then pull the ships across Mexico.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/eads/sfeature/sf_shiprr.html#

Ho. Lee. Shit.

As somebody with a little experience firing steam engines, I wouldn't want to be the poor sap trying to keep those monsters hot.

Carl Schwamberger · Feb 1, 2015

joeferrito said:
Ho. Lee. Shit.

As somebody with a little experience firing steam engines, I wouldn't want to be the poor sap trying to keep those monsters hot.

Imagine... the coal

Piles and piles...

joeferrito · Feb 1, 2015

Carl Schwamberger said:
Imagine... the coal Piles and piles...

It's the bastard creation of Mallet and Fairlie... Nightmares...

marathag · Feb 1, 2015

Carl Schwamberger said:
Imagine... the coal Piles and piles...

Since much of Mexico's Coal output was Bituminous and Lignite, not much good for shoveling ontop of locomotive grates, and it was all in the far north.

So you would probably see a change in fuel, rather than importing decent coal, switch to oil burning, more BTUs, and a pump beats a stoker any day

Southern Pacific and Sante Fe RRs started using oilburners rather than Wood in the 1890s

Mike Stearns · Feb 1, 2015

marathag said:
Behold.........

The Eads Ship railway

By the early 1880s two rival teams had their own solution to the problem. Each was competing to build a canal, one across an isthmus in Panama, the other across Nicaragua. At this point Eads entered the fray with a third possible location and a much more audacious concept -- a multi-track railroad designed to carry ocean liners across the Tehuantepec isthmus in Mexico. The ships were to be carried on 350-foot-long cradles, which Eads compared to dry-docks. The cradles would be backed down a railway until they reached deep enough water for the ships to be floated and securely attached to them. Two powerful locomotive engines would then pull the ships across Mexico.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/eads/sfeature/sf_shiprr.html#

LOL! is that even buildable?