News

Earl Giles Collection- Plane 6 on the Allegheny Portage Railroad

The Alleghney Portage Railroad used 10 inclined planes to lift the canal boats up and over the mountains that divided the eastern section of the Pennsylvania Main Line Canal from the western section. Today you can visit Plane 6, which was at the summit or highest level of railroad, at the Allegheny Portage RR National Historic Site.

In the Earl Giles collection there are slides showing excavation work on the engine house in 1968 and ’69. The NPS website only says that; “… and even the National Park Service excavations of the 1970s were done before an interest in evaluating the grounds was voiced.” So it is curious as to what is happening here and who was in charge. These images are dated July 1968. They show the first excavations of the engine house.

The sad thing is that even though we have these images, we don’t have names of the people.

Today the engine house excavation and display are covered with this large building.

The track sleeper stones were also uncovered in 1968.

And here is what it looks like when we visited the site in the fall of 2021.

We will see more of Plane 6 in the next post.

The Earl Giles Collection – The Staple Bend Tunnel

A little background- I saw a post on one of the canal-related social media sites asking if someone was willing to digitize a few hundred slides that the poster had recently purchased. I enjoy the sense of discovery that comes with scanning these old slides as these personal collections can contain some real treasures. Ray Hall, who was the new owner of the slides, offered to donate them to the ACS in return for a copy of the digital files. A box of slides arrived in a few days and we were off to the scanner!

Ray was able to provide me with the last name of the seller, a Mr. Giles, and he said that they had been taken by a canal/local historian from the Johnstown (PA) area. With this information, it was fairly easy to find that the collection belonged to Earl Giles. I found this article in The Daily News (Johnstown, PA) of July 8, 1968.

This article helped immensely as I was noticing that many of the slides had been labelled as ‘duplicate’ since Earl liked to trade. So now I knew that all the images were not his alone. However, the slides do point to Earl’s interests and that was the western division of the Pennsylvania Main Line Canal with an especial interest in the Pack Saddle region along the Conemaugh River and the Allegheny Portage Railroad. Most of the slides dated from the late 1960s and early ’70s. All the 357 slides were scanned at 2400 dpi as tiff files. When that was done, I went back through and used GIMP to reduce the slides to 400 dpi Jpeg files.

The images were a mix of Earl’s original images taken out on his explorations and slides that he traded for showing the same. About half of the slides were his photographs of older photographs, postcards, and maps. So I sorted out what I thought was interesting and will share them here.

We will start with some images of the Staple Bend Tunnel (constructed 1831-1833) which is claimed to be the first railroad tunnel dug in the United States. (There were two canal tunnels dug prior.) The tunnel is located near Mineral Point, about 5 miles slightly northeast of Johnstown. To reach the tunnel you need to park and walk or ride a bike two miles along the old railroad bed (now a stone-dust path). This site was added to the Allegheny Portage Railroad National Sites in 2001.

When Earl and his fellow explorers visited it in the late 1960s it was certainly a bit more rugged a walk.

This is labeled as the east portal. Apparently much of the stonework had been removed and used elsewhere by 1907.
This is an old postcard that might be the same as the one above showing the missing stone-work.

These were dated 1968.

The planes were numbered from west to east along the APRR and the 901-foot-long tunnel sat at the head of Plane 1. The image below shows one of the explorers sitting on top of the tunnel portal looking west along Plane 1 and the Conemaugh River valley.

It would take ten planes to lift the canal boats over the mountains and in the next post, we will see the work at Plane 6.

The Welker Feed Mill – Canal Comments

By Terry K Woods

Today’s column is of a mill once operated by water from a section of the Sandy & Beaver Canal in Tuscarawas County. It was written from a taped interview in 1975 with the one time owner of the mill in Sandyville. (1)

Now Sandyville, in itself, is a very interesting place. When the Bolivar Dam was erected in the mid 1930s this town was literally moved to higher ground. As a result, it is very difficult (spelled IMPOSSIBLE) to locate much of the canal or any artifacts in this area.

The foundation to the mill can be found and a a bit of that part of the canal that was used as the mill race until 1935 but very little else. There was a lock (No 29) in or near the town. It was rebuilt by the Lessees in 1872, but I have not been able to confidently determine its location.

I’ve spent a lot of time over the past 40 years scouring the area for that lock location. Last March I spent a portion of three days down there. As I say, I’m not sure I know the exact location, though I thought I found it once in 1985.

THE WELKER FEED MILL ON THE SANDY & BEAVER CANAL

Our mill was located near the bend in the Big Sandy Creek just to the southeast of the old center of the village of Sandyville. One cornerstone of the mill bore the date 1836. That was also the year in which the Sandy & Beaver Canal was being built across the northern portion of Tuscarawas County.

The canal crossed Nimishillen Creek in a slack-water pool a half-mile east of the mill. Even after boats stopped using the canal, the dam across the Nimishillen provided a steady water supply to run the mill and the guard lock on the west bank of the creek acted as head gates to the mill race. The mill race consisted of a half-mile of the Sandy & Beaver Canal bed and a channel of a 100 yards or so that had been dug at right angles to the canal. The mill sat between the canal and the Big Sandy and our tail race flowed right into that creek.

I don’t know who built the mill originally. I think a man named Rolland or Voelum owned it at one time. There was also a McKinney mixed up in it somewhere. The way we got it was that my grandfather had gone in on a fellow’s note and had to make it good when that fellow defaulted. The only way my grandad could get anything out of that deal was to take over the mill. That was in 1893. My dad, Theodore “Dory” Welker, moved into the mill in 1894. It wasn’t running then and he had an awful time making it go.

He hired professional millers because he wasn’t one himself. Finally, around 1900, there was an old guy by the name of Charlie Seibert. He came to our place looking for a job and my dad took him in. He was a miller personified and knew all about the milling business. He just kind of made his home with us for the next 25 years. Occasionally some big company would have trouble with their mill and Old Charlie would leave us for a while until it straightened out, but he always came back to our place. He kept that old mill running “like an Ingersoll”.

Dad originally called the mill the “Sandy Valley Roller Mill,” but it was known mostly as the Welker Feed Mill. I spent all of my boyhood along the canal and must have skated a million miles between our mill and the dam and back. The Canton cut-off (otherwise known as the Nimishillen &Sandy Canal) joined the Sandy & Beaver Canal along our section. They joined at right angles to each other. You could plainly see the towpath and that the channel was intended to be a canal, though I don’t know if it ever held water. I did a lot of trapping for skunk and the like in that cut-off when I was a boy.

I joined Dad in running the mill in 1918. Sometime between 1920 and 1925 we rebuilt the dam and guard lock. We replaced the original wood and rubble dam with one of concrete 154-feet-long. The eastern end of the new dam rested on the original stone abutments of canal days, but the western end rested on the earthen embankment of the creek. The western stone abutment from canal days lies 50 yards or so west of the concrete dam. At the time we installed a concrete head gate at the lock. The original wooden gates were still fairly intact. The lock chamber had been lined with wood and most of the planking was still in pretty good shape.

During the Depression, we ran the mill from 6:00 in the morning until midnight and never took in a dollar! Everything was done by barter and the only way we could tell our profit was to see how big a pile of wheat we had.

I was never too interested in the history of the canal when I was a boy, but I do remember the “Old Timers” telling about the old canal warehouses. I believe there were two that stood along each bank of the canal near the center of the old town near where our mill race left the main canal. They both burned down in 1898 and some say the fires were deliberately set to get rid of them.

When I was a young man, the B. & O. had a spur running from the Sandyville Station into Magnolia. A train went to Magnolia maybe two or three times a week to take groceries, pick up milk, and distribute the few passengers who wanted to go from one town to another. That train consisted of an engine and one car that carried passengers in one end and luggage and freight in the other. You could see a lot of the old canal from that train, maybe you still could, because those bottoms up there are really in no man’s land.

The State built the Bolivar Dam on the Big Sandy in 1936 and the old village and mill were moved to higher ground. That part of the mill that had been built out over the water was torn down and the rest moved to its present location in the northwest corner formed by the B. & O. Railroad and Route #183. The B. & O. tracks were also moved to higher ground and now cross the plain on a high earthen fill. That embankment now covers the junction of the Sandy & Beaver Canal and the Canton cut-off but you can still see faint traces of the cut-off as it comes out from under the railroad embankment and heads north.

Shortly after the mill was closed someone, probably disgruntled farmers, dynamited the dam – blew the whole center out of it. You can still find the ends of the dam as well as both original stone abutments and what remains of the guard lock. The foundation of the mill is still there at the end of the race. In 1933 we had built a new penstock and, in the winter, when there is not much foliage, it should be easy to find.

The mill had two turbine wheels; one rated at 43 h.p. and the other at 36 h.p. Both ratings were with nine feet of water. When we closed the mill we pulled both wheels out and sold one to Mr. Wilson whose mill is still up along the Ohio Canal in Cuyahoga County. He wanted the other wheel but when we went down there one day we found someone had broken the wheel up with sledges and hauled the chunks of cast iron over the mill race and away. The Depression was still going pretty strong and they probably wanted what money that wheel would bring for scrap.

My son Bob, came into the business in 1947 after serving in the Army. Dad died in1950 and Bob and I continued in the feed business until the Fall of 1972 when the warehouse was sold to the Morrison Brothers.

