Industrial Development: Steamboats or Railways (RAR!)

[Zor]

In this scenario, you are the monarch of a kingdom. Said kingdom is about 1,000,000 square kilometers in size, has six major rivers, nice weather and a population of about 20,000,000 people. It is also at a early 19th century level of technological development. In particular, a nifty new invention has just arrived in your Kingdom...



...and has found work in textile factories, ironworks and mines. However two people have come to your attention with two ways of applying this technology to improve transportation.

The first way comes from a fellow who wants to build a large factory to build a large number of these...



...paddlewheel steamboats for the rivers. Such boats could go both up and down the rivers easily. The two monarchs had spent a fair amount of time developing an extensive network of navigation canals (more than 10,000 km of which have been dug) which the steamboats could use just as as old fashioned cow pulled barges do so right now. They can also work on the coastline. Even so there are many places in your kingdom where it is not economical to build canals.

The second comes from a fellow who owns a coal mine, which has a pair of these machines puffing about hauling cars full of coal about.



He plans on building a factory to produce large numbers of these vehicles, as well as building new and improved locomotives, as well as the mass production of rails and rolling stock. He says that said rail network can carry goods quickly. However, this would mean building a new and expansive system of infrastructure from scratch.

You have enough money set aside to fund the proposal for a largescale shipyard building steamboats or a steamworks and rail foundry. If you decide to compromise and build two smaller scale versions of each, the result will be two facilities which will have 30% of the output that focusing on one area will do. Without your patronage, the railway guy or the steamboat guy will work on their own on their project, but will be lucky to achieve a tenth of what they would otherwise be able to achieve with royal patronage in the next twenty years while their efforts at developing new and better machines will be severely compromised and lag.

Which do you choose?

Zor

[madd0ct0r]

Both, and make it clearly known I am interested in seeing both developed. They're complementary, not competing forms of travel.
Both are also non-reactive, so I can expect very very rapid concentration of the population into cities. With shrewd land investment, the crown will ride the growing tide of wealth, reinvesting it back into the country.

[Lagmonster]

Trains. Boats likely will find backers among the hordes of businesses that are already familiar with using them as transport; They don't need my money or support despite your assertion otherwise. Trains, on the other hand, require someone to take that first financial risk, and I know that they will allow me to develop and exploit land that would be troublesome to use otherwise, including deserts, interior plains, highlands and mountains.

[Vendetta]

Trains.

Paddle steamers don't tend to get used on canals, they generate a significant wash which would erode the banks of the canals and greatly increase dredging and maintainance cost for your network (actually the reason why they were rejected for use).

And rivers might not necessarily go where you need them.

Hence a rail network and trains to go on it.

[madd0ct0r]

rivers tend to work very well for connecting big cities, since cities tend to be on a river. You do need some big ass stable rivers though. How soon are we likely to see propellers replace paddles? (and round wheels to replace the peg system shown for the rail)?

Propellers are better.
http://www.theguardian.com/notesandquer ... 13,00.html

Paddle wheel boats were allowed on the narrow UK canals if they stayed below 4mph
http://www.steamershistorical.co.uk/ste ... canals.htm


unlike the railway, steamers will have important military consequences.

[LaCroix]

Trains.
First, you'd need something to transport stuff to the canals. So you'll still be having to use ox-carts. for most transport.
Canals would cause the coastal and river regions to become even more important, impovering the central provinces, while trains can be built into a network that canals just can't match, and much quicker and reliable than waterways. Also, you'll need to dig those canals (mostly by hand, which will take decades), and find the water to fill these, which might be a problem in some areas.

Rail production historically caused a boom in steel manufacture, which caused a boom in a lot of other industries. Demand for coal and iron ore soared, machinery got invented, steel prices dropped while the quality increased. Inventions were sparked. And that's not even counting the construction work and economic benefits for towns which get a station.

[Borgholio]

Trains definitely. While the investment of infrastructure is higher, the flexibility of being able to go anywhere beats having to have a canal. Look at the impact of steamboats vs railways in the American Civil War as an example. No contest.

[K. A. Pital]

I choose canals just for the sheer fun of it. Railways fail; men are forced with the most deadly job of digging more and more canals until the whole land lookes like Venice on steroids, and hundreds or thousands of small and large steamers going up and down on rivers and canals.

Royal Canalway Lines they shall be called, RCL for short.

[Thunderfire]

Trains. Most 19. centuary channels are to small for steamboats. Bigger ones will be more expensive compared to rail roads. Put a rail track next to an existing channel and use a locomotive to tow the boats.

Down below a picture of a 19. centuary channel

[K. A. Pital]

One-wheeled steamers would easily pass; propeller ones even better.

