Grand Canals-are they worth it?

I have recently been considering "grand canals" in-game, based on the positions I play.  When I say "grand canals" I am using that as a short-hand for canals that in some way make major sea-going journeys easier by having a canal instead.

There are the pre-Suez Canal waterway links between the Med and Red Sea, the Corinth Canal, the Stecknitz Canal, all historical canals that could be restored or improved in-game.  Plus there is the Panama Canal and the Caledonian Canal, not in-period but either ones that have been attempted in-game but could be...

So, more as an intellectual exercise, which "grand canals" are viable in-game, in terms of effort and returns?  Is it worth the Ottomans trying to restore/build a canal between the Red Sea and Med?  Should Spain even try an early Panama Canal?  Is it really in the German interest to have a canal that saves going through Danish-controlled waters to get out of the Baltic?  Is a Caledonian Canal ever going to work?  Will the Corinth Canal serve a purpose in the 18th C?

I don't have the answers, just asking the questions

When I was Venice in G9 I did get a quote for the Corinth Canal and (I think, from memory) did begin construction. But my purpose was slightly different. It is only a few miles long with most of the digging already completed (just needed to be widened and collapsed areas dug out again, and of course dredgers obtained otherwise it would collapse again). The trade benefits aren't that great because ships sailing from Egypt will probably prefer to go to Venice anyway than Corinth. Yes it saves a sea trip around all those islands, but one of the difficulties with any canal is throughput - if it is a success, it brings delays as ships queue to use the canal. Even without the delay, it would only be a few more days sailing, so in the end I didn't think the trade benefits were going to be that great. The strategic/defensive benefits might have been though: I imagined it being effectively a long defensive line with forts so if the Ottomans did try to attack Morea by land then they would struggle. That would force them to go by sea which at least gave the Venetian navy a chance to sink them before they landed. It was viable in engineering terms because so much of the work had already been done and it could link into a fortification network which would have helped me protect Morea. In this it will not surprise you that I was being overly historical: Venice's problem was always that she spent a fortune building defences only to then not be able to afford the manpower to defend them properly, so the investment did not ultimately benefit Venice, but the Ottomans who occupied them.

The Suez Canal certainly is a great trade benefit because it saves a long voyage round Africa and in G7 it has been built in a joint Ottoman/Egypt project. From memory it took a few years, but I would imagine that it has paid for itself by now (1714).

I would be skeptical about the Stecknitz Canal: it is only 60 miles through relatively favourable landscape and may well use existing rivers for part of it (depending on how generous Richard is feeling), so it should be feasible from an engineering standpoint. but if you are thinking from your Hanseatic League viewpoint, I wouldn't construct it. Why ... because the Hanseatic League makes money from trade, mainly by sea. So in building the canal you would be reducing your seaborne trade profits. You don't even have to sail round Denmark since there is a sea route through (with careful navigation for smaller ships like liners).

The Panama Canal ... well Stuart might well prove us all wrong - he certainly has the resources in G7 to attempt it. As you know it is an engineering nightmare with about as hostile a climate as you can get, think 100,000 slaves dying at the rate of 10,000/month during construction. But if it could be built at a huge cost, the benefits to trade would be significant. If Stuart has built it then I missed it, and to be honest I'm a bit surprised he hasn't tried it. Perhaps he had a quote and decided against it?

The Caledonian Canal - again I don't think it would be worth it given the volume of trade. Yes it would connect Inverness in a more direct way, but Inverness is a port with a small population of only 4,000. It might look easy on the map, but hacking through granite for a third of its length would make it very expensive.

Better options in Scotland would surely be the Clyde-Forth Canal, which I had intended to construct (and still might). That is 35 miles and would be of great benefit to trade and security. There is only about a 10 foot variation in height so it would be possible to dig deeper and make it into a fully functioning ship canal without locks. Imagine a single fleet stationed on either river would be able to protect both sides of Scotland. I haven't yet obtained a quotation, but it is on the 'to do' list.