(1) As told to Terry Woods (on tape) during a hike in the area in the early spring of 1975.

Last Days of the Ohio and Erie Canal – Canal Comments

By Terry K Woods

There have been a number of statements over the years in the press and media about the “end” of the Ohio Canal. Through traffic ran on it, these statements say, until 1913 when the flood destroyed the canal and the State abandoned it. Well, there are true statements in that and some, eh, not so true. I set about writing a column to set the record straight. I’m not at all sure I have done that.

My first effort was to use two newspaper articles about the last days of the canal in their entirety and correct the wrong parts. Well, that didn’t work well at all. Then I decided to use an excerpt from the Board of Public Works Report for 1911 describing how the canal was in bad shape. But I couldn’t find one of the two statements from that report I wanted to use verbatim.

I knew, however, that I had quoted that bit in my 2008 GRAND CANAL, so I went to it, and sort of changed my mind, again, about the column. Today’s final column will be a slightly rewritten and shortened version of pages 64 to 71 of my GRAND CANAL.

It is basically about the results of the State pulling the plug on the early 1900s rebuild of the northern division of the Ohio Canal and then nature taking a hand in the final decision of keeping the canal open with her devastating 1913 Flood.

I hope you find today’s column informative and, at least a bit, interesting. It is a long one, and, “Yes Mary, no pictures.” And if you have read my book, this is all old news. Still, I think, in order to understand the history of Ohio’s Canal Era completely, it is important to look closely at that period between the ending of the 1909 construction season and the Spring of 1913.

————————————————————–

LAST DAYS OF THE OHIO CANAL

From the end of the 1909 construction season until the devastating March 1913 flood, the Ohio Canal lay, with its attempted northern rebuid stalled, manymiles from the coal fields of Tuscarawas County. Charles E. Perkins’s ninth consecutive term as Chief Engineer of Ohio’s Public Works expired in May of 1910. He was not reappointed; nor was he immediately replaced. There was no Chief Engineer’s Report to the State Legislature for 1910, and for over a year the Ohio Canal existed in a state of limbo.

Finally on July 3rd, 1911 John I. Miller was appointed to the position of Chief Engineer. In his annual report to the State Legislature presented on November 11, 1911, he stated that, “the canals of Ohio are in such a state of physical disability as to make it possible for navigation only in a very few instances.”

During the enforced hiatus of long distance canal traffic during the attempted rebuild, the few mills, mines, and industries that had regularly shipped and received by canal either shifted their business elsewhere or were forced out of business. The boatmen too, drifted away and into other jobs and lives. Only those few boats that had been dragged up on shore or sunk for the duration into the convenient basins and widewaters that still survived.

Mixed signals came from the Legislature and Board of Public Works regarding the future of the Ohio Canal. Major physical flood damages in the northern division during the fall of 1911 were rebuilt in 1912. However, the spoil from dredging the canal south of Clinton in the last days of the rebuild had been left in heaps. The towpath south of Clinton into Canal Fulton was not plowed smooth and leveled until 1912. Also, it appears that portions of the canal through Stark County to the Zoar Feeder in Tuscarawas County was never refilled with water after the rebuild and relocation of New lock 5-A and the new Cemetery Run Culvert south of Massillon in 1909.

Meanwhile, the State Legislature busied itself disposing of the lower portion of the Ohio Canal. Most of the canal line between the Dresden Sidecut in Muskingum County and Portsmouth was officially abandoned in 1911. Only that section between the Licking Summit Reservoir and a few industries in Newark remained and that was only for hydraulic power.

The remainder of the Ohio Canal was allowed to ‘just exist’. Then, on December, 31, 1912 the State Legislature abolished the Board of Public Works and replaced it with a one-man “Supervisor of Public Works”. But since John Miller was appointed to that position, perhaps the State Legislature wasn’t entirely ready to give up on its canal system. As it turned out, that question was soon taken out of the Legislature’s hands.

The snows were heavy in northern Ohio in January and February, 1913.(1) Then a rare thaw occurred in mid-March, and on March 23, Easter Sunday, it began to rain. A heavy downpour continued all over the State. By the wee hours of Tuesday morning the creeks and rivers throughout Ohio were at a high flood stage. Though western Ohio was hardest hit the rivers in eastern Ohio, including the Cuyahoga, Tuscarawas, Muskingum, Licking and Scioto, – rivers whose valleys carried the channel of the Ohio Canal – all were at a record flood stage.

Dayton Ohio during the 1913 flood. Library of Congress.

Rain had begun falling in northeastern Ohio around noon on Easter. More than eight inches fell during the next four days. Families in the river valleys were forced to leave their homes. Cities in those valleys were without power, shelter, food, and water. Firemen and police found it difficult to reach any emergency.

The Tuscarawas River bottom including the canal near Clinton and Warrick, were covered by water for a width of 12 miles. All that water had to be funneled through a valley that contained Canal Fulton, Massillon, and Navarre. The Tuscarawas River overflowed its banks at Canal Fulton and, together with the canal, raced through town, destroying much within its path.

Easter Sunday had seen the residents of Massillon going to special musical services through a diving rain. It continued all day and night and again through Monday. At 8:45 Tuesday morning the Tuscarawas River passed the previous high-water mark set in 1904 and continued rising at the rate of two feet per hour. Only the roofs of homes along the canal were above water.

At 11:00 am that day the only two schools in Massillon that had managed to open were closed. The raging Tuscarawas waters, reaching halfway up the sides of a house on Tremont, battered and pushed until the house rose from its foundation and floated off only to crash against a railroad trestle and disintegrate.

The rising waters covered the Ohio Drilling Company, the Massillon Foundry, and Shuster Brewery to a depth of three to four feet. A portion of the Sippo Creek Culvert under South Erie Street collapsed and the creek flooded the main business section of Massillon.

The three villages that made up Navarre were on higher ground and didn’t suffer as greatly as Canal Fulton or Massillon, but the canal through Navarre was utterly destroyed. Every bridge across the Tuscarawas in Stark County except one in Navarre was swept away.

Floodwaters in Bolivar exceeded the previous record by four feet, though damage to the actual town was minimized as much of the town had been built upon higher ground.

The Sad Iron Works, a plant of the Dover Manufacturing Company, and the Wagner Brothers Machine Shop, all located along the canal’s towpath just below the Factory Street Bridge in Canal Dover, collapsed due to flood waters. Every bridge across the Tuscarawas and Muskingum Rivers in Tuscarawas, Coshocton and Muskingum Counties was destroyed by the rapidly flowing flood waters which undermined the abutments.

Damage in Zanesville after the 1913 flood. Library of Congress.

Residents in Lockport, on the southeast side of New Philadelphia at Lock 13 were completely cut off from the surrounding countryside for days. Provisions had to be boated in. The residents of Port Washington and Newcomerstown were also isolated for several days and the canal channel through those towns was nearly obliterated.

Damage in Chillocothe from the 1913 flood. Library of Congress.

In Coshocton, floodwaters spread across 30 city blocks – 8 feet deep in some areas. In Zanesville, near the head of the main Muskingum Improvement, the river crested at 51.8 feet, the highest stage ever recorded up to that time, putting nearly 3,500 buildings under water.

The northern part of the canal above the Portage Summit wasn’t hit quite as hard as other areas, but its citizens reacted more violently. Over the years, a number of fine homes and vacation sites had sprung up along the shores of the Portage Lakes Canal Reservoir. Nervous home and land owners demanded that floodwaters be sent down the canal, away from their properties. Somehow, the banks of the reservoir were breached, sending thousands of tons of water cascading down the Tuscarawas and Muskingum Valleys.

Rumors quickly began circulating that Summit County residents, fearing for the safety of their homes and property, had dynamited the reservoir embankments to relieve local flooding. The Massillon City Council later investigated the alleged dynamiting of the Cottage Grove Dam near Paddy Ryan’s Inn on a feeder from Turkeyfoot Lake to the canal and river. Summit County Officials denied that there was any dynamiting of dams or retaining embankments to save Portage Lakes property. The blame was placed upon excessive pressure of floodwaters on the earthen embankments of the Reservoir.

Whatever the cause, the embankment was breached around Midnight on Sunday. The level of Turkeyfoot Lake dropped some six feet quickly, with a subsequent rise in the Tuscarawas River to the south and the Ohio Canal through Akron to the north.

The closed gates on each of the 15 locks within the city of Akron became small dams, building up a head of water as high as eight feet above the lock. There were bypass channels around each lock, but the sudden increase in the volume of water from the Portage Lakes was too much. The crowds of people panicked and demanded the lock gates be dynamited. The gates of several locks within the city were blown open with dynamite, beginning with Lock 1 at Exchange Street on Monday night and including Locks 8 and 9 , just south of Market Street around noon on Tuesday. This uncoordinated destruction probably did little more than destroy the lock gates, damage some nearby buildings, and hastened the flood of water down the valley.

Bridge swept away in Cleveland. Library of Congress.

Local papers questioned who had authorized the destruction of State Property. Years later, stories were told about the flood and John Henry Vance, an engineer at the B F. Goodrich plant, who took credit for supervising the destruction of Lock 1, a Mr. Madden for Lock 8 plus the nearby Alexander Building, and the City Police for Lock 9.

