A REPORT OF THE 

MOHAWK-HUDSON AREA SURVEY 
B r*r= 

Conducted by 

The Historic American Engineering Record 

Sponsored by 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

The Historic American Engineering Record 

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION 

The National Museum of History and Technology 

AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS 

National Headquarters and the Mohawk-Hudson Section 

N E W YORK STATE OFFICE OF PARKS AND RECREATION 

Division for Historic Preservation 

SMITHSONIA N STUDIE S I N HISTOR Y AN D TECHNOLOG Y / NUMBE R 26 
M®H&W3S»HM®»i^ 

&)m& mmm 

A Selective Recording Survey of the Industrial 

Archeology of the Mohawk and Hudson River 

Valleys in the Vicinity of Troy, Mew York 

June-September 1969 

Robert M. Vogel, Editor 

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION PRESS / CITY OF WASHINGTON / 1973 
SERIA L PUBLICATION S OF TH E SMITHSONIA N INSTITUTIO N 

The emphasis upon publications as a means of diffusing knowledge was expressed 

by the first Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. In his formal plan for the Institution, Joseph Henry articulated a program that included the following statement: 

"It is proposed to publish a series of reports, giving an account of the new discoveries 

in science, and of the changes made from year to year in all branches of knowledge. 

This keynote of basic research has been adhered to over the years in the issuance 

of thousands of titles in serial publications under the Smithsonian imprint, commencing with Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge in 1848 and continuing 

with the following active series: 

Smithsonian Annals of Flight 

Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology 

Smithsonian Contributions to Astrophysics 

Smithsonian Contributions to Botany 

Smithsonian Contributions to the Earth Sciences 

Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology 

Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 

Smithsonian Studies in History and Technology 

In these series, the Institution publishes original articles and monographs dealing 

with the research and collections of its several museums and offices and of professional colleagues at other institutions of learning. These papers report newly acquired 

facts, synoptic interpretations of data, or original theory in specialized fields. These 

publications are distributed by mailing lists to libraries, laboratories, and other interested institutions and specialists throughout the world. Individual copies may be 

obtained from the Smithsonian Institution Press as long as stocks are available. 

S. DILLON RIPLEY 

Secretary 

Smithsonian Institution 

OFFICIAL PUBLICATION DATE is handstamped in a limited number of initial copies and is 

recorded in the Institution's annual report, Smithsonian Year. SI PRESS NUMBER 4795. 

COVER: Early view of Troy and the Rensselaer Iron Works Rail Mill from the Hudson. 

(From engraving in Library of Congress, Division of Prints and Photographs, Lot 4385 E.) 

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data 

Vogel, Robert M. 

A report of the Mohawk-Hudson area survey. 

(Smithsonian studies in history and technology, no. 26) 

"Conducted by the Historic American Engineering Record." 

Includes bibliographies. 

1. Industrial archaeology—New York—Troy region. 2. Troy region, N. Y.—Industries. I. 

Historic American Engineering Record. II. Title. III. Series: Smithsonian Institution. 

Smithsonian studies in history and technology, no. 26. 

T22.5.T76V63 690.5'4'0974741 73-9691 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, 

Washington, D.C. 20402-Price: $3.35 domestic postpaid, or $3 GPO Bookstore 

Stock Number 4700-00258 
Preface 

This report, a composite publication, has been prepared with two main objectives 

in view. Part One constitutes a description of the Mohawk-Hudson Area Survey 

itself: an account of its rationale, its organization, and the mechanics of its conduct. 

These matters, some of which may appear obvious and others trivial, when taken 

together should be a useful guide for future surveys, as well as constitute a record of 

the summer's activities. 

Part Two contains the records of the fifteen structures that were covered by the 

Survey: copies of the measured drawings of the six primary structures that were 

measured and drawn, selected photographs of all the structures and the historical 

accounts of each. These accounts are not intended, in most cases, to be the final 

word on the development of the particular structure, but rather to be "skeleton" 

histories serving as a starting point for further research. Exceptions to this are the 

accounts of the Delaware Aqueduct, the Troy Gaslight Company Gasholder House, 

and the Watervliet Arsenal Cast-Iron Storehouse, which are believed to be as 

complete as possible on the basis of known sources. Although several histories of 

Troy, Albany, and some of the other immediate areas exist, most were written in 

the nineteenth century and treat industry and technology only incidentally. An 

all-inclusive history of the Mohawk-Hudson area's industrial development to the 

present day is bady needed. Nothing would be more gratifying to the Survey's 

participants than to have this study inspire an analytical project of that nature. 

In a seizure of optimism, I began the preparation of this report anticipating that 

it could be completed in two or three weeks. The grossness of this miscalculation 

soon became clear, particularly to R. Carole Huberman of the Historic American 

Engineering Record staff, who undertook the editing and reconciling of the historical 

accounts. That unrewarding task occupied her for the entire summer and fall of 

1970. Further, there appeared many gaps in the collected information, requiring 

her to conduct a substantial amount of additional research. Ms. Huberman has 

also contributed heavily to the general arrangement of the report, which, with her 

other contributions, has added enormously to its clarity and usefulness. 

I owe an especial debt of gratitude to two members of the Smithsonian 

Institution Press staff: Joan Horn, the Report's copy editor, and Series Production 

Manager Charles L. Shaffer, its designer. The manuscript put into their able hands 

was so complex, so far from being the routine bundle of copy with a few neat 

illustrations, that only their quite extraordinary talents have made possible its 

translation from what would otherwise have been an editorial disaster into what 

I hope and trust is a cohesive, intelligible publication. If it is neither of these, the 

fault certainly is not theirs. 

ROBERT M. VOGEL 

Smithsonian Institution 

City of Washington 

November 1972 
Contents 

Page 

PART ONE : TH E SURVEY 

The Background 1 

HAER and the Recording of Industrial Structures 1 

Selection of the Mohawk-Hudson Area 2 

Planning and Conduct of the Survey 5 

The Field Team 6 

The Historians 7 

The Photography 9 

Final Selection of Structures for Recording 10 

Miscellaneous Matters 13 

Budget and Costs 13 

Epilog 16 

Future Work in the Area 16 

Assistance and Cooperation 17 

Appendix: The M-HAS Prospectus 19 

PART TW O : TH E RECORD : MANUFACTURING 

Cast-Iron Storehouse 1859 

Watervliet Arsenal, Watervliet 25 

Gasholder House 1873 

Troy Gas Light Company, Troy 44 

Rail Mill 1866 

Rensselaer Iron Works, Troy 56 

Historical Addendum 

Ludlow Valve Manufacturing Company, Troy 69 

Office Building 1881 

Burden Iron Company, Troy 73 

Chronological Notes 

Troy's Iron and Steel Companies 96 

Number 3 ("Mastodon") Mill 1868 and 1872 

Harmony Manufacturing Company, Cohoes 98 

Power Canals 1834-1880 

Cohoes Company, Cohoes 113 

Head Gate House 1866 

Cohoes Company, Cohoes 117 

Cohoes: The Historical Background 1811-1918 121 

Gurley Building 1862 

W. & L. E. Gurley, Troy 127 

vn 
PART THREE : TH E RECORD: TRANSPORTATION 

Whipple Cast- and Wrought-Iron Bowstring Truss Bridge 1867 

Albany 137 

Delaware Aqueduct 1848 

Delaware & Hudson Canal, Lackawaxen, Pennsylvania, and Minisink 

Ford, New York 151 

Schoharie Creek Aqueduct 1841 

Erie Canal (Enlarged), Fort Hunter 175 

Upper Mohawk River Aqueduct (Rexford Aqueduct) 1842 

Erie Canal (Enlarged), Rexford 183 

Lock 18 (Double Lock) 1837-1842 

Erie Canal (Enlarged), Cohoes 186 

Waterford Locks 1826 

Champlain Canal, Waterford 195 

Hawk Street Viaduct 1890 

City of Albany 200 

Green Island Shops 1872 

Rensselaer & Saratoga Railroad, Green Island 205 
PART ONE 

The Survey 
The Background 

HAER and the Recording of 

Industrial Structures 

The Mohawk-Hudson Area Survey (M-HAS) was 

conducted during the summer of 1969, using the 

techniques of industrial archeology,1 to produce a 

historical record of a selected group of nineteenthcentury engineering structures. For the most part the 

survey concentrated its attentions in the vicinity of 

Troy, New York, on the Hudson River 150 miles 

above New York City. Funding and staff support 

were furnished by the Historic American Buildings 

Survey for the sake of determining the feasibility of 

purely engineering surveys, but the survey was conducted and organized by the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER). 

The HAER was organized in 1969 to identify and 

record, by graphic and verbal means, American structures of all periods having significance in the history 

of engineering, the M-HAS being its first undertaking. 

HAER'S goals and activities thus almost parallel those 

of the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS), 

established within the National Park Service as a 

WPA (Works Project Administration) professional 

project during the Depression. The HABS took 

advantage of the skills of unemployed architects to 

record outstanding examples of historic American 

architecture by measured drawings and photography. 

The HAER is co-sponsored by the National Park Service, the American Society of Civil Engineers, acting 

as professional advisor, and the Library of Congress, 

acting as the custodian and distributor of the records 

produced. There is likelihood that other of the professional engineering societies will become principals 

of the HAER as well. The backbone of the field surveys 

is a corps of engineering and architectural students 

employed during the summer, the present-day practice 

followed by the HABS. 

1

 The industrial archeologist, as do all others in the 

various branches of archeology, studies man's past achievements on the basis of physical, rather than written, remains. 

The concern here is expressly with the remains of technology, 

engineering, and industry: the products of the industrial era. 

The Survey was largely the product of a growing 

concern among historians of technology over the 

geometrically increasing rate at which early engineering structures were being demolished under the 

destructive influences of freeway and urban renewal 

programs, not to mention the attrition due to normal 

change with time. Compounding the tragedy is the 

unfortunate fact that the loss of these structures is 

actually occurring at a rate proportionately higher 

than the destruction of buildings of other types, 

simply because most industrial structures are less 

adaptable to functions other than those for which 

they were erected. Only rarely can they justifiably 

be preserved on the basis of continued usefulness once 

their original purpose has ended. 

Historic houses, for example, often are sympathetically preserved by continued existence as dwellings. 

If too large for convenient functioning by today's 

domestic standards, or if bypassed by changing neighborhood patterns, they are readily converted into 

professional offices or institutional headquarters. A 

historic bridge, on the other hand, can never be anything but that, and once it is no longer needed at 

a certain place; or cannot cope with modern traffic 

loadings; or has deteriorated beyond repair; only 

rarely will its original owner or any organization be 

willing to carry the continuing maintenance costs for 

its preservation merely as a monument. 

There are other factors that commonly militate 

against the preservation of industrial structures: 

unattractive surroundings; poor condition due to lack 

of maintenance during the final years of use or long 

abandonment; and in the case of buildings, normally 

a size too great or a layout too specialized for most 

adaptive uses. There is also an unpleasant psychological element that clearly influences all historic 

preservation campaigns of this type. Most industrial 

structures, particularly factories and mills, railroad 

structures, bulk processing works and the like, have 

had traditionally associated with them certain negative characteristics: noise, dirt, bad smells, hard labor, 

long hours, and other forms of human assault and 

exploitation. Whether or not such attitudes are justi1 
SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

fied, either in general or in regard to a particular 

structure, they do prevail; and it is a consequent 

fundamental fact of life that the advocate of industrial preservation normally finds his cause bolstered 

by only the most meager popular support. 

The net result of this melancholy array of factors 

is that since the actual preservation for posterity of 

the physical evidences of our early technology, industry, and engineering is so rare, we are obliged to 

resort to a poor second course in order to insure the 

survival of at least a knowledge of these things. We 

must substitute for the structures themselves a form 

of artificial or indirect evidence: deliberately produced graphic and verbal records. The graphic 

records generally take the form of scale drawings 

produced by direct measurement or photogrammetry, 

photographs, and occasionally motion pictures; the 

verbal' records are usually written accounts based on 

direct observation, prior descriptions, and interviews. 

In the M-HAS, the recording techniques were in most 

respects similar to those used for three decades by 

the National Park Service in recording historic achitecture, but with certain differences necessitated by 

the differences between pure architecture and engineering structures. 

It should be noted that no clear boundary line 

exists between architectural buildings and engineering 

structures, either in general or for particular purposes of definition on a recording project such as the 

M-HAS. If a structure is defined as any large, generally 

immobile, man-made assemblage of materials erected 

to perform a particular function; and if a building is 

all that but in addition, encloses a volume of space; 

it is evident that all buildings are structures, but 

not all structures are buildings. Hence, if a survey 

is undertaken to record a group of engineering 

structures, buildings and bridges may fairly and 

equally be included. Less evident is what engineering 

should encompass in this context. Practically, the term 

has been considered broadly to include not only structures produced by the several recognized branches 

of professional engineering, but also those related to 

all branches of industry, transportation, and communication. In fact, one of the most interesting and 

valuable aspects of an "area" survey of engineering 

structures is the variety of types and authorships 

involved. The M-HAS, as will be seen later, recorded 

structures ranging from actual "buildings" as the 

Harmony Mills "Mastodon" Mill and the Burden 

Office Building, to such framed structures as the 

Hawk Street Viaduct and the Whipple Truss Bridge, 

to masonry canal locks and such "nonstructures" as 

the Cohoes system of power canals. The designers 

of this collective group ran in professional stature 

from the eminent civil engineer John A. Roebling 

(the Delaware suspension aqueduct) to an anonymous 

architect (the Rensselaer & Saratoga Railroad Green 

Island Shops). 

The common element of all these structures was 

their association with some branch of engineering or 

industry. Some of the recorded structures—notably 

the Delaware Aqueduct—were in themselves of primary structural interest and historical significance; 

others, such as the Burden Office Building, were 

included because of their association with an important industrial firm. More will be said later about the 

selection process. It is important to note that in cases 

like the Burden office, where the line between engineering and architecture becomes fuzzy, a given 

structure might just as properly be recorded by an 

architectural as by an engineering survey. Firm distinctions and classifications of this sort are usually 

unnecessary, however. The Burden Office Building 

was recorded by a HAER team because it happened to 

be working in the area. Had a HABS survey been 

covering Troy, it could also as appropriately have 

recorded the building. In practical terms, indexes 

that eventually will be fully cross-referenced between 

both organizations will make it possible to locate 

material on any structure, regardless of its type or 

the sponsorship of the survey. This will be particularly 

useful in denoting the many engineering structures 

recorded by the HABS in the years before the advent 

of the HAER. 

Selection of the Mohawk-Hudson Area 

In organizing this initial or "pilot" project of the 

HAER, we felt it vital to select an area that, at once, 

had a rich engineering heritage, contained a large 

number of surviving early engineering structures in 

a wide variety of types, and was not so concentratedly 

urbanized that logistics would be a problem. The area 

near the confluence of the Mohawk and Hudson 

rivers, taking in Troy, Albany, Cohoes, Waterford, 

and Watervliet was suggested as fulfilling these conditions almost ideally, having had a long and varied 

industrial development. This development began 

early in the nineteenth century, flourished to the 
NUMBER 26 

THE MOHAWK - HUDSON AREA SURVEY 

SCHENECTADY CO | SARATOGA CO 

r-^j, ', I . I REXFORD 

NY- 6 

PORT HUNTER, 

AE'Bi'22W, 74 

NY-5 

MINIS INR FORD. 

LACKAWAXEN, 

4rze'57'H, 74 

THIS SURVEY THE PILOT STUDY FOR THE HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD, DOCUMENTS A SELECTED 

OROUP o r HISTCRAZALLY OASNiricANT ENGINEERING STRUCTURES IN THE NEW YORK STATE CAPITAL REGION HAER 

WAS ESTABLISHED IN 19&9 err A JOINT AGREEMENT OP THE NATIONAL TURK SERVICE THE AMERICAN SOCIETYOP 

CIVIL ENGINEERS, AND THE LIBRARY CT CONGRESS To RECORD LANDMARKS OR THE ,V4TX7NS INDUSTRIAL HERITAGE, THUS PRODUCING A CONSTANTLY GROWING ARCHIVE OR AMERICAN ENGINEERING ACHIEVEMENT AND TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT TNE PROGRAM PfRALLELS THAT OR THE HISTORIC AMERICAN BUILDINGS SURVEY WHICH 

HAS EXISTED SINCE 1933 7Z7 DOCUMENT AMERICAN ARCHITECTURE THE RICHNESS AND CONCENTRATION OR 

EARLY INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENTS IN THE AREA OR THE CONPLClENCE OT THE MOHAWK AND 

HUDSON RIVERS PROVIDED AN EXEMPLARY LOCATION FOR THE INITIAL HAER SURVEY PROJECT 

THE SURVEY WAS SPONSORED BY THE NATIONAL PARR SERVICE (HISTORIC AMERICAN BUILDINGS SURVEY), THE 

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION CNATIONAL MUSEUM OR HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY!, THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OR CIVIL 

ENGINEERS CNATIONAL HEADQUARTERS AND THE MOHAWK - HUDSON SECTION), AND THE NEW YORK STATE HISTORIC 

TRUST 

THE HELD WORK PHOTOGRAPHY AND HISTORICAL RESEARCH WERE CONDUCTED LURING THE SUMMER OF 196? UNDER 

THE GENERAL DIRECT/ON OR ROBERT M VOGEL, CURATOR or MECHANICAL AND CIVIL ENGINEERING SMITHSONIAN 

INSTITUTION, AND JAMES C MASSEY CHIEF HISTORIC AMERICAN BUILDINGS SURVEY WITH RICHARD J POLLAK PROFESSOR OP ARCHITECTURE, BALL STATE UNIVERS'TY AS PROJECT SUPERVISOR THE SURVEY TEAM CONSISTED 

OT LTAVID BOUSE, ARCHITECT (UNIVERSITY OP NEBR4SKA), ERIC D'LDNr ARCHITECT (COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY), 

AND CHARLES A PXRROTT III, STUOENT ARCHITECT (IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY^ THE POATMAL PHOTOGRAPHY WAS 

BY JACK E DOUCHE* ANO CUVID FVDWDEN THE SURVEY HEA(XPUARTERS WAS LOCATED) /N THE SCHOOL OP 

ARCHITECTURE. RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE, TROY. NEW YORK 

STRUCTURES DRAWN AND PHOTOGRAPHED 

NY-1 WATERVLIET ARSENAL CAST-IROn STOREHOUSE WATERVLIET. HEW YORK • 13.59 

NY-2 TROY OAS LIGHT COMFAAY GASHOLDER HOUSE, TROY, NEW YORK 1675 

NY-3 RENSSELAER IRON WORKS RAIL MILL, TROY, NEW TORK - IB&& 

NY-4 WHIPPLE CAST- AND WROUGHT-IRON BOWSTRING TRUSS BRIDGE ALBANY NEW YORK - 106,7 

NY-5 DELAWARE AND HUDSON CANAL DELAWARE AQUEDUCT, MINISINK FORD, NEW YORK TO LACKAWAXEN PENNSYLVANIA • I34T-4& 

NY-<i ERIE CANAL (ENLARGED), SCHOHARIE CREEK AOUEDUCT PORT HUNTER NEW YORK I&4I 

NY-B HARMONY MANUFACTURING COMPANY MILL N" 3 (MASTODON MILL), COHOES, NEW YORK IS&C, ISTI 

NT-9 COHOES COMPANY POWER CANALS, COHOES, NEW YORK • ISS4-60 

NY-IO HAWK STREET VIADUCT, ALEANY NEW YORK IS69-90 

HY-lt ERIE CAAIAL (ENLARGED) LOCK IS (DOUBLE LOCK) COHOES. NEW YORK 1637- 42 

NY-12 ERE CANAL (ENLARGED). UPPER .HOHAWK RAIEI? AQUEDUCT (REXFORD AOUEDUCT), REXPORO, NEW YORK 

1642 

NY-li W 4. L E GUKLEY COMPANY BUILDING, TROY, NEW YORK • I&Z2 

NY-14 CHAMPLAIN CANAL WATERFORD LOCKS. WATERFORD, NEW YORK 1624-26 

NY-15 RENSSELAER AND SARATOGA RAILROAD GREEN ISLAND SHOPS. OREEN ISLAND NEW YORK • I67/-T2 

' DAVID &OJ5L lft.9 

MOHAWK-HUDSON AREA SURVEY HISTORIC AMERICAN 

ENGINEERING RECORD 

W OT OP W1IH 

FIGURE 1.—Cover sheet for the Survey drawings. (This drawing was duplicated and included 

as Sheet 1 of the set of drawings for each of the six Survey structures measured and drawn. 

All HAER drawings are on file with the Library of Congress, Division of Prints and Photographs.) 

twentieth, and then began a slow decline that left in 

its wake an impressive array of technological relics. 

Here was the hub of a conglomerate of early transportation ventures: eastern terminus of the Erie 

Canal; southern terminus of the Champlain Canal; 

center of the pioneer Mohawk & Hudson and later 

the Rensselaer & Saratoga railroads, and head of 

Hudson River navigation. The Falls of the Mohawk 

were exploited early at Cohoes in a hydraulic power 

complex of dams, canals, and textile mills rivaling 

in scale the largest of New England. For many 

decades Troy was second only to Pittsburgh as a 

center of iron and steel production—the Burden Iron 

Works becoming the largest manufacturer of horseshoes in the world. The first Bessemer steel plant in 

America was here. The area was at one time or 

another a nationally important center of stove, bell, 

and valve manufacture, and the list goes on. 

The names of many of America's most prominent 

early engineers and industrialists are associated with 

the area through projects they initiated or supervised: 

Benjamin Wright and Canvass White of the canals; 

John B. Jervis of the Mohawk & Hudson Railroad; 

Squire Whipple, pioneer structural theoretician and 

practical iron bridge builder; Theodore Burr, builder 

of timber bridges; Henry Burden, Erastus Corning, 

and Alexander L. Holley, enterpreneurs and innovators in iron, and later steel, production. 
SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 2.—The concentration of industry and transportation systems in the Troy area is 

apparent in this 1881 birdseye view (looking south), in which are seen the Gasholder House 

(left center), the Rail Mill (center), and Burden's Lower Works (top center), as well as a 

multitude of other mills and factories. The Erie Canal is on the right. {Beck and Pauli, [Birdseye Lithographic Map of] Troy, N.Y. Milwaukee, 1881, detail.) 

Beyond the vast number of physical survivals of 

that extraordinary era are several additional industrial monuments having no direct derivation from 

it, e.g., the singular all-iron prefabricated storehouse 

of 1859 at Watervliet Arsenal, unquestionably the 

most remarkable of these. The area altogether is 

filled with fascination for the historian of American 

technology and in virtually every way was a perfectly 

suited location for the proposed survey. An excellent 

headquarters and drafting facility was available at 

the School of Architecture, Rensselaer Polytechnic 

Institute (RPI), Troy; there appeared to be adequate 

housing for the resident survey team; and there were 

several public and private organizations as well as 

individuals having parallel historical interests, from 

whom it was anticipated assistance mght be obtained. 
Planning and Conduct of the Survey 

Although nominally the first HAER survey, there 

had been two earlier surveys with similar goals that, 

in fact, were HAER precursors in establishing certain 

procedures, namely, the New England Textile Mill 

Surveys I and II, of 1967 and 1968. The principal 

operational sponsors, as with the M-HAS, had been 

the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of 

History and Technology (Division of Mechanical and 

Civil Engineering (DM&CE) ) and the National Park 

Service's Historic American Buildings Survey.2 The 

project's basic objective was to record the physical 

plant of the textile industry in New England, whose 

mills were the first American industrial structures. 

The principal departure from traditional HABS surveys was that as much attention was devoted to the 

structural, mechanical, and industrial aspects of the 

mills as to their purely architectural features. 

The central organizational framework upon which 

the M-HAS was assembled was simply an extension 

of the existing hamonious working relationship between the HABS and the DM&CE. The Committee on 

History and Heritage of the American Society of 

Civil Engineers (ASCE) also joined as a funding 

sponsor, as did the New York State Historic Trust 

(NYSHT; now [1973] Division for Historic Preservation), the state's official agency concerned with historic preservation and inventorying. The RPI School of 

Architecture, which provided drafting and office 

facilities for the Survey's field headquarters, was the 

fifth principal sponsor. The sources of funds are 

shown in the Survey budget. 

Selection of the structures to be recorded was the 

first matter of concern, beginning in August 1968 

with a two-day exploration of the area by this editor, 

2

 A full account of the objectives and conduct of the 

1967 project is in NET MS I—A Report of the First Summer's Work, published by the Division of Mechanical and 

Civil Engineering, Smithsonian Institution, 1968 (out of 

print). The historical accounts, the measured drawings, and 

representative photographs from NETMS I and II were 

published by the National Park Service as Selections from 

the Historic American Buildings Survey No. 11, September 

1971, Ted Sande, Editor. 

and the subsequent projecting of a survey with 

James C. Massey, then Chief of HABS. That fall, by 

which time the Survey had been fairly established, 

a long list, of structures having potential recording 

interest was assembled. 