I'm also thinking about a Manchester ship canal (it is one of the benefits of having a war in your territory that towns that should be on the map suddenly appear when occupied by the enemy. Manchester wasn't on the original England map, but it has nearly twice the population of Liverpool (which was). Whether I could extend the canal to Leeds and make a profit is debatable. Leeds is actually quite difficult to connect: the Aire-Calder navigation system was originally built by 1704 after nearly a hundred years of various experiments, but had to be upgraded several times. Selby to the Humber is relatively easy, but Leeds itself is built on several hills which makes canal planning really difficult. Remember in engineering terms a canal does not just rely on a series of artificial dams (locks) to control water flow and vary height, it also needs sufficient water management systems (reservoirs) so that during its operation there is enough water so the canals and/or diverted rivers which provide the water don't run dry. I guess what I'm saying is that it isn't just a case of joining rivers on a map to make more water. We actually saw that a few weeks ago with the floods in Rotherham/Doncaster.

Perhaps if you already have A-grade canals you have possibly made as many gains as you need so expanding by building internal ship canals may be unnecessary? Major sea going canals like Suez, on the other hand, will bring great benefits provided the saving in time is significant.

Thanks for your thoughts Papa.  I don't think there is a single word I would question or disagree with.

On a Suez Canal, I suspect because we so rarely have an active Egypt, we don't see it happening more often?  Hadn't realised it did exist in G7, I wonder if the now-active central Ottoman team in G8 might be able to undertake a similar project.

Do agree on the Stretchnitz Canal, more a thought process than anything else, also I think it was one of the earliest canals in modern Europe, so seemed to be fair to mention it   The only reason to go for it could be if the recently-reintroduced Danish tolls in G8 for going through the Sound got excessive (and even then would need Brunswick support to build).  But got more useful projects to spend money on

The Clyde-Forth Canal is one I have considered by in G10, Scotland has other priorities and the trade advantages aren't there..yet...but I agree on the naval advantages.  On the Caledonian Canal, the one thing in its favour at our time period (historically if not in game) is if built properly would save ships sailing round the top of Scotland in winter months (even in today's ships a bloody nightmare) but again not convinced on the in-game advantage.

The Manchester Ship Canal is one I hadn't considered, has potential but like you say a lot of issues.

The Panama Canal, the more I think about it, I wonder if a road might make more sense in-period? Simpler in terms of technology, maintenance and loss of life?  I have vague memories of an American author called Turtledove (I think?), who writes alternative history novels (not my taste but hey) and I am sure in one he has the British in control of Panama and building a road instead of, and much earlier than, the canal

No problem - probably coincidence that most of them I have already looked into over the years.

I have actually found my original quotation for Venice for the Corinth Canal, but I queried whether it included the defences I had asked for (it didn't):

FINDINGS ON THE CORINTH CANAL PROJECT
1. Distance covered just over 4 miles.
2. To run across the Isthmus of Corinth from the Gulf of Corinth to
the Saronic Gulf in the Aegean Sea.
3. The ground covered is through limestone rock, the resulting canal
shall have very high sides and only allow the passage of ships in one
direction at a time.
4. No locks are necessary as the land lies flat at sea level.
Time to complete: Target 1 year.
Requirements:
10,000 labourers (spare surplus recruits) @£3/year each.
1 Surveyor mission.
1 Engineer mission.

So you see it is quite achievable in game - the cost/time is reasonable.

Suez in G7 I don't have a quote for, but did pick this up (currently in my file as useful historical information ... Jacobite Naval Intelligence is very thorough):

Construction started 04-1704 as joint Anatolian-Egyptian effort. (Anatolian (or UDP?) ambassador Umit Bilirgen provided slaves; Bey Huseyin of Egypt money. Completed 04-1707, open to all merchants, but a 10% tariff applies (which is necessary to help recoup the cost of construction). Owned by Ottoman Egypt and Anatolia.