When the pent up water from the reservoir feeders and the pools behind the Akron locks were unleashed, it tore through the valley, shoving buildings from their foundations and destroyed the canal channel from Akron to Peninsula. At Boston, local residents used 200 pounds of dynamite to blow up the mill dam in the Cuyahoga, hoping to relieve flooding in their town and sending torrents of water down the valley, destroying property and life along its banks. Along the Cleveland Flats, at the junction of the Cuyahoga River and Lake Erie, devastation was tremendous, with docks, lumberyards, and businesses all swept away.

The Statewide extent of death and destruction due to the Flood of 1913 exceeds all other weather-related events in Ohio’s history. Rainfall over the State totaled 6 to 11 inches, and no part of the State was unaffected. The total death count was 467 and more than 40,000 homes were damaged or destroyed. The total property damage totaled more than $100 million dollars (in 1913 money). Homes, businesses and institutions across the State were destroyed by the flood and the State’s transportation system was severely damaged. With nearly every river bridge destroyed, trains swept off tracks, railroad yards destroyed, and railroad tracks torn up by the rampaging waters, it was months before the railways and highways were back to any semblance of their former efficiency.

Much of the northern section of the canal, that portion where the recent rebuilding had taken place, was in shambles, but there was never more than local efforts to repair it, and then only for hydraulic purposes. Through boating on the Ohio Canal had ceased during the height of the rebuild about 1905 or 06. The Flood of 1913, by washing away many of the canal’s feeder dams and seriously damaging it banks all along the line, put an end to the Ohio Canal as a viable, through transportation system.

(1) Editors note- The Flood of 1913 was a multi-state event caused by a winter storm. In addition to the damages to the Ohio Canals, it also great impacted work on New York’s new Barge Canal, which was being constructed at that time.

Cleveland Center – Canal Comments

By Terry K Woods

As the Ohio Canal neared completion from Lake Erie to the Ohio River, many in the small village of Cleveland, Ohio began to believe that their village was strategically placed on the shore of the Great Lake between the junction of the Erie and Ohio Canals that it was destined to become an important world trade center. One man who had that belief, and attempted to make it a reality, was James S. Clarke, a former Sheriff of Cuyahoga County and, in the decade of the 1830s, one of the biggest real estate speculators in the area. In 1831, James Clarke, Richard Hilliard (a wealthy dry goods merchant), and Edmond Clark (a prominent banker) formed a partnership and purchased 50 acres of land just south of Cleveland’s village limits.

The acreage constituted the southern portion of a peninsula bordered on three sides by the Cuyahoga River and located just south of the river’s first great bend. This land was then known as Case’s Point, but is currently that part of the Cleveland Flats known as Ox Bow Bend. The three-man-partnership platted a development on their acreage and called it CLEVELAND CENTRE.i This paper village featured streets named after foreign countries – Britain, France, Germany, China, and Russia, all radiating from a hub called Gravity Place. This, the promoters decided, was an appropriate name for a future center of world trade and business. Cleveland Centre was ideally located just south of the new Ohio Canal basin (Merwin’s) where canal boats and lake vessels interchanged cargo.

Land lots in the new development initially sold well, and soon a small village had sprouted there. Commission houses, warehouses, and docks were built along the western side of the village primarily on Merwin Street. A residential neighborhood formed on the eastern side of the village along Columbus Street (now Columbus Avenue), the main thoroughfare running north and south through the Centre. Clark gave the area a boost in 1835 when he financed the construction of the first bridge across the Cuyahoga River in the Cleveland area – the Columbus Street Bridge

In 1836 the area received another boost. Clarke and others sponsored an additional new development named Wileyville. This new village was on land directly across the river from Cleveland Centre. The two villages were connected by the new Columbus Street bridge. The initial prosperity of the area was so great that it attracted Cleveland’s attention and that city annexed Cleveland Centre in 1835.

Then the nationwide Financial Panic of 1837 struck and all early chances of the Cleveland Centre district becoming a center of world trade collapsed along with the nation’s economy.

During the nation’s economic doldrums that lasted for more than seven years, many working class immigrants moved from building the canals to being out of work from Cleveland’s industry. Also during this period (1838) the first Roman Catholic Church in the Cleveland area, St. Marys, was constructed in the Centre to cater to the many them Irish-Catholic local residents. Incidentally, it was also during this period that James S. Clarke found himself financially ruined.

The nation’s economy finally righted itself in the mid-to-late 1840s and the canal trade began booming again, however, severe flooding of the Cuyahoga in 1847 slowed the Centre’s rebirth. Then with the beginning of the 1850s another specter loomed over the horizon of Cleveland Centre.

Attracted to this area of Cleveland by the industry and commercial district built near the canal/lake interconnection, railroads began entering the area in a big way during the mid-1850s.

The Cleveland, Columbus & Cincinnati Railroad entered the Centre first. In 1851 the railroad purchased 12 acres on the south side of the Centre – taking up almost one quarter of the original development. The C. C. & C. RR constructed an engine roundhouse and other service and yard facilities on that land.

In the immediate years that followed, many of the area’s new industries and manufacturing facilities were constructed to be near the railroad. Often the construction of these industrial complexes necessitated that portions of the streets that radiated from Gravity Place be vacated. Over the years much of the beauty and symmetry of the Centre was lost. The residential neighborhood on the east side of the development also suffered disruption from the invasion of the railroads and industry.

The canal’s terminus, including the commodious Merwin’s Basin was transferred from state to city control and leased to the Connoton Valley Railroad during the mid 1870s. A new canal terminus, weigh lock, and outlet lock into the Cuyahoga River were built some three miles south. Those facilities were operational by the beginning of the 1878 boating season and the original terminus closed.

The old Cleveland Centre drifted toward no longer being a desirable place for a residential area and many moved away. With the loss of the majority of its parishioners, the Catholic Church, now known locally as St. Mary’s of the Flats, closed its doors in 1880. Even the name of Cleveland Centre faded from the memory of Clevelanders and by the late nineteenth Century, the area was known, city wide, only as The Flats.

When Cleveland and the entire area of northeastern Ohio experienced a devastating loss of industry in the mid-Twentieth Century, that Cleveland area known as The Flats and the remains of Cleveland Centre languished, too. That entire area became known nationally only for its closed factories, and businesses and empty warehouses.

That area of Cleveland experienced a brief rebirth as an entertainment and recreational center during the late 1970s and through the ‘80s, but most of the portion that once contained the Centre was too far south to reap much of the economic benefit. And even that small upbeat in the local economy soon faded.

Recently however, with the dawning of the twenty-first century, a number of acres in the southern part of The Flats, that area that contained the Centre, and was formerly owned by the C., C. & C . RR and its successors, was obtained by the City and re-purposed for recreational purposes. Parts of the old Cleveland Centre development are now home to facilities as the Commodore’s Club Marina, and the Cleveland Rowing Foundation. Then Cleveland Metro-Parks initiated their Rivergate Park which featured a riverside restaurant called Merwin’s.

With the Cleveland Centre area becoming a trendy destination once again, proposals (we hesitate to call them plans) have been made to have historical markers placed in the area commemorating the historical existence of Cleveland Centre, and that the original radial streets and hub at Gravity Place be marked and lighted so that people, both on the ground and in the air could see, remember, and commemorate this early attempt to build an international trade center on Ohio’s north shore. Along with James C. Clarke’s spirit, we can do little more than hope.

(Note that this article was first written a few years back and as the links show, much development has taken place in this area.)

iA portion of the information for this column came from Cleveland Historical.

More On the Middlesex Canal

Ed- After we posted the Middlesex Canal article, Bill Gerber, who is Mr. Middlesex, sent along the following.

The Middlesex Canal was authorized in the Summer of 1793. In the spring of 1794, Loammi Baldwin was sent by the Middlesex Canal Company Proprietors on an expedition to survey ‘southern canals’. (See “Instructions to Colonel Baldwin” <http://middlesexcanal.org/towpath/towpathtopicsSept2010.htm> and “L Baldwin’s Report …” <http://middlesexcanal.org/towpath/towpathtopicsApr2011.htm>.)

He visited the Schuylkill and Union Canal sites, met William Weston there and persuaded him to come to Boston to lead a survey for the Middlesex (he came because his wife wanted to mingle in Boston society!! Also, I suspect, because the Penna. Canals ran out of money about this time and weren’t completed for a couple more decades). Baldwin “borrowed” a ‘Y-level’ and station rod from Weston (first known introduction into New England of means to accurately measure elevations and the progression thereof – didn’t return it until 3-years later – probably led to the school of civil engineering at MIT). Baldwin bypassed Brindley’s work along the Susquehanna in PA because he was afraid he’d not be able to get a seat on a later ‘stagecoach’; he visited the site of the Pawtomack Canal in VA, and on the return met with Robert Morris in Philadelphia.

Soon after on an expedition led by William Weston, in the summer of 1794, two routes were surveyed for the Middlesex Canal; actual construction began on the western-most option in September 1794.

Some have asserted that William Weston was the ‘real engineer’ for the Middlesex Canal; IMHO, definitely not so!  Weston did come to Boston, he did lead the expedition that surveyed two potential routes for the canal, and he did produce the first estimates of what it would cost to build the canal. He then departed and never returned to the Middlesex; though it is clear that he carried on a correspondence with Baldwin, in which they discussed many technical matters, for a considerable time thereafter.