In February 1969, the Survey was formally 

launched with a meeting in Troy of those principally 

concerned: 

Richard S. Allen, NYSHT Survey Consultant. 

Neal FitzSimons, Chairman, ASCE Committee on the History and Heritage of American Civil Engineering. 

Bernd Foerster, Acting Dean, School of Architecture, RPI, 

and author of guides to the historic architecture of 

Rensselaer and Albany counties (presently Dean, College 

of Architecture, Kansas State University). 

James C. Massey, Chief, HABS. 

Robert M. Vogel, Curator, Division of M&CE, Smithsonian. 

John G. Waite, Jr., NYSHT Historical Architect and former 

HABS architect. 

In one of the season's worst blizzards, the group 

spent a day and a half tramping about among the 

sites of most likely interest for the next summer's 

work, and discussing logistical and organizational 

detail. 

Preliminary (Gross) List of Sites and Structures For 

Recording, June 1969 (* = actually recorded) 

Suggested variously by: Richard S. Allen, Bernd Foerster, 

James C. Massey, Robert M. Vogel, and John G. Waite, Jr. 

Troy 

Watervliet 

* Burden Iron Works sites 

* Albany and Rensselaer Iron Company sites 

* Gasholder House 

* Gurley Building 

J. M. Warren Building 

Lion Shirt Building 

Piers of Waterford Bridge (first 

with icecutters) 

Fire houses 

* Arsenal—"Iron Building" 

Site of first Whipple trapezodial 

truss bridge 

Watervliet side-cut locks, Erie 

Canal 
SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Watervliet-Cohoes 

Watervliet-Green Island 

Green Island 

Cohoes 

Cohoes-Waterford 

Waterford 

Albany 

Rexford 

Fort Hunter 

RENSSELAER COUNTY 

Buskirk 

Eagle Bridge 

Schaghticoke 

Johnsville 

Valley-Falls vicinity 

Flight of ascending Erie Canal 

locks 

Iron highway bridge and stone 

railroad bridge 

* Rensselaer & Saratoga Railroad 

Shops 

Green Island bridge sites (1830s) 

* Harmony Mills complex 

Original Erie Canal locks 

* Enlarged Erie Canal locks (double lock) 

* Extensive power canal system 

* Power canal gate house 

Champlain Canal Locks 

Eddy Valve Works (abandoned) 

Matton Boat Works 

* Side-cut flight of locks, Champlain Canal 

Roadbed of Mohawk & Hudson 

Railroad 

* Iron- Whipple bridge (Normanskill) 

Western Union Building 

Delaware & Hudson Railway 

Office Building 

* Hawk Street Viaduct 

* Rexford Aqueduct remains, Erie 

Canal 

* Schoharie Creek Aqueduct remains, Erie Canal 

Covered timber Howe truss bridge 

Railroad station 

Railroad station 

Black powder works—remains 

Mill houses 

(Buttermilk Falls) (Berlin Iron 

Bridge Co.) parabolic truss 

bridge 

Railroad station 

(Groton Iron Bridge Co.) iron 

bridge—1891 

Albany Northern Railroad berme 

ALBANY COUNTY 

Rensselaerville 

Alcove 

Cooksburg 

COLUMBIA 

Canaan 

Livingston 

Copake 

Stottville 

Chatham 

COUNTY 

"Period-piece'' village (originally 

seat of woolen mills) 

Old mill 

Old mill 

Railroad tunnel—1841 

Burden ore roasting ovens— 

1870-80 

Iron works buildings 

(Hudson River Bridge Works) 

iron bridge—1881 

(Morse Bridge Co.) Spangler's 

Bridge—1880 

New Lebenon 

Stuyvesant Falls 

SARATOGA COUNTY 

Northumberland 

Mt. McGregor to 

Saratoga Springs 

Half Moon 

Mechanicville 

SULLIVAN COUNTY, 

N E W YORK to 

PIKE COUNTY, 

PENNSYLVANIA 

Minisink Ford, N.Y. 

to Lackawaxen, Pa. 

Tilden Pharmaceuticals buildings 

(since destroyed by fire) 

Mill group 

Mill — 1830s 

t 

Harris (grist) 

(ruins) 

Steam and first 3rd-rail-electric 

railroad—1833 (berme remains) 

Anthony baking powder factory 

(Willow Glen) Early concrete 

interurban railway bridge— 

1902 

* Delaware Aqueduct 

The Field Team 

The heart of a recording survey is, of course, the 

field team, which measures the structures and translates 

its field sketches into the formal drawings that make 

up the principal element of the permanent record. 

The available funding permitted a team of three 

plus a supervisor. These men were recruited by the 

HABS from architectural schools, chiefly by informal 

communication with the deans. It was already recognized, and has since been confirmed, that even on 

purely "engineering" surveys, there is rarely any chance 

of employing engineering students for such work 

because of the sad fact that drawing has been virtually abandoned as a required skill in engineering 

schools. Consequently, today's students are severely 

limited in that area, and simply cannot express themselves graphically at a level satisfactory for historical 

recording work. The M-HAS team consisted of: 

Richard J. Pollak, Associate Professor, College of Architecture and Planning, Ball State University. Supervisor. 

Eric N. DeLony, graduate, Ohio State University 1968; 

student architect NETMS II, 1968. Architect. 

David L. Bouse, graduate, University of Nebraska 1969; 

student architect NETMS II, 1968. Architect. 

Charles A. Parrott m, Iowa State University. Student 

Architect. 

The team was remarkable for its efficiency and 

skill, the ultimate evidence of which is the quality 

of the finished drawings. An innovation introduced 

by Prof. Pollak was the assignment of each structure 

to one of the team, who acted as job leader, co-
NUMBER 26 

FIGURE 3.—M-HAS team members Parrott and Bouse measuring cornice of the Gasholder House from an aerial ladder 

truck furnished by the Troy Fire Department, June 1969. 

(Pollak) 

FIGURE 4.—DeLony and Parrott atop the Gasholder House, 

June 1969. (Vogel) 

FIGURE 5.—DeLony (top) and Bouse preparing the final 

survey drawings, RPI School of Architecture, September 1969. 

(Vogel) 

ordinating both field work and drafting, resulting in 

increased efficiency and better morale. 

The return of Messrs. DeLony and Bouse after 

similar work the previous summer was of huge benefit to the project although the spontaneous enthusiasm 

of Professor Pollak and Mr. Parrott was certainly as 

great an asset. With the exception of Mr. Bouse, all 

members of the team returned to HAER surveys the 

following summer: Prof. Pollak to supervise the 

State of Virginia Survey; Mr. DeLony to supervise 

and Mr. Parrott to be an architect on the Baltimore & 

Ohio Railroad Survey. Mr. DeLony has been on the 

HAER permanent staff since February 1971. 

The Historians 

The accumulation of historical documentation on 

each of the recorded structures was considered, from 

the outset, of primary importance. Since the scope 
8 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

of the task would have required more of the supervisor's time than was available, it was decided to 

contract for the work. Three Principal Historians 

were employed, all having a recognized interest in 

the area's history as well as professional historical 

qualifications: 

Samuel Rezneck, Professor Emeritus of History, RPI. 

Diana S. Waite, former Architectural Historian, HABS; consulting architectural historian. 

Richard S. Allen, Survey Consultant, NYSHT; consulting 

historian. 

Each was assigned a group of the finally selected 

structures, related largely to his own specialized 

interests, with instructions to prepare a historical 

account from research in available primary and 

secondary sources. These contracts were on a flat-fee 

basis proportioned from the basic funds allotted for 

the purpose in the Survey budget. Each historian 

was obliged to determine on the basis of his fee how 

much time he could afford to expend on the work. 

In all cases, it is only fair to observe, the product 

was cheaply bought; the personal interest of all of 

the historians in their assignments impelled them to 

far deeper involvement and the production of considerably fuller accounts than could reasonably have 

been expected. The particular background and 

orientation of each historian is reflected in the style 

of his accounts, resulting in a variety of perspectives. 

FIGURE 6.—Dimensions recorded directly on an 8- X 10-inch photograph as a means of 

expediting field measurements (anchorage eye-bars and strand loops, Delaware Aqueduct). 
NUMBER 26 

Early in the summer the Hudson River Valley 

Commission, as a contribution to the Survey, assigned 

its Historian, Lewis C. Rubenstein, to prepare the 

accounts of the Watervliet Arsenal Cast-Iron Storehouse and the Rensselaer Iron Works' Rail Mill. 

Although he gathered a great deal of valuable material on both buildings, his normal duties at the Commission had expanded by summer's end to the extent 

that he was unable to begin the reports. The report 

for the Rail Mill and a number of the other accounts 

that had not been otherwise assigned were written 

by R. Carole Huberman of the HAER staff, who also 

performed the basic research for the Watervliet Castiron Storehouse, the account of which was written 

by Selma Thomas. 

The historical description of the Delaware Aqueduct was extracted from the editor's monograph, 

"Roebling's Delaware & Hudson Canal Aqueducts" 

(Smithsonian Studies in History and Technology, 

FIGURE 7.—Field photograph (35 mm) with measuring 

pole placed against the structure, another method of increasing recording efficiency (abutment face, Whipple Bridge). 

number 10), inspired by the M-HAS recording of the 

structure. Table 1 lists the Principal Historian for 

each structure. 

The Photography 

Photography was by Jack E. Boucher of Linwood, 

New Jersey, on contract, except for coverage of the 

Delaware Aqueduct, which was photographed by 

David Plowden of Sea Cliff, New York. Mr. Plowden 

was selected because of his familiarity with the structure and the fact that he planned to be at the site 

in the course of his own work on American bridges. 

Mr. Boucher, who for many years has photographed 

for the HABS as a free lancer, is presently on the 

HABS-HAER permanent staff. In the course of three 

visits to the area, he took about 130 photographs, 

most of which are reproduced in this report. 

All recent photographs not otherwise credited are 

by Jack E. Boucher for the Historic American Engineering Record, in most cases on 5" x 7" negatives 

filed in the HAER Collection at the Library of Congress. The same is true for David Plowden's photographs of the Delaware Aqueduct. 

Most of the remaining recent photographs are by 

Eric N. DeLony, HAER; Richard J. Pollak, Ball State 

University; and Robert M. Vogel, Smithsonian Institution, on 35 mm negatives filed in the Division of 

Mechanical and Civil Engineering, National Museum 

of History and Technology, Smithsonian Institution. 

Copy negatives (5 " x 7") of some of these are in the 

HAER files. Other photographers and their affiliations 

are noted directly in the credit lines. 

The sketching of a structure and its elements 

generally occupies far more time than the actual 

measurement and recording of dimensions. As a 

means of reducing recording time of the Delaware 

Aqueduct, dimensions were recorded directly on previously made photographs of the structure. If an 

expeditious means could be found for developing 

such photographs in the field, this method would 

increase greatly the efficiency of data collecting 

(Figure 6). Another time-saving device was the 

photographing (35 mm) of certain elements of the 

structures—generally relatively simple ones—with a 

calibrated measuring pole in the view, a time-honored 

archeological technique. It was possible therefrom to 

derive a great deal of dimensional data for the final 

drawing directly from the photograph (Figure 7). 
10 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Final Selection of Structures for Recording 

At the start of the Survey on 15 June, a list of 

nearly sixty structures and sites in Rensselaer, Albany, 

Columbia, and Saratoga counties was on hand for 

consideration, the combined suggestions of all who 

had taken an interest in the project (pp. 17-18). 

Obviously many would have to be eliminated. In 

order to set the team in immediate motion, however, 

it was decided that the Troy Gaslight Company's 

great circular Gasholder House of 1873—unanimously 

acknowledged to be a structure of primary interest— 

would be a rational starting point. 

A second decision made at the outset was that 

Roebling's Delaware Aqueduct (1848), a work of 

exceptional significance in the history of American 

civil engineering, should be included. Despite the 

fact that it appeared to be in no immediate jeopardy 

and was over 100 miles from the survey area, it was 

considered more efficient to bring in a team as part 

of this Survey than to mount a special one at some 

future date. 

Beyond that, the process of selection consisted of 

eliminating those entries on the gross list that were 

essentially structureless sites (e.g., Whipple's first 

trapezoidal truss bridge, Watervliet) ; those where 

later modification had been so extensive that virtually 

nothing of the original fabric survived (e.g., the early 

railroad tunnel at Canaan, 1841); and those that 

were clearly of minor engineering interest (e.g., 

Matton boat works, Cohoes). The remaining structures were arranged in three priority categories (Table 

1). Those in the Priority One group, judged to be 

of greatest importance, were further subdivided into 

two groups: structures to be fully measured and 

drawn (eight) ; and those for which only selected 

details would be drawn (six). 

Five Priority Two and Three structures also were 

to be selectively drawn as time permitted. All twenty 

structures on the net list were to be formally photographed. Table 1 reveals the extent to which the 

initial net list was both adhered to and deviated 

from in the course of the summer's work. 

A variety of criteria was used in finally selecting 

the six principal (marked "F " in Table 1) and ten 

secondary structures recorded. The particular significance of each is discussed at some length in the 

individual essays, but it may be of interest to speak 

here briefly of the different reasons for inclusion. 

Under the general self-explanatory concept of primary historical importance, fell such structures as the 

Delaware Aqueduct, already mentioned, and the Castiron Storehouse at Watervliet Arsenal. The latter, 

perhaps the only surviving all-iron building in the 

country, was built by the Architectural Iron Works 

of New York, one of the largest and most successful 

in the industry. While thousands of mid-nineteenth 

century iron-front buildings remain, the Watervliet 

storehouse is of especial importance in that the iron 

is employed in all of the building's structural functions : in the form of cast-iron bearing walls, columns, 

and beams (the latter with tensile assistance from 

wrought-iron bottom-chord ties), and composite cast 

and wrought-iron roof trusses. There is not the 

bastardization of the iron with masonry walls and 

wood beams that characterizes virtually every other 

so-called iron building of the period that still stands. 

As a precursor of metal-framed skeleton structures, 

the building appears to be unqiue. 

The Whipple Truss Bridge in Albany is of importance as the nearly sole surviving representative of a 

once large family of distinguished ancestry. Although 

not the first American to build framed bridges of iron 

rather than wood, Squire Whipple was the first to do 

so on a large commercial scale, and on the basis of 

fully rational structural designs. In that sense, he 

can be described as one of the men most influential 

in introducing the age of structural iron to the United 

States. Hundreds of his iron highway bridges were 

built (most of them in New York State) : by Whipple 

himself; by licensees; and following expiration of his 

basic patent, by a number of others. Of this number, 

only two are known to have survived: the Normanskill span and the Whipple truss over Cayadutta 

Creek, north of Fonda, New York. 

Like the Whipple Bridge, the significance of the 

remaining three principal structures was their being 

typical in one way or another. The Schoharie Creek 

Aqueduct was viewed as a structure of consequence, 

not only because of its scale and architectural quality, 

but because it was a good example of the massive 

masonry aqueducts constructed during the great 

enlargement of the Erie Canal in the 1840s, when 

permanence was an objective. A property of the 

New York State Historic Trust, the aqueduct was 

studied also to furnish the Trust with data for its 

restoration. 

Troy's circular Gasholder House was in the same 

general category—a representative of a once fairly 

common class of structure—but here the type itself 
NUMBER 26 11 

TABLE 1.—Final list of structures (F=full measured drawings and photography; 

S=selected drawings and photography; P:= photography only; n.d.=not done) 

Location 

Watervliet 

Troy 

Normansville 

(Albany) 

Cohoes 

Rexford 

Rotterdam Jet. 

Ft. Hunter 

Cohoes 

Waterford 

Lackawaxen, Pa. 

Minisink Ford, 

As planned 

(20 June) 

Structure treatment 

PRIORITY 

Iron Storehouse 

Gasholder House 

Rensselaer Iron Works Rail 

Mill 

Burden Iron Works Office 

Whipple Cast- & Wroughtiron Bowstring Truss 

Bridge 

Harmony No. 3 

("Mastodon") Mill 

Power canal system 

Power canal headgate house 

Mohawk River Aqueduct 

remains, Erie Canal 

Plotter Kill Aqueduct, 

Erie Canal 

Schoharie Creek Aqueduct 

remains, Erie Canal 

Double Lock, Erie Canal 

Locks, Champlain Canal 

Delaware Aqueduct, 

N.Y. D&H Canal 

ONE 

S 

F 

S 

S 

F 

S 

S 

S 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

A 

historian treatment 

Rubenstein 

Waite 

Rubenstein 

Rezneck 

Allen 

Waite 

Allen 

Pollak 

open 

open 

open 

Waite 

open 

Vogel 

F 

F 

F 

P 

F 

P 

P 

P 

P 

n.d. 

F 

P 

P 

F 

s done 

historian 

Huberman/ 

Thomas 

Waite 

Huberman 

Rezneck 

Allen 

Waite 

Allen 

Huberman 

Huberman 

Huberman 

Waite 

Huberman 

Vogel 

PRIORITY TWO 

Green Island 

Albany 

Livingston vicinity 

Rensselaer & Saratoga 

Railroad shops 

Hawk Street Viaduct 

Burden's ore-roasting 

ovens (ruins) 

Allen 

Pollak 

open 

P Allen 

P Rezneck 

n.d. 

Hoosick Falls 

Ballston Spa 

Cohoes 

PRIORITY THREE 

Wood Brothers Factory 

(agricultural 

implements) S open n.d. 

West's Paper Mill S open n.d. 

Cohoes Rolling Mill S open n.d. 

Troy 

NOT ORIGINALLY INCLUDED 

W. & L. E. Gurley Building 

SPECIAL ESSAYS 

Historical Addendum: Ludlow Valve Manufacturing Company 

Chronological Notes: Troy Iron and Steel Companies 

Cohoes: the Historical Background 

Rezneck 

Rezneck 

Allen 

Rezneck 
12 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

was less widely distributed than the Whipple Truss 

Bridge, for example, and the survivor is clearly the 

most spectacular architecturally and interesting structurally of the remaining dozen or so. 

Finally, the Rail Mill, while of interest because of 

its original function and not without a certain architectural merit in the rendering of the gable walls, 

was selected mainly because it so perfectly typified 

the ubiquitous brick and heavy-timber machine-shop 

building of the last half of the nineteenth century. 

The absolutely classical plan of high main aisle 

commanded by a traveling crane, low side aisles 

beneath galleries for the light machine tools, and roof 

and galleries carried by heavy timber framing, is 

rapidly becoming extinct. 

In the case of the secondary structures, which were 

only photographed, a somewhat lower order of justification proportional to the lesser investment of time 

was applied, but their selection was based on the 

same general philosophy. Certain structures were not 

drawn simply because of the difficulties involved or 

their inherent complexity—the Hawk Street Viaduct, 

for example. Others, like the Cohoes power canals, 

could be represented better by photographs and existing maps than by drawings. 

A factor that inevitably influenced our selection 

process was the security of the structures. Where 

there existed a recognizable and imminent threat to 

a given structure, there was clearly more reason to 

record it than when it was apparently in safe hands 

and in good use. On the other hand, the ever-present 

threats of fire, flood, and other catastrophic possibilities must always be in the evaluator's mind. "Safe 

hands" and "good use," however, are subject to 

human whim, economics, and even the death of 

principals. These considerations, therefore, shaped our 

attitude toward the Delaware Aqueduct. While it 

was (and still is) in safe hands, they were only those 

FIGURE 8.—Rensselaer Iron Works Rail Mill, 1866, destroyed by fire in October 1969, two 

months after its recording by the M-HAS. (Paul R. Huey for [N.Y. State] Division for 

Historic Preservation.) 
NUMBER 26 13 

of a private individual. Because of its uniqueness and 

immense importance, failure to measure it then would 

have been foolhardy. 

The harsh realities of the danger constantly threatening old buildings could hardly have been more 

vividly expressed than by the total destruction of the 

Rail Mill by fire in October 1969, barely three months 

after it had been recorded (Figure 8). 

Miscellaneous Matters 

The day-to-day operations of the Survey were 

thoroughly and entertainingly detailed by Prof. 

Pollak in his bi-weekly reports, Good News From 

Troy, N.Y., copies of which are filed at HAER headquarters and in the Smithsonian's Division of 

Mechanical and Civil Engineering. The Survey was 

overseen by the editor who spent a total of about 

five weeks in Troy. 

The notations (HAER NY-2, HAER NY-12, etc.) on 

the title pages of the accounts of the sixteen structures 

recorded are the Historic American Engineering 

Record numbers, which are consecutively assigned to 

all structures recorded within each state in the order 

recorded. 

Budget and Costs 

A fairly detailed account of the Survey's costs has 

been set down below and in Table 2. A bright spot 

was the totally unexpected and generous midsummer 

donation of $500 by the Mohawk-Hudson Section 

of the ASCE, which, in view of the general attenuation of the budget was a gift of very real consequence. The various types of "in-kind" assistance 

by others will be mentioned in the next section. 

The Survey Budget* 

PRINCIPAL SURVEY COSTS : 

SOURCES OF SUPPORT: 

National Park Service 

Smithsonian Institution, National 

Museum of History and Technology 

American Society of Civil Engineers, National Headquarters 

New York State Historic Trust 

ASCE, Mohawk-Hudson Section 

GRAND TOTAL 

$ 3,597 

3,694 

1,000 

2,500 

500 

$11,291 

Miscellaneous supplies, phone. 

Travel for team: local and 

trips 

Travel for R. 

seeing trips) 

Salaries: 

Team 

Supervisor 

SUBTOTAL 

Historians: 

S. Rezneck 

D. Waite 

R. Allen 

Photographers: 

J. Boucher 

D. Plowden 

Vogel (for 

, etc. 

field 

over-

$5,527 

2,313 

1,000 

300 

300 

761 

130 

$ 

$ 

141 

125 

694 

7,840 

8,800 

1,600 

891 

GRAND TOTAL $11,291 

* Direct costs only. Not accounted for are staff salaries 

and overhead, costs of February 1969 preliminary trip, 

costs of this report, and other indirect and general support 

costs. 

One of the most interesting and potentially useful 

secondary results of the Survey was the accounting, 

maintained by Prof. Pollak, of the time expended on 

each of the measured structures (Table 2). 

From these figures, costs per-sheet-of-drawing have 

been derived that reveal a number of things about 

the costs of recording engineering structures. The 

most striking characteristic of the figures is the disparity among them. The range—between extremes 

of $489 per sheet for the Gasholder House and $159 

per sheet for the Schoharie Creek Aqueduct (a ratio 

of over 3:1) —seems astonishing until the various 

factors, accounting for the variation, which indeed 

are the most instructive elements of this comparison, 

are examined. 

The one factor probably most direcdy responsible 

for the difference is that of experience and adjustment. The Gasholder House was the first structure 

measured; the Schoharie Creek Aqueduct the last. 

A certain amount of time inevitably was expended 

at the start of the project in "shaking down," while 

by summer's end operations in both field and drafting room were being conducted with an efficiency 

that reflected the experience of twelve weeks. The 

other major factor was that of physical accessibility. 

The greatest part of the Gasholder House interior 

was far above the ground and accessible only by 

means of a precarious arrangement of ladders and 

catwalks. Parts of the roof trusses, the most complex 

element, could be measured only by standing on the 
TABL E 2.—Cost of the survey in terms of per-sheet costs* 

Structure 

Title Sheet 

Gasholder House 

Rensselaer Iron Works 

Rail Mill 

Watervliet Arsenal 

Cast-Iron Storehouse . . 

Whipple Bowstring 

Truss Bridge 

Schoharie Creek Aqueduct 

Misc. team time: travel, 

discussion, etc 

TOTALS 

No. of 

sheets 

1 

3 

3 

5 

3 

3 

2 

20 

c 

l > 

a 

V 

ll 

3 

(3 

0) 

2 

74 

25 

89 

12 

27 

13 

240 

Time 

C bo 

g.s 

Jr •-

0L, -a 

135 

74 

86 

86 

59 

14 

454 

expended (hours) 

bo 

C 

.5 2 

26 

172 

82 

252 

91 

97 

56 

776 

"c3 

o 

H 

26 

381 

181 

427 

189 

183 

83 

109 

1579** 

* 

a 

.2 

1 

o 

a 

3 

Vj 

2 

29 

14 

33 

14 

14 

6 

8 

120 

Sheet cost 

+-

cS 

1 

2 

3 

4 

1 

2 

3 

4 

1 

2 

3 

4 

1 

2 

3 

4 

1 

2 

3 

4 

1 

2 

3 

4 

1 

2 

3 

4 

1 

2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

2 

o 2 

H 3 

$ 91 

100 

108 

157 

1334 

1468 

1577 

2278 

633 

699 

751 

1083 

1494 

1654 

1775 

2557 

662 

728 

782 

1132 

640 

706 

759 

1096 

290 

318 

342 

497 

381 

419 

$5144 

5670 

6091 

8800 

u 

u 

bo d 

4J 1) 

> 2 

< -S 

$ 91 

100 

108 

157 

445 

489 

526 

759 

211 

233 

250 

361 

299 

331 

355 

511 

221 

243 

261 

377 

213 

235 

253 

365 

145 

159 

171 

248 

$257 

284 

305 

440 

3.50 (1579 hours) 

4.70 (480 hours) 

7,840.00 

8,800.00 

11,291.00 

Average hourly rate—team members 

Hourly rate—supervisor 

Survey cost—salaries only 

Total survey cost, except historians and photographers 

Total survey cost, all items 

The supervisor's time was divided approximately: 25% actual field and office supervision 

of the team (120 hours) and 75% administration, PR, local arrangements, scheduling, etc. 

