History of Steam on the Erie Canal Informative Summary

Overview:

This text provides a detailed account of the attempts to implement steam-powered boats on the Erie Canal between 1858 and 1872. The author argues that despite significant investments and efforts, steam consistently failed to match the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of traditional horse-drawn boats. He attributes this failure to inherent mechanical limitations, the inability of steam engines to effectively utilize their power in the narrow canal environment, and the excessive waste of energy.

The text also highlights the difference in approach between the early era of steam on the canal (1858-1862) and the later attempts (1871-1872) after the state introduced incentives. While early efforts focused on combining towage and cargo carrying capacity for efficient transport, later attempts prioritized maximizing cargo capacity within the limitations of the canal’s locks, ultimately leading to even lower efficiency.

Key Findings:

Steam, despite its dominance in other transportation sectors, failed to successfully replace horse-drawn boats on the Erie Canal due to fundamental mechanical limitations and inefficient power utilization.
The inherent design of steam engines and canal boats, with their wide bows and narrow channels, led to excessive waste of power, rendering steam-powered boats less efficient than their horse-drawn counterparts.
Attempts to improve steam technology by introducing variations in propeller and paddle wheel designs, including bow-propulsions and different paddle-wheel configurations, ultimately resulted in further failures.
The state-funded incentives for steam implementation in 1871-1872, while encouraging innovation, did not address the core mechanical challenges and led to a less economical approach, further solidifying the dominance of horse-drawn boats.

Learning:

Mechanical Limitations of Steam on Canals: The text highlights the significant differences in the requirements for steam-powered transportation on rivers/lakes and on canals. The narrowness of the canal channels and the large bows of canal boats created significant resistance to the movement of steam-powered boats, leading to substantial energy loss.
- Example: The author explains that the “little one” (propeller blades) runs away with the power of the “large one” (the bow of the canal boat), resulting in inefficiency.
Inefficient Power Utilization: Steam engines were unable to effectively utilize their power in the canal environment due to the high resistance of water in confined spaces. This resulted in a very low percentage of power being used for forward propulsion.
- Example: A captain of a powerful steam boat observed that only 12% of the engine’s power was used for movement when towing two boats, and even less when towing four boats.
The Importance of Mechanical Adaptation: The author emphasizes that achieving success with steam on canals requires a new approach and a completely different system of transmission mechanism, one that can better utilize the power of steam in a confined space.

Historical Context:

The text is written in the context of the growing importance of canal transportation in the 1870s. While the railroad was becoming increasingly prominent, canals still played a crucial role in transporting goods, particularly agricultural products like grain, between New York City and the Great Lakes region. The text reflects the debate around the potential of steam to improve the efficiency of canal transportation and the competing interests of canal boat owners and operators.

Facts:

The Charles Wack was the first steam-powered canal boat. It featured a unique Archimedean screw propeller.
The Wack made the trip from Buffalo to West Troy in seven days, averaging two miles per hour, but returned in four days and sixteen hours, averaging three and one-twelfth miles per hour. This highlights the difference in speed depending on the direction of travel.
The Western Transportation Company, a major player in lake shipping, invested in steam-powered canal boats but ultimately abandoned their efforts.
The Gold Hunter was a unique steam-powered boat designed to be recessed into the stern of horse-boats for return trips. It was abandoned after a short trial.
The Niagara featured a Cathcart propeller, which combined the propeller and rudder for steerage purposes. This attempt to improve steering proved unsuccessful.
The Rotary, a steam boat with a rotary engine and common propeller, performed well in demonstrations but was ultimately unsuccessful.
The Eclipse, a steam boat with oscillating propeller engines, was also unsuccessful.
The Gov. King, a New York harbor propeller, struggled to compete with horse-drawn boats, even when towing three boats.
The Western Transportation Company built two powerful steam tugs, the Washington and Lafayette, which were subsequently withdrawn.
The H.K. Viele was a steam boat with a stern-wheel and vertical, or eccentric, acting paddles. It was considered by some to be well-suited for canals but proved otherwise.
The Fall Brook, a steam boat built for towing purposes, was so inefficient on the canal that it was ultimately returned to lake duty.
The Oswego featured a submerged horizontal, centrifugal-acting water wheel for propulsion. It was later restored to horse-drawn transportation.
The Cathcart, a steam boat similar to the Niagara, was also not successful.
The George Barnard, later renamed Andrew H. Dawson, featured a propeller in its bow with a recess from the waterline. It proved inefficient due to its design.
The Eureka, an iron boat with twin propellers at its bow, was designed to be superior for canal purposes but ultimately failed due to its mechanical design.
The George A. Feeter featured twin propellers housed in channels on each side of the boat. The mechanical currents against the channels hindered its efficiency.
The Wm. Baxter, a twin-propeller steam boat with compound engines, was built with an emphasis on lightness and streamlined design. However, its construction and model were outmoded for canal boats.
The Wm. Newman, a common propeller steam boat, was less capable than the Ruggles of 1858.
The Charles Hemjee, a steam boat with a tunnel-shaped propeller enclosure, was reported to be “very slow.”
The John Durston featured a propeller built into its rudder and driven by a vertical shaft. It was deemed unfit for service.

