Forum:Federal States/Inland Waterways Discussion
Hello, everyone. It seems important to open a discussion about inland marine infrastructure. The focus of this page is the discussion of commercial marine infrastructure and less about recreational, small craft, or even really historic waterways. This page aims to be a central repository for discussion for the time being, since much of the necessary information is dispersed throughout the site right now.
I wish to note that this discussion is going to get a bit in-the-weeds on some things. It also is not going to be something that everyone passionately cares about. I do ask, however, that if your state is along a major (or potentially major) inland waterway, that you do give time to consider what is being discussed here. We do hope that all involved will do their part to make this particular aspect of transportation infrastructure consistent on the map. Contributions and discussion are welcomed and appreciated. — Alessa (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Basic assumptions
- The Federal States has cabotage laws similar to the United States, which prevents foreign-flagged vessels from sailing in Federal States waters between two FS points. Thus, foreign-flagged vessels are going to be incredibly unlikely even on the Alormen River or in the lakes. The most likely foreign-flagged vessels are probably from Deodeca in the western lakes. This makes the seaports at Andreapolis, Port Massehanee, Stanton, and Anne Abbey incredibly important intermodal transportation hubs.
- "Salties," or ocean-going vessels, would not be possible inland beyond any immediate coastal waterways. The potential exception is possibly the Alormen River and Lake Leighton unless really small, given the natural chokepoint of the Midesapa River and necessity of locks on the Massodeya River. It is quite possible that salties would not even make it past Minneuka, the furthest point on the Alormen before locks are required.
- "Lakers," or lake-traveling vessels, in the Federal States, may need to be smaller than what is currently used in the United States now. Unlike the United States, only two of our lakes are interconnected by a natural waterway that is conducive to marine transportation. Apart from the "Makaska Passages" between Lakes Seneppi and Ohunkagan and the natural strait between Lake Seneppi and Lake Minnehunkou, the Federal States is reliant on improving waterways like the narrow Midesapa River or building canals like the canal through central Seneppi at Wallawaukee. These natural chokepoints may limit the size of lakers tremendously, which means that intermodal ports on the lower Alormen and lower Carnaby are all the more essential.
- Barges are likely an important part of marine transportation on the inland rivers of the country, but the amount in comparison to the United States is not determinable at this point. Barges in the US are a major means of transporting raw materials (coal, iron ore, etc.), and the inland waterways of the US heavily traverse these areas. If mining is not an active part of the economy in the Federal States, the necessity or value of barge transportation may be lower.
- Numerous other historic canals should dot the landscape that are no longer in the inland waterway network. These canals may have been too narrow as vessels got larger, too expensive to maintain as transportation patterns shifted, or were simply too difficult to upgrade over time. While these canals are not the focus of this post, they may be valuable to discuss and coordinate with neighbors.
- Like the United States, the Federal States would have been on a canal-building spree in its early years—especially before 1820. After 1820, railroads would dominate the transportation landscape. Railroads are cheaper to build and maintain, and they can reach many more places. Part of why canal construction slowed in the United States was the Panic of 1817. Another reason, however, is the lack of viable waterways the more the country expanded west. Thus, historic canals would probably criss-cross the eastern states and still find frequency in the lakes and some of the east-central states.
- The "Federal Canal" is the crown-jewel of these, akin to the Erie Canal in the United States. Its course is preliminarily mapped, but decisions need to be made about if it is in modern use. With no St. Lawrence Seaway equivalent to easily replace it, the demand for maintaining and upgrading the Federal Canal might be higher. It also would prove very difficult to widen, deepen, and replace bridges in New Carnaby in particular with encroachment of development.