I'm fairly sure I did order a feasibility study for the Forth-Clyde Canal, but I was running a backlog in orders at the time so it didn't happen and was later just put in the 'later projects' section of my orders. As I have probably mentioned before I have one big file with orders written in advance - I select from that file to copy/paste them into the current turn so if I am running short of time I don't have to write new orders - everything is done in advance and sometimes submitted in advance. That file contains various bits of background and ideas, some of which date back several game years. I do try to tidy it up once it exceeds 30-40 pages. A couple of turns ago I sent it by accident to Richard instead of just the first page or so - not sure quite what he made of it, but thankfully I spotted it shortly afterwards.

The section of the Manchester Ship Canal to Liverpool is almost certainly feasible and should provide benefits to trade, it is extending it over the Pennines that is more difficult.

A Panama viaduct instead of a canal is a curious idea. Wasn't that one of the ideas of the Darien project? From an engineering perspective it probably doesn't make much difference. There are 3 major difficulties:
1. From the Caribbean side there is actually very little digging required because any passage can use the inland lakes. A canal does make sense to get into this section.
2. From the Pacific side you have a high mountain range which whether road or canal would require a tunnel.
3. The real difficulty is in the climate: disease from the inland water, extreme heat and the large number of men needed to either erect foundations for a road or causeway or dig a canal. And then dig a long tunnel - that in itself is a problem because of the need to ventilate it and provide enough support to stop it collapsing. If you tried to line the tunnel with bricks then you would probably have to import them rather than manufacture them on site because of the climate and lack of the right raw materials.

In theory you could create a terminus on both sides and simply transfer goods overland between them, but unless you can deal with the disease problem you would still risk spreading it from one terminus to the other and onto the ships. Panama is just an incredibly unhealthy place for humans, and which ship captains would want to risk having to stay in quarantine, losing time and profits each time they sailed away and came down with something? And of course transferring goods overland would also mean a steady need for slaves/animals who were acclimatized so the running costs of the canal would be high.

The more I'm thinking about it, the more I wonder if it would be viable in 1700. If you haven't already, look at the clipper routes which were the fastest routes in the Age of Sail. To get to Australia, they sailed from England across to South America (roughly Uruguay), picking up the next group of trade winds which carried them past the tip of Africa which then gave them a choice of points to turn north from for either India or Philippines, or to keep going. The distance to be traveled is less as such southern latitudes and the wind more consistent. I know it is out of period, but Cutty Sark made England to Australia in 72 days (somewhat faster than the Agema times of 9+months). There are trade winds from the Pacific Coast of Mexico which could be picked up by sailing north from Panama, but by my very rough calculations you have to allow 3 months from England to Panama, 1 month to cross the canal, then another 3 months across the Pacific simply because you are sailing for longer around the widest point of the planet. My point is that the Panama Canal may only have been viable from the Age of Steam - clearly steamships could travel in straight lines against the wind so as today they could head for Panama and from there to the Far East covering much less distance than the clipper routes, in a reliable time and without the hazards of sailing round the Cape.

I'd really rather like to see Stuart build the Panama Canal in G7 and then run some trials. Spain, of course, is about a month closer than England by either route (something that I don't think is factored into games), but that doesn't necessarily alter the economics.