(360 hours). Accordingly, 25% of his time and salary have been prorated among the six 

structures, on the basis of the time for each, to derive costs under bases 2 and 3. His full 

time and salary are considered in the total project cost figures (Basis 4). 

t Basis of cost computations: (1) Team salaries only, not including miscellaneous (nonproduction) time; (2) team -f- supervisor salaries, not including their miscellaneous time; 

(3) team -f- supervisor salaries including their miscellaneous time, prorated; (4) all project 

costs except historians and photography, prorated by team hours. 

** Includes overtime (paid at straight-time rate). 
NUMBER 26 15 

truss lower chords. The need to record the cornice 

from a fire truck aerial ladder was a final impediment. The high figure for drafting time is a reflection 

of both structural complexity and, again, of the considerable amount of slack that can (and should) be 

anticipated at a project's outset. The Schoharie Creek 

Aqueduct, conversely, was fairly accessible; the only 

difficulty there being the need to use a rowboat and 

ladder to reach certain surfaces. Also in contrast to 

the Gasholder House was its simplicity. It was, in 

fact, the least complex of the six structures. 

If the two extreme cases are disregarded, the figures 

take on an entirely different meaning. The range for 

the four remaining structures runs only from $331 

per sheet for the Watervliet Storehouse down to $233 

for the Rail Mill. The variation of less than 35 percent is readily accounted for by the relative complexities of the two. 

The apparently high sheet costs of the M-HAS 

(project average $284) initially provoked alarm when 

viewed against the average figure of about $150 per 

sheet for traditional HABS architectural surveys, based 

on the same factors as the comparable M-HAS figures 

(i.e., team salary plus a portion of the supervisor's). 

The explanation for the difference in cost is once 

again a matter of comparative complexity. The average engineering structure is of a higher order of 

complexity than the average building. (Note that we 

are speaking of average, for here especially, the 

indistinctness of the territory between purely "architectural" buildings and "engineered" structures is 

a major point.) Much of this difference has to do 

with materials and techniques. Until fairly recently, 

most of the structures surveyed by HABS were built 

prior to the middle of the nineteenth century and 

so were free of the more exuberant Victorian ornamental elements in later use. These buildings were 

essentially simple, the decorative features based largely 

on linear forms (moldings), a reflection of the fact 

that wood in the form of planks and timbers was 

the primary material employed. Such forms are 

relatively simple to measure and draw. The same 

can be said of the earlier engineering structures in 

masonry and wood, up to the period when structural 

iron was introduced. Cast iron is a material whose 

principal advantage to the designer was that it was 

neither axially nor dimensionally restrictive: formed 

from a molten, fluid mass, iron castings could be 

produced in almost any size and any configuration, 

and in almost any degree of structural (as well as 

decorative) complexity required or desired. Wherever 

the designer wanted metal, and in whatever form, 

it could readily and cheaply be placed. For the first 

time he was freed of the restrictions imposed by the 

inherent spatial characteristics of masonry and wood. 

Derivative of the built-up wood patterns from which 

they were produced, iron castings tend to be essentially sculptural, formed of complex curvilinear and 

other highly irregular surfaces. Thus they are relatively difficult to measure and draw. A good example 

is the elaboration required for adequate graphic 

explanation of the cast-iron gallery beams of the 

Watervliet Storehouse. There lies the principal cause 

of the expense of the drawings for the Storehouse 

and the Whipple Truss Bridge, both of which are 

composed mainly of intricate castings. It is predictable that later structures of wrought iron and steel, 

with members formed by rolling and therefore once 

again linear, will take relatively less time to record. 

A second reason for the high cost of historical 

engineering versus architectural drawings is the need 

to record more structural detail. The methods of 

attaching and joining the relatively simple structural 

members of a house or small building are so straightforward and generally familiar that there usually 

is little need for their extensive detailing. Engineering 

joints are quite another matter, particularly in framed 

structures. Note particularly the Gasholder House 

roof truss (Figure 27)—which it was necessary to 

draw exploded for clear exposition—and the involved 

lower-chord connections of the Whipple Truss Bridge. 

Complex when compared to most building elements, 

even the relatively simple cast-iron cable saddles of 

the Delaware Aqueduct required a separate detail 

drawing for explanation. 

A final factor resulting in elevated costs was the 

decision to make ink rather than pencil drawings. 

An intuitive estimate of the relative time required 

for the two techniques would be approximately 5:4, 

or 25 percent more for ink. This factor, however, 

would affect only the final drawing stage, and so 

would elevate the total measuring and drawing figures 

by considerably less—perhaps 15 percent—and the 

total project cost by less. The ink decision, made at 

the project's start for the sake of improved clarity, 

reproducibility, and durability of the drawings, is 

believed to have been a rational one, justifying the 

additional cost. 
Epilog 

Future Work in the Area 

An area so rich in engineering history could hardly 

be adequately covered by a survey in three months 

with a three man team. Clearly, only the cream was 

skimmed, and probably not all of it at that. Many, if 

not all, of the structures and sites on the initial gross 

list could justifiably receive attention of one sort or 

another. 

That singularly active and enthusiastic professional 

body, the ASCE Mohawk-Hudson Section, made a substantive contribution to the M-HAS (or rather, to any 

AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS 

MOHAWK-HUDSON SECTION 

July 1969 Newsletter 

A July Newsletter is probably unprecedented, but here is something 

that can't wait. We want your ideas. 

A four-man team is in the Capital District area this summer, collecting data on historic engineering projects. This survey is the first in 

the country, and is jointly sponsored by ASCE (national HQ) , the National 

Park Service, and the Library of Congress; the Smithsonian Institution and 

the New York State Historic Trust are also involved in the arrangements . 

Your Mohawk-Hudson Section Officers have endorsed this survey and have appropriated $500 to help support it. Engineering history has received all 

too little attention, and we hope that this pilot survey will serve to stimulate similar studies in other parts of the United States . 

The preliminary list of the landmarks that the team plans to include 

in its study appears below. We suspect that some of the Mohawk-Hudson members may know of other engineering landmarks of a by-gone era (not more than 

about 40 miles from Troy) which they believe to be of significance equal to 

that of some on this list. 

Do you know of any such landmarks? 

The survey team will welcome your suggestions, the only stipulation 

being that they receive your information early enough in August to allow 

time for fitting into their schedule for visiting the sites ; their field 

work ends shortly after Labor Day. 

Please send me any leads that you have--an informal note will do--

with instructions as to reaching the landmark, if remotely located. I will 

promptly forward the information to the team and you will have done your 

bit for the preservation of engineering history. 

Section Vice President 

Troy Bldg, R.P.I . 

Troy, N.Y. 12181 

Preliminary List: Rexford, Schoharie and other Erie Canal Aqueducts ; Cohoes 

Power and Transportation Canal Systems ; Watervliet Arsenal cast iron 

warehouse; Harmony Mill complex at Cohoes; Burden Iron Works sites; 

Gas Holder Building at Troy; Whipple Bridge at Normansvi11e; Hawk 

Street Viaduct at Albany; Gurley factory building at Troy; D & H 

Car Shops at Green Island; B & A Tunnel at Canaan; B & A Bridges 

at Green Island. 

16 
NUMBER 26 17 

successor it might have) by suggesting additional area 

structures of historical significance. A request to the 

membership for suggestions was made through the 

kindness of Professor (of Civil Engineering, RPI) Robert Palmer, Section Vice President and newsletter 

editor, by means of an "Extra" newsletter, here reproduced. 

Suggested Historic Structures 

Suggested by 

Frank O. Bogedain 

Carroll F. Blanchard 

Bernard G. Briggs 

Bernard G. Briggs 

J. Lawrie Hibbard 

J. Lawrie Hibbard 

J. Lawrie Hibbard 

Lt. Col. William K. 

Stockdale 

Structure 

Sewage treatment plant, Gloversville. Early (1912) attempt to 

treat domestic sewage and industrial waste conjointly. 

Covered bridge, North Blenheim, 

possibly longest span covered 

bridge in United States. 

Grist mill between Brookview and 

Rices Corners. 

Abandoned Rutland Railroad on 

Route 7 near Vermont border; 

abondoned New York Central 

Railroad near Niskayuna. 

Berlin Iron Bridge Company parabolic truss bridge over Sacandaga 

River near Hadley. 

Toll Gate House, Western Avenue, 

Albany. 

Shussan covered bridge over Battenkill, 200-foot span. 

West Point Military Academy structures. 

Fortifications, 1775-1779 

Central Barracks with cast-iron 

beams, 1845-1850 

Administrative Building with 161 

foot, 3 inch, masonry tower, 

1909. 

Although none of these structures was actually recorded, all appear to be of sufficient consequence that 

they should be considered if future recording is undertaken in the area. 

A final element in any subsequent work should be 

the elaboration of certain of the M-HAS' recordings. 

For example, several of the structures that were only 

photographed should be fully drawn, e.g., the early 

and extremely important Holyoke water turbines (including the runners inside the casings) in the Harmony No. 3 Mill, the Cohoes Canal Head Gate House, 

and details of the Watervliet Storehouse. If the area 

is extended westward, structures in cities like Amsterdam that contain many interesting industrial features, 

such as mills, specialized manufacturing and processing equipment, and railroad buildings, would be included. A continuation of the Mohawk-Hudson Area 

Survey could, in short, go on almost indefinitely. 

Assistance and Cooperation 

In addition to the chief forms of support already 

mentioned, many other individuals and organizations 

provided valued assistance. This survey, where much 

of the recording was of the interior of structures, was 

entirely dependent upon the cooperation of their 

owners. It is gratifying to be able to relate that in 

every single instance, where access to any part of any 

of the structures was needed, it was granted with considerably more than mere assent. Even where the presence of the team or photographer may have affected 

operations or required the attendance of a representative of the owner, the Survey party in all cases was 

accommodated with genuine interest and goodwill. 

Below are listed all who offered help to the Survey. 

Included are the professional consultants, all of whom 

contributed so far in excess of their contractural requirements that they may be regarded as benefactors 

to the project. 

The contributions of several people deserve particular mention. Eric DeLony, as part of his work for 

Columbia University's unique Seminar in Restoration 

and Preservation of Historic Architecture, produced a 

full sheet of additional details of the Watervliet Storehouse roof trusses, which he donated to HAER. Mrs. 

Frances Van Buren and her staff of the RPI School of 

Architecture were of continual help during the course 

of the summer in guiding the team through the problems of daily life, particularly the locating of housing. 

Special gratitude must be expressed to the men who 

made equipment available, without which it would 

have been impossible to reach portions of certain of 

the structures. The brothers Sage, owners of the Gasholder House, generously provided the ladders needed 

to make the upper reaches of its interior accessible, 

while Chief Edward Zapf of the Troy Fire Department, with a large aerial ladder truck, furnished the 

only practical means of gaining the cornice fifty feet 

above the ground. Similarly, Watervliet Arsenal Post 

Engineer John C. Kacharian made available ladders 

for obtaining access to portions of the Storehouse, and 

Joseph F. Wolff of the Schoharie Crossing State Historic Site provided not only the necessary ladders for 

work on the aqueduct, but the necessary rowboat as 

well. 
18 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Those who contributed to the Survey (titles and 

other information as of 1969) are: 

Richard S. Allen, Historian 

Frank Bloomfield, Manager, Normanskill Farm (Whipple 

Truss Bridge) 

Jack E. Boucher, Photographer 

Edward Chapman, Librarian, RPI 

Eric N. DeLony, Architect; Team Member 

Peter Dereski, Superintendent, Troy Plant, Republic Steel 

Corp (Burden site) 

Bernd Foerster, Acting Dean of Architecture, RPI; Survey 

advisor 

Richard G. Folsom, President, RPI 

Edward H. Huber, President, Lackawaxen Bridge Co., 

Scranton, Pa. (Delaware Aqueduct) 

John C. Kacharian, Post Engineer, Watervliet Arsenal; 

Secretary, Arsenal Historical Committee 

Raymond Lague, Plant Engineer, Ludlow Valve Manufacturing Co. (Rensselaer Iron Works Rail Mill) 

H. C. Lumb, Vice President, Corporate Relations, Republic 

Steel Corp. 

William J. Magee, Executive Vice President, Cohoes Industrial Terminal, Inc. (Harmony Mills complex) 

Henry T. Maloy, Public Information Officer, Watervliet 

Arsenal 

Keith McPheeters, Dean of Architecture, RPI 

James V. Murray, History Officer, Office of Public Information, Watervliet Arsenal 

Robert K. Palmer, Vice President, Mohawk-Hudson Section, ASCE; Professor of Civil Engineering, RPI 

Thomas Penman, Executive Director, Troy Chamber of 

Commerce 

David Plowden, Photographer 

Samuel Rezneck, Professor Emeritus of History, RPI,; 

Historian 

Lewis C. Rubenstein, Historian 

William and Thomas Sage, President and Vice President, 

Sage Maintenance & Repainting Corporation. (Troy 

Gasholder House) 

Mark Stevens, Normanskill Farm, Albany (Whipple Truss 

Bridge) 

Archie Stobie, Director, Rensselaer County Historical Society 

Selma Thomas, Historian 

Frances Van Buren, Secretary to the Dean, School of 

Architecture, RPI 

Edward J. Vandercar, Cohoes City Historian 

Diana S. Waite, Historian 

Sheila A. Williams, Historian, State University of New York, 

Albany 

Joseph F. Wolff, Maintenance Superintendent, Schoharie 

Crossing State Historic Site 

Edward Zapf, Chief, Troy Fire Department 
Appendix 

THE M-HAS PROSPECTUS 

National Park Service 

Smithsonian Institution 

American Society of Civil Engineers 

New York State Historic Trust 

PROSPECTUS 

for a Historic American Engineering Record Demonstration Project 

MOHAWK-HUDSO N ARE A SURVE Y 

New York 

Summer, 1969 

The long-neglected field of engineering history has slowly, over the past decade, 

been gaining the attention of scholars. The profession itself has become increasingly 

active in this direction and several of the major professional societies now have 

historical programs. During this same period, local history and landmark preservation 

programs have accelerated. The proposed "Mohawk-Hudson" Area Survey will be 

a demonstration project of the Historic American Engineering Record, to be 

conducted under the aegis of the Historic American Buildings Survey in a pioneer 

program in historical research integrating engineering history, local history and 

landmark preservation studies into a single research and recording operation. It is 

proposed that the Mohawk-Hudson Area Study will be jointly sponsored by the 

National Park Service, the Smithsonian Institution, the American Society of Civil 

Engineers, and the New York State Historic Trust, with cooperation and assistance 

from other concerned groups. 

Program Constraints 

It is realized that initial efforts in this field must perforce proceed deliberately 

because the methodology must be developed simultaneously with the study itself. 

Fortunately, the thirty-year experience of the Historic American Buildings Survey 

(HABS) provides a solid foundation for the technical approach and full advantage 

is being taken of it. This experience indicates that a field survey is an essential part 

of a total program in engineering history and the sooner such a survey begins, the 

more rapid advances can be expected. HABS experience also indicates that a 

summer pilot study conducted on a scholarly basis will cost a minimum of $13,000 

to produce a meaningful body of measured drawings, photographs, and documentation. Funding, in turn, influences staffing which is another constraining factor. 

Professionals are indeed rare who have a background in history and technology, and 

19 
20 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

who are also familiar with historical survey techniques. One intention of the 

project is to encourage selected scholars to enter this field. 

Mohawk-Hudson Area 

The area about the confluence of the Mohawk and Hudson Rivers is remarkable 

from the standpoint of American engineering history and landmarks. Its technological 

development began with the start of the 19th century just as the nascent engineering 

profession was being recognized. The Erie and Champlain Canals, both American 

technical triumphs, are found here, as is the Mohawk and Hudson Railroad, one of 

the first in the country. In addition to these transportation routes was an extensive 

development of the region's water power potential. The numerous waterways in 

the area demanded bridges and among the more famous men who fulfilled this 

need were the pioneer structural engineers Theodore Burr and Squire Whipple. 

Other names associated with the area are Benjamin Wright, John Jervis, Amos 

Eaton, and Canvass White—all major contributors to the early engineering development of the Nation. Industrial innovators, such as Henry Burden, were active there. 

The Historic American Engineering Record Organization 

This historical engineering survey has been organized at a national level, by the 

National Park Service (NPS) , the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 

and the Library of Congress (LC) under a long range tripartite cooperative agreement. The products of the survey, in the form of drawings, photographs, and 

documentary material, are to be deposited at the Library for public use and 

reproduction. 

Project Organization 

This Mohawk-Hudson survey is being set up under the aegis of the Historic 

American Buildings Survey as a demonstration study to explore the implementation 

of the Historic American Engineering Record program, and to measure the public 

and professional interest in engineering history. The sponsoring organizations and 

supporting groups will guide the project through an ad hoc advisory committee. 

The project will be administered by the National Park Service for convenience. 

The survey will be carried on in the summer of 1969, tentatively with an office 

at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. The team will consist of engineers and architects, 

assisted by historians and photographers, drawn from the universities—professors, 

graduate students and undergraduates. They will produce the records—measured 

drawings, maps, photographs, and historical research, as well as attempt to establish 

a methodology for the study of engineering history based on physical remains. The 

completed records will be placed in the Library of Congress. A publication based 

on the records is intended. An exhibit is also being considered. Coupled with the 

rich engineering heritage and many landmarks found in the Mohawk-Hudson Area, 

there is fortunately much local interest in supporting the HAER project. 

The Landmarks for Study 

At this time it is not possible to do more than establish a preliminary list of 

landmarks to be studied. Some will require a thorough field study and measurement 

as well as document research. For others, photography alone will suffice. 
NUMBER 26 21 

New York State 

1. Rexford, Schoharie and other aqueducts, Erie Canal 

2. Cohoes Power and Transportation Canal Systems 

3. Watervliet Arsenal Cast-iron Warehouse, Watervliet (1859) 

4. Harmony Mill Complex, Cohoes (1836-1880s) 

5. Burden Iron Works Sites 

6. Gasholder Building, Troy (1873) 

7. Whipple Bridge, Normansville (1867) 

8. Hawk Street Viaduct, Albany (1890) 

9. W. and L. E. Gurley Company Building, Troy (1860s) 

10. Green Island Car Shops, D & H RR 

11. Canaan Railroad Tunnel, B & A RR (1841) 

12. Green Island Bridges, B & A RR 

13. Map of sites of historic engineering interest in survey area. 

Washington, D.C. 

March 1969 
PART TWO 

The Record: Manufacturing 
Cast-iron Storehouse 1859 

Watervliet Arsenal, Watervliet 

(HAER NY-1) 

Selma Thomas 

Location: Building No. 38, immediately southwest of the intersection of Westervelt Avenue 

and Gibson Street, in the southeast corner of Watervliet Arsenal, Watervliet, Albany County, 

New York. 

Latitute: 42° 43' 00" N. Longitude: 73° 42' 30" W. 

Date of Erection 1859. 

Fabricator: Architectural Iron Works, New York, New York: President, James Reed; Superintendent, Daniel D. Badger (in conjunction with designs presented by Major Alfred 

Mordecai, C.E., commanding officer of Watervliet Arsenal). 

Present Owner and Occupant: U.S. Government, Department of the Army, Army Materiel 

Command. 

Present Use: Warehouse and museum of ordnance materiel. 

Significance: May be the only remaining all-iron building still used for its original purpose. 

It is also an early example of prefabricated construction, all of its parts having been constructed by Architectural Iron Works in New York and shipped up the Hudson for erection 

on the site. 

HISTORICAL INFORMATION 

Physical History 

In 1813 the United States and Britain were engaged 

in military skirmishes that later historians document 

as the War of 1812. One of the problem spots to the 

Americans was the area around present-day Troy, 

New York. Expecting an attack from the north at 

Lake Champlain, or from the west, at Niagara Falls, 

the U.S. Army Ordnance Department (that department of the Army which purchases, manufactures and 

repairs weapons and ammunition) decided to locate 

an arsenal in that vicinity. To that purpose the U.S. 

Government purchased twelve acres of land from 

Historical Information: Research material complied by R. 

Carole Huberman; preliminary notes from Charles Peterson, 

Lewis Rubenstein, and Robert M. Vogel. Architectural 

Information: Prepared by David Bouse, Charles A. Parrott 

III, and Richard J. Pollak. 

James Gibbon and his wife for the sum of $2,585 

(Watervliet Arsenal, 1968). This land was on the west 

bank of the Hudson River, in the village of Gibbonsville, directly across the river from Troy. In later years 

the name of the arsenal (and the surrounding town) 

was changed to Watervliet (flooding waters) and the 

installation grew and achieved national attention 

under that name. 

Watervliet, since its beginning, had been subject to 

floods from the Hudson. With the construction of the 

Erie Canal (about 1820), the problem was magnified, 

since many of the arsenal buildings were below the 

level of the canal. By the middle of the century, the 

arsenal had degenerated to a disorganized and disoriented installation as a result of the combined effect 

of these natural disasters and the failing leadership of 

Commanding Officer Major John Symington, who 

had been ill since 1854. 

25 
26 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Perhaps the arsenal's most significant years of 

growth began under the leadership of Major Alfred 

Mordecai, commanding officer from July 1857 to 

May 1861. A civil engineer and member of the Ordnance Board, Mordecai had been sent by Army Ordnance to an ailing installation and his substantial 

training and experience proved a great aid in the rehabilitation of the arsenal. 

Within two weeks of his arrival, Mordecai was making recommendations for building plans to the Chief 

of Ordnance. In a letter to Colonel H. K. Craig, 

10 July 1857, he discussed the need for more "suitable 

offices" (1416-M-494-498) .

3

 The existing ones were 

too small and too near the Canal; the spring flood, an 

annual event, had left its watermark at four and onehalf feet that year. He also noted, in the same letter, 

the need for a storehouse: 

At an arsenal like this, where it is often necessary to expedite 

large orders for gun carriages which are not to be kept long 

on hand, what is chiefly required, as a gun carriage store, is 

a large shed in which the work may be conveniently sheltered as soon as it is turned out of the paint shop and 

from which it can be easily removed for shipment. 

The need for a storehouse became the more pressing 

for the arsenal had just begun to manufacture Iron 

Sea Coast Carriages, and Mordecai immediately 

began to work on plans for its construction. He wanted 

"to cover a large space with a shed under one roof 

and one story high (something like a railway depot) 

. . . , a shed about 125 feet wide and 250 feet long." 

Specifying that the warehouse should have room for 

300-350 gun carriages, Mordecai also argued that 

"the floor should be paved with stone and sufficiently 

raised to secure it from floods and the drainage of the 

Canal. . . ." 

Following the common practice of engineers to consult with various builders and contractors, Mordecai 

apparently discussed his building plans with James 

Reed, president of Architectural Iron Works (AIW) in 

New York, during a chance meeting at West Point. 

On 29 October 1857, Mordecai made further overtures to AIW when he sent a sketch of a building to 

Daniel D. Badger, the foundry's superintendent 

(1416-M-599). In his remarks to Badger, Mordecai 

enclosed a sketch of the building he needed and invited AIW to submit a design and estimate. He also 

3

 This notation—Entry 1416; Letter-Book "M" ; pages 

494-498—is used hereafter for citations from the National 

Archives Record Group 156 (see Unpublished Sources of 

Information, p. 37). 

noted that he wanted a fireproof building and was interested in comparing the costs of iron and brick structures. The initial estimate seemed prohibitive, but by 

17 December 1857 Mordecai was able to supply Colonel Craig with a drawing from AIW and his own recommendation regarding the storehouse: 

Thinking that it is desirable to adopt in our Arsenal the 

modern improvements, to make them durable and fireproof, 

by the extensive use of cast and rolled iron in their construction, I have had a drawing made of an iron building 

(1416-M-642). 

The design referred to was submitted by AIW and 

since the $60,000 estimate attached was higher than 

Army appropriations promised to be, Mordecai invited other bids the following spring and summer. He 

suggested that if funds proved insufficient for an adequate storehouse, the Army could construct a simple 

shed. He invited A. H. Vancleve of Trenton [New 

Jersey] Locomotive & Machine Manufacturing Company, to submit a bid for that reduced structure advising that 

In an unfinished state, as a shed consisting of a roof supported by pillars, it would still be very useful . . [and] 

I would have the parts so made and arranged that the 

building could at any time be finished according to the plan. 

