OK, I’m trying to do some research on how Federal economic regulation of the railroads harmed the US economy and the American people. I’ve got a long shot hope to get something published regarding the issue.
Anyway, I’ve got things pretty well nailed down that the cost advantage of rail freight movement vis a vis a team and wagon was 24:1. A ton of freight could be moved 24 miles by rail for the cost of moving it one mile by team and wagon. Of course, this wasn’t universal. But under reasonable circumstances that is the accepted figure.
So now I’m looking in to rail vs. canal economics. The question at hand is: “Why didn’t they put steam engines on canal boats?” Why stick with a mule walking along towing the boat? By around 1850 rail mileage in the US equaled canal mileage. And there was no looking back. The railroads used steam power, the canals used mules.
So I found this. I think it’s interesting and I thought I’d share it.
Disclaimer! I do not agree with the Post Carbon Institue and I do not accept/believe that the use of carbon fuels is significantly harmful. But, I think this is interesting transportation history.
…Trolley Boats…That’s wild. I had never heard of most of what I just went thru on the link. Especially that system of “pulling forward with the sunken chain”…!
One thought…When they got to the design of a vehicle on rails along the “tow path”, pulling the barge,I wonder why that process wasn’t upgraded to simply using the “railroad” to transport the freight…
That sure was an interesting read…What expenses they must have gone thru to install some of that weird stuff…And that was all above the costs to originally build the water level canal.
Proponents of such ideas are so irrational that they should be confined. Look at statements such as “haul cargo for almost nothing” and “renewable energy could be generated on the spot”. Why not just build a perpetual motion machine?
He admits that these barges could carry as much as 250 tons. Of course thats only 2 1/2 to 3 carloads which are moved with much less manpower. Europe had this extensive canal system not so much for transport as for drainage. Parts of France, Luxembourg, Belgium, Netherlands, and Denmark would have been uninhabitable without them. Canals were built in this country at about the same time as railroads started. The success of rail is due to it’s superiority.
I believe the Panama Canal did use steam locomotives to pull boats at one time and the switched to electric power for the tracks flanking the canal. Possibly they use diesel today, and possibly free-wheel road-based rather than rail. Interested in some answers.
We’re talking about 2 completely different types of canal (an inland barge canal vs. a navigation canal for oceangoing vessels). The Panama canal uses electric “mule” locomotives to pull ships through the locks but the ships travel under their own power during the rest of the transit of the waterway. The new,much larger locks now being built are going to be wide enough to allow tugboats to assist ships through and thus will not use “mules”. The “mules” have always been electric locomotives since the canal opened.
Inland barge canals were built much differently as they were typically quite narrow with a tow path for draught animals running alongside. There were some steam powered vessels used on canals in the 19th century and even some attempts to use early steam tractors to tow the barges but the fact that railroads were cheapier and easier to build in most places (not to mention faster) doomed most of the barge canal system in the U.S…
As far as the “Trolley barges” proposal,for that amount of money you might as well just electrify the closest freght rail line…
Most of the major rivers in this country have been “canalized”, sometimes with locks and dams. Water transportation is an enormous business in the eastern third of this country. The stuff transported is bulk cargos such as grain, coal, oil products, gravel etc. Mississippi barges have a tendency to be rather shallow so the “tows” typically are 1200 feet long and just the right width to squeeze 3 wide into a lock. Ironically at the 600 foot locks they have to use an electric capstan to pull the front 600 feet through the lock first and put everything back together after the towboat brings up the rest of it. Its possible to get barges from New Orleans up the Illinois River to Chicago this way.
On the coast is the inter-coastal waterway from Texas around Florida up to New Jersey. The Chesapeake & Delaware and Cape Cod Canals are fairly recent developments that both see heavy traffic.
Now in the east the woods are full of abandoned canals. The Morris Canal in New Jersey looks like an irrigation ditch and its about 15 feet wide and maybe 3 feet deep. For very large cargos water transportation is the most economical way to go.
Fascinating article - maybe a little scary, too. “Necessity is the mother of invention” (and some will be misbegotten freaks, unfortunately . . . [:-^] ). Thanks for sharing that. As to your question above:
The linked article alludes to this under the “Steam Barges” heading, but doesn’t elaborate, so I will: Speed limits ! Most canals had to have them to keep the wake and bow waves from eroding the banks of the canal at an unacceptable rate - maintenance was very expensive. See: http://www.canals.org/researchers/Ask_Lance/Canal_FAQs#faq22 Why go to the expense of installing a steam engine when you can’t go any faster to earn more to recover that investment? Try to pull much more, and the propeller or paddlewheel wash will do the same thing, as was mentioned in that article. So - same speed, same payload - where’s the payback for the canal boat operator ? Doesn’t seem to be one.
Some canals and their locks were already at capacity, so not much more could have been hauled anyway.