Economically, I think all of these would have a very long payoff tail, given the massive investments in time money and labour. It is not just the direct cost, but the opportunity cost.
For example, 30,000 labourers (recruits over three years). If you invested these 30,000 labourers, with 30,000,000 sterling (alleged cost of a project I have ongoing), the trade benefits, if chosen wisely, could be huge. You are forgoing all of this opportunity, on top of the sunk cost.
It just does not stack up, even if we play the game for 20+years.
The world is too small (in terms of trade & people alive), to justify the cost. I cannot remember the location of the reference (will need to check at work), but for example, in the first decade of the 21st Century, China consumed more steel than the world did in the 20th Century. You can see similar deltas between 20th & 19th. & then track back to us, at the dawn of the (pre) industrial age. The world economy (total size), is just not large enough to justify these types of investments.
Which leaves you with Strategic or Prestige.
Strategic
For Spain (& Panama), it would be cheaper to maintain a big fleet in the Atlantic and the Pacific. & let’s be clear, canals are easy to block.
If Spain had a monster fleet in the Atlantic, with a plan to cross and defend Peru & the Philippines, in the event of a seaborne attack (from China?), it would only take a few enterprising members of the Chinese Counter-Terror teams to blow a few locks on the canal, and close the canal for several months. By the time the monster fleet got through, Mandarin would be the lingua franca in Peru.
For Suez
Only really became a strategic necessity with the British occupation of India. Even with the British naval dominance prior to WW1, Britain could not maintain enough first line ships in every theatre, to maintain local theatre dominance. The ability to redeploy rapidly was part of the illusion of force.
For others.
No real strategic imperative. For Stecknitz, In place of sound tolls, you pay canal tolls (to pay it all off). It would be cheaper to build a large navy and terrorise an end to the sound tolls.
Which leaves Prestige.
And all prestige projects, throughout history, have said broadly the same thing. I am technically superior, and rich enough in money and labour to hose a load on this white elephant. Fear Me.
To be fair, it has worked quite well, historically (although I suspect less effective in game).

Building the Kiel Canal has no economic impact for Denmark in my experience, enforcing the Sound Toll might make the Canal a better option for shipping as it is a slightly quicker and safer route.

I've investigated a Rhine - Danube ship canal but it is very expensive in manpower and would take a long time to complete. A Bavarian barge canal from Bamberg and Kelheim was built in the 19th century but was superseded by the railways.

Opening up and improving existing river systems like the Danube and its tributaries is a better and cheaper option especially for Austria.

Spain (G7) took one look at the Panama canal zone and decided that a decent road for Jamie Hernandez and his mule Pedro would have to do. Quite frankly I think building the Panama ship canal in 1700 would be on a par with trying to build the Channel tunnel, another grand project mentioned in the "Cart Blanche" Agema publication - various mining improvemnts, 10,000 labourers recruits, 1000 trained engineers cost £700,000 BUT risk of disaster every month.

Perhaps the risk of disaster would not be as great but quoted costs may well be higher. Certainly to upgrade canals in Spanish South America by one grade is £11,700,000 pounds. Think I will stick with upkeep of the Inca road system and trying to breed the improved Lama!

G7 Spain does like its canals and likes its irrigation canals even more but it does not do trying to move ships up mountains. Anyway the Spanish merchant marine are not a bunch of Russians.....we laugh in the face of Cape Horn and have a perfectly good repair yard in Chile.

G2 Rumelia was actually the position most into impressive canals - after sorting out Rumelian Canals and the Iron Gates bye pass canal on the Danube (note you can also flood the Iron gates as well but that needs Dutch help) it went on to build the Corinth Canal (handy as a back door escape route for Rumelian Navy) and its crack 10,000 strong construction corp then went on to help Egypt build the Red Sea Canal.

Egypt, Rumelia and the Sultanate each provided 10,000 workers and in exchange for help from the Sultan etc the Bey of Egypt waived tarriffs for Ottoman shipping. Not sure if the project did much to help Egypt trade/economic health indeed the Bey later sold the whole canal to Rumelia for £1,000,000 to help fund his self inflicted problems. But when the first Pilgrim ship for the Holy Places of Islam sailed through the canal with the Ottoman Sultan and the Bey of Egypt by his side it seemed to do a lot of good for Ottoman players honour. (The Layerbey of Rumelia sent his Mum on Pilgrimage to Mecca being rather pre-occupied with feuding with Venice at the time).

