Written by Thomas X. Grasso, Director Emeritus, Canal Society of New York State
Editor’s Introduction- I was looking at the route of the Schuylkill Navigation and I noticed the area called Frick’s Lock just south of Pottstown, Pennsylvania. This area was considered to be a small settlement and is now considered to be a “ghost town” of sorts. A number of articles have been written about it.
After finding Frick’s Lock, I recalled that back in 2012 when I was the editor, I had used a article written by Professor Thomas X Grasso for the Winter issue of the Bottoming Out, the Journal of the Canal Society of New York State. This article detailed the section boat coupling invention of William Frick of Pennsylvania. (1) I wondered if the two Frick’s were of the same family, perhaps even the same man? So I went to digging a bit.
I called Thomas and asked if I might use his article for this blog and he kindly agreed, so I will let Tom tell you about William Frick’s invention. A future post will look at the Frick family.
————————————————————
Of all the improvements inaugurated in the period before the 1895 Second Enlargement (otherwise known as the Nine Foot Deepening), Mr. William Frick’s Patent of Double Headers was paramount as this in turn, once the plan was adopted, led to the lock lengthening, These improvements were the first major steps that eventually culminated in the Barge Canal System we have today.
Double headers are boats that are coupled together in tandem much like the double length tractor trailers we see today on the interstate highways. “A large economy results from coupling boats on the plan adopted on the Pennsylvania canal” wrote State Engineer and Surveyor John D. Van Buren Jr. in his annual report of 1877. “The boats being fastened in pairs close together, one ahead of the other, the total resistance is much less than for two single or separated boats; and, besides, the number of the crew can be very much reduced below what is required for two such boats.” He urged those engaged in canal transportation to give careful attention to this mode of transportation. (2)
“The introduction of boats running in pairs coupled together has been of great importance. This applies to boats propelled by animal power as well as those propelled by steam”, concluded State Engineer and Surveyor John Bogart on page 20 of his Annual Report for 1891.(3) The method was introduced on New York Canals in 1877 but he went on to describe that the original patent by Mr. Frick of Chester, PA were two boats coupled in such a way that the ropes ran from the steering wheel to the rudder of the rear boat and therefore the rudder of the second boat maneuvered the consort as the wheel of the first boat was turned. But the double headers on the Enlarged Erie used a slightly different arrangement.
The plan on the Erie Canal was a modification of the Frick plan. “The two boats are connected by ropes running from the stern of the forward boat, through blocks on each side of the rear boat and returning to the wheel on the forward boat. These ropes are not connected to the rudder of the rear boat, which is left free.” Therefore this “short circuit” results in a very much larger rudder-like device because the entire second boat becomes the rudder navigating the consort. “Most of the better class of newly constructed boats, propelled by animal power, adopted this system thereby securing much greater economy than single boats.” [editors note– A search of patents shows that William Frick applied for a number of patents based on his “Steering Apparatus for Sectional Boats” beginning in 1868. Interestingly, his first patent steered the boats in much the same manner as was adopted on the Erie. His later patents used the rudder. Many of the patents by Frick and other inventors referred to double headers as “train boats, or boats in a train”.(4)] The number of double headers increased dramatically and very quickly indeed because the single boat requires a crew of four men and four horses or mules (two in service and two in reserve resting in the bow stable). The double header requires no more crew than a single boat but only two more animals– three to a team. The boats in use by 1891 that carried the greatest portion of the freight were double headers with a capacity of 250 tons each. These vessels require about nine to ten days to run from Buffalo to West Troy (Watervliet) or Albany. At Albany the boats were made into fleets and towed to New York taking an additional three days. Therefore a round trip consumed about twenty-five days. Allowing five days in the ports of New York and Buffalo and if there weren’t any delays from canal breaks, sunken vessels, loss of time in receiving and discharging cargo, and other mishaps– seven round trips could be made in one season. Usually the average was six.
For steam propelled fleets the same method of coupling was utilized except that the coupling was more rigid and the consort was pushed by the steamer. There we think that these steamer couplings were the first “pushtows” on the Erie Canal and the forerunner of the tug and barge of the new canal yet to come. Two connecting arms of wood on each side to the bow of the steamer were attached to the stern of the forward vessel. The wheel house was located above the boiler room and the living quarters for the captain and family was forward, with an apartment for use by the crew. The steamer could simultaneously push the consort and in addition, by use of one and a half inch think hawsers that were from 300 to 500 feet long, tow two to four more non-powered barges. Steam propelled fleets could make six round trips between Buffalo and New York City in addition to other ports such as Philadelphia and Bridgeport in a single season. They also were far more profitable than the animal powered doubleheaders whose days were certainly numbered, although the State did all they could to stem the tide and keep the “mom and pop” canal boat operators in business. Animal powered double headers who completed six round trips were marginally profitable. The State conducted a study and figured that with six trips, the owner would break even or loose $81.00, while seven trips would bring $356.00. A steam powered boat with six trips would earn $3,081.00. (5) [Ed’s note– A steamer powered doubleheader would need to have the powered unit in the rear, as so the prop wash could flow unimpeded. When the steamer is in the lead, it needs to have the separation provided by the long hawser so the prop wash did not hit the trailing boat. If it did, it would be in a sense acting against the powered boat. This is one of the reasons “push-tows” were used in the narrow confines of the canal.]