. (1416-M-721). 

Interestingly, Mordecai added to his demand for a 

fireproof building, the request that "it also be ornamental. To answer these conditions," he wrote, "I 

have procured plans and estimates of iron buildings" 

(1416-M-838). 

In an effort to "answer these conditions," Mordecai 

procured many plans and estimates. Though most 

came from iron foundries, the Major also considered 

a brick building since it would be cheaper; and he 

received a plan from Harris & Briggs, of Springfield, 

Massachusetts, that furnished more store room at a 

lower cost than the iron proposals (1416-M-780-

781). For his final plans, however, Mordecai returned 

to Architectural Iron Works and on 5 January 1859, 

he announced to Craig: "I enclosed herewith a contract with the Architectural Iron Works Company of 

New York, for building an iron store house at this 

arsenal" (see p. 37 for copy of contract). 

In the person of James Reed, AIW agreed to build 

the storehouse on a site to be selected by the commanding officer. The foundation was to be prepared 

by the Army and the foundry promised to have the 

building finished "on or before the thirty-first day of 

August, 1859." It was also subject to inspection by 
NUMBER 26 27 

FIGURE 9 

WATERVLIET ARSENAL CAST-IROM STOREHOUSE-1859 

TUB BEMABXABLZ EXAMPLE OF EARLY PREFABRICATED CONBTRUCTK1N 

TECHNOLOGY MAY WELL BE THE OVLY BUILDINO IN TUB U.S. ALMOST 

TOTALLY OF CAST IRON. UNLIKE THE NUMEROUS 'CAST-I 

ALL THE PRIHCIML STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS AHI> ALL EXTERIOR suprACLS 

EXCEPT THE ROOF ARE of CAST IRON. ROOF TRUSS TENSION MEMBERS 

ARE WROUGHT. THE BUILDING WAS DESIGNED AND FABRICATED BY 

DANIEL D. BADGER OF ARCHITECTURAL IRON WORKS CO., NEW y&ffNCTTY. 

IT IU6 BEER WELL MAINTAINED ANO LOHTAWES TO SERVE THE ARSENAL 

It ITS Of/SUM CAPAOTY AS A WAREHOUSE.. 

THE STOREHOUSE IS A WAIF EXAMPLE OF THE TRANSFERENCE OF 

CLASSICAL GRESN AND ROMAN ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL FROM BTOHE TO 

CAST IRON, ROT ONLY THE WALL RtHELS, BUT MOST OF TNE 

STRUCTURAL WORN BEING NISHLY EMBELLISHED. 

POSSIBLY UNIQUE ARE THE DUPLEX COLUMNS OONSISTING OK SNORT. 

LIGHT SECTIONS CARRYING TNE GALLERY BEAMS AND LONGCR.NEAUCP 

SECTIONS SUPPORTING THE CENTER AND SIDE AISLE ROOF 

TRUSSES, BOTH SECTIONS MINED BY INTEGRAL INEB3INS. 

Voxt 

AJODTH ELEVATION" 

MOHAWK-HUDSON AREA SURVEY WATERVLIET ARSENAL CAST-IRON STOREHOUSE 

BUUDINO SS.WESTERVELJ AVE, WATERVLIET, ALBANY COUNTY, NEW YORK 

FIGURE 10 
28 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

AU BtMLVMS OAMHTS CAST OR NAOUGHT 

• T. omo BOtX 19*9 

MOHAWK-HUOSON AREA SURVEY WATERVLIET ARSENAL CAST-IRON STOREHOUSE 

BUtUXNO je.WESTERVELT AVE, WATERVLIET, ALBANY COUNTY, NEW YORK 

FIGURE 11 

FIGURE 12 

MOHAWK-HUDSON AREA SURVEY HAE R "I?! 0

"

1 0

 AMERICAN ~Z?J=-

ENOINEERINO RECORD 
NUMBER 26 29 

FIGURE 13 

MOHAWK-HUDSON AREA SURVEY WATERVLIET ARSENAL CAST-IRON STOREHOUSE HAER 

BUILDING 58,WESTERVELT AVE, WATERVLIET, ALBANY COUNTY, NEW YORK NY-1 MnE. 7 

<L<mr l.K PI OMNHCriOH WIT* CHUUAS t FITCHO*. t 

UJUItJH1IUUIU W tMWIl 

MOHAWK-HUDSON AREA SURVEY WATERVLIET ARSENAL CAST-IRON STOREHOUSE "-' " E-.INKR.NO 

BUILDING 36. WESTERVELT AVE. WATERVLIET. ALBANY COUNTY, NEW YORK NY- I ng 7 » 7 

FIGURE 14 
30 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

the commanding officer. Because of the expense incurred for materials and casting before construction 

could begin, the United States was to pay almost onehalf of the fee before AIW'S builders ever arrived at the 

site. 

Army Ordnance agreed to pay AIW a total sum of 

$47,360, in several installments. The first $10,000 was 

due when half of the building parts were completed 

at the foundry in New York. Upon full completion of 

iron work at the foundry another $10,000 was due; 

and the third on its delivery to the Watervliet Arsenal. 

The remainder was promised upon full erection and 

satisfactory inspection of the storehouse. "The stipulations with regard to the mode of payment," Mordecai 

admitted, were "unusual." But he added: 

They appear to me proper, inasmuch as the company must 

incur a very considerable expense before the opening of 

navigation [around May 1] permits them to deliver the 

work at the arsenal, and there is a great gain in the cost 

of the work as well as in time, by letting it be done during 

the winter (1416-N-1-2). 

Mordecai considered the contractual agreements 

equitable under the circumstances; but to spare the 

Army any embarrassment he demanded a $20,000 

bond from Reed before they were binding. 

By 17 March 1859, half of the work at the foundry 

was completed (1416-N-18-19), and in early May 

Mordecai notified Reed that the foundation would be 

ready and dry well before June 1. As the building 

progressed, Mordecai invited other Ordnance officers 

to inspect the work and on 16 June 1859, the Inspector of Armories and Arsenals, Lt. Colonel James W. 

Ripley, recorded his approval of it. 

The position, plan and general appearance of this structure 

meets my approval and it will be at once an ornament to 

the grounds as well as a valuable addition to the storage 

room of the Arsenal (1003: to Craig). 

Ripley's comments on the storehouse reveal a 

satisfaction that was not initially felt by either himself or Mordecai. In the planning and construction 

of the building, the two men encountered several 

problems and even clashed over their proposed solutions. When Mordecai first wrote to Craig 10 July 

1857 concerning the need for "a shed about 125 

feet wide and 250 feet long" (1416-M-494-498), he 

also specified the exact site on which he wanted to 

place the structure. Close to the canal, so as to facilitate shipping, and convenient to the machine shops, 

where the iron carriages were built, the location was 

on the southeast corner of the arsenal grounds and 

was already occupied by the arsenal laboratory. While 

he admitted that the removal of the laboratory might 

raise "objections," Mordecai nevertheless recommended it because the buliding was "unfortunately 

placed." Its floor was a good deal below the level of 

the canal, resulting in flooding and water damage. 

Mordecai had no hesitation in replacing a brick 

building with cracked walls and decayed floors with 

the storehouse, especially since he proposed to raise 

the foundation level and thereby avoid flooding. He 

requested, however, "the benefit of consultation . . . 

with some other officer of experience," and Ripley 

arrived shortly thereafter to survey the situation. 

Ripley agreed with Mordecai that the arsenal 

was badly in need of a warehouse, but he had different 

views in the matters of size and location (1003). 

He preferred "a much larger building . . . say 500 

feet long by 200 feet wide" in an area west of the 

canal, then occupied by a group of timber sheds; 

and he specified a fireproof structure. Ripley rejected 

Mordecai's site because it was on low and damp 

ground. His own choice, however, posed more of a 

problem since the carriages to be stored would have 

to be transported across the canal (the machine 

shops being south of the laboratory) and then up to 

the level of the timber sheds (to be replaced by the 

storehouse). The debate over size ultimately was 

settled by Colonel Craig who preferred the small 

structure. 

The introduction of Iron Sea Coast Carriages will greatly 

diminish the space required for their storage, whilst they 

remain on hand, and their indestructibility will enable us to 

send them to the Forts nearly as fast as made; thus reducing 

the necessity of large Stores of these carriages at the 

Arsenals (6-vol. 18-236-267). 

In addition to the choice of size, Craig also sided 

with Mordecai in regard to location, voicing the 

opinion that "the movement of heavy carriages to 

and from high ground would be attended with inconvenience and expense." 

With the decision to build a relatively small storehouse on the east bank of the canal, in close proximity 

to the machine shops, Mordecai once more faced a 

problem. He now admitted himself reluctant to tear 

down the laboratory and instead suggested a site 

north of the paint shops (1416-N-89-92). Ripley 

again disapproved "on account of its low and damp 

situation" and Mordecai admitted that Ripley's objections carried "a good deal of force." The final solution came from an earlier decision of Ripley which 

was entirely incidental to the plans of the storehouse. 
NUMBER 26 31 

S/T£ FLAM 

SCALE IN FEET 

i.w» T . CHARLES FHRROTT HI • ITTZ APAFTtP FROM CORFS OF ENQ1MEERS. US ARAfT, tUATERrZ/ET ARSENAL DRAHI1M3 NO AS-02-GV, JUNE, 1972 

MOHAWK-HUDSON AREA SURVEY WATERVLIET ARSENAL CAST-IRON STOREHOUSE 

BUILDING 38 , WESTERVELT AVE., WATERVLIET, ALBANY COUNTY, NEW YORK 

HISTORIC AMERICAN 

ENGINEERING RECORD 

SMDT Z " 8 SHOTS 

FIGURE 15.—Site plan of Watervliet Arsenal, 1972. 

"On the ground adjoining the front of the Arsenal 

on the south side and facing on the Canal there [was] 

a lumber yard, on too close proximity to [the] workshops" (ibid.). Ripley proposed to buy the property 

in the interests of future expansion and permanent 

improvement. The land was purchased on 7 April 

1859 from Albert G. and Harriet D. Sage at a cost 

of $5,300 and it was here that Mordecai finally 

decided to locate the storehouse. Little more than 

20 feet away from the machine shops, the ground 

was easily raised to the level of the canal bank, "above 

the reach of inundation from the river" (ibid.). 

Although the question of size and location caused 

disagreement between the Ordnance inspector and 

the commanding officer, both men agreed on the 

need for a fireproof building and both voiced the 

hope that it would also be ornamental. The choice 

of a cast iron structure satisfied both these stipulations. Cast iron is made by directly remelting the pig 

iron that comes from the blast furnace and thus 

is high in carbon and impurities (Condit, 1960: 

280-281). Comparatively inexpensive, it is easy to 

pour into any mold that can be made from founder's 

sand. It is also "fairly hard and resistant to abrasion 

and relatively high in compressive strength." Because 

it is stronger and proportionally lighter that masonry, 

cast iron is easier to work with than brick. It is also 

cheaper to erect because the elements can be factory-
32 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

produced, which reduces the need for skilled craftsmen on the job. While it will not withstand much 

tensile stress (the presence of carbon graphite flakes 

makes it brittle), it can be reinforced by wrought 

iron which has a much greater tensile strength. 

Moreover, although it will warp and buckle at high 

temperatures, it will continue to support its load 

thus making it a perfect choice of material for a 

warehouse whose contents are more valuable than 

its own walls. 

At any rate, the choice proved satisfactory in the 

case of the Watervliet Arsenal storehouse. By 22 July 

1859, a little more than two months after on-the-site 

construction had begun, Major Mordecai instructed 

the E. & D. Bigelow Company to "commence forwarding [flagging] stone for the iron building" (1416— 

N-76), suggesting that the iron workers' job was 

completed by that date. Finally, on 10 November 

1859, Mordecai announced "the flagging was finished 

yesterday" (1416-N-126). 

The completed storehouse satisfied all the specifications outlined by Mordecai, and seconded by Colonel 

Ripley. A long, one-story structure, it was slightly to 

the south of the workshops where the Iron Sea Coast 

Carriages were painted. On the east bank of the canal, 

it was also downhill from the shops so as to facilitate 

the transporting of the heavy carriages. Relatively 

safe from fires, the structure was also secure from 

flood waters as Mordecai had raised the level of the 

floor above that of the canal. 

Architectural Iron Works was able to meet its 

contractual obligations in a matter of six months. 

Working at the foundry during the inclement winter 

months, the designers and the molders produced the 

parts of the structure for later assembly at the arsenal 

site. The use of brick would have delayed the process 

by almost as many months, since all work for a 

brick structure would have had to be executed on 

the site. In addition to meeting the Major's demands 

for a fireproof and decorative structure, therefore, 

the design in cast iron proved more efficient, in terms 

of time saved. 

"Mordecai was generally satisfied with the building, 

as indicated by a letter of 22 February 1860 answering an inquiry from James Reed regarding the warehouse. He wrote: "I have to say that the building 

which you put up last summer at this Arsenal has, 

so far, stood very well" (1416-N-158). The Major 

registered, in the same letter, a mild complaint that 

the ventilators had allowed some rain and snow leakage, but for 54 years, the building withstood heavy 

regional rains. In March 1913, the Hudson River, 

"exceeding all previous flood records," left a water 

mark of ten inches on the first floor level of the 

structure (R.G. 156-Gen. Corres.). No major damage 

was incurred and the building still functions as it was 

intended. Due to the arsenal's expansion, however, 

the cast-iron storehouse is no longer convenient to 

the manufacturing facilities, and it is now used for 

dead storage. In addition, some 6,000 square feet of 

the building have been converted to use as an 

ordnance museum. 

Biographical Information 

"During the first half of the nineteenth century the 

United States procured its engineers from three main 

sources" (Rae, 1967:331-332, passim). The first was 

Europe, site of the first notable technological experiments. The second source was the United States 

Military Academy, at West Point. Founded in 1802 

as a training ground for the Army Corps of Engineers, 

the institution became a full-fledged military academy 

after the War of 1812; and, at the same time, its 

engineering curriculum became strongly influenced 

by the Ecole Poly technique (from which it recruited 

some of its early professors). Because of its superior 

engineering department, the academy attracted many 

young men who would not otherwise have chosen the 

military as a career. The Corps of Engineers became 

the elite corps of the Army and the one usually chosen 

byYop-ranking graduates. Though many engineers 

left shortly after fufilling their required years of 

service, as many graduates remained in the military 

and some of the most distinguished civil engineers 

of the nineteenth century were Army officers. 

The third and largest source of nineteenth century 

engineers was those self-educated men who received 

their training on the job. The men who built the 

Erie Canal, for example, Canvass White, James 

Geddes, and Benjamin Wright, were local landowners 

with some training and experience in surveying. Their 

knowledge of the building craft and their awareness 

of specific needs to be met combined to provide 

many remarkably innovative structures. 

The iron storehouse at Watervliet Arsenal reflects 

in many ways the representative skills of America's 

nineteenth century engineers. An expression of the 

vernacular in the building arts of the nineteenth cen-
NUMBER 26 33 

PL/IH etEVFUfr/oiv 

or 

/ftON STOREHOUSE 

FIGURE 16.—Later copy of an early design drawing of the Storehouse, differing from the final 

scheme in the roof trussing, lack of siamese [duplex] columns, and in the arrangement and 

spacing of window and door openings. (Courtesy of the Post Engineer, Watervliet Arsenal.) 

FIGURE 17.—Engraving of the Storehouse from Badger's catalog of 1865, representing the 

building as constructed. 
34 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

"" 

^ ....U (H i MMJ J J.j,i,lJ4J,UJJJXU-J yi 

Section nl' Cornice mill Aid. 

ARCHITECTURAL IRON WORKS . NEW YORK. 

FIGURE 18.—Details of the Storehouse from the Badger catalog. 

tury, the warehouse was the product of both the 

client, Major Alfred Mordecai, and the builder, 

Daniel D. Badger and Architectural Iron Works. 

A client with unusual qualifications, Mordecai 

(1804-1887) was a graduate of West Point, class of 

1823 (DAB; Watervliet Arsenal, 1968:32-37, passim). 

Appointed to the Academy from his native state of 

North Carolina, he graduated first in his class and 

was commissioned second lieutenant, Corps of Engineers, 1 July 1823. A brilliant student, Mordecai 

became a brilliant ordnance officer, being appointed 

captain in that department in 1832. In 1855 he was 

one of three officers sent to study military developments in Europe, especially in the Crimea. Unable 

to visit the Crimea, the Major nonetheless traveled 

throughout the rest of Europe and returned to the 

States with a detailed knowledge of engineering, as 

well as military, developments. 

Appointed commanding officer at Watervliet 

Arsenal 23 June 1857, Mordecai found the arsenal 

in a state of substantial decay. Less than two weeks 

after his arrival, he recommended changes in the 

building plans to the Ordnance Department. Among 

these changes was the request for an iron storehouse. 

His familiarity with the uses and properties of iron 

was based on his engineering background reinforced 

by his observation of the iron structures, especially 

railway depots, he had seen on his European tour. 

It served him well in this case and he was able to 

specify a building suited to his particular needs. 

Less than two years after completion of the castiron warehouse, civil war broke out. Though Mordecai 

continued to direct the arsenal—so well that it was 

better prepared for war than it had ever been—his 

Southern birth incited much animosity and hostility 

"from various sources" within the Army. On 2 May 

1861, he found it necessary to resign from the Army 

and shortly thereafter he left the country for Mexico. 

There he remained until after the war, directing the 

construction of a railroad running from the Gulf of 
NUMBER 26 35 

ARCHITECTURAL IRON WORKS, 

Tlii ell known Corporation has lieon in existence about twenty years, 

mid is tli- su.c.-s-..r of I lie linn of Daniel D Badger & Co., who hud limn lor a 

lierirnl ,i|"\i.|irn cic.-:c;cil in the Iron business, ami had )n.i<lc a ejit-cislly of Iron 

Work fur'ljuil.liiiL'K. Mr Badger, tl,.. President of this Company, ie regarded ns 

the pioneerul* Iron Architecture in America. This Ciini|ianv may thorcf. wclaim 

to UJ the oldest establishment of its kind in our country, mid to have had the 

largest experience. 

Tl.r vvirks. of the Company are BilttaU.il in'the City of New York (ID 14tli 

Street ruiir tin: East River, occupying abnnt fifty lots of 100 by 25 feet IOCII 

covered with their buildings. The men of those lotsantl thclloorsof the buildings 

.•seed four norcs Tin- *li»p« lire filled with all kinds of machinery required 

for the work to lie done, and have every improvement and facility for making 

Iron Work for all kinds of buildings, as well ag for many other |.ui poses. 

Tie- various departments aro conducted by skilled and experienced workmen 

und the C'.>m|«uiy is thus enabled to 'Krfnrm the several branches of work for nil 

iron structures li-ou the inception, design- I 

ing, drafting, |inttcraing, casting; fitting I 

and setting, to the liiiul completion for oc- 1 

cupancy. 

It has the ca|iocity to employ more than 

it thousand men, and to produce thousands j 

i.fti.nsof iron work annually. H will he j 

seen that, for the Slieiressfltl conduct of a 

business of this magnitude, a large capital, ) 

extended facilities und a large experience 

aro needed, and that then-lore this estob- j 

rudiment possesses ninny advantages which I 

commend it. to the notice of nil owners, 

capitalists and corporations, designing to 

erect iron buildings of any description. 

Iron architecture encounteretj al tin- j 

tine- of its introduction the bitterest opposition from builders, insurance companies, firo departments and the public 

generally ; hut it has been persisted in by 

its originators and tested by use, until at 

length all objections to it hnv.- been removed, and it is now conceded, that iron is 

entitled to bo regarded ns oue ul the most 

useful and enduring of known building 

materials. 

A liri.-t enumeration of the advantages 

of tbe use of iron will confirm this assertion. 

It possesses the greatest possible strength 

in proportion to its weight and bulk. 

Hence, it allows of grace and lightness of 

attraction, the greatest possible amount 

of beautiful omanioutatiou; it will be 

obvious tltnt the cost of elaborate designs 

iu stone or any other durable material ex- IRO N WOR K 

, it may lie stated that iroi 

iminediHt" wile When iroi 

its proline apj«Mraiice by i 

VIEW OF ARCHITECTURAL IRON WORKS, 

New York. 

GRAND CENTRAL DEPOT, NEW YORK. 

CONSTRUCTED BY ARCHITECTURAL IRON WORKS 

ocillod l.v the chisel, will exceed that of castings of iron, and heme that iron i. 

chooper forvvnrk ofau ornamental character. It may be added Hint imn admits 

of more delicate tracery and sharper outlines than any other material. 

Iron is of course incombustible, and, though it may lie affected by intense 

heat, it is far more nearly firo proof than stone, granite, marble and other building materials. 

One or the great advantages arising from the use of iron is that it admits of unusual rapidity of construct ion and erection. 

The sanitary advantages of the use of iron deserve also lo be considered. 

Occupying but small space in piers and columns, it freely admits the air and 

light which arelwth essential to health. 

As a final argument in favor of its u 

always has a value, and the old material finds i 

work becunes defaced, it can be easily restored 

fresh coat of paint. 

Iron has of late Tears been used to advantage ond with general approval 

for many purposes, .iraon;: which may be enumerated the following: stop- front., 

hotels, dc|K)ts, grain warehouses, public buildings, r-.f-, don,.-, verandas, 

linlustrados, stairways, columns, cupitob, arches, wind.* lintels and sills, sas he-, 

doors, brackets, guards, lamp posts, railings, cresting*, lmiik counters, rolling 

shutters, Venetian blinds, patent lights, 

sidewalks, bridges, light houses, churches, 

ferrv houses, arsenals, otc., etc 

This company hasduringthe lost twenty 

years erected n groat Dumber of iron buildings in all the principal cities and towns 

throughout our country, of a gp-.it variety 

of styles, designed by the best architects. 

Among these may bo mentioned the 

Grand Central Depot, an illustration ol 

which will lie seen on this page, Manhattan 

Market, Hi*' feet long, 200 feet wide, 1WJ 

feet high; Hudson River Railroad Depot. 

St. John's Pork ; Kemp Building, Singer'-

Rowing Machine Company Building. Gilsey House, .Seamen's Bank for Savings, 

Atlantic Savings Bank, etc., in the City 

ofNcw York, Post Office ami Rub-Tieaaury, Boston Post Building, Sturea f-<i 

Hunncwell estate, Messrs. Filch, Snow. 

Whit.-, Rich, Gray, Hnv.ley, Fi.ls.lDJ & 

Martin and others in Boston. Congressional Library.Conservatory,etc.,in Washington. Buildings in Ch'ieugo. I'hiladel 

phiu, Troy, Rochester, Kpringfield. KenHaven, New Orleans, and indeed in almosi 

every section of our country, and even in 

distant lands. 

Their facilities for furnishing the iron 

work for building purposes, of a superioi 

Quality olid finish, are unsurpassed in this 

country, as their long experience in architect work has lst-n usi-d to the very besi 

advautjige, in bringing forward improve 

menus of gn.-at importance and architectural 

beauty. F<>r particulars address tbe company us above 

FIGURE 19.—Badger's greatest undertaking probably was the ironwork for Vanderbilt's original 

Grand Central Depot, 1869-1871, memorialized in the New Columbian Railroad Atlas and 

Pictorial Album of American Industry [opposite plate 75]. 

Mexico to the Pacific Ocean. Returning to the United 

States in 1867, he worked for twenty years for coal 

and canal companies controlled by the Pennsylvania 

Railroad. He died in Philadelphia in 1887. 

If Mordecai's excellent credentials were a result 

of his West Point training, the varied experience and 

practice of Daniel D. Badger, founder of Architectural Iron Works, point to another representative 

example of the nineteenth-century engineer (Condit, 

1960, passim; Sturges, 1970: vii-ix, passim). Born in 

Portsmouth, New Hampshire, in 1806, Badger began 

his career as a contractor in Boston in 1829. There 

he engaged in on-the-job training and advanced his 

building skills. In 1842, he constructed a store building on Washington Street with iron columns and 

lintels on the first story. Badger did not identify the 

building, however, and nothing more is known about 

it. A year later he bought the patent of Arthur L. 

Johnson of Baltimore for a rolling iron shutter for 

use with his iron fronts. The shutter afforded protection to the wide show windows which the new structural material made possible. With success, Badger 

found Boston too small a market and he moved to 

New York in 1846. There he built his foundry, 

Architectural Iron Works, on Duane Street between 

13 th and 14th Streets. 

Badger advertised his product widely and business 

flourished from 1850 to 1870. Responding to the 

concept of mass production, which was gaining increasing importance in many industrial areas, he 

employed a standard structural system that adapted 

nicely to urban building requirements. He repeated 

this system with no essential change from one structure to another—consciously imitating the more costly 
fleHe^HBBHLi 

FIGURE 20.—The appearance of the Storehouse has remained practically unchanged during 

its lifetime: south and east faces, May 1875 (top); east face, August 1972 (bottom). (Top: 

Courtesy of the Public Information Office, Watervliet Arsenal; bottom: Boucher.) 

stone architecture of the period. "With his team of 

anonymous architectural designers, modelers [pattern 

makers] and molders [Badger] sought to reproduce 

. . . in iron whatever could be produced in stone" 

(Sturges, 1970: viii). 

