Forum:Federal States/Inland Waterways Discussion

Forums → Federal States → 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:

Comparison of US Waterway Vessel and Lock Sizes
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.

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:

1200 × 110 on the Alormen River (above Minneuka) and Massodeya River (below Massodeya City)
600 × 110 on other modernized waterways, since their overall width is likely not 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:

Standard Inland Waterways Navigation Specifications
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

Alormen River Watershed (except Massodeya)
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.
Kinnowa River	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.

Massodeya River Watershed
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.

Carnaby River Watershed
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.
Carnaby River	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.
Rosiere River	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.

East Lakes Watershed
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.
Valterra River	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.

West Lakes Watershed
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)