For course exactly the same result can also be obtained if the Ottoman Sultan calls a campaign and all the Beys show up for it. But some players do seem to prefer canals to fighting. The Rumelian Construction Corp was also used to build the mole which cut off Catarro from the Sea and the building the Ottoman lines round Vienna. No one tied to break the siege but like to think if they had the lessons of 1683 had been learnt, with over 400 cannon and mortars dug in, ranges marked out to the inch, the Vienna woods were full of Arnauts and 30,000 crack Lancers were in reserve with their horses under cover of shelters built by the Rumelian Construction Corp and the ground carefully cleared. Still can not believe no one came!

The Construction Corp also was also standing ready to help the Prussian Holy Roman Emperor build the Rhine/Danube ship canal but this is not of much value without a Customs Union of Bavaria and all the Rhine/Danube states. Rumelia had done its bit but when G2 ended the Prussians were still trying to convince the Western German States that they really wanted to be united with a massively enlarged Prussia in a customs Union. In fact it lead to be most bloody war (in terms of Army losses) Agema has ever seen.

Wonder if a Rhine-Danube ship canal and a customs Union established to free up trade on the Rhine/Danube as a co-operative venture or will it always been seen as a power grab by the Emperor? Clearly in G2 it was viewed in Berlin as a gift from the Emperor to his adoreing people while the French and the Western Bishop-Princes viewed it as the final stage of the Prussian master plan to turn the Holy Roman Empire into Germany. How could anyone think this about Jason Flower?!

Thanks Stuart, I had been wondering whether to mention the Channel Tunnel as described in the Supplements...and G7 is the one game where it could be a joint Anglo-French venture?

Am I imagining things or did someone in a game actually try and build a Panama Canal?  It failed, have  a memory of it collapsing about a month from being complete (think whoever was trying to build it dropped out as a result).  The cost of canals in Spanish South America is even higher than for a Chinese Province (one, not all five), hadn't thought that possible!

Jason2 wrote:Thanks Stuart, I had been wondering whether to mention the Channel Tunnel as described in the Supplements...and G7 is the one game where it could be a joint Anglo-French venture?

Am I imagining things or did someone in a game actually try and build a Panama Canal?  It failed, have  a memory of it collapsing about a month from being complete (think whoever was trying to build it dropped out as a result).  The cost of canals in Spanish South America is even higher than for a Chinese Province (one, not all five), hadn't thought that possible!

The £11,700,000 is for South America, its another £3,600,000 for the Viceroyalty of Mexico, £900,000 for Cuba and a mere £220,000 out of petty cash for Hispaniola.

Blighter's also want schools, sewers and roads as well !!! Who was the idiot who made the senior noble in all Spain Viceroy of Mexico? He has clearly gone Native.

Its actually the schools which are the real cost - Have just completed universal education for Spain in Europe inc Naples, Milan and Flanders total cost £43.5m capital costs plus a huge annual charge for free school dinners. All I wanted to do was use up some surplus grain! Not triple the poor relief costs. But now there is no way I can not continue or it will be Portocarrero the milk snatcher!

Not sure how other players play the "Spanish" Empire but in G7 I basically try and work out what the Viceroys might like to do and order them to do it. A tactic which could be even more complex in G10 were you have people like Kerensky and the Duke of Savoy as PC Viceroys. The only one who is absolutely no trouble being the really, really, nice G10 Viceroy of Flanders.......please send money for Schools, Roads, Canals and 30 New upgraded Escort Frigates.

I agree that risk of disaster in building the Panama Canal would be high, but this can be mitigated if done in stages.  Besides Stuart's honour is so high in G7 that he should get a benefit from that and couldn't his insurance arm write a policy against it?  It is, as Kerensky suggested, the sort of prestige project which would show off Spanish engineering and be a bit more interesting than just building lots of fortifications?

I suppose the cost of canals in Spanish South America might seem high, but when you think how little of the Amazon was explored and the difficult working conditions, perhaps it is reasonable.

As for the Channel Tunnel ... not in G7. England will stick to good old fashioned sailing ships.  Once you build a tunnel you don't know what kinds of foreigners are going to come through it.
Although if a large Spanish army did get so far down the tunnel, I could always blow it up and see them drown, so perhaps it might be worth looking at?

