Trolley Canal Boats

[phantom power]

And she ain't so slow if you want to know
She put the "Buff" in Buffalo

http://campfire.theoildrum.com/node/6103

The first "automobile" or independent boat carrying its own battery was already demonstrated in 1838, and at the end of the 1870s one even made a trip across the English Channel. But, these boats were not suited for canal transportation. The propeller or paddlewheel would create the same wash as a steamboat, destroying the delicate canal banks. The batteries would take up almost all the cargo space.

...

The only method that found a widespread use, at least on a regional scale, adhered to the old and primitive method of haulage or towing by mules on the path next to the canal. But, for the slow and uneconomical animal, a more efficient mechanical mule was substituted, hooked up to a trolleyline. The machines were either run upon a track on the banks of the canal - this method being practically a railway along the banks, the boats being trailers connected by a 50 metre (165 feet) long tow line to the motor cars (illustration below) - or either run upon the towpath itself - this method somewhat resembling a land-based trolleytruck convoy (picture above).

...

Electric mules on rails turned out to be much more reliable on the towpath than trolleytrucks, being operational every day and both day and night. The trolleytruck system only worked during daylight (at night too many drivers would end up in the water) and it could not be operated in winter conditions. The use and maintenance of the track system was two times cheaper than the trolleytruck system, but because of the higher capital costs a trolleytruck system remained a better choice on sections where traffic was low.

All the above is more than a gallery of obsolete technology. Canal transport is already one of the most energy-efficient ways to transport goods. For every litre of fuel burned, a barge can carry a tonne of cargo for 127 kilometres (79 miles), compared to 97 km (60 miles) for a train and 50 km (31 miles) for a truck (source). Electrifying canals could boost this efficiency even further, bringing the possibility of a zero-emission transport system within reach.

[Captain Hilts]

1. The Erie Canal has seen a real uptick in business. nt

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. Fifteen miles a day!

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

Low Bridge (song)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The popular song "Fifteen Miles on the Erie Canal" was written in 1905 by Thomas S. Allen after Erie Canal barge traffic was converted from mule power to engine power, raising the speed of traffic above fifteen miles per day. The tune is sadly nostalgic. Also known as "Low Bridge, Everybody Down," "The Erie Canal Song," "Fifteen Years on the Erie Canal," "Mule Named Sal," and "Fifteen Miles on the Erie Canal," the song memorializes the years from 1825 to 1880 when the mule barges made boomtowns out of Utica, Rome, Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo, and transformed New York into the Empire State.

…

[Kolesar]

7. We used the sing that song in grade school music class

And Kukaberra

[Cirque du So-What]

3. A fine idea

but I doubt that capitalistas are willing to undertake the expense of digging and maintaining canals. Hell, it's like pulling teeth to get them to keep the railroads repaired! Barge traffic is only accomplished where the government (Army Corps of Engineers) maintains locks & dams. As long as companies have to pay for their construction & upkeep, it'll never happen, and I'm not too inclined to subsidize commerce with taxes. Fuck 'em & feed 'em fish heads!

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. Re: “I'm not too inclined to subsidize commerce with taxes.”

Who do you think pays for the roads commerce travels on today?


http://www.eriecanal.org/

"Clinton's Big Ditch"

The Erie Canal is famous in song and story. Proposed in 1808 and completed in 1825, the canal links the waters of Lake Erie in the west to the Hudson River in the east. An engineering marvel when it was built, some called it the Eighth Wonder of the World.

In order to open the country west of the Appalachian Mountains to settlers and to offer a cheap and safe way to carry produce to a market, the construction of a canal was proposed as early as 1768. However, those early proposals would connect the Hudson River with Lake Ontario near Oswego. It was not until 1808 that the state legislature funded a survey for a canal that would connect to Lake Erie. Finally, on July 4, 1817, Governor Dewitt Clinton broke ground for the construction of the canal. In those early days, it was often sarcastically referred to as "Clinton's Big Ditch". When finally completed on October 26, 1825, it was the engineering marvel of its day. It included 18 aqueducts to carry the canal over ravines and rivers, and 83 locks, with a rise of 568 feet from the Hudson River to Lake Erie. It was 4 feet deep and 40 feet wide, and floated boats carrying 30 tons of freight. A ten foot wide towpath was built along the bank of the canal for horses, mules, and oxen led by a boy boat driver or "hoggee".
In order to keep pace with the growing demands of traffic, the Erie Canal was enlarged between 1836 and 1862. The "Enlarged Erie" was 70 feet wide and 7 feet deep, and could handle boats carrying 240 tons. The number of locks was reduced to 72. Most of the remaining traces of the Old Erie Canal are from the Enlarged Erie era.

In 1903, the State again decided to enlarge the canal by the construction of what was termed the "Barge Canal", consisting of the Erie Canal and the three chief branches of the State system -- the Champlain, the Oswego, and the Cayuga and Seneca Canals. The resulting canal was completed in 1918, and is 12 to 14 feet deep, 120 to 200 feet wide, and 363 miles long, from Albany to Buffalo. 57 http://www.eriecanal.org/locks.html">Locks were built to handle barges carrying up to 3,000 tons of cargo, with lifts of 6 to 40 feet. This is the Erie Canal which today is utilized largely by recreational boats rather than cargo-carrying barges.

…

[Cirque du So-What]

5. Roads benefit everyone

and so do railroads, locks & dams, but canals are inherently localized in comparison to the infrastructure I just mentioned. If a canal is located within the boundaries of a state - or two - let the residents of that state(s) decide whether they want their state funds pounded down that rathole. As long as we have to fight tooth & nail to keep programs like Amtrak alive, I don't want a penny of federal money put into a new venture as dubious as canals. Businesses want 'independence' from government intervention? Let them be independent now!

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. But if you also have to maintain a rail track beside it, it is worth it?

Would it be better to just run freight trains on the track? The maintenance of a canal, the delays when you have to stop at a lock, and the slow speed of a barge (the fuel consumption figures given in the OP are, presumably, comparing a slow barge to a quicker train; would a slightly slower train get better fuel consumption?) are all disadvantages. I think this might be more suitable for navigable natural waterways, which would have less maintenance needed, and less likelihood of needing locks. Or for the connections between navigable waterways (eg the Erie Canal, admittedly) on which the barges can continue without loading and unloading.