Statistics:

The Wack, when towing a boat, averaged 2 miles per hour, but without a tow, it averaged 3.125 miles per hour. This illustrates the impact of load on speed.
The Sternburg, towing a boat, averaged 3 1/3 miles per hour over 93 miles.
The Ruggles, towing a boat, took 5.5 days from Buffalo to Troy and 6 days 14 hours from Buffalo to New York.
The Eclipse, without a tow, took 7.5 days from Buffalo to Troy and 5.5 days from Troy to Buffalo.
The Gold Hunter, without a tow, took 7 days 5 hours from Buffalo to Troy.
The Rotary, with half freight, took 4 days 4 hours from Troy to Buffalo and 3 days 16 hours net time.
The Bemis, a screw-tug with three boats, took 5 days 8 hours from Buffalo to Schenectady, averaging 2.5 miles per hour.
The Washington, a screw-tug with 3 boats, took 5 days 2 hours from Buffalo to Cohoes, averaging 2.75 miles per hour.
The Dan Brown, a screw-tug with three boats, took 6 days from Buffalo to Albany, averaging 2.5 miles per hour. It took 7 hours from Buffalo to Lockport, averaging 4.67 miles per hour.
The Dawson and the Cathcart both made through trips from Buffalo to Troy with 5/6 horse cargo in about 7 days.
The Port Byron, with 117 tons of freight, took 5 days 10.5 hours from Troy to Buffalo.
The Baxter, with half freight, took 5 days 14 hours from Troy to Buffalo.
The Baxter, on its first trip down, took 7 days 4 hours from Buffalo to West Troy and 8 days 13 hours from Buffalo to New York.
The Baxter, on its third trip down, took over 6 days from Buffalo to Troy and 8.25 days to New York.
The Wm. Newman took 8 days from New York to Buffalo with 120 tons of freight.
The Baxter’s average time from the Lakes to the Hudson was 7 days.
The Wm. Newman ran 5,000 miles from May 17th to November 7th, carrying 2,330 tons of freight. This equates to 5 2/3 months, 5 round trips, and 1,050 tons down and 600 tons up.
The Wm. Newman, in an estimated 4 months, carried 840 tons down and 480 tons up, a total of 1,320 tons.
A horse-boat, in the same time and circumstances, would have carried 976 tons down and 480 tons up, a total of 1,456 tons.
The Vosburg, a horse-boat, took less time than the Baxter’s shortest time to reach Buffalo from West Troy. This shows the potential for horses to be more efficient in some situations.

Terms:

Archimedean Screw: A type of propeller that uses a rotating screw to push water and propel a vessel.
Twin-propellers: Two propellers placed on either side of the rudder.
Oscillating Propeller Engines: Engines that rotate the propeller shaft back and forth.
Stern-wheel: A paddle wheel placed at the stern of a boat.
Centrifugal-acting Water-wheel: A submerged wheel that propels the boat by expelling water outwards.
Duck’s-feet Paddles: A type of paddle that resembles a duck’s foot.
Fish-Tail Propeller: A propeller that mimics the form and movement of a fish’s tail.
Automaton System: A system of steam-powered boats operating independently without the need for horses or other external towing.
Horse-boat: A canal boat towed by horses.
Tow-path: The path along the edge of the canal where horses tow boats.

Examples:

Charles Wack’s Steam-Powered Boat: The text begins by describing Charles Wack, a farmer, who invented a screw propeller and built a steam-powered canal boat named after himself. The Wack was a pioneering effort in using steam on the canal, but it ultimately failed to meet the desired efficiency standards.
The Gold Hunter: This steam-powered boat was designed to be transported between horse-boats for return trips, eliminating the time lost at the termini. This novel approach was also unsuccessful.
The Niagara: This canal boat featured a Cathcart propeller that combined the propeller and rudder for improved steering. This was an attempt to overcome the challenges of maneuvering a steam-powered boat in confined canals.
The H.K. Viele: This steam-powered boat used a stern-wheel and vertical paddles. Although considered potentially efficient for canals, the Viele was ultimately deemed unsuitable for the task.
The Fall Brook: Built for towing purposes on Seneca Lake, the Fall Brook was too inefficient to operate on the canal and was relegated back to lake duty.
The Oswego: This canal boat used a submerged centrifugal-acting water wheel for propulsion. This innovative approach also proved to be unsuccessful, and the boat was eventually restored to horse-drawn transportation.
The Andrew H. Dawson (formerly George Barnard): This steam-powered boat featured a propeller in the bow, which resulted in a strong current pushing against the incline of the boat’s bottom, hindering its progress.
The Eureka: This iron boat with twin propellers at its bow was built by experienced canal men and designed with compound engines. However, the mechanical currents generated by the propellers against the bow slowed the boat down.
The George A. Feeter: This steam-powered boat featured twin propellers housed in channels on each side of the boat. This configuration created mechanical currents against the aft-sides of the channels, significantly impacting its efficiency.
The Wm. Baxter: This steam boat, built with twin propellers and compound engines, was designed to be lighter and faster than traditional canal boats. However, its construction and model were ultimately not suited for the canal environment.

Conclusion:

This 1873 text provides a compelling account of the ongoing struggle to implement steam-powered boats on the Erie Canal. The author convincingly argues that despite significant investment and numerous attempts to adapt steam technology, it consistently fell short of the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of horse-drawn boats. The key takeaway is that while steam may have been a powerful force in other transportation sectors, it failed to achieve the desired results on the Erie Canal due to fundamental mechanical limitations and the inability to effectively utilize its power in the narrow canal environment.

The text also highlights the importance of considering the specific needs of each transportation environment and how focusing on maximizing cargo capacity over efficient propulsion led to further inefficiency in steam-powered boats. The author’s call for mechanical innovation, auxiliary power at locks, and centralized management for steam-powered boats on the canal is a powerful reminder of the need for tailored solutions to specific technological challenges.

Learn more