Then there’s the flexibility issue - the rails could go a lot more places a lot easier - with a lot less “sunk” investment, during all seasons, and pretty much regardless of dry spells, unlike the canals.
Also, at least here in Pennsylvania, the canals were wrecked at pretty regular intervals by floods, some of which were man-assisted by clear-cutting of the forests in the watersheds, channelizing the rivers, etc. Sections were then abandoned, which would put the investment in steam power at ri
During the session of the Legislature of 1892, a grant was made to the Niagara Falls Power Company authorizing that corporation to construct a great system for the generation of electricity. Governor Flower, in his annual message to the Legislature of that year, foreseeing that this power could be made available, sought to inspire legislation facilitating the introduction of electricity upon the canals of the State. In obedience to his suggestions, the necessary legislation was had, and an organization, which was subsequently formed, undertook the problem to apply electricity to the propulsion of canal traffic. This legislation authorized the Superintendent of Public Works to expend $10,000 in experimental work, but this experimental work was undertaken by the Erie Canal Traction Company, with whom a contract was made for the installation of a system upon the canals of New York. The engineers of the Traction Company suggested many methods of applying power, and many were tried by that company in its efforts to demonstrate that from the standpoint of commercial economy, traffic could be transported through the medium of electricity. The first system suggested was that of the overhead trolley, and the first canalboat in the world propelled by electricity, the “Frank W. Hawley,” ploughed through the waters of the Erie Canal at Pittsford, on Nov. 18, 1893. That test was witnessed by Gov. Flower, who himself discharged the duties of motorman. From a pole line, running along either bank of the canal for nearly two miles, were suspended span wires sustaining copper trolley wires. Upon the trolley wire was a traveler connected with the motor on board the canalboat by a flexible cord. The motor on board the boat was attached to the propeller which exerted the motive power. The e
All of which goes to prove that there are very few ‘original’ ideas…Most of the things we accept as commonplace today were though of eons ago…the original thinkers lacked the ability of supporting technologies to bring their idea to sustainable life.
No matter how outlandish the idea…someone eons ago had it but couldn’t pull it off.
Another consideration is that many of the canals were actually kind of fragile and may not have been able to withstand the turbulance that the faster speeds made possible by power other than four-legged.
Too, many small canals (like the Black River Canal, portions of which are still visible, including many locks) were rife with locks, which makes power that much less efficient.
The Black River Canal included at least one five flight lock, and a couple of four flight locks that I’m aware of…
Well, the big drawback of canals that I have found is that they froze in the winter.
The pioneer Erie Canal, which did go to Buffalo, NY, was only open 7 1/2 months per year. Major League problem.
When railroads were built parallel to the canal the state government tried to protect its investment (and screw its people) by forcing any rail shipper to pay canal tolls during the time the canal was open for navigation.
Another drawback might have been the difficulty and expense of widening the canal and locks, and lengthening locks to accommodate the need for greater cargo capacity, if (big if) a replacement for horse/mule power could have been applied. Maybe that is why steam power doesn’t seem to have happened until much later, and then, not on the Erie or I&M or C&O canals.
The Panama Canal probably could not have been built anywhere except where it is account the supply of Equatorial rainfall amounts in supplying the vast quantities of water necessary to operate it. With the normal rainfall of the surrounding area exceeding 200 inches a year there is a adequate supply of water to operate the system.
Yes, I agree…Water supply didn’t seem to be a problem for that operation. But many much smaller canals here in the mainland, didn’t have that luxury of elevation in the center of the canal, plus, as poster mentions…excessive annual rainfall to fill all the water needs out to both ends of the Panamal Canal.
AsI understand it the state of Ohio has no natural lakes (except Lake Eire). The lakes you see on the map are water impounded to supply adequate water to the canals. Most are quite shallow and my experience with Indian Lake is that the centerboard of my boat found all the stumps left over.
As you may see, it was quite extensive with a couple ditches going all the way from Lake Erie to the Ohio River. I think the fact that such a network was constructed though the use of humans with shovels in the first half of the 19th century demonstrates just how important it was to advance beyond moving freight with a team and wagon.
The railroad beat both canals and wagons (at least generally). They pretty much quit digging canals when rail transport became practical.
“…OK, I’m trying to do some research on how Federal economic regulation of the railroads harmed the US economy and the American people. I’ve got a long shot hope to get something published regarding the issue…”
As a person who is working quite hard to get portions of his PhD thesis into print, allow me to make a few observations. Most journals would reject such a manuscript UNLESS you could add something new to the discussion. It is already widely accepted that federal regulation harmed rail transportation and editors would be loathe to waste the space with another treatment of the topic.
If I may suggest, spend some time with your local library’s access to JSTOR, Lexus Nexus, and other academic data bases to find out what has already been published about this topic. If your local library cannot help, I suggest contacting the nearest university library.
Once you have found some aspect of federal regulation that has not already been beaten to death, go for it! Your chances of publication will be greatly increased.