But Baldwin was his own man. E.g., Weston suggested a european source for ’trass’ (volcanic rock for use in making hydraulic cement), Baldwin got his from St. Eustacius in the Caribbean and did his own experiments to derive a practical formula; Weston suggested building locks of brick, Baldwin used granite; Baldwin took Weston’s advice and built bypass channels on both sides of his locks at the Merrimack flight; when building the bottom lock of that three-lock flight, Baldwin designed, built and employed a ‘horse-powered’ ‘bucket machine’ to extract much water from the pit. Weston was impressed, requested and received a copy of Baldwin’s design. [We know this from an unpublished manuscript, “Minutes of the History of the Middlesex Canal” by James Fowle Baldwin  (From the Joseph Downs Collection of Manuscripts and Printed Ephemera, Col. 204. Owned by the Winterthur Library)

Baldwin was called on to survey for the Pawtucket Canal when they got into trouble. James Sullivan, father of J.L., conceived a dump cart for use on the Middlesex, but Baldwin built to his own design, which apparently was used there and in many subsequent construction jobs. (It should be very interesting to learn how Christian Senf surveyed for and constructed the Cooper & Santee. Is any of that known?)

Considering canals of comparable length, the Santee did predate the Middlesex by a few years. Technically speaking, the 1-1/2+/- mile Pawtucket Canal predated them both, opening in 1797 after a flawed attempt to open the preceding year. (Probably a few other short canals opened earlier as well.)
By 1815, a year before the NY canal commissioners came to visit, the Pawtucket had become a key part of the more than 100-miles of canals and navigable waterways in use north of Boston. The complex had been built by more than a dozen private, independent companies at an overall cost of over $1M (e.g., $600+K for the M’sex; $400+K for the Merrimack above M’sex Village; and $60K for the Pawtucket. These included: the M’sex Canal, 27.5 miles; the canalized Merrimack River north to and beyond Concord NH, 52 miles (see Locks and Canals of the Merrimack River <http://middlesexcanal.org/towpath/towpathtopicsJan2009.htm>); the Concord River south of where the M’sex crossed the Concord, to and beyond Concord MA, 10+ miles; the Pawtucket Canal (noted) and M’mack River east to tidewater, 25 miles, about 5 miles of the Charles River (to Watertown); and the Mill Creek Canal that crossed through Boston to reach Boston Harbor.
(Though I’ve not seen his diary, it is my understanding that notes describing L Baldwin’s experiments and conclusions are contained in his diary, available at the Harvard University’s Baker Business School Library. It would be interesting to compare his notes with whatever the Erie folks did, early on.

I did not realize that Sullivan was in Albany at DeWitt Clinton’s request although that certainly makes sense; thank you for that. I am suspicious that Sullivan was also ‘politicking’ to be allowed to set up a steam towboat concession on the Hudson River – which he received approval for from the NY legislature, but could never overcome the Livingston/Fulton monopoly for the use of ‘fire and steam’ on that river.

I was aware that Sullivan favored construction of the Erie well before there was ‘visible’ action to define, authorize, fund and construct it. Following their inspection of the Middlesex, the NY canal commissioners wrote and submitted an extensive report of what they had witnessed. This report was republished early on in TT, see “In This Issue”<http://middlesexcanal.org/towpath/canalnewsApr1964.htm> and it is about the same as what you included at the end of your paper.

Apparently the NY commissioners did not go up the Merrimack to examine what had been completed there the preceding year and so, subsequent to their return to NY, John .L. Sullivan wrote a letter to DeWitt Clinton which described the work done to canalize 52 miles of the Merrimack River (i.e., a dozen bypass canal, three dozen locks), and all the costs associated with that enterprise. This letter was republished in Towpath Topics, see “Letter from J. L. Sullivan to New York Canal Commissioners advising concerning the cost of proposed Erie Canal”, http://middlesexcanal.org/towpath/towpathtopicsSept1965.htm>. The information content of Sullivan’s letter should have been very useful in initial efforts to estimate the costs to build the Erie. Both the report and Sullivan’s letter were bound into a book, a copy of which resides in the NY State archives in Albany.

For a fairly detailed description of what was done to canalize the Merrimack, see “Locks and Canals of the Merrimack River”  <http://middlesexcanal.org/towpath/towpathtopicsJan2009.htm>. 
Because it was impractical to build towpaths along the Merrimack, which exhibited radical changes in level, Sullivan ‘invented’ the towboat. That story is told in “… Sullivan … his Steam Towboats”, <http://middlesexcanal.org/towpath/towpathtopicsFeb2010.htm>. Likely Sullivan’s 1816 towboat, his fourth-generation boat, would have been available for inspection by the commissioners.

Re: Erie Waters West – it is my opinion –  that it was not so much that competent people could not be found to accomplish major engineering projects, as it was that none of the men who could do that kind of work were widely known and none had built an acceptably broad level of confidence in their abilities. E.g. – prior to the American Revolution, Loammi Baldwin and his younger cousin Benjamin Thompson would travel to Harvard College to attend lectures in Practical Philosophy, then work the suggested experiments together at home. Thus, both men had comparable technical educational roots. Thompson (who became a British spy! Settled in Europe after the war and never came back) went on to become the world recognized scientist and inventor known as ‘Count Rumford’, and Loammi Baldwin (who became a Colonel in Washington’s army) became the “Supervisor of Construction”(i.e., construction manager and chief engineer) for the Middlesex Canal. —  Similarly, along the Connecticut River at South Hadley Mass., Benjamin Prescott fulfilled a very similar “Supervisor of … “ role for construction of the Inclined Plane , probably the most ambitious technical endeavor of the young nation at that time. (And one that just ‘cries out’ to be properly written up and appropriately recognized.)

Baldwin was also the father of an engineering dynasty that included several of his sons (See “It was a Family Thing”, <http://middlesexcanal.org/towpath/towpathtopicsMar2012.htm> – his sons: Benjamin Franklin, Loammi (Jr.), James Fowle., George Rumford) became respected engineers in their own right. Cyrus Baldwin became the “Lock Keeper” at the head of the canal at Middlesex Village, which I think means the business manager overseeing operation of both the northern terminus and the Landing there, where goods were accepted for shipment, warehoused, loaded, unloaded, and delivered.

Re: Bond of Union – Technically speaking, the Middlesex opened for use in 1804. — What happened in 1803 to cause the confusion? Well, the MA legislature authorized the M’sex in the summer (June, I think) of 1793 and gave the Proprietors 10 years to complete the action. That time would have been up in the summer of 1803, but it appears that the legislature extended permission to the end of the year. And so, on December 31st, 1803, water was let into the entire length of the canal for the first time ever. (Oral history suggests that clocks in some of the towns along the route were set back to claim accomplishment!! One wonders – what the hell were they doing watering the canal in the middle of a New England winter, and in the midst of a mini ice age??? Fulfilling the terms of the legislation? Perhaps!! Why else would they pull off such a hair-brained stunt?)

Reference to cost overruns: I’d like to know where the author found this. It may be, but in 40+ years of research, including a fair number of primary (corporate) documents, I’ve never seen a budget for either the construction or operation of the Middlesex Canal. So how does he know? Was he referring to the ‘as built’ costs vs the original cost estimates? That would be an absurd comparison, utterly meaningless.

I concur that J.L. Sullivan made the Middlesex successful. And to counter the skeptics, yes, the company did pay a dividend for a few years, though that’s a subject for another discussion, as well as some targeted research. Reports that the investors lost money are not well based; i.e., a number of related factors were not considered when that estimate was made [by Christopher Roberts in his 1930s PhD thesis “The Middlesex Canal”. E.g., the sale of the M’mack River canals in the 1830s, the ‘Canal Bridge’ (toll bridge between Boston and Cambridge at Lechmere Point) and the tolls it produced, and several other factors were never considered.

And that’s about all that comes to mind at the moment!! Hope it helps.

The Middlesex Canal and It’s Roll in the Development of the Erie Canal

Construction began on the 27-mile-long Middlesex Canal in 1793 and it opened for business in 1803. Only the 22-mile-long Santee Canal in South Carolina is older, that canal being opened in 1800. These two canals predate the construction of the Erie Canal by 14 and 17 years, and certainly it is reasonable that engineers from New York would have traveled to the working canals to see what, and not to do, when it came to canal construction. (Yes, there were navigations such as the Western Inland Lock Navigation, and the Schuylkill, but no real canals during that period.) However, if you were to take a narrated cruise or hike along the old Erie, you would rarely, if ever hear about the influence of these canals on New York’s Erie Canal.

Bill Gerber, who serves as a member of our ACS board and is a past president of the Middlesex Canal Association, sent along this note. “It has long bugged me that the Middlesex Canal rarely, if ever, gets credit for its contribution to the success of the Erie Canal. For instance, in 1816, a group of New York Canal Commissioners visited the Middlesex to examine what had been built and how it operated.” In 2011, Bill wrote an article for Towpath Topics, the newsletter of the Middlesex Canal Association where he highlighted a couple examples of when the new canal commissioners of the Erie Canal visited the Middlesex in 1816, and when John Sullivan, the CEO of the Middlesex, visited Albany in 1817. (1)

Bill added, “Among other things, the Erie historians credit European sources with guidance to produce hydraulic cement. Perhaps so, but were the NY Commissioners not also given access to supervisor of construction Loammi Baldwin’s notes, the research he did into hydraulic cement, the successful conclusions he came to, and the implementation thereof? I find it hard to believe that they were not. How too did that knowledge factor into their engineering and construction decisions?”