But double headers were not very profitable if they had to be uncoupled and rejoined at each of the seventy-two locks from Albany to Buffalo. Therefore the modified Frick plan of double headers to the canal was the inspiration for lengthening one chamber of a twinned Enlarged Erie lock to permit the passage of double headers without having to break the tow. Usually, but not always, the lock was lengthened by adding a second chamber to the foot or downstream end of the berme chamber thereby making it a “double-long” chamber. This chamber could be used by both ordinary and coupled boats depending on traffic. Lengthening at the head of the lock was much more expensive as workers had to excavate into the upstream canal bed and remove a considerable amount of earth. But at certain points, conditions such as a sharp bend very close to the lock could not permit the double header from making the curve and then have sufficient length of canal to line up the tow for easy entry into the chamber. Therefore four locks were lengthened at the head, tow of which were also lengthened on the towpath side. From east to west they were; St. Johnsville (33), Utica (40 towpath Chamber ), Syracuse (49), Lyons (55 towpath chamber).
The first lock to be lengthened was Gere’s Lock (50) which is the first lock west of Syracuse. This was done in 1885. [ed’s note– Lock 50 is a bit unusual in that the center culvert was covered by rock and earth, not by the wooden walkway we typically see.] That was quickly followed by five locks in 1887 (47, 48, 49, 51, 52); fifteen in 1888 (31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 44, 45, 53, 54, 55, 56, 60, 61, 62, 72); six in 1889 (27, 28, 29, 30, 63, 64); six in 1890 (23, 24, 25, 26, 65, 66); five in 1891 (40, 41, 42, 43, 46); one in 1894 (19); two in 1895 (21,22). Lock 20 is not listed in Whitford’s chronology, although it does appear that it was lengthened somewhere between 1892 and 1895. In the end, forty-two of the seventy-two main line locks were lengthened in ten years, leaving thirty that were not lengthened.(6)
Those that weren’t lengthened were the eighteen locks ascending from the Hudson River to the top lock at the west end of the flight in Cohoes (1-18); the four locks at Little Falls (36-39); the three locks at Newark, aka Lockville (57-59); and the Flight of Five at Lockport (67-71). These were bottlenecks that consumed much time in passing double headers or steam fleets because the boats had to be separated and passed through singly. At Cohoes, full time teams of animals and crews were on hand (for a reasonable fee) to assist with the passing of boats.
There were several reasons given for not lengthening the remaining thirty locks, such as sharp bends between the locks and / or they were located too close together to permit lengthening. What this really meant is that the engineers could not lengthen them one at a time or a few at a time over a number of years as they did with the forty-two that were already lengthened. To be most effective at each of the four locations, they had to be done in one go and that was a costly proposition, for those that scrutinized annual budgets. [Ed’s note– A lengthened lock used twice as much water as a single. The pools or reaches between locks located close together may have not had the capacity to fill the lock and maintain the navigation depth.]
But the problem of lengthening the locks in these four stretches was not ignored by the canal engineers. They continued their battle almost year after year throughout the 1890’s coming up with ideas to pass boats through these bottlenecks in an efficient and time saving manner. Some of these were ideas that were robustly cutting edge and very innovative indeed, such as constructing hydraulic or pneumatic boat elevators, similar to those that were in operation, or in the process of construction in England, France, Germany and Belgium.
The problem of the three locks at Newark (57, 58, 59), totaling twenty-four feet of lift, inspired a novel approach. In 1890, the State Engineer and Surveyor renewed a call made in earlier reports, that the three lock flight should be passed entirely by constructing a new channel for approximately three-quarters of a mile around the old locks and placing a two lock combine (two lengthened locks back to back like a staircase) of twelve foot lift each. This was easily doable plus the work could be accomplished while the old alignment was still in operation so that it did not have to be built in winter. (see map on next page)
The problem was that it was expensive and sadly was never undertaken. But it would have been singularly significant had it been accomplished– the only combined locks with lengthened chambers and the only locks without a single chamber.
However an updated version of this plan was resurrected during construction of the Erie Barge Canal through Newark. The present alignment of the canal at Newark closely follows if not exactly follows the alignment shown in the map. The difference today is that one lock (Erie 30 at Newark) with a lift of sixteen feet, was constructed approximately where the proposed channel above joins the main lock just west of the combined lock. The difference in lift today between Lock 30 of sixteen feet compared to the twenty-four feet of lift on the enlarged canal is due to design changes in elevation between the old and new canals. The lower Lockville Lock (57) was completely obliterated during the construction of the Barge Canal, leaving not a trace of its former existence.
References
1– The Professor’s article about Frick’s invention first appeared in; Three Erie Canals in Western Wayne County Study Guide, CSNYS, October 14, 15, 16, 2011. The article was then used in the Winter 2012 Issue of the Bottoming Out. Used with permission of the author.
2– Annual Report of the State Engineer and Surveyor 1878 (Jerome B. Parmenter) Albany, NY. 52, 53. (report for 1877)
3– Annual Report of the State Engineer and Surveyor, pgs 20, 21. FTY 1891 Published 1892.
4– See Letters Patent;
William Frick 152,099– 1873
5– Annual Report 1892, pgs 33-48. The State Engineer noted that animal powered boats continued to be used because their owners don’t set aside funds for replacement and repairs. However the estimate of profit and loss by the State used all the variables of running a boat, resulting in the $81.00 loss.
6-Whitford 1906 Chronicle. Resume of Important Laws and Events pgs 955-979.