The iron foundry nevertheless produced its own 

impressive style of urban architecture; and the structural uniformity of most of Badger's commercial 

buildings makes a general description possible 

(Condit, 1960:31). Most of them were from two to 

six stories high, the stories ranging in height from 

nine to fourteen feet; spandrel depth was usually two 

feet. Column spacing in the facade was usually six 

feet; and the hollow columns were seldom less than 

twelve inches in diameter. Interior framing generally 

consisted of iron columns and timber floor beams. 

Illustrations of Iron Architecture (in Sturges, 1970) 

is the 1865 catalog of Badger's Architectural Iron 

Works. In its preparation Badger made many mistakes: inaccuracies in dates, dimensions, and structural detail abound. He did not err in the choice of 

his lithographers (Sarony, Major & Knapp, New 

York), however, and the Illustrations are themselves 

a work of art. Nonetheless, Badger's impressive heritage does not lie exclusively on the pages of his 

catalog. Pie was a pioneer in the use of prefabricated 

construction—of which the Watervliet iron storehouse is an excellent example—and his exploitation 

of iron technology anticipated, in a crude fashion, 

the steel frame of the twentieth century skyscraper. 

One of many self-trained engineers of that period, 

Badger's contributions are not unique. They are 

significant, however, for the technological developments which they represent and for the building skills 

which they summarize. 

Though Badger named his foundry Architectural 

Iron Works, the basic sameness in structure and 

obvious derivation of style do not denote any architectural ingenuity. His use of iron, on the other hand, 

in both facades and framing, reveals an innovative 

and daring engineering mind; and his buildings 

enrich engineering history. 
NUMBER 26 37 

Addendum 

NATIONAL ARCHIVES, RECORD GROUP 156. 

RECORDS OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT, 

ORDNANCE CONTRACT, REED, J. M. 

Iron Store House, Watervliet Arsenal, 1859, MS 

J. M. Reed 

President of Architectural Iron Works of New York 

Contract for an Iron Store House at Watervliet Arsenal 

Articles of Agreement between Major Alfred Mordecai, 

of the Ordnance Department Commanding Watervliet 

Arsenal, on behalf of the United States, and Mr. J. M. Reed, 

on behalf of the Architectural Iron Works in New York for 

building an Iron Store House at Watervliet Arsenal: 

1. The Architectural Iron Works agree to build at 

Watervliet Arsenal an Iron Store House, conformably to 

the drawings and specifications signed this day by the contracting parties above mentioned, and deposited with the 

Commanding Officer of Watervliet Arsenal. 

2. The Site for the Said building is to be selected by the 

Commanding Officer of the Arsenal, and the foundations 

for the building are to be prepared by the United States. 

The Work on the foundation is to be commenced as early 

in the Spring of the present year as the Season will permit, 

and to be continued with due diligence, so as not to delay 

unreasonably the erection of the superstructure, after the 

materials for the latter shall have been delivered at the 

Arsenal. 

3. The building is to be completed on or before the 

thirty first day of August 1859. 

4. The work on the building is to be subject to inspection, in all its Stages, by the Commanding Officer of 

Watervliet Arsenal for the time being, and by Such persons 

as he may appoint for that purpose; and it is to be executed, as regards both Materials & Workmanship, in a 

Manner satisfactory to the said Commanding Officer, or 

the inspector appointed by him, having regard to the 

drawings and Specifications above referred to. 

5. The United States agree to pay to the Architectural 

Iron Works, for the said building completed according to 

the foregoing stipulations the sum of forty seven thousand 

three hundred and sixty dollars, which is to be paid 

in installments as follows: that is to say: First: The Sum 

of ten thousand dollars is to be paid on the completion 

of one half of the iron work of the building at the Company's works in the City of New York. Second: The further 

sum of ten thousand dollars is to be paid on the completion 

and reception of the whole of the iron work at the said 

works in New York. Third: The further sum of ten thousand dollars is to be paid on the delivery of the whole 

of the iron of the building, at Watervliet Arsenal. Fourth: 

The remainder of the Stipulated price of the work is to be 

paid on the completion of the building and its acceptance 

by the Commanding Officer of the Arsenal as aforesaid. 

6. The valuation of the work on which the first installment of ten thousand dollars is to be paid shall be made by 

the Commanding Officer of Watervliet Arsenal, or by an 

inspector appointed by him for that purpose. 

7. If the money appropriated by Congress and applicable 

to the construction of the building should not be sufficient 

for making the final payment of the work on the completion 

of the building, the party of the Second part shall not be 

entitled to receive or claim from the United States any 

interest on the amount of which payment may be deferred 

until funds are provided for the purpose. 

8. No Member of Congress shall be admitted to any 

share in this Contract or receive any benefit to be derived 

therefrom. 

9. This Contract shall not be considered in force until 

the party of the Second part shall have made a Bond to 

the United States, with good Security, in the Sum of twenty 

thousand dollars, for the faithful completion of the work; 

nor until this contract and the said bond shall have been 

approved by the Secretary of War. 

Done at Watervliet Arsenal the fifth day of January 1859. 

Watervliet Arsenal 

January 5t h 1859 

(Signed) Architectural Iron Works 

By J. M. Reed, Presdt. 

(Signed) A. Mordecai 

Major of Ordn. 

[Bond Follows] 

Sources of Information 

UNPUBLISHED 

Araklian, R. J., LTC, CE. "Analysis of Existing Facilities." 

Paper submitted by the Executive Secretary, Installation 

Planning Board, Watervliet Arsenal, Watervliet, New 

York, June 1969. [Multilithed from typed copy.] 

National Archives Record Group 156: Records of the Office 

of the Chief of Ordnance. Entry 3, Miscellaneous Letters, 

Endorsements, and Circulars, volumes 50, 51. 

. Entry 5, Letters (Sent) to the War Department, 

volume 12. 

. Entry 6, Letters, Telegrams, and Endorsements 

Sent to Ordnance Officers and Military Storekeepers, 

volumes 18, 19. 

. Entry 20, Register of Letters Received (1857-

1861). 

. Entry 21, Letters Received 1858, volume 28, 

7 April (295M); 1858, volume 28, November 3 (385M). 

[Original letters from Major Alfred Mordecai to the 

Chief of Ordnance, as indicated in Register, Entry 20.] 

. Entry 176, Military Service Histories of Ordnance Officers, pages 42, 44. 

Entry 1003, Special File 1812-1912, Reports 

of Inspections of Arsenals and Depots. (Inspection reports of 9 August 1858, 11 June 1859, and 5 June 1860). 

. Entry 1020, Register of Drawings. 

. Entry 1416, Watervliet Arsenal Letters (Sent) 

Book "M" and Letters (Sent) Book "N." 

. [No entry number] General Correspondence 

1894-1913. New Series 1894. Letters 30025D/441 and 

30025D/227. 
38 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

PUBLISHE D 

Condit, Carl W. American Building Art: The Nineteenth 

Century. New York: Oxford University Press, 1960. 

. "Buildings and Construction." Pages 367-392 

in volume 1 of Technology in Western Civilization. 

Edited by Melvin Kranzberg and Carroll W. Pursell, Jr. 

New York: Oxford University Press, 1967. 

Dictionary of American Biography [DAB]. New York: Charles 

Scribner's Sons, 1935. 

Fogerty, William, FRIBA, "Conditions and Prospects of Architecture in the U.S." Van Nostrand's Engineering Magazine, volume 14 (January 1876), page 70. 

New Columbian Railroad Atlas and Pictorial Album of 

American Industry. New York: Asher and Adams, 1875. 

Rae, John B. "The Invention of Inventions." Pages 331 — 

332, in volume 1 of Technology in Western Civilization. 

Edited by Melvin Kranzberg and Carroll W. Pursell, Jr. 

New York: Oxford University Press, 1967. 

Sturges, W. Knight. "Cast Iron in New York." Architectural Review, volume 114 (October 1953): 233-237. 

—, editor. The Origins of Cast Iron Architecture 

in America (including "Illustrations of Cast Iron Architecture Made by the Architectural Iron Works of the 

City of New York," Daniel D. Badger, President (1865), 

"Cast Iron Buildings: Their Construction and Advantages," James Bogardus (1856)). New York: DaCapo 

Press, 1970. 

Watervliet Arsenal. A History of Watervliet Arsenal 1813-

1968. Watervliet, New York, 1968. 

U.S. Congress. "Report of the Secretary of War" (John B. 

Floyd, December, 1859), Senate Executive Document, 

volume 3, no. 2, serial set 1025, 36th Congress, 1st session, 1859-1860. 

. "Report of Major Alfred Mordecai of the 

Ordnance Department." Senate Executive Document, 

volume 15, no. 60, serial set 1037, 36th Congress, 1st 

session, 1860. 

ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION 

General Statement 

Architectural Character: A building detailed in 

Renaissance Revival style, proportioned for stone, but 

prefabricated almost entirely of cast- and wroughtiron components in New York City by the Architectural Iron Works. The parts were then shipped up 

the Hudson River and assembled by that company 

on site. 

Summary Description: A rectangular warehouse 

100'—0" x 196'—0" containing 16 transverse bays and 

three longitudinal aisles. In addition to a ground 

floor, the outer aisles each contain a gallery in the 

14 inner bays. The structure, as built, is nearly identical to the one in Badgers catalog, Illustrations of 

Iron Architecture made by the Architectural Iron 

Works of the City of New York, 1865, Plates 12, 13. 

Condition of Fabric: Good to excellent. 

Structural Description 

Foundation: Cut limestone sill over random rubble 

footings on perimeter. Interior columns have ashlar 

bases dressed similarly to the sill. 

Wall Construction: Cast-iron panels connected by 

flathead, countersunk machine screws through flanged 

and lipped surfaces, only the countersunk heads 

appearing on the exterior. The paired cast-iron 

pilasters, J/2-inch thick, are part of load-bearing 

channels that provide stiffening for the walls and 

support one end of the gallery roof trusses on the 

side walls. Corner pilasters are built up box columns. 

The fenestrated panels and the rusticated detail 

between the pilasters, both generally %6-inch thick, 

are nonloadbearing. The walls on end and side 

elevations are topped, respectively, by horizontal plates 

forming an asymmetrical '"H" section and by a 

shallow horizontal channel, providing additional 

longitudinal stability and supporting the gallery-truss 

ends. 

The end-wall gables are sheathed with corrugated 

iron framed with various structural sections above 

the top plates of the end walls. The end walls subsequently were stiffened by the addition of weldedsteel frames each composed of two struts spanning 

between each end column and the wall plate, at 

cornice level. 

Structural System: The fourteen 12-foot interior 

bays and two 14-foot exterior bays are delineated by 

transverse cast- and wrought-iron Fink trusses over 

the center aisle and modified Fink trusses and composite beams over the side (gallery) aisles. The 

center-aisle trusses span about 50 feet, the side-aisle 

trusses and beams about 25 feet. Both trusses are 

about 8 feet deep, maximum. Both center and 

side-aisle trusses share the same colinear top chord. 

All truss members and purlins are wrought iron 
NUMBER 26 39 

FIGURE 21.—Storehouse: a, North elevation; b, west elevation; c, detail of west elevation 

from the northwest; d, east elevation from the northeast. 

except for the cast-iron cruciform compression struts. 

Turnbuckles allow the tensile stress on the 1-inchdiameter rod of the lower chord to be adjusted. All 

truss connections are bolted. 

Longitudinal stability, in addition to that provided 

by purlins, perimeter plates, and walls, is provided 

by shallow channel plates, which unite the trusses 

atop the two rows of interior columns. These plates 

also provide seats for the center-truss end connections. 

The columns that jointly support the center and 

side-aisle trusses are 28'-634" high and taper from 

10 inches to 6/2 inches in diameter. The 16 wood 

gallery joists, 3}4" x 11" at 19 inches on center, are 

supported by the shorter section of the unique, 

integrally webbed, duplex (or Siamese) columns on 

the inside and single columns at the exterior wall. 

These columns are both 5 inches in diameter. 

The composite gallery beams are principally cast 

iron, containing 22 circular openings in the web. 

A 2/2 inch wrought-iron rod, integral with the 

bottom flange of each beam, provides the tensile 

strength. These beams are ±2 7 inches deep at 

midspan. They are nearly identical to the "tension 

rod girder no. 273" in Illustrations of Iron Architecture, plate 63. 

The Siamese columns and composite beam between 

the fifth and sixth bays from the north on the east 

have been replaced by a steel beam and two steel 

columns. 

Architectural Description 

Floor Plans: The ground-floor plan is virtually a 

single area. The lOO'-O" transverse dimension is 

divided into two 25-foot side aisles and a 50-foot 
40 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 22.—Storehouse: a, Inside of original cast-iron rolling door; b, outside of original 

door (now secured), south face; c, window detail, south face; d, personnel door, south face; 

e, vehicular door, south face; f, circular window, south gable end; g, detail of cast-in 

builder's plate. 

center aisle, and the 196'—0" longitudinal dimension 

into sixteen bays (14 12'-0" inner bays and 2 14'—0" 

outer bays), by two rows of Siamese columns. The 

side aisles each contain a gallery floor the length of 

the inner 14 bays. As evidenced by the gallery floorjoist brackets on the interior of the end walls, the 

galleries originally were the full 16 bays in length. 

It may partially have been the removal of these 

end-bay gallery sections that necessitated the subsequent stiffening of the end walls with steel braces. 

Stairways: Cast-iron stairways, one in each corner, 

lead to the gallery level. In a single run they turn 

90 degrees in the lower five steps. The risers are 

perforated with circular openings while the treads 
NUMBER 26 41 

FIGURE 23.—Storehouse: a, General interior view from the west 

gallery, looking north; b, general interior view of north end and 

east side from the west gallery; c, detail of southeast stairway; d, 

detail of southeast stairway. 

contain a grid pattern of quatrefoil and circular 

openings. 

Openings: Doors: The gabled, end elevations are 

divided into eight bays. Nos. 1 and 8 contain windowless cast-iron personnel double doors with coffered surface ornament. These doors are not now operative. 

Bays 3 and 6 contain wider doorways. Originally 

each had a rolling, iron vehicular door, 8 feet wide, 

two of which still remain, although inoperative, in 

the respective westerly bays (for a description of their 

operation see "Mechanical Equipment"). The easterly 

rolling doors have been replaced by double, wood, 

half-glazed doors with glazed transoms. This door 

is at grade level on the south elevation and up three 

steps on the north. 

Windows: The openings on the side elevations are 

randomly either glazed or closed with fixed iron 
42 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

plates. From the left, the openings in bays 1, 2, 3, 4, 

5, 6, 9, and 11, west elevation; and bays 5, 7, 9, 10, 

11, 13, 14, and 15, east elevation, are glazed, with 

iron frames and muntins. Each of the remainder is 

covered with five cast-iron plates, serrated to appear 

as closed louvers. Originally, the eight windows and 

eight panels on each side alternated. Windows 1, 2, 

and 3 of the west elevation are presently boarded. 

A few windows on the west elevation have been 

modified to double hung sash. The end elevations 

contain windows in bays 2, 4, 5, and 7. The fixed, 

semicircular-arched, single sashes each contain 30 

lights below the semicircular portion. In the semicircular portion the vertical muntins are continued 

in a circumferential pattern to contain an additional 

six lights delineated by radial muntins. In each endwall gable is a 7-foot-diameter round window containing circumferential and radial muntins delineating 

41 lights. The round windows originally pivoted on 

horizontal axes for ventilation, but the operating 

hardware has been removed. 

Roof: Shape, Covering: Gable roof with a slope of 

1:3, corrugated asbestos replaces the original covering. 

Eave, Entablature: On the side elevations the 

entablature and coffered eave soffit is comprised of 

single castings supported by iron brackets bolted to 

the vertical load-bearing channels of the exterior wall 

and spaced 6 to 7 feet apart. An unusual angle is 

attached to the outermost part of the eave. This 

angle has its horizontal leg formed in a wave pattern 

with an amplitude of 6 inches. This is the amplitude 

of the existing corrugated-iron covering of the gables, 

which is original. Thus it is quite likely that the 

original roof covering was the same type and size of 

FIGURE 24.—Storehouse: a, View under east 

gallery; b, connection between composite 

gallery-beam and siamese gallery column, east 

gallery; c, gallery beams and columns, east 

gallery. 
NUMBER 26 43 

corrugated iron. On the end elevations the cornice 

is separately cast and bolted to shorter brackets 

similarly located and spaced. 

Monitors, Skylights: Three combination ventilation monitors and skylights are located at approximately the quarter points on the roof ridge. The sides 

and ends of the monitors (except two ends which 

have been replaced with blank panels) contain adjustable iron louvers from which the operating hardware 

has been removed. The roofs of the monitors contain 

lapped glass pane skylights which replace a corrugated 

covering, like that formerly on the main roof, since 

the same wave patterned angle remains attached to 

the monitor eaves. Each roof slope also contains four 

corrugated fiberglass skylight sections set within the 

corrugated asbestos roof panels in a horizontal line. 

Flooring: The concrete ground floor replaces the 

original stone flagging. A 1 J/8-inch plywood deck has 

replaced 1 l/s x 4-inch wood decking on the galleries. 

Wall Finish: The building exterior was painted 

light gray in 1969, similar to its original color. By 

1971 the exterior had been repainted buff. Interior 

iron surfaces are painted a metallic silver. Interior 

faces of the wall panels in general reciprocally reflect 

exterior detailing and decorative features. 

Notable Hardware: Several columns above the 

gallery level on the west side support pivoting, castiron, cantilevered jibs fitted with hoist rope pulleys 

for raising and lowering material to the gallery level. 

Mechanical Equipment: Lighting: Originally there 

was no provision for other than natural light through 

the alternating glazed openings on the side elevations 

and the four windows and round window on the end 

elevations. Additional natural light has been provided by the monitor and roof skylights. Area electric 

lights have been installed on every third column, 

aimed to light the center aisle. 

Plumbing and Heating: No systems incorporated. 

Ventilation: Ventilators incorporated into the 

monitors and round windows have been mentioned 

above. In addition, the bases of the nonload-bearing 

window panels on all elevations contain a row of 

2 54-inch diameter ventilating holes. 

Rolling Iron Vehicular Doors: Operated by 

original (although inoperative) sprocket pulley, chain, 

and hand crank. The door is made up of a shutter 

of horizontal iron slats hinged together. To open, the 

shutter was reeled around an iron windlass driven 

by the sprocket pulley on one side, aided by a counterweight suspended from a pulley on the other. This 

"rolling iron shutter," an early and particularly emphasized Badger product, is similar to the one in 

Illustrations of Iron Architecture (Badger's plate 29, 

in Sturges, 1970). 

Site 

Orientation: N 16°E—S 16°W (with true north) 

along the longitudinal axis. 

Setting: Southeast corner of Watervliet Arsenal. 

Approximately 145 feet tapering to 75 feet east of 

the filled bed of the former Erie Canal. A (now 

filled) basin of the former canal was located about 

45 feet north of the building. The Hudson River 

parallels the building about 475 feet to the east. 

A state highway, parallel to the river, passes along 

the east boundary of the arsenal about 275 feet east 

of the building. Brick buildings, directly west and 

across the former canal site, house various machine 

and gun shops. 
Gasholder House 1873 

Troy Gas Light Company, Troy 

(HAER NY-2) 

Diana S. Waite 

Location: Northwest corner of Jefferson Street and Fifth Avenue (formerly Fifth Street), Troy, 

Rensselaer County, New York. 

Latitude: 42° 43' 10" N. Longitude: 73° 41' 30" W. 

Date of Erection: 1873. 

Designer: Frederick A. Sabbaton (1830-1894), engineer. 

Present Owner and Occupant: Sage Maintenance and Repainting Corporation. 

Present Use: Storage of heavy equipment. 

Significance: The Gasholder House of the former Troy Gas Light Company is one of the few 

remaining examples of a type once common in northeastern urban areas. Sabbaton was a 

prominent New York State gas engineer. Originally sheltering an iron holder for coal gas, 

the brick gasholder house is an imposing structure from a significant period in the history 

of Troy. The handsome exterior reflects the standing of the company that for twenty-seven 

years held a monopoly on the manufacture of illuminating gas in the city. 

HISTORICAL INFORMATION 

Physical History 

Engineer: Frederick A. Sabbaton, a specialist in 

the construction of gas works, was superintendent of 

the Troy Gas Light Company from 1862 to 1890. 

A gas engineer, well known throughout New York 

State, Sabbaton came from a prominent family of 

engineers. His father, Paul A. Sabbaton, a close friend 

of Robert Fulton, prepared plans and specifications 

for the Clermont, and at the time of his death was 

also a gas works engineer. Frederick Sabbaton's two 

brothers and his two sons were all employed as gas 

engineers. Sabbaton at various times supervised, constructed, and owned gas works in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and throughout New York State. He was 

also involved in the manufacture of aniline colors 

Historical Information: Additional data by Robert M. Vogel 

and Charles Granquist. Architectural Information: Prepared by Richard J. Pollak. 

(which were made from coal tar) and designed a gas 

governor valve. 

Original and Subsequent Owners: In the block on 

which the structure is situated, the Troy Gas Light 

Company (TGL Co.) owned lots 55 through 79. 

The gasholder house itself was situated on lots 71, 

73, 75, 77, and 79. The history of ownership of this 

property is reflected in the land records of the 

Rensselaer County Recorder's Office, Troy, New 

York, as shown on bottom of page 45. 

Original Purpose and Construction: A gasholder 

house is a structure that surrounds an iron gasholder, 

in which gas is stored until needed. Originally most 

gasholders were constructed without houses. In the 

early 1870s, however, the construction of gasholder 

houses began in upstate New York, following a practice already fairly common in the Northeast, particularly New England. The gasholder house in Troy 

bears a builder's plaque dated 1873, and the structure 

appears on an insurance map published in 1875. 

44 
NUMBER 26 45 

FIGURE 25 

Lots 

57,59,61 

63,65,67 

69,71 

73.75 

77.79 

Seller 

Transfer Date Purchaser 

12 Nov. 1866 Maria J. Cushman 

TGL Co. 

14 Nov. 1866 Jonas C. Heart and Catherine, 134 

his wife 

TGL Co. 

Jan. 1867 Thomas B Carroll and Caroline 134 

B. Carroll 

TGL Co. 

6 Feb. 1867 William S. Sands and Eliza, his 133 

wife 

TGL Co. 

19 Oct. 1943 New York Power & Light Corp. 686 

Oscar C. Buck 

29 Apr. 1968 Oscar C. Buck 1196 

Sage Maintenance & Repainting 

Corp. 

Liber Page 

134 

369 

536 

79 

167 

252 

Recording Date 

20 Nov. 1866 

10 Dec. 1866 

2 Feb. 1867 

13 Mar. 1867 

20 Nov. 1943 

24 May 1968 
46 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

HALF SLEVAT/OH (SOUTH)- HALF SECT/OV 

lEOIS pAtRHY 1969 

MOHAWK-HUDSON AREA SURVEY TROY GAS LIGHT COMPANY GASHOLDER HOUSE 

NW CORNER-JEFFERSON ST. AT 5TW AVE., TROY, RENSSELAER COUNTY. NEW YORK 

HAE R 

NY-2 

FIGURE 26 

Gasholder houses were constructed for a variety of 

reasons. The structure protected the iron holder from 

the elements and enabled it to be built of thinner 

plates since the holder itself would not have to withstand wind pressure. Wind pressure acting on one 

side of the holder; snow loads on the top of the 

holder; and icing of the guide and counterbalance 

pulleys all tended to interfere with the holder's free 

and consistent vertical movement. The enclosure also 

prevented freezing of the water in the holder pit that 

formed a seal to prevent loss of gas, while allowing 

the holder to rise and fall. There is some belief too 

that enclosing the holder would allay the fears of 

the timid, anxious about explosion. The house was 

also considered an economical measure by reducing 

the condensation of gas in the cold weather and was 

seen as an attractive architectural element of the gas 

works complex.4 

11

 Gasholder houses were constructed in England as early 

as about 1825, although the mild climate would not commonly necessitate them. Recently, at the demolition of a 

small circular house at the Bean Ing woolen mills in Leeds, 

researchers were able to discover that only two other 

gasholder houses (and a possible third) had been built in 

the county. The Bean Ing House was 40 feet in diameter, 

of brick, with an iron-plate domed roof supported by sixteen T-shaped iron ribs. (Architectural Review, November 

1970, pages 275-276.) A very large gasholder with brick 

house was built at Erdberg, near Vienna, in 1886, having 

an inside diameter of 208 feet. (Scientific American Supplement, 26 March 1887, pages 9354-9355.) 
NUMBER 26 47 

FIGURE 27 

Gasholders still are sometimes called "gasometers," 

an old-fashioned term surviving the industry's early 

period when the holder also was used to measure 

the gas by graduations on the tank's side. By the 

1870s the term "gasholder" was preferred since separate meters were then in use for measurements. The 

Troy Gas Light Company had been using meters as 

early as 1855, if not before. 