“While the instances were certainly a modest contribution, they did provide very practical and useful information, and very likely assistance, from actual domestic canal engineering, construction and operation at a key point in the effort to obtain authorization and funding for the Erie. If true, I’d like to see the Middlesex appropriately credited.” -Bill Gerber

Bill’s comments are certainly true. In those old days when I studied only the Erie Canal and it’s laterals, I rarely ran across mentions of the Middlesex. One would read about the work of the Western Inland Lock Navigation Company, or William Weston, the English canal engineer who helped to guide our canal engineering. It was only after I became involved in the ACS that I realized that my “Erie-centric” view of the canal world was somewhat misguided.

But was the fault all mine, or could I cast blame onto the authors of the many Erie Canal history books I have read over the years? I decided to head into the American Canal Society library and pull out some of the more popular Erie Canal histories. I also conducted a quick search on some digital newspaper platforms to see if the people of the period were aware of the Middlesex Canal. Here is a sampling of what I found.

The Weekly Messenger, Friday, May 21, 1813. (2)

John Sullivan wrote an long article titled; “Inland Navigation, Remarks of the Importance of Inland Navigation” In this he details the route of the Erie Canal and the benefits to the state and union.

May-21-1813Download

Buffalo [NY] Gazette, Feb 6, 1816

The Middlesex Canal in Massachusetts runs over twenty-eight miles of ground, presenting obstacles much greater than can be expected on the route we purpose. The article goes onto explain the costs and lockages along the Middlesex canal.

Buffalo_Gazette_Tue__Feb_6__1816_Download

Laws of the State of New York, Feb 8, 1825, page 197 (3)

1817- The best artificial navigation in the United States being the Middlesex canal, in Massachusetts, two of the commissioners accompanied by two of the engineers, proceeded to examine it, in order to obtain practical information on the subject.

John Sullivan letter to Albany [NY] Argus and City Gazette, March 21, 1826

I am compelled to speak of myself, and to ask; Was I “a visionary” when Judge Wright and other gentlemen visited me for information respecting the Middlesex Canal before the Erie was begun?

sullivan-letter-1826Download

Erie Water West (1966), page 18 (4)

The canal builders of this period (1790s) must be judged to have left a record more of failure than success. When no competent American engineer could be found, the companies sent vainly to England for aid and finally secured the part-time services of William Weston, an Englishman who was then employed in Pennsylvania on the Schuylkill and Susquehanna Canal. But Weston could not visit the works until 1795. I include this as the services of William Weston are often confused when it comes to Erie Canal history. He was employed/engaged on a number of early canals, including the Western Inland Lock Navigation in central New York. His age prevented him from returning to assist with the construction of the Erie.

Erie Water West, page 69

As the only real precedent in the Untied States was the Middlesex Canal, twenty-seven miles long, between Boston and the Merrimac River, the commissioners had examined it and made it their model; but in actuality they had very few standards by which to judge their plans.

Wedding of the Waters (2005), page 131 (5)

There was also the record of the Middlesex Canal, at that time the longest canal in North America, a twenty-seven-mile waterway built in the late 1790s to connect Boston to the Merrimack River in the northern reaches of Massachusetts. The Middlesex did a good job of moving heavy material like granite and lumber but was never able to generate enough revenue to stay current on its debts. If Schuyler and Weston could be so wide of the mark on a relatively simple undertaking, and if the Middlesex was such a financial failure, what confidence could people place in anyone who recommended a project as large, as complex, and as novel as the Erie Canal?

Bond of Union, (2009), page 140 (6)

[Myron] Holley and [Samuel] Young traveled to Massachusetts and examined the Middlesex Canal. At twenty-seven miles, the country’s longest and only significant canal had finally started operations in 1803 after a decade of expensive surveys (including one by William Weston), construction difficulties, and cost overruns.

The particulars of the canal, which joined Boston and the Merrimac River, were of great interest to New York’s canal commissioners: its twenty locks, eight major aqueducts, $20,000-per-mile construction cost, and especially its dimensions – thirty feet wide at the surface, narrowing to twenty at the three-foot-depth. The commissioners also solicited construction and cost details from the proprietors of several private canals in New York.

Bond of Union, Page 169

Clinton and the other commissioners at Albany were indignant at the rejection from Washington, but immediately set about to control the damage. They countered first with what passed for a celebrity in the limited world of American canalling. By the end of the veto week, they had brought to Albany John Langdon Sullivan, superintendent of Massachusetts’s Middlesex Canal. In ten years on the job, John Sullivan had turned the country’s most substantial canal from a notorious failure into a singular success. (Sullivan’s father James had been the main developer of the project that sought to link the Merrimack and Charles rivers.)

Bond of Union, Page 170

In its early years Middlesex had been widely perceived as the Massachusetts twin of New York’s hapless Western Inland Company: paragons of unvirtuous private enterprise. By 1817 John Sullivan was transforming the Middlesex into an exemplary model for the proponents of the Erie Canal. Though only a fraction of the length of New York’s proposed canal, the Middlesex was proving that canal transportation could be practical and economical. And its basic dimensions- a width of thirty-feet on the surface narrowing to twenty at a three-foot depth- made it a nearly perfect three-quarter scale model for the Erie.

A Watershed Moment: The Middlesex Canal. T.R. Witcher, 2017 (7)

While American transportation before the Erie Canal may seem like something out of ancient history, the achievements reflected in the lesser-known Middlesex Canal, in Massachusetts, were certainly not lost on those who lived to see the Erie Canal built. In his 1808 report to Congress, Albert Galleatin, then secretary of the Treasury, called the 27 mile Middlesex Canal, which had been completed in 1803 and linked Boston with Lowell, Massachusetts, the “greatest work of the kind which has been completed in the United States.” (The full article is available as a download at the ASCE library)

Conclusions

It is clear from this limited survey that the Middlesex was researched and perhaps served as the model for the construction of the Erie Canal. Although the Santee Canal predated the Middlesex, it was in South Carolina, not next door in Massachusetts. The Santee was also located in a much warmer environment.

It is also clear that historians have been changing the way they look at the Middlesex Canal as it relates to the Erie. In 1966, Shaw in Erie Water West gives the Middlesex a passing mention, and Bernstein in Wedding of the Waters dismisses it as a failure. It is Koeppel in Bond of Union who gives much credit to the Middlesex as an model for the Erie and also explains why John Sullivan was in Albany during the winter of 1816/17. Witcher in A Watershed Moment goes in depth as to the engineering lessons that were taken from the Middlesex.

It is likely that the digitization of records and the continued scholarship has led to this transformation in how we view the early canals. Certainly the ability to perform Boolean searches into thousands of digital newspaper pages has helped the historian get a better sense of what was being done and said in those early days.

It is now up to the staff and volunteers who happen to give talks along the Erie to adjust the historical narrative they share with their visitors and give proper credit to these early canals. And if you happen to be in the Boston or Lowell region, be sure to stop and visit the Middlesex Canal Association’s museum.

In 1967, the Middlesex Canal Association put out this map of the entire canal.

(1) Towpath Topics, Volume 49 No. 2, January 2011, available on the web at http://middlesexcanal.org/towpath/towpathtopicsJan2011.htm

(2) The newspapers quoted here were found on newspapers.com and Old Fulton.com

(3) Laws of the State of New York in Relation to the Erie and Champlain Canals Together with the Annual Reports of the Canal Commissioners, and Other Documents, Vol.1, February 8, 1825

(4) Erie Water West, Ronald E Shaw, University of Kentucky Press, 1966

(5) Wedding of the Waters; The Erie Canal and the Making of a Great Nation, Peter L. Bernstein, W.W. Norton and Company, 2005

(6) Bond of Union; Building the Erie Canal and the American Empire, Gerard Koeppel, DaCapo Press, 2009

(7) A Watershed Moment; The Middlesex Canal. T.R. Witcher, Civil Engineering, July/August 2017

Appendix

Canal Laws, page 301 (pdf 338), Miscellaneous particulars of information, respecting the Middlesex Canal, near Boston, in the state of Massachusetts.

The following information, respecting the Middlesex canal, was obtained in May last, by two of the Commissioners, who visited and carefully examined that canal, throughout its whole extent, and committed to writing, on the spot, the results of their own observations, as well as the answers to all their inquiries, which were obligingly given, by the very intelligent agent (Mr. Sullivan) of the canal company.

The canal is 27 miles long, and connects the tidewater, in Boston harbour at Charlestown, with the Merrimack river. The water in the canal is 30 feet wide at its surface, 20 feet at its bottom, and 3 feet deep. The Concord or Sudbury river crosses the line of the canal on the summit-level, 22 miles from Charlestown, and 5 miles from the junction of the canal with the Merrimack, and wholly supplies it with water for locking, down each way from the summit-level. From tide-water to the summit-level is an ascent of 104 feet, and from thence to the Merrimack a descent of 32 feet. There are, in all, 20 locks of different lifts, of which the highest is 12 feet. These locks are 75 feet long in the clear, 10 feet wide at the bottom, and 11 feet at the top.