Size considerations of locks for vessels
For those of us that are drawing canals, locks, ports, and other marine-transportation facilities, these types of things are going to be essential. As mentioned above, there are natural restrictions that we will need to consider if we wish to break from what is done in the real world. For those that wish to get into the weeds a bit, here are some basic statistics that have been dug up from the United States government:
| Waterway/System | Max Vessel Length | Max Beam (Width) | Max Draft | Max Air Draft | Lock Size (if applicable) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mississippi River System | ~1,200 ft (tow length) | 105 ft (typical tow width) | 9 ft (maintained depth) | Varies but is limited by bridges | 600 ft × 110 ft (many), some 1,200 ft × 110 ft |
| Ohio River | ~1,200 ft (tow) | 105 ft | 9 ft | Limited by bridges | Mostly 1,200 ft × 110 ft Remainder or auxiliary 600 ft |
| Tenn-Tom Waterway | ~1,200 ft (tow) | 105 ft | 9 ft | Limited by some tight bridges | 600 ft × 110 ft (some 1,200 ft chambers) |
| Illinois Waterway | 600 ft (tow length in lock) | 110 ft | 9 ft | ~20 ft (some low-clearance bridges) | 600 ft × 110 ft (standard) |
| Great Lakes (Lakers) | Up to 1,000 ft | 105 ft | 28 ft (Seaway: ~26.5 ft) | Very high (up to 150+ ft) | Soo Locks: 1,200 ft × 110 ft; Seaway locks: 766 ft × 80 ft |
| Erie Canal | 300 ft | 43.5 ft | 9–12 ft | 15.5 ft (fixed bridges) | 328 ft × 45 ft |
A standard barge on the inland waterways of the United States is typically 195 ft long, 35 ft wide, and has a draft of 9 ft when loaded. Each one has a cargo capacity of about ~1,500–1,800 short tons. Jumbo barges can be 200 ft long and up to 54 ft wide in some Gulf states and along the lower Mississippi, where there are no locks to consider. Barges are typically pushed by towboats in a configuration of 3 wide by 5 long, which gets a total size of about 1050 ft × 105 ft when accounting for rigging equipment and necessary space between barges for maneuverability. This is largely why the United States has been upgrading its lock sizes from 600 × 110 to 1200 × 110 on major waterways like the Mississippi, Ohio, and Tenn–Tom. Also, barges are typically lift-on/lift-off in the United States. Only a couple select facilities even allow for roll-on/roll-off on barges, since container traffic is extremely rare. Even so, a standard 3 × 5 barge configuration can replace 1100 trucks or 260 rail cars.
Unless there is a good reason, it is proposed that the standard lock sizes on the Federal States inland waterways correspond to the United States equivalent. The reason we may wish to not do the US equivalent might be if lakers are allowed in the inland waterways. In the US, they are not allowed, since the Illinois Waterway is not built to accommodate them. Given that it is highly unlikely lakers would traverse most inland waterways in the Federal States, the following are proposed:
- 1200 × 110 on the Alormen River (above Minneuka) and Massodeya River (below Massodeya City)
- 600 × 110 on other modernized waterways, since their overall width and curvature is not likely conducive to larger tows anyway
What will need further discussion is the status of the "Federal Canal" (if it was modernized despite difficult terrain) and what size is acceptable on the inter-lake waterways. Given the way the "Federal Canal" connects Stanton to the lakes and not the rivers, modernization may wish to reflect Seaway standards (766 × 80) or perhaps some other equivalent. The same may be applicable to the difficult stretches along the Midesapa River, at Ohunkagan, and the canals in the western lakes.
Since vessel size dictates channel size, which is important for us to render on the map with verisimilitude, here is a summary of how the shipping lanes correspond to the real world:
| Navigation Feature | Inland Waterway Standard Specifications | Standard Seaway Specifications |
|---|---|---|
| Channel Depth | 9 feet (inland); 12 ft (GIWW); 45 ft (Lower Mississippi) | 27 feet maintained |
| Channel Width | 300 ft (straight); 400–600+ ft (bends) | ~350 ft minimum |
| Lock Width | 110 feet (standard) | 80 ft |
| Lock Length | 600 ft (older), 1,200 ft (modern standard) | 768 ft |
| Turning Radius | ~1,200–1,500 ft (at designated turning pools) | comparable |
| Air Draft | 50–56 ft minimum bridge clearance (19 ft on Illinois Waterway) | 116 ft minimum bridge clearance |
Where waterways will go
Because of the technical nature of marine transportation, there may not be many options for the Federal States to have an expansive inland waterway network. Even wide, slow-flowing rivers like the Maumee and lower Wabash in the Great Lakes states of the US are not part of the inland waterway network. They may have some minor commercial traffic but are navigable for recreational traffic primarily. Even the Clinch River, in southwest Virginia, is considered navigable below the confluence of Indian Creek. This river could never handle commercial traffic with its depth and width, but it is a valuable recreational river. Thus, we should be carefully judicious to determine which waterways would be commercially navigable versus recreationally navigable.