[Sea Skimmer]

And destroy the canal in the process. This was a huge problem in European canals. The channels were too narrow to dissipate the prop wash leading to heavy bank erosion and resulting failures and high maintenance costs. Canals in rock are fine, but very few ever are. The end result was many European canals had to retain animal power, with only the more useful ones being greatly enlarged or more adapting various trolley canal systems as mentioned, like an engine on shore that pulls the barges, or chain based systems. The length of commercially useful channels plummeted in the process of adapting. Even on those able to accept motive power speeds generally had to be kept very low, often not much higher then those obtained under animal power anyway. In the US the same problem occurred , but ended up leading the near complete implosion of the extensive canal system in the north eastern US long term.

Canalization of rivers can avoid this issue, as you get the entire river as your channel which is generally enough width, but naturally this is only suitable for certain waterways.

Funny enough this same issue became the reason why in the 1960s NASA in the US built a giant crawler way through a swamp at Cape Canaveral instead of just using a barge to go from the VAB to the launch pad. It would have been easier and cheaper to dig a canal the size of the crawler way, but in fact it would have had to be much larger to avoid erosion and suction problems, driving the cost far past that of filling in the swampland. A railroad wasn't used because NASA was afraid the switches would be prone to jamming, many rails being needed to deal with the soft ground.

Railroads sure are expensive to build in turn, but you make up for it with speed and much more direct routes. in this scenario though I'd probably just build both and power past the inefficiency, 20 years isn't that long anyway for this sort of evolution and having a canal system in the first place is already a big step ahead of many counties in the 19th century.

[K. A. Pital]

I know, but we are in a monarchy. I want to build a murderously inefficient and maintenance-heavy system. Then the regime collapses because people don't want to constantly die building and rebuilding canals. Or because money runs out.

[Steve]

.....so in a project to improve a country's infrastructure your long-term plan isn't about improving it and the lives of the nation's citizenry from improved commerce, it's "screw it up intentionally to ruin the government so I can overthrow it"?

Hrm. How surprising.

[K. A. Pital]

Yes. Also the sheer unique craziness of its history will equal that of the construction of the Egyptian pyramids. Nice memorial - which will keep people disillusioned in the intellectual abilities of monarchs for many generations.

[madd0ct0r]

And destroy the canal in the process. This was a huge problem in European canals. The channels were too narrow to dissipate the prop wash leading to heavy bank erosion and resulting failures and high maintenance costs. Canals in rock are fine, but very few ever are.

well, you can line the banks with bricks, gabions or have the boat trail swallowtail buffers to reflect the wash at least once (effectively doubling the width of the canal). Won't do much for the bow wave, but it'd reduce the turbulence from the paddle wheel at rear. We need a ruling from Zor on the width of the existing canals, but I'm going to assume narrow too for now. digging is expensive.
On the other hand, an existing canal for moving spoil and steam powered excavators might make a broadening scheme relatively cheap.

[Steve]

Yes. Also the sheer unique craziness of its history will equal that of the construction of the Egyptian pyramids. Nice memorial - which will keep people disillusioned in the intellectual abilities of monarchs for many generations.

So you consider it better to cause death and loss in order to destroy a nation's institutions than to make life better for the nation as a whole simply because you disagree with the title of the head honcho?

Would you choose different if Zor substituted, oh, "General Secretary" as the title of the country's ruler?

[K. A. Pital]

Nah, even so I would prefer people not to have too much faith in the intellectual capabilities of rulers. That idea may actuall bring more good than harm down the line. Besides, the ruthless impression that all of Victorian industrial machinery made on me during my travels and studies just kind of begs for a fitting scenario...

[Steve]

Somehow I doubt the creation of better infrastructure will make people believe rulers are geniuses...

I honestly prefer to build rather than destroy.

[K. A. Pital]

Somehow I doubt the creation of better infrastructure will make people believe rulers are geniuses...

One of many hundreds:

I honestly prefer to build rather than destroy.

I am more fond of yin-yang, creation and destruction... and dialectics.

[Zor]

And destroy the canal in the process. This was a huge problem in European canals. The channels were too narrow to dissipate the prop wash leading to heavy bank erosion and resulting failures and high maintenance costs. Canals in rock are fine, but very few ever are.

well, you can line the banks with bricks, gabions or have the boat trail swallowtail buffers to reflect the wash at least once (effectively doubling the width of the canal). Won't do much for the bow wave, but it'd reduce the turbulence from the paddle wheel at rear. We need a ruling from Zor on the width of the existing canals, but I'm going to assume narrow too for now. digging is expensive.
On the other hand, an existing canal for moving spoil and steam powered excavators might make a broadening scheme relatively cheap.

Several guages exist ranging from 12 feet to 200 feet.

Zor