I can sympathise...in G7 the Czae can buy a rund of drinks and pay for roads and canals with the loose change...while his loyal and noble Far East Governor is selling his children into slavery to pay for roads...

Papa Clement wrote:
As for the Channel Tunnel ... not in G7. England will stick to good old fashioned sailing ships.  Once you build a tunnel you don't know what kinds of foreigners are going to come through it.
Although if a large Spanish army did get so far down the tunnel, I could always blow it up and see them drown, so perhaps it might be worth looking at?

Do bear in mind that in the late Cold War days, the plan for this involved multiple warheads removed from Polaris/Trident subs...

Jason2 wrote:

Papa Clement wrote:
As for the Channel Tunnel ... not in G7. England will stick to good old fashioned sailing ships.  Once you build a tunnel you don't know what kinds of foreigners are going to come through it.
Although if a large Spanish army did get so far down the tunnel, I could always blow it up and see them drown, so perhaps it might be worth looking at?

Do bear in mind that in the late Cold War days, the plan for this involved multiple warheads removed from Polaris/Trident subs...

Now you've totally lost me.

Blowing up a tunnel isn't that difficult surely, just a petard and bang, then watch the whole thing collapse from the inside as the water pours in?

Papa Clement wrote:

Jason2 wrote:

Papa Clement wrote:
As for the Channel Tunnel ... not in G7. England will stick to good old fashioned sailing ships.  Once you build a tunnel you don't know what kinds of foreigners are going to come through it.
Although if a large Spanish army did get so far down the tunnel, I could always blow it up and see them drown, so perhaps it might be worth looking at?

Do bear in mind that in the late Cold War days, the plan for this involved multiple warheads removed from Polaris/Trident subs...

Now you've totally lost me.

Blowing up a tunnel isn't that difficult surely, just a petard and bang, then watch the whole thing collapse from the inside as the water pours in?

Oh, seriously?  Ok, if you look at the modern "Channel Tunnel", it was early on realised that it would take a large scale nuclear device, the sort designed to flatten Warsaw, to ensure the destruction of the tunnel in the event of a Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe. 

The principle will most probably hold, if you construct a tunnel that can keep out the English Channel, its going to take a lot of explosive force to bring it down

I know G7 Spain is a beacon of progress and enlightenment (according to Hapsburg Propaganda) but asking the Insurance arm of the Royal Bank of the America's to invent Contractors All Risk cover in 1713 might be pushing it!

So far they have developed Fire, Theft, Life and Marine cover but have yet to crack the concept of underwriting profit!

Perhaps the Panama Canal might be worth doing if the Contractors All Risk and Life cover for the workers can be placed on the London, Hanburg, Paris and Amsterdam markets?

Wonder if the HWIC has a brokerage division? They seem to be the boys who can place anything for a price.

Or from Venice straight across Italy to the Toulon Genoa side ? Or straight through Spain ... coo a world of investments ..( and necessary friendly nations ) just opened up to me .

Stuart Bailey wrote:I know G7 Spain is a beacon of progress and enlightenment (according to Hapsburg Propaganda) but asking the Insurance arm of the Royal Bank of the America's to invent Contractors All Risk cover in 1713 might be pushing it!

So far they have developed Fire, Theft, Life and Marine cover but have yet to crack the concept of underwriting profit!  

Despite all their education?

Stuart Bailey wrote:Perhaps the Panama Canal might be worth doing if the Contractors All Risk and Life cover for the workers can be placed on the London, Hamburg, Paris and Amsterdam markets?

Now that would make it interesting ... you'd have to get a project quotation first, but I might be able to sell it to the London markets in exchange for a share in the canal.

Stuart Bailey wrote:Wonder if the HWIC has a brokerage division?  They seem to be the boys who can place anything for a price.