Boats for the transportation of merchandise and produce carry 14 tons, and are drawn by one horse 3 miles an hour. Packet-boats pass the whole length in 5 hours coming down, and 7 hours going up. To each boat there are three men; two, however, are sufficient to manage the boat on the canal, the other being wanted only on the Merrimack river. From the summit-level, down the canal, there is, a current which exceeds in no place half a mile per hour there being a fall or descent in the canal of one inch per mile. The expense of transporting a ton the whole length of the canal is $3 50, of which sum $1 70 is toll, and $1 80 is freight.

Across the canal, there are 50 bridges, made by the canal company; they consist of 2 stone abutments (one on each side of the canal) 20 feet apart: from one of these abutments to the other, are laid sills or stringpieces, of wood, covered with plank, and of sufficient height for the towing horses to pass under. The towing-path under the bridges occupies 6 or 7 feet.

Two miles from the lower end of the canal, Mystick river, a turnpike road, and the canal run a little distance parallel with each other, the road being between the canal and river. Here is afforded a good opportunity of comparing the relative advantages of these three modes of conveyance.

Heavier boats than those above-mentioned, are used on the canal for transporting fire-wood, lumber, &c.; they are shaped like a scow, are 75 feet long, 9½ feet wide, and carry 25 tons of wood.

The towing-path is generally 8 feet wide, so that horses and oxen may easily pass each other. On the opposite side of the canal, where a towing-path is not wanted, the upper surface of the bank or embankment is five feet wide, and this is found to be sufficient. A branch-canal, or side-cut is made to connect the main canal with Mystick river, near Medford; this is owned by a separate company, and is principally used for transporting timber to Medford for ship-building.

The canal company was incorporated in 1789, and the next year commenced the work of making the canal. When the canal was begun, the price of labour by the month was $8. The canal was opened for use, in 1804, though not completed in 1808, when Mr. Sullivan took charge of it. Some repairs and new constructions have been made every year since. In assesments upon the proprietors, there has been laid out on the canal $528,000, and about $50,000 more, derived from tolls, has been expended in buildings, wharves, &c. At Medford is a swivel bridge, which is found to be very inconvenient. The principal articles transported on the canal are wood, timber, lumber of all kinds, pot and pearl ashes, rye, oats, provisions, and building stone from the Merrimack to Boston. Last year 12,000 cords of wood were transported down the canal, and there are more tons of timber in rafts, brought down, than of wood.

More than one half of the whole length of the canal is more or less embanked or raised above the natural surface of the ground. Above Medford is an aqueduct across the Mystick river, of which the abutments are 100 feet apart, and between them are three stone piers, each 8 feet thick, for supporting the aqueduct. The tide flows up the Mystick river above this place. The surface of the water in the aqueduct, is 10 feet above the surface of the water in the river below, at high water. This aqueduct consists of a kind of trough made of timber and plank, which has stood 16 years, but is beginning to decay. The timber is framed together in the usual way of carpenter’s work, by tenants and mortises, and strengthened by braces. As tenants soon rot, and give way, it might have been made on a better and more durable construction, with knees and bolts, in the manner of ship-building. At the upper end of the aqueduct, is a lock of 12 feet lift.

Mr. Weston, an English engineer, took the levels of the whole length of the line of this canal, part of the way on two routes. He estimated the expense of making it at 100,000l. sterling. The company went on to make the canal, without any further aid from any European engineer, and found Mr. Weston’s levels to be correct.

Over Syms’ river is an aqueduct, of which the abutments are 120 feet apart, with three intervening piers. The water in the aqueduct is 30 feet higher than the water in the stream below. These aqueducts all afford convenient waste-weirs. When the water is not drawn off from the canal at the commencement of winter, the expansion of its freezing, spreads and injures the timbers of the aqueducts; wherefore, it is the practice, just before the winter sets in, to draw off about one third of the water.

Half a mile above the last mentioned aqueduct, is deep cutting, 40 rods in length, through loose sand and gravel. In the deepest part of the excavation, is 20 feet below the natural surface of the earth; and the part excavated, is here, from 90 to 100 feet in width at the top. The earth was chiefly carried away in wheelbarrows, some in carts, to an embankment just above, on the right side. Half a mile higher up, the earth is very porous, and on the right side, the water leaks out through or under an embankment: this might have been prevented, by putting 2 or 3 feet of water-tight stuff in the bottom of the canal.

Near this place are two water-gates, by which the water of the canal is drawn off in the spring for the purpose of clearing out the earth, stones, &c. which fall into it, and injure the navigation. The expense of this, is perhaps $500 a year.

Mr. Sullivan states, that he has had a steam-boat on the Merrimack river for the purpose of towing boats; he found, that a man by a rope could easily hold a boat in tow, immediately astern of the steam-boat, which it would require a horse, on the bank of the river, to tow with the same velocity: such, in his opinion, is the great diminution of the resistance of the water, to the head of a boat, which is drawn in the wake of another boat.

For some weeks in the spring, the canal leaks much more than it does the remainder of the season; this is because the banks had been recently swelled and loosened by the action of the frost. Three men with a horse and boat, are, in the summer, constantly employed, to keep the banks, and particularly the towing-path in order.

The lands within six miles of the canal on each side, have increased one-third in price; while land in the country, generally retains its former value. In the state of New-Hampshire, through which the Merrimack flows, timber is now worth from 1 to 3 dollars per ton standing; before the canal was made, it was worth nothing; so that in the article of timber alone, that state is supposed to have been benefited to the amount of at least 5,000,000 of dollars. The wood-land there, has risen in price, since the opening of the canal, from $2 per acre, to $6, 8, and $10 per acre.

In Woburn, a pretty high embankment, which was made in the winter, across a marsh, sunk down in the spring, at the breaking up of the frost, so that its top was just level with the natural earth: another embankment was then raised upon it. Near this place, the canal, by a deep cutting of 25 feet, passes through a hill. An embankment at Maple meadow, in the town of Wilmington, is near 80 rods long, and 25 feet high, to the top of the towing-path. At a place called the sinking meadow, in the above-named town, an embankment is made across a marsh of about 30 rods in extent. When this embankment was commenced, it was found that the dirt and stuff carried on, to form the embankment, kept gradually sinking into the marsh; when measures were taken to ascertain how much it would sink: the labourers continued to carry on stuff which gradually went down, until the whole embankment sunk to the depth of 60 feet!

The great expense of making this embankment across the marsh, might have been foreseen, and prevented. The depth and softness of the marsh, might have been ascertained by sounding it with an iron rod, and by conducting the canal circuitously around its margin, a solid foundation might have been secured.

By the act of incorporation, the Legislature authorized the company to occupy, 5 rods of land in width on one side of the centre of the canal, and 3 rods on the other. If the owners of the land did not apply for pay within a year, it was deemed a donation. In the statement of monies expended, before made, are included, the costs of several law-suits, the building of boats, of offices, the purchase of 70 acres of land, and the erection of mills at Billerica. The land and mills cost $10,000. There is no income derived from hiring out water privileges, for hydraulic operations. The canal receives its whole supply of water, from the Concord river; and if any were let out for hydraulic purposes, a current would be created, the inconveniences of which, would probably more than counterbalance all the advantages of income.

Either through design or accident, logs, stumps and sticks were in some places left in the banks, when the canal was made; and these, having now become rotten, leave unsound places, through which the water escapes. A great part of the canal was made by contractors, in small parts or jobs, and where two jobs of embankment met each other, the workmen did not, in some cases, take the precaution to prevent the stones, as they threw on the stuff, from rolling down together, from each end of the separate job, and thereby forming a loose porous and leaky place in the embankment.

The aqueduct over the Shawsheen river is, between the abutments, 140 feet. The water in it is, 35 feet higher, than the surface of the river below. This aqueduct has been made 20 years; it is, like the other aqueducts on this canal, made of wood, and is so much decayed, as to require temporary props, to support it. There are three piers between the abutments, and, between the outside pier and the abutment on each side, there is a kind of wooden pier. On the inside, or river side of both the abutments, and on both sides of the piers at suitable distances, large horizontal timbers are embedded, which serve to support the lower ends of the aqueduct braces: when these timbers become rotten, the stone work will probably fall down. From each end of this aqueduct, to the distance of 500 feet, is an embankment nearly 35 feet high.

During the war, the timber used to repair the Constitution frigate, was brought, down the canal to Boston, and that used to build the Independence, seventy-four., except the live oak, was procured through the same channel, as also were many of the masts and spars, &c. which were furnished at Boston, to our vessels of war. Without the canal, this part of the country could not have supplied these necessary articles.

In approaching the Concord river, the canal passes through half a mile of deep-cutting, 800 feet of which is excavated by blasting through a hard granite rock. In some places, this blasting was carried 7 feet into the rock, and from 14 to 20 feet wide. The deep-cutting for this half mile, is from 12 to 20 feet.