Iron gasholders were usually double- or single-lift 

types, although a triple-lift type was also constructed 

by some companies. The New York Times (7 April 

1872) described how the holders looked and worked: 

To the untutored eye they present the appearance, when 

fully distended, of circular castles or forts, without portholes, embrasures or sally ports, or to the less military mind 

they might suggest selections of two enormous boilers, one 

sliding within the other, and set vertically into the ground. 

This [ground] tank [or pit] contains sufficient water to prevent the gas from escaping under the edge of the holder. 

When exhausted, the sections slide one within the other, 

like a telescope when shut up, and the whole affair sits down 

in the tank so that the top is nearly on a level with the 

surface of the ground. As the gas is let in and the pressure 

increases, the huge iron cylinders rise up and the inner one 

slides up until the holder is fully extended. These are called 

telescopic holders. Some are made with only a single section, 

or "single lift" as it is called. The average dimensions of 

holders approximate seventy feet in diameter with height 

of about 60 feet, and a capacity of less than 850,000 [cubic] 

feet. 

The Troy holder was a telescoping two-lift type. 

Its top section had a diameter of 100 feet and a 

height of 22 feet, and the lower section had a 

diameter of 101 feet-6 inches and a height of 22 feet. 

It had a capacity of 330,000 cubic feet of gas. The 

gas passed through inlet and outlet lines 12 inches 

in diameter. The weight of the holder provided the 

pressure of the gas in the mains; at the Troy holder 

the pressure was 4l/z inches. Gas pressures were too 
48 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

low to be practically measured by the conventional 

pressure-standard of pounds-per-square-inch and so 

was expressed in terms of the height of a column of 

water, in inches, that the pressure would support, 

i.e., so many "inches" (of water column). 

The underground tanks of the gasholders were 

made of stone, brick, concrete, or cast or wrought 

iron. The brick tank under the Troy holder had a 

diameter of 103 feet 2 inches and was 23 feet deep. 

Together the Troy holder, tank, and house were 

yalued in 1892 at $68,093.95. The various mechanical 

problems resulting from the cold climate were ultimately overcome by improving the holder and thereby 

eliminating the need of a house. 

The dozen gasholder houses that are known to 

survive in upstate New York and New England were 

built in the 1870s, with the exception of one in 

Concord, New Hampshire, dated 1888. 

Location Date Material Present use 

Attleboro Falls, Mass ? Brick Storage 

Salem, Mass. 1873 Brick Gasholder 

(unused) house 

Location 

South Boston, Mass. 

Valley Falls, R.I. 

Warren, R.I. 

Concord, N.H. 

Concord, N.H. 

Albany, N.Y. 

Saratoga Springs, N.Y 

Seneca Falls, N.Y. 

Syracuse, N.Y. 

Troy, N.Y. 

Batavia, N.Y. (2) 

Date 

? 

•> 

? 

1888 

? 

? 

? 

? 

? 

1873 

? 

Material 

Brick 

Stone 

Brick 

Brick 

Wood 

Brick 

Brick 

Brick 

Brick 

Brick 

Brick 

Present use 

Storage 

Utility company 

garage 

Utility company 

garage 

Gasholder 

(unused) house 

Gasholder 

(unused) house 

Utility company 

garage (demolished 1971) 

Utility company 

garage 

Automobile showroom 

Glass and paint 

store 

Warehouse and 

garage 

Storage 

Alterations and Additions: Originally the Gasholder 

House had a small, one-story brick porch located in 

the center bay of the south side facing Jefferson Street. 

BREVTTf\Y AND 

FIGURE 28.—Map: a, Fifth and Jefferson site, 1881; b, site of Liberty Street Works, Troy 

Gas Light Co., two blocks north of Fifth and Jefferson, (a: Hopkins, 1881, plate 55, detail; 

b: plate 50, detail.) 
NUMBER 26 49 

FIGURE 29.—View of the Gasholder House from the northeast. 

The porch has been removed but the markings on the 

brick of the gasholder house wall suggest that the 

porch had a gabled roof. Judging from other gasholder houses extant in New England, this room was 

used for an entrance way and as a governor room. 

According to an 1875 atlas, the house originally had 

"windows all around"; some of these have been 

bricked in. The present owners have cut a large 

entrance into the central bay of the north side for 

truck access. By 1892 a boiler house and a purifying 

house had been constructed north of the Gasholder 

House; in 1910 a separate governor house was built. 

The Gasholder House at Jefferson Street was in 

operation in 1912, and was probably taken out of 

service during the 1920s when a new central plant 

was built at Menands. In 1930 the holder itself was 

removed and sold as scrap metal. The house subsequently was used for storage by Oscar C. Buck, 

a circus manager, and for marching practice by local 

bands. It is used for storage and as a garage by the 

present owner. The works at Liberty Street was in 

service in 1892 but not in 1912, when it probably 

had been superseded by a new works built at Smith 

Avenue. 

The Troy Gas Light Company, which first supplied 

the city with illuminating gas in 1848, maintained a 

monopoly for the manufacture of gas in Troy until 

1875 when the Troy Citizens Gas Light Company was 

founded. Ten years later, in 1885, the Troy Fuel Gas 

Company was founded. On 11 October 1889 these 

three companies were consolidated to form the Troy 

Gas Company. The Troy Electric Light Company, 

founded in 1886, merged with the Troy Gas Company about 1893, followed by the merging of the 

Beacon Electric Light Company in 1908. In 1926 

the Troy Gas Company joined with the Mohawk 

Hudson Power Corporation, which in turn joined 

with the Niagara-Hudson Power Corporation in 1929. 
50 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 30.—Gasholder House: a, Partial west elevation; b, details of the pilaster and beltcourse brickwork; c, the cornice and cupola from the east; d, tablet on the south face: e, the 

radial roof trussing from below. 
NUMBER 26 51 

FIGURE 31.—Gasholder House: a-b, 

The cupola and roof sheathing has 

survived as soundly as it has, despite 

the weathering of much of the original 

galvanizing, because of the inherent 

rust resistance of the wrought-iron 

sheet; c, roof plates; d, interior of 

the cupola (alternate "windows" are 

blind, painted on the exterior in 

imitation of sash; a ventilating cupola 

was a vital necessity on gasholder 

houses to prevent the accumulation of 

gas under the roof). (Vogel) 

History of the Physical Plant 

The Troy gasholder and its house were just one 

facet in the manufacture of illuminating gas. The 

other elements of the works of the Troy Gas Light 

Company were located about two blocks northeast 

of the holder on the irregularly shaped block bounded 

by Liberty, Fifth, Hill, and Washington Streets and 

by the tracks of the New York Central Railroad. This 

block was the original site of the works of the Troy 

Gas Light Company, which was chartered in 1848. 

At the time the Gasholder House was constructed, 

there were several buildings used for the manufacture 

of coal gas on that block. Extending along Fifth 

Street to the corner of Liberty Street was a coal 

shed. It was rectangular in plan, approximately 200 

feet along Fifth Street and 34 feet along Liberty. 

The shed was of brick, with iron doors along Fifth 

Street; it had a wooden cornice, measured 28 feet to 

the eaves and had a "skylight" running the entire 

length of the roof. Although the Sanborn map (1875) 

indicated "skylight," it would be more reasonable to 
52 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

assume that it was a "monitor" because: (1) there 

was need for ventilation of the stored coal; (2) there 

was no need for light; (3) it was uncommon for a 

skylight to run the full length of a roof; (4) a nontechnical map publisher might be apt to call a monitor 

a skylight; and (5) the same atlas indicates that the 

roof of the Rensselaer Iron Works Rail Mill also contains a "skylight," shown on both buildings by the 

same convention (parallel dotted lines). The rail mill 

had a monitor roof at that time. 

Adjoining the south end of the coal shed was the 

heart of the system, the retort house, trapezoidal in 

plan, measuring roughly 200 feet by 50 feet, with its 

longitudinal axis running east to west. A brick structure with iron roof beams, this building measured 

22 feet to the cornice, which was of brick or metal. 

In the retort house the coal was burned to produce 

crude gas. 

Fronting on Hill Street and adjoining the retort 

house at its southwest corner was the condenser 

building. This was a small rectangular brick building 

of one story, approximately 10 by 20 feet with a brick 

or metal cornice. In the condensers tar was separated 

from the crude gas. 

Adjoining the condenser building on the north was 

the exhauster building, which contained a 12 horsepower engine to drive the exhauster, or pump, that 

forced the gas through the system and ultimately into 

the holders. Opening off the north side of that building was another small building housing a 75 horsepower steam boiler. These two buildings were also 

of brick and were one story high each. 

In the open space in the center of the block, north 

of the retort house and west of the coal shed, there 

were two iron gasholders, each approximately 50 feet 

in diameter, neither protected by a gasholder house. 

At the northwest corner of the lot was the purifying 

building, where sulphur was removed from the gas. 

This building was a two-story brick structure with 

an iron roof and a brick or metal cornice. The building measured approximately 35 x 40 feet. Adjoining 

this building on the south was a two-story brick 

structure containing the meters and the steam-heated 

office. 

At the south end of the lot was another coal shed. 

This was also of brick and measured 24 feet to the 

cornice. A tar well also was located there. In the 

1870s the company burned gas coal supplied by 

Freeman Butts of Cleveland, Ohio. All the buildings 

on the block described above have been razed; only 

portions of a brick wall now remain. 

The company also had a coal shed on a dock at 

the foot of Division Street, one block north and seven 

blocks west of the works. Approximately 130 feet 

north of the Gasholder House was another coal shed, 

which still stands. It extends from Fifth Avenue west 

to the alley, a distance of approximately 100 feet, 

and is about 30 feet wide. Between that shed and 

the Gasholder House there originally were gas pipes 

scattered about. The area was enclosed by picket 

and board fences. 

Sources of Information 

UNPUBLISHE D 

"History Diagram, Drawn by K. W. Heldt, Jan. 1932, Drg. 

No. 2236-40, Niagara Hudson System, Western, Central 

& Eastern Division, Northern New York Utilities Inc." 

Public Relations Office, Niagara Mohawk, State Street, 

Albany, New York. 

Interview with Mr. McColl, Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 

North Albany, New York. 

Public Service Commission, Case 2682: "In the Matter of 

the Application of the TROY GAS COMPANY under section 

69 of the Public Service Commission Law for authority to 

issue Capital Stock and convertible notes." State of New 

York, p.s.c. Second District, Division of Capitalization, 

Report, 10 November 1913. 

Plaque on the Gasholder House, dated 1873, which states 

that E. Thompson Gale was president and T. W. Lockwood was treasurer of the Troy Gas Light Company, and 

that F. A. Sabbaton was the engineer. 

PUBLISHE D 

American Gas Light Journal and Chemical Repertory, volume 18 (2 May 1873), pages 148-149, and volume 20 

(2 May 1874), page 157. 

Anderson, George Baker. Landmarks of Rensselaer County. 

Syracuse: D. Mason & Co., 1897. 

"Gas and Gas-Making.'' Harper's New Monthly Magazine, 

volume 26, pages 14-28. 

Hopkins, G. M. City Atlas of Troy, New York. Philadelphia, 

1881. 

New York Times, 7 April 1872. 

R. D. Wood & Co. Water & Gas Works Appliances. Philadelphia, 1896. 

Sanborn, D. A. Insurance Maps of the City of Troy, New 

York, Including West Troy and Green Island. New York, 

1875. 

Troy Daily Press. 1873, 1894. 

Troy Directory. 1861-1894. 

Troy Gas Light Co. Rules and Regulations of the Troy Gas 

Light Company, for the Introduction of Gas and for 

Extensions and Alteration of Gas Fittings. . . . Troy, 1855. 

Weise, Arthur J. History of the City of Troy. Troy: William 

H. Young, 1876. 

. Troy's One Hundred Years 1789-1889. Troy: 

William H. Young, 1891. 
NUMBER 26 53 

ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION 

General Statement 

Structural Character: This is one of the largest 

gasholder houses still standing in the United States. 

None of the original gasholder remains except the 

guide rails and counterweight pulleys. The tank has 

been filled in, leaving only the space above grade 

level for use. Cylindrical one-story structure with ten 

radial bays and low dome surmounted by a cupola. 

Condition of Fabric: Fair to poor. 

Description of Exterior 

Overall Dimensions: Outside diameter: 109'-2"; 

4 7 /-ll/ / to top of brick cornice. 

Foundations: Not accessible; probably stone. 

Wall Construction, Finish, and Color: The red 

brick bearing walls are of American bond with a 

header course every seven courses. The bricks have 

the following identifying marks: MB, RBco, and 

BLEAU. 

FIGURE 32.—Gasholder House: a, Upper-chord connection of the 

roof trusses (the tangential strapping overcomes any tendency of the 

system to rotate about the vertical axis) ; b, connection of the lowerchord tic rods; c-d, truss details. (DeLony) 
54 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 33.—Gasholder House: a, Center bay, south 

side, showing evidence of former entrance porch; 

b, partial interior view showing gasholder guide rail 

and counterweight chase; c, cast-iron roof-truss 

bearing and upper-to-lower chord connection; d, 

counterweight sheave and upper end of gasholder 

guide rail, (a-b: Pollak; c-d: Vogel.) 
NUMBER 26 55 

Structural System, Framing: The wrought-iron roof 

trusses were probably fabricated by Phoenix Iron 

Company, Philadelphia. There are twenty major and 

twenty minor trusses radiating from a central point. 

The bottom chords are adjustable, and the trusses 

are supported on the circular brick bearing wall 

which has pilasters at the truss bearing points. Each 

truss has a 1:7 depth-span ratio. 

Governor Room: Stone foundations and wall markings give indication of a brick "porch" originally at 

the south entrance, which contained the gas-pressure 

governor. 

Openings: Doors and Doorways: The original 

wooden frame and door are on the south face, but 

a later wooden frame and door were added on the 

north. 

Windows: The frame and sash of the doublehung windows are of wood, boarded up at present. 

Roof: Shape and Covering: The low dome is 

covered with y32- to yi6-inch galvanized-iron trapezoidal panels, overlapping 2 inches, with stitch rivets 

one inch on center. They are stitch riveted to purlins 

11 inches on center. 

Cornice and Eaves: Brick corbeled cornice with 

galvanized metal eaves. 

Cupola: Galvanized sheet-iron cupola, 19'-2" 

outside diameter, divided into 20 bays. There are 

double-hung, wooden windows in alternate bays. The 

alternate blind panels are painted with windows in 

imitation of the actual ones. 

Description of Interior 

Floor Plan: Circular plan 104/-0'/ in diameter. 

The original gasholder tank has been filled with 

blast furnace slag to the level of the exterior grade. 

The tank would have been about 23 feet deep, 

enough to accommodate the two-lift gasholder, each 

section of which was 22 feet high. 

Stairway: Leading to the level of the trusses at the 

cornice is a stairway cantilevered from the interior 

wall. It is supported by cast-iron brackets and has 

wood treads and cast-iron handrails. There is a radial 

catwalk leading from the balcony to the cupola. 

Special Decorative Details: The brickwork is embellished, especially the cornice. The two rows of 

windows, beltcourse, and pilasters create a wellproportioned two-story illusion. The beltcourse and 

pilaster capital bricks are diagonally lain in a sawtooth moulding. Shallow brick hoods accent the 

window arches. The cupola repeats the rhythm of 

the brick wall surface. 

Site and Surrounding 

Setting: An area of mixed use, principally commercial and low-income residential. 

Outbuildings: Northwest of the Gasholder House 

is a simple rectangular brick building, with timber 

trussing, 6 bays by 12 bays. At present it is used as a 

warehouse; the interior has recently been remodeled. 
Rail Mill 1866 

Rensselaer Iron Works, Troy 

(HAER NY-3) 

R. Carole Huberman 

Location: Foot of Adams Street and Hudson River, north of Poesten Kill, Troy, Rensselaer 

County, New York. 

Latitude: 42° 43' 15" N. Longitude: 73° 41' 50" W. 

Dates: Erected 1866; major alterations after 1904; burned October 1969. 

Designer: Alexander L. Holley, C.E., M.E. (1832-1882). 

Last Owner: Triple-A Machinery Company, Cleveland. 

Last Occupant: Ludlow Valve Manufacturing Company (Patterson-Ludlow). 

Significance: A typical example of nineteenth-centry masonry and heavy-timber factory construction; part of an important nineteenth-century iron works. 

HISTORICAL INFORMATION 

Corporate History 

The rail mill of the Rensselaer Iron Works, eventually part of one of the largest nineteenth-century 

iron and steel manufacturing complexes (Albany & 

Rensselaer Iron & Steel Company), played an 

important role in the heavily industrial economy of 

Troy. 

Troy's first rolling mill was erected on the south 

side of the Poesten Kill by the Troy Vulcan Company in 1846. That company was succeeded by the 

Troy Rolling Mill Company in 1852 and sold to the 

illustrious and inventive iron manufacturer Henry 

Burden, who in 1853 conveyed the property to the 

Rensselaer Iron Works, owned by John A. Griswold & 

Company. Until 1875 the Rensselaer Iron Works 

was owned by John A. Griswold & Company, a firm 

consisting of Griswold, Erastus Corning, Jr., and 

Chester Griswold. It was under this ownership that 

Historical Information: Material compiled by Lewis Rubenstein. Architectural Information: Prepared by Charles A. 

Parrott, III; additional data by Robert M. Vogel. 

the Rail Mill was built on the north side of the 

Poesten Kill in 1866. The following year the Albany 

Iron Works, owned by Erastus Corning & Company, 

consolidated with the Rensselaer Iron Works. In 1868 

the Bessemer Steel Works, owned by Winslow, Griswold, and Holley since 1863, and Erastus Corning & 

Company merged with the Rensselaer Iron Works; 

the titles were transferred to John A. Griswold & 

Company. By 1870 the Rail Mill had been converted 

to produce steel rails. In 1875 the Albany Iron Works, 

the Bessemer Steel Works, and the Rensselaer Iron 

Works were incorporated as the Albany & Rensselaer 

Iron & Steel Company, thus embracing one of the 

oldest iron works in the United States and the 

pioneer Bessemer plant in America. The principal 

shareholders were Erastus Corning, Jr., Chester 

Griswold, and Selden Marvin. 

Ten years later, in 1885, the corporation was 

reorganized as the Troy Iron & Steel Company. The 

rail mill was abandoned in 1896 and re-occupied by 

the following year by the Ludlow Valve Manufacturing Company. Ludlow ostensibly was the last occupant of the structure. Triple-A Machinery Company 

56 
NUMBER 26 57 

FIGURE 34 

RfMSSfLAZ? /RON WORKS RtVL M/LLB66 

TNE MIL IS SIGNIFICANT AS A TXOBOUGNLY TYPICAL EXAMPLE OF 

MASONOY AND NEA/y TIMBEB. FACTOBT CONSTBUOTICVI OF ITS 

EJM, A BTYLE NOW BAPIDLY OISAPPEASINS DESPITE YABA0CI3 

ALTESATIONS MADE DUOIVG YNE BIMDIAGS NISTORY, THE PBINEICML STBVCmoAL AND AaCNITECTlAEAL ELEMENTS ACE 

6TILL LAOGEIT EVIOENT, ALTNOUGN TNE ORIGINAL S/AWLICITY 

UNO DYMAMIC aiMLTTY OF 7HE DESIGN NAVE BEEN SOtEYffAT CLOUE1EO IN TNE PBOCESS. IMDIOW MLVE COMPANY, 

A MAOOB MANUFACTURED OF NyoOANTS AND WATER'-WOBXS 

WIVES. WAS TNE MOST BECEAIT OCCUPANT E)F TNE 51TE, 

NOW SCHEDULED FOR CLEARING. 

lYOBTH EIEVATIOAI 

MOHAWK-HUDSON AREA SURVEY RENSSELAER IRON WORKS RAIL MIL L 

FOOT OF ADAMS ST AND HUDSON RIVER, TRO% RENSSELAER COUNTY, 

PABT/AL £L£VAT/OV (EAST) -AW3T/AL SECT/CW 

w ruW/D BOVSe • 19*9 

MOHAWK-HUDSON AREA SURVEY 

FIGURE 35 
58 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

TBAHSVEQSE SECTICW 

MOHAWK-HUDSON AREA SURVEY RENSSELAER IRON WORKS RAIL MILL 

FOOT OF ADAMS ST AND HUDSON RIVER. TROY, RENSSELAER COUNTY, NEW YORK NY-3 

FIGURE 36 

controlled Ludlow from 1960 to 1968 as PattersonLudlow. The plant was dismantled during the 

summer of 1969 and the building destroyed by fire 

the following fall. 

so until 1868. It was idle for several months during 

conversion to the rolling of steel rails, which commenced early in 1869 (John A. Griswold Papers, 

Griswold to Babcock, 1868-1869). 

Physical History 

Date Stone: Northeast corner: 1866. 

Alterations and Additions: The roof was raised 

after 1903 (Sanborn Map Company, 1903) at which 

time the monitor was replaced by skylights and the 

gallery-level windows were added immediately beneath the cornice on the heightened side walls, 

penetrating the belt-course on the north gable end. 

Ancillary buildings were connected to the main mill 

structure; the large open archways were filled in or 

otherwise altered at various times. 

Operational History 

Although Holley had obtained the American rights 

for the Bessemer steel process in 1863, the mill 

originally was intended for rolling iron rails, and did 

Property of the Albany & Rensselaer Iron & 

Steel Company, Troy, New York

 5 

[partial listing] 

RAIL MILL 

Brick Building 100 x 400 feet 

10 Rail heating furnaces and boilers attached 

Three-high 21-inch train, 3 stands of rolls 

2 Sturtevant blowers 

Rolls for pattern steel rails, 35 to 71 pounds [per yard] 

Also rolls for rounds of iron and steel of large sizes 

3 duplex Worthington pumps 

3 straightening presses ) 

2 rail punches >Each with separate engines 

3 circular saws 

Fairbanks 10-ton scales for rails 

Gustin's patent straightening machine for hot bed 

Main engine: 800 horse power, 36 x 44 [inches, cylinder size] 

Blower engine: 15 x 22 [inches, cylinder size] 

5

 John A. Griswold Papers, 28 pages (n.d.: probably 

1875); up-dated by hand, page 20. 
NUMBER 26 

a 

59 

ill? ll 

mm 1 

FIGURE 37.—Early views of the iron works: a-b, View from the river; c, view from the city 

side. The squat brick chimneys were from the rail-heating furnaces, seen in the plans of the 

mill (Figure 38a, b). The original monitor roof shows in all views, (a: John A. Griswold papers, 

box 2, folder 97; b: Barton, 1869 [1858]; c: Weise, 1886, page 312.) 

SHEAR ROOM 

1 Engine: 15 x 22 [inches, cylinder size] 

3 Double plate shears 

3 Double header lathes 

1 Disc Press 

1 Heating Furnace 

2 Grind Stones 

1 Double Emery Wheel 

1 Fairbanks Scale 

Dimpfel blower and machine for cutting axles, etc., etc. 

TANK HOUSE 

Brick building adjoining rail mill, elevated wrought-iron 

tank, capacity 25,000 gallons. Auxiliary boiler with steam on 

at all times when mill is not running and connected to 2 

duplex Worthington pumps having hose attachment. 

An extensive, illustrated account of the Albany & 

Rensselaer Iron Company by Alexander Holley and 

Lenox Smith appeared in 1880 in Engineering in 

which the rail mill is specifically described. 
60 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

TliUV 

A y'jteal Train, LDrUl 

B.lurrujuc* 

C-JEntjutAP 

0. Boiler 

E. Hot Saw 

F. J'ress 

G. Punch 

H Scales 

J. Tank, 

K.HolA3tct 

L. Shears 

M. Lathe, 

NGruiAJUione. 