The map below is a starting-point and not all-inclusive of inland waterways. More will be added as things are discussed. The first edition of the map does not include presumed inland waterways in Clamash or connecting Huntington to Anne Abbey. Elevation markers are either confirmed or marked with estimates based on canon figures in the lakes and Alormen Valley.
For comparison, please see this map or this map of US inland waterways.
Port city and intermodal transfer facility with modern facilities for seafaring vessels
Potential city for inland waterway connection
Confirmed historic inland canal access before 1900 but not part of modern network
Cities with likely inland waterway facilities
Other city (some may have historically been connected via canals in the past)
Elevation marker
Loading map...
Proposed waterway divisions and notes
| Waterway | Potential use | Notes | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alormen River | Fully navigable along entire course | Lock–dam system required above Minneuka to reach lakes but has natural flow below Minneuka to Andreapolis. | |
| Caldwell River | Navigable below MacArthur River at Caldwell City | Details need to be mapped and lock–dam system may be needed above Allen City depending on fall of river | |
| Kinnowa River | Navigable with lock–dam at Relidan below Kansesippi River | Short connection to Grassfield (via short stretch of Kansesippi River) still requires at least two locks along very short course just to reach Grassfield. | |
| Plausibly navigable with lock and dam system below Steeletown | River will need more clear channelization and a lock-and-dam system at least above the Kansesippi River if not a paralleling canal; potentially expensive and historical development of cities may have been after a waterway-construction rush would have occurred. Potentially a more modern project, but it remains potentially cost-prohibitive. | ||
| Des Nonnes River | Navigable with lock and dam system below the Mississaukee River at Des Nonnes | Details need to be mapped, with facilities to handle the three cataracts in central Mennowa. | |
| Potentially navigable between Shaunaseeport and Des Nonnes with channelization and lock–dam system | More favorable for small barges and small craft than for large river barges but still possible for farm-to-market goods. | ||
| Potential candidate for navigability between Ryle and Shaunaseeport with dedicated channel and lock–dam system | Likely expensive and more modern connection given primary settlement period of cities along the water course; unlikely given rail use in area. | ||
| "Unnamed" River | Fully navigable below Miller (Federal Canal connection) with lock–dam systems along entire course | Details need to be mapped, clear channelization is needed, and lock–dam system carefully planned out based necessary elevations. |
| Waterway | Potential use | Notes | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Massodeya River | Navigable with lock and dam system below the Blue River at Massodeya City | Details need to be mapped, with bypass canal at Reeseport around the Falls of the Massodeya; lock-and-dam system should resemble the Ohio River | |
| Potentially navigable with lock and dam system between the Watamack River at Darsons and the Blue River at Massodeya City | River is potentially wide enough and deep enough; would have at least been a historic navigability. Lock–dam network is a necessity | ||
| Potentially navigable for small craft or personal recreational vessels between Lunenburgh and the Watamack River at Darsons | Unlikely navigable even historically but may be a candidate for a historic canal that paralleled the river | ||
| Molson–Beveronto River | Potentially navigable below St. Brookings–Madawan with lock and dam system | Prime candidate for corridor improvements, but clear channelization, lock facilities, and other elements will need to be carefully planned. River width and curvature will likely need revision if barges and commercial traffic is permissible. | |
| Morgan River | Likely candidate for canal or navigability below Casparis | Details need to be planned. At minimum, a historic canal is an assured possibility based on timing of settlement patterns in the region. |
| Waterway | Potential use | Notes | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Carnaby River | Fully navigable with channelization and natural flow below Waltmore | Some details need refinement, especially how commercial traffic would use the bend at Stanton. Possible bypass canal and spillway (in case of upstream flooding) for more modern river traffic toward Belleville and nearby port area is highly likely. | |
| Fully navigable with channelization lock–dam system below Three Rivers to Waltmore | Some details need refinement, including lock facilities and resultant pools. | ||