Across the Concord river, a few rods below the line of the canal, a dam of 150 feet long, and 8 feet high is made. This creates a pond, out of which, through the deep-cutting last mentioned, the water flows and supplies the canal, 22 miles to Charlestown at the tide-water. From the other side of the pond, the water flows through the canal 5 miles to the Merrimack river. The water which supplies the 22 miles of the canal, passes through a horizontal apeture of 6 feet by 1, with a head of 2 feet water, above the upper side of the apeture. The towing-path, is carried across the pond, by means of a floating bridge, a part of which is occasionally drawn up, to let the logs, timber and drift-wood, which collect above pass through. There are two waste gates in the dam, by which the height of the water in the pond can, in some measure, be regulated.

In Chelmsford, within 60 rods of the Merrimack, is an aqueduct, of which the abutments are 110 feet apart, and there are ten wooden piers to support it. The water in the aqueduct, is, 16 feet higher than the stream below. Between this aqueduct and the Merrimack, is a fall of 32 feet, and 3 locks of durable stone masonry, in tarres mortar. Where the canal joins the Merrimack, a basin is excavated, 10 or 12 feet below the natural surface of the earth, and 5 feet below the surface of the river, at low water. The extent of the basin is about 200 feet on the shore of the river, and half that distance on a line at right angles with the shore, being nearly semi-circular. There are in all 7 aqueducts on the canal, but those not mentioned above are very inconsiderable: there are also several culverts. Grass grows in the bottom of the canal, and obstructs the passage of the water in autumn to such a degree, that at the lower end of the canal, 22 miles from its source, the water is sometimes 9 inches lower than it otherwise would be. To remedy this inconvenience a man is employed who wades along the canal and mows off the grass under water with a scythe. During the winter season, while the canal was not used, the muskrats would sometimes burrow into and endanger the breaking of the banks; in consequence of which the company had offered a bounty of 50 cents for every one that should be destroyed within a certain distance of the canal. This county had caused their destruction to such an extent that very little apprehension was entertained of their doing injury.

It was the original design of the company to employ three officers on the canal, viz. a superintendent, a treasurer and clerk; but that project has been abandoned, and those three officers are now united in Mr. Sullivan. His compensation is a salary of $1,500 a year, besides 5 per cent. on all the tolls or receipts, which are warranted not to fall short of $20,000 per annum.

The receipts of the company from the canal are rapidly increasing. The income in 1808, was $7000, in 1809, $9000, in 1810, $14,000, in 1811, $17,000, last year $25,000, and this year (1816) it will, undoubtedly, exceed $30,000.

Laws, page 320 (pdf 357) Vol 1.

Copy of a letter, to the President of the Board of Commissioners, from John L. Sullivan, Esquire, who has personally examined the most celebated canal and England, France, and Holland, has had the charge of constructing several short canals, with locks, dams, and etc, around falls in the Merrimack river, and has, for eight years, been superintendent of the Middlesex canal, in Massachusetts.

Albany, March 7, 1817

The Hon. DeWitt Clinton
President of the Board of Canal Commissioners

Sir:

In compliance with your request, in behalf of the board f commissioners, I have given all the attention in my power, at this time, to the report on the proposed canal, and shall with pleasure proceed to state my impression of the estimates in general, premising, however, that without see the ground, it would be presumption to offer a decisive opinion on the expense. It is, therefore, with the utmost deference to the engineers, and other gentlemen who have assisted in making them, that I shall express mine, from a comparison of the description of the route with works of this nature, with which I am intimately acquainted.

In comparison with the Middlesex canal, the description given of the country is peculiarly favorable; In the proportion, I should think, of three to one. That is, for the whole distance, the Middlesex canal, per mile, is three times as difficult or expensive, as to the work to be done by excavation and embankment, as the New-York state canal will be. And none of the heavy jobs will compare with what has often been done in Europe. In making the comparison, it will be recollected, that the dimensions of the canal are, as 4 to 7; the mean width and depth of Middlesex being 25 by 4, your canal 35 by 5.

The estimate have been made from the best sources of information in the country, and from experiments: I conclude, therefore, that the easy work can be done accordingly, but it would cost much more in our part of the country, if executed without the aid of labor-saving machinery, as wages now are.

The embankment will, I believe, generally, cost three times as much as excavation; and it is obvious to remark, that where they are extensive, the earth, to form them, must be carried the whole distance; and the quantity of earth will very much exceed, in square yard, at the place whence it is taken, the measurement of the bank. No doubt the board have attended to these and other local circumstances; but, in the estimate, the difference does not appear to be sufficient.

The waste-wiers, safety gates, and other constructions to control the streams, feeders, and etc., not expressly contained in the estimates, ought not, I think, to have been assigned to the 5 per cent added for contingencies; because that allowance is to be made as well on them as on other objects of expenditure.

The allowance of 10,000 dollars per lock appears to me to be ample. The cost of the aqueducts depends on so many local circumstances, that I can only say, it seems to me very probable, that the estimate for them is high enough; constructed of stone piers and trunks of wood; but much will depend on the previous preparation, and the season of the year in which the work is done.

In some instances the digging of the eastern route is represented as partly light and partly difficult. Where the pick ax is to be used, the digging will cost double what it will where it may be done by shovel alone; or, if the light loam or sand may be excavated for 12 to 20 cents, hard gravel and clay should be estimated, in my opinion, fro 30 to 50 cents per yard.

The middle and western sections, appear to be on the whole high enough. The eastern to Schoharie crosses so many streams, and there being some difficult digging, and considerable wall required to sustain the banks of the canal and adjacent high grounds, that I doubt if the estimate has been sufficiently considered in all these circumstances; but it does not appear to be, on the whole, a more difficult route than that of the Middlesex in proportion to its distance; I say this, however, with deference to the gentleman of the board who have seen both.

But on the whole, as the country is so generally favorable, as labour-saving machines can be used, and as there will probably be no land or damages to pay for, the estimate appears to be high enough.

In making a comparison with the Middlesex canal, having no minutes with me, I can only do it from recollection. The accounts, while this canal was in the process of construction, were not kept so as to admit of our knowing what ant particular piece of work cost. My analysis of it, therefore, will be wholly from judgment, formed from my knowledge of the ground, and some experience in other places.

The Middlesex canal is 27 miles in length, its depth is intended to carry at least three feet of water. The banks where formed, are meant to be one foot above the water. The width generally 30 feet on the surface, and on the bottom 20 feet. In carrying the work on, it was found necessarily to purchase some estates, the whole of which was not essential to the canal. The lands were generally paid for where most valuable. There was some considerable expense attending litigations, and perhaps some mistakes, which are not likely to happen in the proposed work. The whole expense in assessments has been 520,000 dollars; not including the application of income for several years past, in renovating and completing it; and the buildings, wharves, and etc., necessary to the business. As neither of these objects of expenditure apply to the present question, I shall leave them out, and also deduct 50,000 dollars as having been applied to the other works leading to the principal canal.

If this communication, which is very hasty and imperfect, can be of any use to the board, I shall have much pleasure in the reflection of having contributed, in any degree, to the great object of their attention.

With the highest respect,
I am, Sir, your most obed’t. serv’t,
JNO. L. SULLIVAN.

Holding Back the River

Holding Back the River; The Struggle Against Nature on America’s Waterways, by Tyler J. Kelly, $27.00 list, $21.54 (Amazon), 224 pages

A revelatory work of reporting on the men and women wrestling to harness and preserve America’s most vital natural resource: our rivers.

The Mississippi. The Missouri. The Ohio. America’s great rivers are the very lifeblood of our country. We need them for nourishing crops, for cheap bulk transportation, for hydroelectric power, for fresh drinking water. Rivers are also part of our mythology, our collective soul; they are Mark Twain, Led Zeppelin, and the Delta Blues. But as infrastructure across the nation fails and climate change pushes rivers and seas to new heights, we’ve arrived at a critical moment in our battle to tame these often-destructive forces of nature.

Tyler J. Kelley spent two years traveling the heartland, getting to know the men and women whose lives and livelihoods rely on these tenuously tamed streams. The result, Holding Back the River, is a deeply human exploration of how our centuries-long dream of conquering and shaping this vast network of waterways squares with the reality of an indomitable natural world.

On the Illinois-Kentucky border, we encounter Luther Helland, master of the most important—and most decrepit—lock and dam in America. This old dam, at the tail end of the Ohio River, was scheduled to be replaced in 1998, but twenty years and $3 billion later, its replacement still isn’t finished. As the old dam crumbles and commerce grinds to a halt, Helland and his team must risk their lives, using steam-powered equipment and sheer brawn, to raise and lower the dam as often as ten times a year.

In Southeast Missouri, we meet Twan Robinson, who lives in the historically Black village of Pinhook. As a super-flood rises on the Mississippi, she learns from her sister that the US Army Corps of Engineers is going to blow up the levee that stands between her home and the river. With barely enough notice to evacuate her elderly mother and pack up a few of her own belongings, Robinson escapes to safety only to begin a nightmarish years-long battle to rebuild her lost community.

Atop a floodgate in central Louisiana, we’re beside Major General Richard Kaiser, the man responsible for keeping North America’s greatest river under control. Kaiser stands above the spot where the Mississippi River wants to change course, abandoning Baton Rouge and New Orleans, and following the Atchafalaya River to the sea. The daily flow of water from one river to the other is carefully regulated, but something else is happening that may be out of Kaiser and the Corps’ control.