0.Greene, 

P Parna 

-O o o o B& o 

FIGURE 38.—Rail Mill: a, Design plan by Alexander Lyman Holley, cl866. All machinery 

in the mill was driven by steam engines. Two large beam engines driving the principal roll 

trains are shown, as well as a sizable family of smaller ones. All were supplied by the interconnected battery of ten horizontal boilers combined with reheating furnaces, arranged in 

pairs around the mill's periphery. The mill, as built, differed slightly from the plan in the 

number of its door and window openings, b, Plan of the mill, 1880. showing various alterations, resulting probably from the change from rolling iron rails to steel (the entire roll 

train with engine and boilers has been removed from the north end), (a: Holley Collection; 

b: Holley and Smith, 1880, page 590.) 
NUMBER 26 61 

. . . A brick building 375 ft. x 98 ft. with wings [Figures 

38, 40]. There are ten coal-fired heating furnaces, each 

having a horizontal overhead boiler 5 ft. x 22 ft., with 

return flues. There are five auxiliary boilers, like those in 

the Bessemer department. The train is 21 in., three-high, 

with three stands of merchant rolls arranged to deliver to 

the rail sawing and finishing apparatus. The whole mill can 

thus be utilized as a merchant mill for medium and heavy 

work, when this pays better than rails; or both rails and 

merchant steel can be produced on different turns, when 

there is not demand enough for either product to alone 

fill the mill. The rail-train engine, vertical and condensing, 

has 3 ft. stroke and a 44 in. cylinder with Corliss valve 

gear, revolutions 80, boiler pressure 70 lb. The Gustin hotcurving apparatus is employed. . . . The rails, being uniformly curved without twisting by hand movement, are 

nearly straight when they get cold, and so require little cold 

straightening; they are therefore not subjected to that distortion and weakening which formerly caused so many 

fractures at the gag-marks. The double hot-bed with finishing 

machines are of good type and capacity. Eighty 7-in. blooms 

are charged into the ten furnaces per "round," and there 

are seven rounds per turn, thus producing 1120 rails per 

24 hours. The heating coal, which also produces the greater 

part of the steam for the engines, is 460 lb. per ton of rails. 

The wing at the finishing end of the rail mill is devoted to 

the manufacture of 120 tons per week of agricultural shapes, 

such as harrow discs, etc. Materials and product are at this 

group of works received and delivered by the New York 

Central & Hudson River Railway on one side, and by the 

Hudson River on the other side. 

Historical Associations 

Industrial Development: The historical position of 

the Rensselaer Iron Works in Troy can be established 

and understood within the context of American industrial development by Holley and Smith's description. 

They list several key factors which encouraged the 

growth of an extensive nineteenth-century complex, 

150 miles up the Hudson from New York City. 

(Actually, the seed of industry in the south Troy 

area was John Brinkerhoff's nail factory, established 

at the mouth of the Wynants Kill in the late 

eighteenth century, and his rolling mill, built on the 

north bank of the stream in 1807.) The Hudson 

itself and the "remarkable pass at West Point" (the 

only major break in the Appalachian Chain) were 

the first factors on Holley's list. Troy, at the head 

of the Hudson's tidal waters, provided linkage with 

transportation systems to east, west, north, and south; 

three miles of wharves lined its waterfront; and a 

network of railroads radiated from it—the New York 

Central, Boston & Albany, Delaware & Hudson, Troy 

& Boston, and the Boston & Hoosac Tunnel—connecting Troy to anthracite and bituminous coalfields 200 

miles west, to the Lake Champlain ore mines 100 

miles north, to the limonite beds 30 to 60 miles south 

and east, and to numerous markets. The Erie Canal, 

as well, afforded cheap transportation to the Great 

Lakes and westward. Flowing up the Hudson from 

New York City came a steady supply of immigrant 

labor, seeking whatever work the entrepreneurs could 

provide. Good markets for merchant and specialized 

iron and steel in New England and New York were 

as accessible as the sources of raw material and labor. 

Further, as the territories in the West filled in following the Civil War, there was an increased demand 

for manufactured goods such as steel rails and farm 

implements that were already being produced by 

Troy industries. 

The Monitor: The reputation and productivity of 

the Rensselaer Iron Works can be emphasized by the 

part it played in fabricating iron plates for the 

Monitor during the Civil War. An 1880 account of 

the building of the ship notes the company's participation (Sylvester, 1880:22). 

Among the ennobling acts of patriotic men during the several dark crises of the late Civil War, is the memorable 

service rendered the government by John A. Griswold, of 

the Rensselaer Iron-Works, and by John F. Winslow, of 

Albany Iron-Works, who, profoundly impressed with the 

deplorable ineffectiveness of wooden vessels of the United 

States Navy, earnestly urged upon the authorities the construction of that novel iron-battery, the Monitor, invented 

by John Ericsson. For not only did these men strongly 

advocate the building of the vessel, but they had the courage 

and enterpise to willingly hazard their reputations and money 

in building their experimental warcraft. 

Contracts were let expediently to Corning, Winslow, 

& Company and to the Rensselaer Iron Company for 

all the rolled-plate armor and rivets to be used in 

construction of the ship. Work began immediately 

and proceeded with rapidity. The Monitor was 

launched 30 January 1862, only 101 days after the 

contract date. 

Biographical Information 

Alexander Lyman Holley: An engineer who has 

been recognized as the father of modern American 

steel manufacture, Alexander Holley was born 20 July 

1832 in Lakeville, Connecticut. His father, Governor 

of Connecticut in 1357, manufactured cutlery. At an 
62 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

~ 

71 

T 

k i i l Renssolaor I n iJ Stee 

5 wr . 3r. , 

PROPRIETORS OF 

The Albany Iron Works, The Rensselaer Iron Works 

The Bessemer Steel Works, The Fort Edward Blast Furnace, 

The Columbia Blast Furnace. 

MANUFACTURERS O F 

RAILROAD SPIKES. 

Bailroad, Car, Truck, Engine and Street Cur Axles; Fish Plates; 

Bulls and Nuts for Fish. Joints, all sins; .Merchant 

and Angle Iron ; 

MERCHANT, BAR AND SPRING STEEL, 

Sleigh-Slioc Steel, Tire Steel, Steel SliafUng, Steel Crow Bars, 

Boiler Rivets, Finger Bars and Shapes; 

Agricultural Steel, all kinds. 

CULTIVATOR AND SAFE STEEL CUT TO PATTERN. 

Special Drop Forging%Gun and Cotton Boiler Steel. 

BESSEMER STEEL RAILS. 

All orders addressed to us vrill receive prompt attention. 

JTJEW YORK OFFICE, 5G BROADWAY. 

FIGURE 39.—Advertisement, cl882, of the combined iron and sheel companies, which incorporated two basic iron furnaces as well. With the amalgamated firm and Burden's, the number 

of iron and steel works in the area was reduced to two. (Files of Division of Mechanical and 

Civil Engineering, Museum of History and Technology, Smithsonian Institution.) 
NUMBER 26 63 

early age Holley exhibited an extraordinary talent 

for writing and drawing as well as a keen understanding of the machinery in his father's factory. 

He also had a particular interest in locomotives. 

Before graduating from Brown University in 1853, 

he had already invented a steam engine cut-off. From 

1853 to 1854 he was a draftsman and machinist at 

the famed Corliss & Nightingale steam engine works 

in Providence, Rhode Island, where he worked on an 

experimental (and spectacularly unsuccessful) locomotive equipped with the Corliss valve gear. From 

1854 to 1855 he was employed by the New Jersey 

Locomotive Works in Jersey City; at this time, Holley 

edited the journal Railroad Advocate with Zerah 

Colburn, superintendent of the locomotive works. In 

1856 he bought Colburn's interest and edited the 

journal alone, changing the title to Holley's Railroad 

Advocate. He soon enlisted Colburn's support, and 

the journal became Holley and Colburn's American 

Engineer. After only three issues publication was 

suspended. Holley and Colburn then went ot Europe 

to study foreign railroad practice, publishing a comprehensive report upon their return in 1858. 

From 1858 to 1863 Holley was actively writing and 

traveling. He patented a variable cut-off valve for 

steam engines and a rail chair in 1859; the following 

year he prepared a list of engineering terms, definitions, and drawings for Webster's Dictionary. During 

this period he was scientific editor of The New York 

Times, for which he wrote over 200 articles on engineering and traveled to Europe as a correspondent. 

As a technical consultant to Edwin Stevens, he went 

to England in 1862 to investigate ordnance and 

armories, a subject on which he subsequently wrote 

a treatise. 

Holley's most noteworthy activities began, however, 

when he went to England in 1863 for Corning, 

Winslow, & Company to obtain information and the 

American rights for the Bessemer steelmaking process 

(which were subsequently combined with the conflicting Kelly patents). Holley supervised the establishment of the first Bessemer plant in the United 

' ! FIGURE 40.—Site plans of Iron 

]-% Works: a, 1881; b, 1885; c, 

1903; d, 1955. (a: Hopkins, 

1881, plate 55, detail; b: San-

• JHY . horn Map and Publishing Co., 

Y JYO P \ 1885, volume 1, plate 10; c: 

* Sanborn Map Co., 1903, volume 

2, plate 101; d: Sanborn Map 

Co., 1955, volume 2, plate 101.) 

•il u d i o n 

U ** f- \L b V' '• ' u " J p. —•— T — i T— Ei _ 

J ; <£> l>J*o L'$£] L'-l I-
64 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 41.—Interior of the mill, 1958, occupied by Ludlow. (Courtesy of Ludlow Valve 

Manufacturing Company.) 

States at Troy, New York, in 1865, and its enlargement in 1867, as well as other Bessemer works 

throughout the country. Holley devoted the rest of 

his life to the development and refinement of the 

Bessemer process. He became the foremost steel-plant 

engineer in the United States and conducted an 

extensive consulting practice in the design of iron 

and steel plants and equipment. Of the sixteen 

patents he obtained, ten were related to improvements in the Bessemer manufacturing process. 

In 1875 Holley helped to organize, and served on, 

the U.S. Board for testing structural materials. He 

lectured on the manufacture of iron and steel from 

1879 to 1882 at Columbia College School of Mines. 

His technical writing, profuse and seminal, included 

forty-one articles on American iron and steel, written 

in collaboration with Lenox Smith for the London 

journal, Engineering. Among his other professional 

activities, Holley was founder and president of the 

American Institute of Mining Engineers, founder and 

vice-president of the American Institute of Mechanical Engineers, and vice-president of the American 

Society of Civil Engineers. Holley died in Brooklyn 

on 29 January 1882. A bronze bust by J. Q. A. Ward 

memorializes him in Washington Square in New 

York City. 

John A. Griswold: The principal partner in the 

Rensselaer Iron Works, Griswold was born in Nassau, 
NUMBER 26 65 

New York, in 1818 and came to Troy in 1839 where 

he lived with his uncle, General Wool. In 1850 he 

was elected Mayor of Troy. Griswold's Civil War 

effort included not only his cooperation in building 

the Monitor, but also his activity in raising regiments. 

In 1862 he was elected to the United States Congress as a War Democrat and subsequently served 

in the House of Representatives, 1863 to 1867, as a 

Republican; he is appropriately identified with the 

Committee of Naval Affairs. In 1868 he was defeated 

for the governorship of New York. Griswold served 

as a trustee of the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. 

He died in October 1872. 

Sources of Information 

UNPUBLISHE D 

John A. Griswold papers. Manuscripts, New York State 

Library, Albany, New York. 

A. L. Holley collection. Manuscripts, Division of Industries, 

National Museum of History and Technology, Smithsonian 

Institution, Washington, D.C. [Holley's plan of Rail Mill.] 

PUBLISHED 

American Iron and Steel Association. The Ironworks of 

the United States. Philadelphia, 1876. 

Barton, William. Map of the City of Troy and Green Island, 

N.Y. Troy, 1869. [Map printed 1858, bound later.] 

Beers, S. N., and D. G. Atlas of Rensselaer County. Philadelphia, 1876. 

Dictionary of American Biography. New York: Charles 

Scribner's Sons, 1933. 

Holley, Alexander L., and Lenox Smith. "The Albany and 

Rensselaer Iron and Steel Works, Troy, New York.'' 

Engineering (London, 24 December 1880), pages 590-

592. 

Hopkins, G. M. City Atlas of Troy, N.Y. Philadelphia, 1881. 

New York State Engineer's Report, 1869. Albany, 1870. 

Sanborn Map Company. Insurance Maps of Troy, Renssalaer 

County, New York. 2 volumes. New York, 1903. 

. [Insurance Maps of] Troy, New York. 2 volumes. New York, 1955. 

Sanborn Map & Publishing Company. [Atlas of] Troy. 2 

volumes. New York, 1885. 

Sylvester, Nathaniel. History of Rensselaer County, New 

York. Philadelphia: Everts and Peal, 1880. 

Weiss, Arthur J. The City of Troy and Its Vicinity. Troy: 

Edward Green, 1886. 

. History of the City of Troy. Troy: William H. 

Young, 1876. 

FIGURE 42.—North elevation of Rail Mill showing outline of the original monitor roof in the 

gable end. 
66 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 43.—Rail Mill: a, Main aisle, looking south (the side galleries and craneway framing 

probably were constructed simultaneously with the roof change, sometime after 1903, during 

Ludlow's early occupancy); b, main aisle, looking north; c; gallery for light machine tools 

and original arched window openings, now opening into one-story addition (the end balconies 

are an unusual feature); d, roof-framing detail, looking south; e, roof-framing details from 

north end of east gallery, looking southwest; /, double-bay arches in north end of west wall, 

opening into original lean-to wing. 
NUMBER 26 67 

ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION 

General Statement 

Structural Character: Typical masonry and heavy 

timber construction. 

Condition of Fabric: Structurally sound, in average 

condition for a heavy-industrial plant of its age. 

Description of Exterior 

Number of Stories: One with full perimeter gallery. 

Number of Bays: 29 in length. 

Overall Dimensions: 99 feet x 379 feet. 

Layout, Shape: Rectangular with several appended 

wings on the sides. 

Wall Construction, Finish, and Color: Solid redbrown brick bearing walls 16 inches thick with 4-inch 

pilaster projections on interior and exterior. 

Structural System: The roof is carried by composite 

heavy-timber and iron (or steel) trusses, the bottom 

chord scarffed at the center. The gallery's outer edge 

is supported by wood posts that continue upward to 

the roof-truss bottom chords. On the inside face of 

each column is a similar column supporting the 

heavy-timber crane rails, at the gallery floor level. 

Knee braces and horizontal struts, set into cast-iron 

pockets on the side faces of the crane columns, brace 

the entire system longitudinally. 

Openings: Doors and Doorways: In the north 

elevation is a large central materials doorway with 

steel I-beam lintel and rolling door, and a man-door 

in the first bay to the west of center with fixed 

5-over-5 sash above, all recently installed. There are 

also three former archways with pointed-arch heads, 

probably originally to pass the chimney breeching 

of the combined rail-heating furnaces-boilers. These 

are now partially bricked in and are occupied by 

twin 4-over-4 double-hung sash under segmental 

brick heads. The side walls of the original block are 

pierced in each bay by round-arch openings, some 

leading to the later wings, some closed off or filled 

with doors or windows. As was common in rolling 

mills of the period, these openings originally were 

not provided with doors, the fullest ventilation being 

sought in warm weather and adequate warmth in 

the cold being furnished by radiation from the 

furnaces and hot metal in work. In the north end of 

the west wall are three round-arch openings, each 

spanning two bays, that open into an original wing 

on the northwest corner, now incorporated into the 

later wings. 

Windows: In the upper level of the north end 

the original windows, which have shallow brick hood 

detail, consist of a central pointed-arch window with 

regular mullions and congruently arched fan mullions, 

flanked by two round-arch windows with doublehung sash, 10-over-10 glazing and fanlights. Cast-iron 

roundels above the open archways may originally 

have provided additional ventilation, but later were 

filled with masonry. When the roof was raised, twin, 

double-hung windows were added with 4-over-4 

wooden sash set into segmental arch frames at the 

gallery level. In the side elevations these windows 

appear regularly, one pair per bay, immediately under 

the raised cornice. In the north gable end, the 

windows, set at two different levels, break into the 

original beltcourse. 

Roof: Shape, Covering: The north wall clearly 

shows that the original roof was approximately 8 feet 

lower than the existing plank-sheathed, slate-shingled 

roof and had a central monitor. (The south wall 

does not exhibit the line of the lower monitor roof 

as does the north; therefore, it can be inferred that 

FIGURE 44.—Rail Mill, section of floor of northeast corner 

of building. Log sections, of undetermined length, probably were employed as an inexpensive and relatively durable 

surfacing, anticipating (or imitating) commercially produced end-grain-block industrial flooring; or perhaps what 

is seen here are the ends of a cluster of close-driven 

pilings that formed the foundation for a heavy machine. 
no part of the south wall is original, and that possibly this wall is not in its original location.) The wood 

trusses and possibly the gallery framing date from the 

raising of the roof. There is a 10-foot by 17-foot 

flush skylight within each bay of the roof. 

Cornice, Eaves: The cornices on the side walls 

are similar to the corbeling and coursing of the 

original beltcourse on the north gable wall. The later 

cornice on the north end wall has an interesting 

corbel of trapezoidally shaped brick. 

Description of Interior 

Floor Plan: A single production area with a center 

and two side aisles is formed by the two rows of 

gallery and crane columns. Various wings open 

directly into the main area. The perimeter gallery is 

FIGURE 45.—Rail Mill: a, Arches and gallery framing, 

northeast corner; b, datestone [1866], northeast corner, 

facing north; c-d, ruins of the mill after the October 1969 

fire; e, ruins of the office buiding. (a: Pollak; b: Vogel, 

c-d: Paul R. Huey, for [N.Y. State] Division for Historic 

Preservation; e: Chester H. Liebs, for NYSDHP.) 

approximately 27 feet wide and 17 feet above ground 

floor. Two 20-ton bridge cranes command the main 

aisle. 

Stairways: Five wooden stairways provide access to 

the gallery space from the ground floor. 

Flooring: The ground floor is concrete; the gallery 

floor is of wooden plank on joists. 

Wall and Ceiling Finish: The walls and timber 

system are painted. 

Heating: None originally (see "Openings: Doors 

and Doorways," above) and none evident now. Various forms of space heaters probably were used by 

Ludlow. 

Site and Surroundings 

Setting: With its long axis almost directly northsouth, the Rail Mill was part of a once thriving 

industrial complex located between the New York 

Central Railroad tracks (now Penn Central) on the 

east and the Hudson River on the west. The Poesten 

Kill cuts through the site just south of the mill. 

Outbuildings: Machine shops and storage buildings 

were connected to the original mill along both sides 

for its entire length. To the north and west are 

various other Ludlow buildings. 
Historical Addendum 

Ludlow Valve Manufacturing Company, Troy 

Samuel Rezneck 

The Ludlow Valve Manufacturing Company, by 

its very name, indicates clearly the roots and rationale 

of its existence. The name Ludlow was that of the 

man who created the company by virtue of a patented 

invention that was its principal asset. The term 

"valve" in the title refers to the device whose manufacture was to become the principal purpose and 

product of the company. It provided a tight and 

secure means for controlling the flow of liquid or 

gas through pipe lines. Pipe lines and networks were 

to become, almost as much as the railway, principal 

indexes of technological progress in nineteenthcentury America. Moreover, a consequence of the 

increasing urbanization of American society was the 

requirement of an adequate supply of water and gas, 

distributed through mains in the streets and structures of even the smallest towns. Only their concealment beneath the surface prevented these pipes from 

being as prominent a feature of the scene as the 

rails and electric wires which have disfigured, as 

much as they have served, the community. All are 

an equally characteristic measure of the mobility of 

man and his products which is the distinctive feature 

of modern society, especially in the cities. 

Henry G. Ludlow's inventive ingenuity contributed 

at once to the necessities of city living and to the 

origin and growth of an important industry in the 

city of Troy. With Henry Burden, inventor of the 

horse shoe machine, and Mrs. Hannah Montague, 

the somewhat lengendary originator of the separate 

man's collar, Ludlow gave a special character and 

significance to Troy's industrial role in the nineteenth 

century. The decline of these key industries, too, has 

affected and aggravated the condition of Troy in 

the present period. The Ludlow Manufacturing Company is now (August 1969) undergoing a removal 

that will leave Troy with little of its old, historic, 

industrial pattern. One small valve plant, the Ross 

Valve Manufacturing Company, now remains in Troy 

as a reminder of its one-time importance in this field. 

Then there had been a half-dozen valve manufacturers in the immediate area and Ludlow had been 

the largest in the nation, if not the world. Ironically, 

but also interestingly, the buildings that once housed 

the Ludlow Company are now empty for the first 

time. In 1896, they had been abandoned by the 

Rensselaer Iron Works when its subsidiary, the Troy 

Iron & Steel Company, contracted its operations 

before closing down completely, shortly thereafter. 

In 1897 these buildings acquired a new occupant in 

the expanding Ludlow Valve Manufacturing Company. At the time of this writing they are in a 

shabby state of disrepair, with little prospect of a new 

tenant. They give promise of decay, deterioration, 

and destruction, which further intensifies the ghostlike character of south Troy, unless revived under 

an urban renewal scheme. [Destroyed by fire in 

October 1969, the building's fate is no longer in 

question (ed.).] 

Henry Ludlow's early experience prepared him for 

his career as a valve inventor and manufacturer. 

Born in Nassau, New York, in 1823, the son of a 

lawyer and judge, Ludlow was educated in the 

schools of Oswego, New York. He was graduated as 

an engineer from Union College in Schenectady in 

1843 and entered the field of gas manufacture in 

Philadelphia. For a number of years he directed the 

construction of gas plants in various cities. He became 

a member of the firm of Dungan, Streeter, and 

Company, which specialized in this business. While 

supervising the building of a gas plant in Poughkeepsie, New York, Ludlow became interested in the 

development of a valve that employed a single disc, 

or gate, with wedge and bar to keep it firmly in place 

when closed. This was patented and later Ludlow 

improved the device which was patented and publi69 
70 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

cized as the "Double Disc Parallel Seat Gate Valve." 

A "Slide Gate" fire hydrant was added to the patented 

valve, these devices becoming the basis of Ludlow's 

business activity for the remainder of his life. 

Interested in initiating their manufacture, Ludlow 

settled in Lansingburgh, just north of Troy, where 

he began in a small way in the first years of the Civil 

War. According to oral legend, he would cross the 

only bridge then spanning the Hudson to Waterford, 

where he had castings made in a small foundry. He 

machined and assembled these into valves and apparently sold them himself. The Ludlow Valve Manufacturing Company was founded in 1861, but formal 

manufacture did not begin until 1866 in a small shop 

in Waterford. Business grew, and in 1872 it was 

moved to larger quarters in Lansingburgh. At this 

time, Ludlow acquired the business assistances of a 

Lansingburgh insurance man, John T. Christie, who 

became treasurer and subsequently president of the 

Ludlow Company. 

Thus was added another complex metal product 

to the substantial list of horse shoes, stoves, bells, 

surveying and scientific instruments, rails, and railroad hardware for which the Troy area became noted 

in this period. All of them required, aside from basic 

materials, relatively complex machinery and male 

labor skilled in the mechanical arts. The last was 

supplied by the flood of immigration from Europe, 

which brought to Troy and to the United States in 

general a vast reservoir of labor, both skilled and 

unskilled. Troy, along with its neighbors, Cohoes and 

Watervliet, became in this period a polyethnic community, in which a relatively small middle class, 

predominantly Anglo-Saxon and Protestant, employed 

and controlled a considerable variety of other, primarily Catholic, ethnic groups, among them Irish, 

German, and French-Canadian. Although friction 

between upper and lower classes developed on a 

social and political level, divisive elements aligned 

principally on an economic basis. Labor conflict and 

unions thus appeared early in the area's industrial 

relations and gave rise over the years to difficulties 

which may in the long run have weakened and 

undermined industry in Troy and its neighboring 

communities. 

The valve industry possessed some peculiar characteristics, particularly in relation to its market. This 

was, almost from the first, national in scope and 

consisted primarily of gas and water utility companies, 

both public and private. A special kind of salesmanship was required, combining technical, business, and 

even political skills. Each city's needs had, as it 

were, to be individually appraised and supplied 

with suitable and often specially designed valves. 

Standardization of product was difficult, if not 

impossible. Competition among makers was keen, 

and a certain degree of political persuasion was often 

a consideration in the final award of contracts. 

Winning municipal business of this type carried with 

it a certain advantage of priority in subsequent repairs and replacements. 

Other valve producers located in the Troy area 

at this time. Among these was the Eddy Valve Company of Waterford, which claimed an even earlier 

origin at midcentury as a foundry for castings, probably including those for Ludlow's valve. Isaac Eddy's 

son, George Washington, devised a "taper-seat" valve 

in 1873 and later on a "Mohawk" hydrant. Thus 

began a rival valve concern which, under the ownership of the principal business family of the region, 

the Knickerbackers, survived until its recent absorption by an Ohio company. Another valve manufacturer was the Rensselaer Company, which began as 

a scale manufacturer. By 1887 it was located in 

Cohoes, across the Hudson from Troy, and it too, 

developed a line of valves. The firm was later 

merged with the Ludlow Company in a final effort 

to revive the industry. 

In 1896, the Ludlow Valve Manufacturing Company made another move, to the plant in south Troy. 

It was not only larger but also better situated than 

the Lansingburgh works with reference to railroad 

and river transportation. On the site, located on the 

Poesten Kill at its junction with the Hudson River, 

was an extensive complex of structures, once the seat 

of the Rensselaer Iron Works. 

