American Settlement Patterns w/ Earlier Locomotives

[DominusNovus]

Assume a reasonably tight butterfly net (as in the broader sweep of history looks familiar) and that steam technology gets a kick start by about 20 years or so, and the American Transcontinental Railroad is finished about as early (so, instead of 1869, somewhere close to 1849). Of course, its not just a technological issue, but also an economic one.

What does this do to settlement patterns in North America? Consider that this means a railroad to the Pacific around the same time as gold is discovered in California, and during the land rush in Oregon.

 

[Mad Bad Rabbit]

They wouldn’t start building the transcontinental railway until after the gold was found, tho. In 1840 the non-Indian population of the entire state was roughly 8000, not nearly enough to justify the cost of a railroad. We didn't yet perceive the need for Pacific shipping or naval bases either.

 

[Workable Goblin]

We didn't yet perceive the need for Pacific shipping or naval bases either.

That's not true. Actually, the United States was quite active in various forms of trade in the Pacific. The China trade was very significant, or had been, the United States was deeply involved in the Hawai'i trade, and whaling was, of course, good business and mostly carried out in the Pacific. Similarly, the Perry Expedition to Japan by the United States Navy was carried out in the early 1850s and was the culmination of decades of U.S. attempts to establish relations with Japan. There's a reason that Polk won on a platform of taking Oregon and California in 1844, four years before gold was discovered.

 

[Mark E.]

Year 1849 would be difficult, but consider a later pre-Civil War date. The railroad went across Iowa to Council Bluffs (across from Omaha) in 1856. The notion of going all the way west could have started. With luck, a link might have been happened by 1861. Even if war started, the last construction might have been finished.

 

[Workable Goblin]

Year 1849 would be difficult, but consider a later pre-Civil War date. The railroad went across Iowa to Council Bluffs (across from Omaha) in 1856. The notion of going all the way west could have started. With luck, a link might have been happened by 1861. Even if war started, the last construction might have been finished.

The idea of a transcontinental railroad dates back to the mid-1840s (in concrete form, probably earlier in vague ideas or dreams), but was stymied by political disputes between the North and South over whether to take a northern/central or southern route. Actually, this sort of answers the OP; the reasons for not building the transcontinental railroad earlier than actually occurred were not technical, but political, and it was the Civil War that enabled the actual construction by removing Southern Senators and Representatives and giving the North overwhelming control of Congress, as with a lot of other programs that were passed in the Civil War era. If you can resolve this somehow, then you can build a transcontinental railroad much earlier without changing anything technically; conversely, if you just make trains a lot better nothing is likely to happen because of the politics.

 

[unprincipled peter]

can we apply this advanced steam technology to steamboats? If so, this makes for an even earlier transformation in North American transportation. I'm specifically thinking of the ability to journey north on the Mississippi River. I wonder how water locomotion affects wars such as French Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars and War of 1812, but OP said we can't change history too much.

Knowing the ineptitude of the Spanish Empire, it's doubtful they would make use of this wonderful new technology to develop their half of the Mississippi Valley while they owned it. Is the USA in any shape to take advantage of the technology prior to 1800? IF mass movement north moved up 20-30 years, that puts it starting around 1780-90. If Spain takes advantage and/or it allows them to see the value of western North America (a very big IF), they may not be so inclined to give it back to the French. At a minimum, this new movement affects relations with the natives at a time USA is ill equipped to deal with them.

Ignoring geopolitics, a huge result from rail is that it allowed shipping from greater distance from water. This is when the mid-west became economically viable. Of course, that viability also depends on discovery of the giant aquifer under the plains and cheap steel for plows to bust the sod.

Going coast to coast via rail has to depend on a second coast to go to. Most of the west coast belonged to Spain/Mexico. Oregon Territory was not very populated until the over land settlers started trickling in circa 1840. Sole ownership of the region by USA wasn't until 1846. Dreams of a coast to coast rail might start earlier, but the mountain passes still need to be explored, the population has to be in place, and the financial backing established.

Earlier rail is going to affect local geopolitics as well. Ya don't think having 20 more years to establish a rail system isn't going to have an effect on southern politics/ability to conduct the civil war?

So, the easy answer is that it is ASB to think you can massively change technology without changing political history. The secondary answer is that the Mississippi Valley gets a bit of an earlier boost. Far western changes are muted.

 

[DominusNovus]

I wonder how water locomotion affects wars such as French Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars and War of 1812, but OP said we can't change history too much.

…

So, the easy answer is that it is ASB to think you can massively change technology without changing political history. The secondary answer is that the Mississippi Valley gets a bit of an earlier boost. Far western changes are muted.

The broad strokes have to remain the same, thats all. Thats just so the focus remains on the settlement patterns - I never said we had to keep who is settling the same.