America’s infrastructure is old and underfunded. While our economy, society, and climate have changed, our levees, locks, and dams have not. Yet to fix what’s wrong will require more than money. It will require an act of imagination. Meticulously researched and as lively as it is informative, Holding Back the River brings us into the lives of the Americans who grapple with our mighty rivers and, through their stories, suggests solutions to some of the century’s greatest challenges.

Review

The above review was provided by the publishing company and it nicely outlines this very enjoyable read. The book is divided into three parts; The Lock, Alluvial Empire, and Rivers of Earth. There is a forth short section titled, Retreat and Fortify. As the synopsis outlines, each part looks at the river through the eyes of a local person or community who has lived, worked, and had their lives impacted by, the rivers. I was very interested in part one; The Lock, where the challenges of using and maintaining Lock 52, the last lock on the Ohio River. Lock 52 and 53 were the last two of the 51 Chanoine wicket-style movable dams that once created the navigation pools from the Mississippi to Pittsburgh. The US Army Corps of Engineers has been replacing the old locks and dams with 19 larger structures. Locks 52 and 53, which has been replaced by the Olmsted Lock and dam, are located near the confluence with the Mississippi, and is the busiest on the river. The operation of these locks is critical to all navigation along the river.

The author presents these challenges by way of Captain David Stansbury who operates the William Hank, and Locktender Luther Helland and his crew at lock 52. Kelly deftly explains the need for the movable dams, their construction, and workings, of the old wicket-style gates. Unlike the movable bridge dams along the Mohawk River in New York, wicket dams are designed to lie flat on the river bottom when the natural depth of water was suitable for navigation. The Ohio can vary from almost dry to 50-feet-deep. When the river runs high, the tows can float right over the flattened dams. When the river depth falls below 9-feet, the wickets were raised one at a time, and slowly the navigation pool is created. Lock 52 had over 400 such wickets, and most of them had to function in order for traffic to continue. Kelley explains how Helland had to manage and almost trick the old wickets to stay in the raised position. As the book was chronicling events in 2016-2018 period, Kelly was capturing operations at the end of this dams life. A YouTube video showing the operations of this dam was made in 2011.

The wickets at dam 6 on the Ohio as seen in 1898. This is the backside of the dam.

The reason that the author was able to write this part at all was the length of time it had taken to get the new Olmsted Dam built. Construction had begun in 1995 and it still is not complete today, and Kelley touches on the issues of building a new structure over a 23-year period as those in Washington managed to both provide and remove funding. In the summer of 2018, the new Olmsted Lock and Dam was put into service even though it wasn’t ready for service, but there was little choice as the last two wicket dams at Lock 52 and 53 had completely worn out and were unusable. If you don’t read any further than Part One, the book is certainly worth the purchase.

The second and third parts get into the life of the rivers and how man has tried to control them by way of dredging, levies, flood gates and diversion channels. It often places the local population against the federal government when decades old easements are suddenly activated in times of high water, or when dams stop the flow of sediments and fill up lakes or fail to resupply old deltas. Seeing the confusion and conflict through the eyes of the local population and even through the eyes of the employees of the US Army Corps of Engineers, all aided my understanding of the issues. Although climate change is addressed throughout the book, there is no political agenda presented. The entire book made for a easy and enjoyable read. The book is 224 pages.

Book Review: Triumph and Tragedy: The Welland Ship Canal

By: Craig Williams, President, Board of Directors, Canal Society of New York State

Canada’s southern neighbor can learn much from the just-published Triumph and Tragedy – The Welland Ship Canal. For those New Yorkers passionate about canal history, the book is an outstanding reference with one significant caveat as explained below. The many facets of the Welland’s two hundred year history, the technology and the people who made it possible, are all thoroughly documented. For those who benefit from the built environment created by countless workers, the book offers a model of recognition and appreciation of those sacrifices. It honors a promise made in 1932 to commemorate those who were killed during the three decades of construction of the fourth generation of the Welland Canal. Yet, the inspiration for the book clearly predates that promise, found in the labor and dedication of the workers themselves. It is a lasting, accessible and comprehensive memorial to those 138 lost workers.

(source: The Welland Ship Canal 1913-1932 by Major P.J. Cowan, page 6, Fig. 4)

Triumph and Tragedy follows a Canadian tradition that especially values the rights and contributions of workers. Yes, the United States also has its Labor Day as does Canada. Canada went further with its marking of April 28th as the National Day of Mourning dedicated to remembering those who have lost their lives, or suffered injury or illness on the job or due to a work-related tragedy. Sadly, a cursory recognition often gets overwhelmed by the magnitude of industrial accidents. About the same time that work began on the fourth Welland, the Hillcrest, Alberta coal mining disaster of 1914 took the lives of 189 workers on that single day. The deaths and injuries that stretched over decades likewise get clouded by other events of the day. Triumph and Tragedy succeeds in putting a face and family with each of loss.

The book accomplishes this recognition by providing layered context to the lives lost. A general history of the still-continuing evolution of the Welland Canal sets the stage for a more detailed look at the technology, equipment, structures and services that built the fourth Welland Canal. More than half the book is then dedicated to the stories and portraits of the 138 people killed, arranged chronologically. Few reading the book will actually know any one of those 138 individuals. Yet, each of us actually knows everyone of them. They are the people we see everyday who make society work. Lately, we have started grouping them under the rubric of “essential workers” as they truly are. In the past, their lives at home and at work were often deemed mundane and rarely recorded by those who left the written records. Only at tragic times do we gain entry into their personal lives. In doing so, we learn much about what it took to built these massive infrastructure projects and what the true cost was. By far the majority were recent immigrants, barely having had the chance to become a part of their new greater community. Addressed by this published memorial, they are rightly now part of our collective community and memory. Not only do we see the faces and the names on each page, those same faces look back upon our own perceptions of what it takes to make a society.

Partly overlapping with the construction of the Fourth Welland was the very similar work to build New York State’s Barge Canal system (1903-1918). New York has never formally recognized the lives lost in its building in the honorable way presented by Triumph and Tragedy. And, many lives were lost. We could and should follow our Canadian neighbors to define such a list. As with the Welland, the research will not be easy. Over ten times longer than the Welland, the Barge Canal crosses many communities, each with their own recollections and repositories. The construction of the Barge Canal did not have many of the geographically unified services provided during the Welland’s construction whose records would assist with such an accounting.

We know of some deaths due to the prominence of the individual such as when James Casey, one of the primary contractors for Erie Barge Canal Lock 17, was fatally injured on September 14, 1910 when a skip of stone fell on him. Occasionally, the manuscript records of the State’s Engineer and Surveyor have the attached blue-colored forms required at the time to report a construction death or injury to the State’s Bureau of Labor Statistics. So on January 7, 1912 Remiga Casolanguida, twenty-five years old and likely a recent immigrant, was killed near Rochester when a frozen dump car unexpectedly bounced back on him, crushing him. Whether a master set of such forms is extant in some forgotten State file cabinet is unknown. Summaries of these reports were published annually by the State’s Labor Department. Though they itemize the several dozen canal-related deaths for each year and document the cause, they fail to provide a name or specific place. The litany of these recorded deaths leaves a much darker hue on the engineering marvel of the Barge Canal. Then there are instances where we suspect fatalities happened but confirming evidence remains even more elusive. With remarkably little commentary, the Lockport newspaper carried the announcement in December 1910 that the contractor for the famous Lockport Locks was “importing” 25 African-Americans to do the extremely dangerous tunnel excavation for the new hydraulic raceway. One hopes they came due to skilled experience in such work and not that their lives mattered less.

Grading Earth at Port Weller pier using a Jordan Spreader, 1915, (source: St. Catharines Museum, Madelein Muntz Collection, 2006.73.624)

Has it all been worth this human cost? At my first glance at Triumph and Tragedy, I looked for an accounting in dollars and cents of the success of today’s Welland Canal, how many tons of Saskatchewan wheat transited or how many cargoes of iron ore? The caveat mentioned at the start of this review is that the book does not have such a financial look-back, the Welland’s cost/benefit ratio in cold hard numbers. Indeed, such an accounting has no place in such a memorial as it would imply an impossible scale to weigh the cost of the human lives lost during construction. That cost can never be adequately repaid. It must always be outstanding as a reminder of the sacrifices borne to make society work.

How to get this book:

TRIUMPH & TRAGEDY: The Welland Ship Canal is published by the St. Catharines Museum and Welland Canals Centre. It retails for $39.95, plus tax and Shipping (where applicable). The limited-edition publication is available at the Museum’s Gift Shop located at 1932 Welland Canals Parkway, St. Catharines, ON or by calling 905 984-8880; or via email at museum@stcatharines.ca.

William Frick’s Patent of Double Headers (1877) and the Erie Canal Lock Lengthening

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.

A crop of the Phoenixville Topo map from 1906 showing the area of Frick’s Lock

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.

A 1869 newspaper article about Frick’s invention to couple boats.

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)

This postcard shows two of the Enlarged Erie Canal boats coupled together. The steering wheel can be seen on the leading boat.

“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.]

Another double header. Note that the steering wheel is mounted on the front of the rear cabin.

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)

In this postcard view we see the typical arrangement for the lengthened locks.

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 82,614 -1868

William Frick 5000-1872

Isaac Wistar 134,341– 1872

William Frick 152,099– 1873

William Frick 7934– 1877

William Frick 238,671– 1881

Charles McCabe 320,670– 1885

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.