I'm not sure HWIC (or the Portobello Company) qualify as bonafide insurers - they accept the premiums, but either disappear once a claim is made or use other forms of intimidation to discourage a claim ever reaching their offices. There was a time when I thought Scottish lawyers could have sorted them out, but experience has shown that we are long past that stage.

Mike wrote:Or from Venice straight across Italy to the Toulon Genoa side ? Or straight through Spain ... coo a world of investments ..( and necessary friendly nations ) just opened up to me.

That's some big tunnels, you're planning there, Mike.

Mike wrote:Or from Venice straight across Italy to the Toulon Genoa side ? Or straight through Spain ... coo a world of investments ..( and necessary friendly nations ) just opened up to me .

In G7 the Doge of Genoa (using a lot of Spanish money) built canal from Genoa to the river Po but had to go via Savoy due to the Mountains.
The Po was already linked to Milan by canal.

Think this was less an attempt to build a short cut to Venice and more an attempt by the Republic of St George to secure its Ports economic hinterland.

Not sure how much the G7 Doge of Genoa is picking up in tax on Milanese Silk exports and on imports into the Milanese or his merchant marine is picking from carriage of Milanese trade but it may give a pointer on why the Doge of Genoa in G10 does not want the Duke of Savoy to have his muddy paws all over the Doge's Milanese silk dresses.

Stuart Bailey wrote:

Mike wrote:Or from Venice straight across Italy to the Toulon Genoa side ? Or straight through Spain ... coo a world of investments ..( and necessary friendly nations ) just opened up to me .

In G7 the Doge of Genoa (using a lot of Spanish money) built canal from Genoa to the river Po but had to go via Savoy due to the Mountains.
The Po was already linked to Milan by canal.

Think this was less an attempt to build a short cut to Venice and more an attempt by the Republic of St George to secure its Ports economic hinterland.

Not sure how much the G7 Doge of Genoa is picking up in tax on Milanese Silk exports and on imports into the Milanese or his merchant marine is picking from carriage of Milanese trade but it may give a pointer on why the Doge of Genoa in G10 does not want the Duke of Savoy to have his muddy paws all over the Doge's Milanese silk dresses.

I don't know if that can make sense, but in my opinion this is an investment with make little sense. There is little or no point, economically, to link Genoa and Venice. The italian geography is quite clear about it, our highest mountains lies between Genoa and Turin, and still today it is difficult to link them. The trade route of genoa is fully by sea, and the major strength of the town lies in its economy, as a banking system extremely protected and "safe". Some sort of XVIII century swiss.

Venice has its own route and it is not connected to Milan, but they both go to Verona, from were they go up to germany and the rhine waterway up to flanders and UDP. Genoa didn't went that way, preferring to sail round spain and france. Genoa had is hard days in trade when french crafted the "canal du midi" with boosted marseille as a trade hub better linked than Genoa.

So, this is to say that a major structure like a huge canal has a revenue that is linked to how good is the investment. This, in my opinion, is surely not Suez.

IMHO

Thanks for taking the time to write that . Enjoyed it .

FINDINGS ON SOUTH SHORE OF LAKE LADOGA TO THE MOUTH OF THE RIVER NEVA CANAL PROJECT.
1. Distance covered 80 miles (cutting a viable route through extensive marshland).
2. To run from the south shore of Lake Ladoga due north to Nyenskans (site of St. Petersburg at the mouth Neva River).
3. The Neva is navigable along its entire course from April to November, but is blocked by ice the rest of the year.
4. Ground covered is relatively flat so no locks will be necessary.
5. Ground covered is forested, requiring deforestation to be carried out as part of the work.
Time to complete: Target 4 years.
Requirements: Forest clearance work costing £350,000. 15,000 labourers (spare surplus recruits) @£3/year each. 1 Surveyor mission. 1 Engineer mission.

Linking in with the North South river system of Russia allows trade from the Black sea to the Baltic which brings some economic benefit to Russia. & is a lot quicker than walking.