| Rosiere River | Fully navigable with lock and dam system below Wasserstadt | River is potentially wide enough and deep enough; lock–dam network and clear channelization is a necessity. | |
| Navigable as paralleling canal, part of the major Federal Canal works project below Monroe Falls | Amount of canal improvements for modernization to be determined, but a fully modern canal for barges is likely. | ||
| Federal Canal | Navigable canal between "Unnamed" River and Carnaby–Rosiere watershed | Amount of canal improvements for modernization to be determined, but a fully modern canal for barges is likely. |
| Waterway | Potential use | Notes | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Valterra River | Expected and anticipated for full navigability with lock–dam system. | Major historic precedent to connect Federal Canal directly to eastern lakes. Clear channelization, lock facilities, and other elements will need to be carefully planned. River width and curvature will require complete overhaul. | |
| Expected and anticipated Federal Canal connection | Details need to be planned. | ||
| Midesapa River | Navigable with lock at Midesapa City | Need to confirm lock sizes and river curvature. Likely a regional choke point. | |
| Ohunkagan River | Navigable with lock at Ohunkagan | May need to confirm lock sizes. | |
| Makaska Passages | Fully navigable between lakes | May need to confirm exact routes for commercial traffic. |
| Waterway | Potential use | Notes | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ondassagam Waterway | Navigable with some locks. | Beginning stages mapped. | |
| Seneppi–Sauganash Canal | Navigable with some locks. | Beginning stages mapped. Possibly a regional choke point. | |
| Cheyelle–Seneppi Canal | Potential connector canal between Lake Seneppi and Lake Cheyelle. | Potential access for Pike to the lakes. | |
| Akogama River | Potentially navigable below Barstone–Nenova with basic lock and dam system | Prime candidate for corridor improvements, but clear channelization, lock facilities, and other elements will need to be carefully planned. River width and curvature will likely need revision if barges and commercial traffic is permissible. | |
| Mississaukee–Akogama | Potential canal from Des Nonnes to near Springfield, via Eriksburg. | May be valued as a relief route for certain types of shipping along rivers that have viable terrain for paralleling canal. Offers bypass of East-Lakes chokepoints for traffic to and from West Lakes. |
Discussion
I know there is a lot here. We will continue to work on this and expand it together as time goes on. Discussion is welcome and appreciated. — Alessa (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
- I should also specify a few major points that I do think we need to have robust discussion about. In my view, these are some crucial questions that we should answer to grasp the scope of modern waterways:
- What is the status of the Federal Canal? With the Alormen flowing into the Ardentic also, would the expense and difficulty be warranted to modernize the canal and Carnaby River fully?
- Is there demand for lakers on the scale that we have in the Great Lakes? If so, then we need to discuss which facilities might be needed to accommodate such sizes. For example, the canals between the western lakes and the Midesapa River would need to be sized accordingly.
- Relatedly, river barges are not viable on the large lakes, even if they are smaller than the Great Lakes. Does the FSA create a type of ship that has greater draft than a 9ft barge that can be on the lakes and the rivers? If so, this would mean that only select rivers (likely only the Alormen) would be able to handle that traffic and creates size problems at Ohunkagan and Midesapa City, in particular. This impacts the viability of the Akogama as a waterway also.
- What about facilities and waterways in Clamash? As the most southern domestic port on the Asperic, there may be a need to fine-tune these connections. Rail would certainly play a part, and maybe inland waterways are irrelevant beyond Wahanta.
- — Alessa (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
In regards to #4, my headcanon is the Henrietta River is not navigable south of Gantiac. That being said, I would be open to making the Henrietta River navigable for barges farther into Clamash so long as it wouldn't rewrite the significance of the railroad in the state. Wahanta is accessible to "salties" up to the Udlith River as the CL 22 Bridge serves as a barrier for farther inland access. Glauber (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
I support this measure, and I am willing to adjust towns in Zakahigan as needed. ItsTybear 8:36PM, 27 May 2025 (EST)