J Flower wrote:FINDINGS ON SOUTH SHORE OF LAKE LADOGA TO THE MOUTH OF THE RIVER NEVA CANAL PROJECT.
1. Distance covered 80 miles (cutting a viable route through extensive marshland).
2. To run from the south shore of Lake Ladoga due north to Nyenskans (site of St. Petersburg at the mouth Neva River).
3. The Neva is navigable along its entire course from April to November, but is blocked by ice the rest of the year.
4. Ground covered is relatively flat so no locks will be necessary.
5. Ground covered is forested, requiring deforestation to be carried out as part of the work.
Time to complete: Target 4 years.
Requirements: Forest clearance work costing £350,000. 15,000 labourers (spare surplus recruits) @£3/year each. 1 Surveyor mission. 1 Engineer mission.

Linking in with the North South river system of Russia allows trade from the Black sea to the Baltic which brings some economic benefit to Russia. & is a lot quicker than walking.

That is the project i was looking for!!!!

BUT

You need to take back ingrain from Sweden first... :/

Nexus06 wrote:

J Flower wrote:FINDINGS ON SOUTH SHORE OF LAKE LADOGA TO THE MOUTH OF THE RIVER NEVA CANAL PROJECT.
1. Distance covered 80 miles (cutting a viable route through extensive marshland).
2. To run from the south shore of Lake Ladoga due north to Nyenskans (site of St. Petersburg at the mouth Neva River).
3. The Neva is navigable along its entire course from April to November, but is blocked by ice the rest of the year.
4. Ground covered is relatively flat so no locks will be necessary.
5. Ground covered is forested, requiring deforestation to be carried out as part of the work.
Time to complete: Target 4 years.
Requirements: Forest clearance work costing £350,000. 15,000 labourers (spare surplus recruits) @£3/year each. 1 Surveyor mission. 1 Engineer mission.

Linking in with the North South river system of Russia allows trade from the Black sea to the Baltic which brings some economic benefit to Russia. & is a lot quicker than walking.

That is the project i was looking for!!!!

BUT You need to take back ingrain from Sweden first... :/

As well as the small problem with current landowners I think the above quote is based on the initial builders estimates to Czar Peter.

In actual fact from 1706 to complete the Czar pet project of linking Moscow and St Petersburg by waterway annual labour levies of 20,000 serfs laboured to link the River Tvertsa (a tributary of the Volga) with the River Tsna but 12 years later the work was still not complete. The major problem was the hazardous Lake Ladoga and matching water levels which the Czar ordered solved by building a canal around the lake.

A engineer called Pisarev (a protege of Prince Menchikoffs) then spent four years and over a million roubles to build 13 Kilometres of canal before an annoyed Czar "sacked" him and appointed a very experienced the Comte de Munnich who finally got a grip on the whole project which was completed in 1732.

Munnich contructed 111 Kilometres of canal, which was 10-11 feet deep and 70 feet wide and overcame huge difficulties of natural and human obstruction and received huge rewards from a Russian Govt which had seen its pet project and prestige rapidly sinking into a bog.

The whole project is believed to have cost at a minimium 100,000 lives some due to Swedish action but mostly due to disease and accidents and cost over-runs were vast. Which leaves me wondering:

a) Is Richard being kind with 3 year estimate - speeding up game in interests of playability.

or

b) In in the book Kerensky lent him on C17 & C18 financial scandels has Richard found chapter on "Construction - Fraud and Cost over-runs". If building this project it may be worth checking your Serfs and materials are not being diverted into construction of Private Palaces in St Petersburg.

But look on the bright side if you start this canal it gives you somewhere else to send bad and rebel serfs - Army, Siberia, Navy and now the Canal were they are probably not going to last one or two construction seasons at most.

I suspect the timescale is to keep it playable within the game   

Mind you, think of the legal disputes with landowners...I see another business opportunity for my Corps of Scottish Lawyers...and fraud trials, I mean fraud and piracy....

Nexus, found your insights on the Genoan canal very interesting and in some ways comparable to some of the Scottish canals.