In its new works Ludlow prospered and expanded 

into the largest valve manufacturer in the United 

States. It catered to a world market through a large 

network of sales agencies, which included a Canadian 

Ludlow Company in Montreal. This growth was due 

to the accelerated expansion of urban population, 

the growing demand of the oil industry for pipe line 

valves, and to continuing good management. Upon 

Henry Ludlow's retirement in the early 1890s, he 

was succeeded as president by John T. Christie, but 

more important was the appearance in the firm of 

Christie's son-in-law, James H. Caldwell. A graduate 

of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in 1886, Caldwell 

was the scion of a family that had developed the gas 
NUMBER 26 71 

manufacturing industry in the South. He combined 

technical and business skills and applied them for 

more than forty years to the Ludlow valve business. 

Henry Ludlow's only son, however, was not interested in valve making, but instead became a founder 

and dominant figure in the Troy Record, Troy's only 

surviving and successful newspaper. 

Significantly, the Ludlow Company underwent a 

change of ownership in that period which was to 

have serious consequences at a later period. Henry 

Ludlow, on retiring from active management, wished 

to dispose of his large interest in the company. The 

purchasers were a group of New York capitalists, 

among them the lawyer Samuel Untermeyer and his 

brothers, Marcus Stine, and Max Nathan. Thus was 

introduced an element of absentee ownership and 

management, which was content with profits, as long 

as presidents Christie and Caldwell were able to 

produce them. These absentee owners, however, were 

reluctant to invest capital in necessary technological 

improvements of the products and processes of manufacture. The difficulty became more serious in the 

1930s when James H. Caldwell retired and, more 

particularly, when growing depression cut into both 

production and profits. The problem of management 

now became acute and was resolved only partially 

when the Untermeyer group of New York designated 

Caldwell's son-in-law, Livingston W. Houston, also 

a graduate of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, as 

president. 

Houston introduced severe cuts and economies into 

Ludlow operations, but the effects of continued 

depression were not easily overcome. There was a 

serious loss of business, when the oil companies 

adopted more compact steel valves replacing the 

cumberson cast iron ones. Ludlow valves were left 

primarily with a declining market in water and gas 

installations. In 1935, Houston left Ludlow and 

became treasurer, then president, of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Nevertheless, it was Houston, perhaps because of past family associations, who after 

World War II engineered the sale of the Untermeyer 

interests to a local group consisting of himself and 

other Troy investors. Ludlow was once more a locally 

owned company, as it had been in the beginning. 

The problem now was whether the company could 

be rebuilt and restored to its one-time leadership in 

the valve industry. This purpose determined the 

direction and intensity of effort during the next two 

decades. Despite some early success, the program and 

its objectives failed, ending in bankruptcy and final 

liquidation after 1960. 

During this period Houston served as chairman of 

the Board of Directors. Of necessity, he was compelled to devote his major efforts to the Rensselaer 

Polytechnic Institute presidency; therefore, he could 

only influence and direct the company's business 

from a distance. The main quest of the Troy ownership group was for a competent president to manage 

Ludlow effectively in a difficult time. In this they 

never really succeeded. A succession of presidents 

followed one another, proving either too weak or too 

assertive, and none seemed effectual. Perhaps also 

there was a lack, aside from business management, 

of adequate technical direction, especially vital in an 

industry based on technology. A further impediment 

to efficient operations was the difficulty of product 

standardization, resulting from widely varying customer requirements and a large repair business from 

old, nonstandard systems. As a result, large stocks of 

patterns had to be maintained, and large production 

runs were uncommon. 

World War II brought a temporary and special 

kind of boom in Ludlow's fortunes with a demand 

for special naval and maritime equipment. The 

United States Navy financed a foundry for steel castings as a wartime addition to the Ludlow plant. 

However, the problems returned after the war, perhaps in even more acute form. Many factors were at 

work, causing difficulties and retarding development. 

New plants had come into existence in the South 

and West, with greater advantages of location, access 

to materials and markets, and more advanced 

methods. Labor relations in Troy were troublesome 

as half a dozen separate unions in an old industry 

pressed for better wages but resisted technological 

innovations by slow downs. The conditions of divided 

and ineffective management persisted, as the search 

for a permanent and energetic president continued. 

Working capital was tight, allowing little if any 

surplus for improvements. 

Interestingly, in 1954, came a last great effort to 

assure survival and even some hoped-for improvement, through a merger with the Rensselaer Valve 

Company of Cohoes. Claiming almost equal antiquity 

and character, Rensselaer was in almost equal difficulty. Much of the hope and promise lay in the 

acquisition of another line of valves and hydrants 

and in some improved machinery, as well as in the 

superior management available. More important, 
72 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

however, was the prospect of achieving economies 

and the reduction of personnel by a physical consolidation of the two concerns in the Ludlow plant. 

The dismantling of the Rensselaer works was, however, delayed. In the meantime both plants continued 

separate operations, and the distance between them 

alone made cooperation difficult. The costs of removal were great and intensified the shortage of 

working capital. Annual losses were more frequent 

than earnings. A fateful step in the history of the 

Ludlow Company occurred when it was forced to 

negotiate a substantial loan, exceeding a million 

dollars, with a New York factoring organization, 

James Talcott and Company. It proved too great a 

burden, and early in 1960 the Talcott company 

initiated foreclosure proceedings against Ludlow. The 

works were immediately closed, throwing out of work 

the remaining 450 employees, of an earlier 800 divided 

between the Ludlow and Rensselaer plants. 

Court proceedings for bankruptcy and possible 

reorganization began, and the problems of the company were aired both in court and in the press. 

Somewhat belatedly, the unions became concerned 

about the jobs of their members. There was a conflict of interests between the outside factoring organization interested only in their loan, and the local 

ownership group, which hoped for a resumption of 

activity. In the complex testimony that emerged, 

the unhappy state of the company was revealed. 

Total assets were reported at nearly $3.5 million, 

divided among physical facilities, valued at some 

$1.5 million, and inventories, accounts receivable, 

and cash. Against this, liabilities were estimated at 

about $2 million, of which nearly half was represented by the Talcott claims. There was, however, 

a substantial backlog of orders to warrant resumption 

of operations. 

The last years of this old company thus began in 

the shadow of bankruptcy and controversy. The resumption policy won out in 1960 when the Troy 

group sold its interests for a nominal sum to a Cleveland purchaser representing the Triple-A Machinery 

Company, in the used and scrap machinery business. 

Triple-A assumed all liabilities and for several years, 

until October 1968, operated the company on a 

much reduced scale, as a division of a subsidiary, 

Patterson Industries. The handicaps of absentee 

ownership plus all of the old difficulties proved too 

great, however, and in 1968, the plant was dismantled. Usable equipment was removed to East 

Liverpool, Ohio, where production is to be continued 

under the hybrid name, Patterson-Ludlow. The real 

import of the name Ludlow, with its history of a 

century is, however, gone. Another of Troy's nineteenth-century industries, once prospering and successful, has come to an end with a final whimper. 

Sources of Information 

Consultations with and considerable company materials obtained from: 

L. W. Houston, former president of the company and 

chairman of the board. 

Edwin A. Weinberg, former vice-president and works 

manager. 

Raymond Lague, superintendent of the plant in its last 

days and supervisor of its final break-up and removal 

from Troy. 

Numerous news stories in the Troy press, illustrating both 

the triumphs and the travails of the company. 

Catalogs and other publications of the Ludlow and Rensselaer Valve Companies. 

Weise, A. J. The City of Troy and Its Vicinity. Troy, 1886. 

. Troy's One Hundred Years. Troy, 1891. 
Office Building 1881 

Burden Iron Company, Troy 

;HAER NY-7) 

Samuel Rezneck 

Location: Between First Street and Hudson River, site of former Lower (Steam) Works. Now 

on grounds of the Republic Steel Plant, Troy, Rensselaer County, New York. 

Latitude: 42° 42' 36" N. Longitude: 73° 41' 58" W. 

Date of Erection: 1881-1882. 

Designer: Unknown. 

Present Owner and Occupant: Republic Steel Corporation. 

Present Use: Warehouse for machinery parts and miscellaneous storage. 

Significance: An interesting example of nineteenth-century American industrial-commercial 

architecture, and one of the few remaining structures of the Burden Iron Company, an early 

giant of the United States iron industry. 

HISTORICAL INFORMATION 

Original and Subsequent Owners: The chain of 

titles for the land of the Upper (Water) Works is 

recorded in the Rensselaer County Recorder's Office. 

Seller 

Purchaser 

Stephen Van Rensselaer 

George Gardner and others 

Clarissa Adams and others 

Troy Iron & Nail Factory 

Company 

William P. Van Rensselaer 

Troy Iron & Nail Manufacturing Co. 

William P. Van Rensselaer 

Henry Burden 

Liber Page 

4 456 

11 140 

Recording date 

8 Jan. 1808 

13 Oct. 1823 

67 110-111 6 Apr. 1847 

83 463-469 12 Aug. 1852 

The Burden Iron Company was liquidated in 1940 

and the lower site acquired by the Republic Steel 

Corporation. 

Architectural Information: Prepared by Richard J. Pollak. 

Corporate History 

The physical plant of Burden's works was known 

as the Burden Iron Works from the time that Burden 

became its sole owner in 1848. It was owned and 

operated, however, by the corporate entity or firm 

of Henry Burden & Sons (after 1864, H. Burden & 

Sons). When reorganized in 1881, a decade after 

Burden's death, both firm and plant were restyled 

Burden Iron Company. All references herein to structures and events are thus to "Works" or "Company," 

according to whether they are pre- or post-dating 

1881. (See "Chronological Notes," p. 96.) 

One significant, small brick building remains on 

the site of what was once a great industrial complex 

located on the east side of the Hudson River in south 

Troy. It was built after the Civil War as an office 

building to serve the entire works that had developed 

over more than half a century. What was once a 

vast and unique example of American heavy industry 

is gone after a long period of unsightly deterioration. 

On its site now stands only a more modern blast 

furnace, that until recently operated somewhat irregu73 
74 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

HENRY BURDEN. 

FIGURE 46.—Henry Burden (1791-1871), 

(American Artisan, 1 February 1871.) 

larly as a subsidiary of the Republic Steel Corporation, and is now (1970) decommissioned permanently. How did the Burden Iron Company originate 

and develop over more than a century? What were 

its unique contributions both to Troy's growth and 

to the nation's industrial evolution? How and why 

did it come an an end? These are questions of broad 

social and human, as well as technical and economic, 

importance, and the answers to them comprise a 

vital part of the total record, supplementing the evidence of the single remaining building, which once 

contained the company business offices. 

Iron-making in the Troy area had its beginnings 

between 1807 and 1809, when Troy proper was 

barely two decades old, with the erection of two small 

iron plants on a water-power site along the Wynants 

Kill, as it tumbled down 200 feet of cascades across 

a narrow littoral and into the Hudson River. This 

power had been used for grist and saw mills since 

the seventeenth century. Only Albany existed then 

as a settlement, and Troy was not founded until 

1789. The capital for the early iron works came of 

necessity from Albany, but the power sites lay on 

Troy's side of the Hudson. Their products were primarily nails, spikes, and merchant or bar iron. One 

of these plants was established by John Brinkerhoff, 

and it ultimately developed into what was known as 

the Albany Iron Works, under the later ownership 

and management of Erastus Corning and John F. 

Winslow. These men played a large role in the 

growth of iron-making in this area, and during the 

Civil War joined with another Troy iron-maker, 

John A. Griswold, owner of the Rensselaer Iron 

Works, in contracting for the construction of the 

Monitor and other iron-clads. [The hull plates of 

the Monitor, built in Brooklyn, were rolled in Troy.] 

During the war Corning, Winslow, and Griswold 

also formed a company to acquire the American 

rights to the Bessemer patents and eventually constructed a Bessemer steel plant in south Troy, probably the first in the United States (see p. 56). This 

is a story by itself, deserving separate treatment. As 

a neighbor to Burden's on the Wynants Kill, the 

Troy Steel and Iron Company, as it was later known, 

thus grew out of a similar small beginning, and it 

contributed to the heavily industrial character of 

Troy during the nineteenth century. 

The Burden industry originated in 1809, when 

several capitalists from Albany acquired a waterpower on the Wynants Kill for the establishment of 

an iron works to manufacture bar iron, nail rods, 

hoop iron, and other metal products. A decade later 

it had become the Troy Iron & Nail Factory Company, with a capital of $96,000, divided into sixteen 

shares. These were held by half a dozen men, among 

them the original founders, John Converse, E. F. 

Bachus, Isaiah and John Townsend, and Colonel 

Nathaniel Adams. (One of Henry Burden's sons was 

later to be named after Isaiah Townsend.) Colonel 

Adams was the factory agent, and the small industrial village that had grown up about these iron works 

was called Adamsville. 

Henry Burden came on this industrial scene a 

few years later, in 1822, as superintendent of the 

Troy Iron & Nail Factory. Born in Dunblane, Scotland, in 1791, he had arrived in Albany in 1819 as 

an immigrant mechanic with training in drawing 

and engineering, and recommendations from the 

United States Minister in Britain to Stephen Van 

Rensselaer, Thomas Benton, and John C. Calhoun. 

Van Rensselaer welcomed him to Albany, and for 

a time Burden engaged in the development of agricultural machinery, including an improved plow and 
NUMBER 26 75 

FIGURE 47. Early views of the Upper Works, looking southwest from across the Wynants Kill: 

a, Troy Iron and Nail Factory, cl858; b, Burden Iron Company, cl885 (this view, the one 

most frequently reproduced featured the famed "horseshoe-shaped" horseshoe warehouse). 

(a: Barton, 1869 [1858], plate 9; b: Weise, 1886, page 42.) 
76 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

iitZ&XXtt&^AIZAW&CP. 

MACHINERY. 

Henry Burden's Patent Revolving Shingling Machine. 

T

HE Subscriber having recently purchased the right 

of this machine for the United States, now oilers 

to make transfers of the right to run said machine, or 

sell to those who may be desirous to purchase the right 

for one or more of the States. 

This machine is now in successful operation in ten 

or twelve iron works in and about the vicinity of Pittsburgh, also at Phcenixville and Reading, Pa., Covington Iron Works, Md., Troy Rolling Mills, and Troy 

ron and Nail Factory, Troy, N. Y., where it has givuniversal satisfaction. 

Its advantages over the ordinary Forge Hammer are 

numerous: considerable saving in first cost; saving 

in power; the entire saving of shinglers, or hammersman's wages, as no attendance whatever is necessary, 

St being entirely self-acting ; saving in time from the 

uantity of work done, as one machine is capable of 

working the iron from sixty puddling furnaces; saving 

of waste, as nothing but the scoria is thrown off, ana 

that most effectually; saving of staffs, as none are 

used or required. Tne time required to furnish a bloom 

being only about six seconds, the scoria has no time to 

set, consequently is got rid of much easier than when 

allowed to congeal as under the hammer. The iron 

baing discharged from-the machine so hot, rolls better 

and Is much easier on the rollers and machinery. The 

bars roll rounder, and are much better finished. The 

subscriber feels confident that persons who will examine for themselves the machinery,in operation, will 

find it possesses more advantages than have been enumerated. For further particulars address the subscriber at Troy, N. Y. P. A. BURDEN. 

Railroad Spikes and Wrought 

Iron Fastenings. 

T

HE TROY IRON AND NAIL FACTORY, 

exclusive owner of all Henry Burden's Patented 

Machinery for making Spikes, have facilities for manufacturing large quantities upon short notice, and of a 

quality unsurpassed. 

Wrought Iron Chairs, Clamps, Keys and Bolts for 

Railroad fastenings, also made to order. A full assortment of Ship and Boat Spikes always on hand. 

All orders addressed to the Agent at the Factory will 

receive immediate attention. 

P. A. BURDEN, Airent, 

Troy Iron and Nail Factory, Troy, N- Y. 

an early cultivator. Van Rensselaer was a great 

landlord and patron of science and practical technology, who in 1824 founded the Rensselaer School 

in Troy to fulfill Amos Eaton's innovative program 

for the "application of science to the common purposes of life." This subsequently evolved into the 

present Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. 

P

ATENT RAILROAD, SHIP AND BOAT 

Spikes. The Troy Iron and Nail Factory keeps 

constantly for sale a very extensive assortment ot 

Wrought Spikes and Nails, from 3 to 10 inches, 

manufactured by the subscriber's Patent Machinery, 

which after five years'successful operation, and now 

almost universal use in the United States (as well 

as England, where the subscriber obtained a patent) 

are found superior to any ever offered in market. 

Railroad companies may be supplied with Spikes 

having countersink heads suitable to holes in iron 

rails, to any amount and on short notice. Almost 

all the railroads now in progress in the United States 

are fastened with Spikes made at the above named 

factory—for which purpose they are found invaluable, as their adhesion is more than double any common spikes made by the hammer. 

All orders directed to the Agent, Troy, N. York 

will be punctually attended to. 

HENRY BURDEN, Agent. 

Spikes are kept for sale, at Factory Prices, by I. 

& J. Townsend, Albany, and the principal Iron merchants in Albany and Troy; J. I. Brower, 222 Water 

St., New York; A. M.Jones, Philadelphia; T. Janviers, Baltimore; Degrand & Smith, Boston. 

*** Railroad Companies would do well to forward 

their orders as early as practicable, as the subscriber 

is desirous of extending the manufacturing so as to 

keep pace with the daily increasing demand. 

ja45 

PATENT MACHINE MADE HORSE-SHOES, 

The Troy Iron and Nail Factory have always on hand a general asssortment of Horse 

Shoes, made from Refined American Iron. 

Four sizes being made, it will be well for 

those ordering to remember that the size of 

the shoe increases as the numbers—No. 1 being the 

smallest. P. A. BURDEN, Agent, 

Troy Iron and Nail Factory, Troy, N. Y. 

FIGURE 48.—Burden advertising. Burden's name had become well established by the late 1840s, on the basis both 

of the products of his works and his innovations in ironworking machinery. After 1848, when he had acquired 

sole ownership of the works, his eldest son, James A. [not 

P. A.], performed the duties of agent or general manager. 

(American Railroad Journal: a: volume 22 (1849), page 

236; b: volume 20 (1847), page 223; c: volume 22 

(1849), page 239.) 
NUMBER 26 77 

From 1822 to his death in 1871, Henry Burden 

devoted himself to the expansion of the iron works, 

which became virtually his own creation, in name, 

ownership, and character. He passed on a greatly 

enlarged plant to his two surviving sons, James A. 

and I. Townsend, the first of whom displayed much 

of his father's inventive ability and directive capacity. 

It is noteworthy that, while the small beginnings of 

the Troy Iron and Nail Factory were the work of a 

group of men, the great growth of the Burden industrial complex was essentially the achievement of one 

man, Henry Burden himself. 

Henry Burden's contribution was two-fold. In the 

first place, it was managerial. Burden displayed a 

great capacity both for internal management and 

for the required business relations with expanding 

domestic and foreign markets. In the second place, 

he was technically innovative, and became indeed 

one of the principal inventors in nineteenth-century 

America. A painting of eminent American inventors 

in the 1860s shows Henry Burden in company with 

such other figures as Eli Whitney, Robert Fulton, 

and Samuel Morse. 

Burden's inventive career in the iron industry 

began early. By 1825 he had already patented a 

machine for making wrought-iron nails and spikes. 

This branch of manufacture, for which the plant 

had originally been established, continued to be 

important to the end. In 1835, however, Burden's 

inventive talent turned to a new area, the machine 

manufacture of horseshoes. This industrial innovation, for which Burden's became famous, elevated 

Troy to the horseshoe capital of the nation and of 

the world. Henry Burden made successive improvements, for which he obtained patents in 1843, 1857, 

and 1862. The horseshoe machine was acclaimed as 

one of the technical marvels of the age, capable of 

turning out 3,600 horseshoes per hour, complete 

FIGURE 49.—Plan of the Upper Works produced cl875 by Alexander Lyman Holley, eminent 

iron works engineer, for an unknown purpose—possibly a proposed modification. If the plan 

reflects actual conditions, it is clear that, contrary to lore, at least by this date the great water 

wheel drove not all of the Upper Works machinery but only the horseshoe roll-trains. The 

meander of the Kill, into which the horseshoe warehouse was built, has in recent years been 

straightened, its former course now barely evident. (A. L. Holley Collection.) 
78 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

. NT 

" "ft • ' 1 ,-£:. 

•-** • ^ 

•=u£,*->^ 

ja|i l 

- M 2 

• » ? 

I

x 

gn 

FIGURE 50.—Upper Works site plans 

of Burden Iron Works: a, 1858; 

b, 1873; c, 1885. (a: Barton, 1869 

[1858], plate 3, detail; b: Young 

and Blake, 1873; c: Sanborn Map 

and Publishing Co., 1885, volume 1, 

plate 3. 
NUMBER 26 79 

from the iron bar to the finished shoe without the 

touch of a hand or external process. 

The fame and use of this machine spread to 

Europe, and, unhappily, machine-made horseshoes 

facilitated the conduct of large-scale wars in Europe 

and America during the nineteenth century, from the 

Crimean and the Austro-Italian wars in the 1850s on. 

It was particularly instrumental during the American 

Civil War, in adding to the North's great industrial 

advantage over the South. One of the principal objectives of Southern raids was the seizure of Burdenmade horse and mule shoes in Northern supply stocks. 

Toward the end of the war, among a wild outpouring of Southern plots centered in Canada, an attempt 

was contemplated to secure designs of the horseshoe 

machine in Burden's Troy plant in order to set up 

a factory in Atlanta. Sherman's capture of Atlanta 

frustrated the attempt. 

In 1859, on one of his visits to Europe, Burden 

arranged for the sale of the British rights to the 

horseshoe machine to the Chillington Company. He 

noted, ironically, that the British product was to be 

advertised as "Burden's Hammered Horse and Mule 

Shoes," in which the word "hammered" replaced 

"machine." The process included the heavy blow of 

a hammer on each shoe, instead of its passing through 

a flattener, which Chillington contended would make 

the shoe "more straight," and "in addition tickling 

the fancy of the advocate of Hammering." With 

the European prejudice in favor of hand operations, 

advocacy of "machine" operations was "in no country of any benefit to the sale of the shoes." The object 

of this compromise was apparently to enable the 

British to enjoy the benefits of both worlds, machinemade as well as hand-made. 

Burden's inventiveness seemed to have no bounds. 

In 1840 he patented what was probably his most 

significant contribution to the iron industry. This 

was the rotary concentric squeezer, which substituted 

mechanical squeezing for the forge hammer in converting the ball of puddled iron into blooms. It was 

acclaimed by the U.S. Commissioner of Patents as 

the first truly original American invention in ironmaking. It also caught the fancy of British observers, 

who reported to Parliament in 1854 on the merits of 

the process. This invention, like others, became the 

subject of wide imitation and litigation in the industry generally. Burden derived the greatest benefits 

from his innovations by their effective exploitation 

in his own expanding plant rather than from the 

collection of royalties. 

Still another of Burden's inventions grew out of 

his combined mechanical skill and business perceptiveness. On one of his visits to England he had 

observed the shift from flat rails to "H" or "I " types. 

The latter required a different type of spike for 

nailing the rails down to the ties. The spike had to 

be bent or hook-headed, and in 1840 he developed 

a machine for its manufacture. Such spikes became 

a major product of the Burden firm, paralleling the 

expansion of railroads. It is noteworthy that Burden's 

iron manufactures met the needs of a kind of dual 

age, in which both the horse and the railroad were 

prominent. The hook-headed spike machine became 

the subject of a prolonged litigation between Burden 

and his industrial neighbor in south Troy, Corning 

and Winslow's Albany Iron Company. Initiated in 

1842, the suit dragged on for a quarter of a century, 

from court to court, reaching the Supreme Court of 

the United States. It became a major cause celebre 

of American business. Winning a vindication of his 

patent at great expense, Burden, however, won meager 

compensation for damages. A pamphlet of 1866 on 

the Burden case complained bitterly of the delays 

and costs of the law in America. 

Although primarily preoccupied with the iron 

industry, Henry Burden also applied his talents to 

navigation and the development of marine steamboats. As early as 1833, he designed the "cigar boat," 

300 feet long, based on a cigar-shaped double hull 

and equipped with large paddlewheels. The first 

model, appropriately named Helen, after his wife, 

was accidentally sunk in the Hudson River. Burden 

continued, however, to have faith in the unusual 

concept. He boasted to his wife in 1842, in a letter 

from England, that Mr. Lardner, a famous technical 

publicist, had lectured on this boat in England, and 

"he assured me that nothing created such universal 

excitement throughout all Europe as did the notice 

of my boat." A few years later Burden advocated 

large steamers, of 15,000 tons, for the Atlantic crossing. The Great Eastern, launched by Brunei about 

a decade later, was a partial fulfillment of this proposal. In 1846 Burden became the promoter of 

"Burden's Atlantic Steam Ferry Company," which 

was established in Glasgow for the operation of large 

steamships. Perhaps fortunately, it did not materialize, 

and thereafter Burden was able to confine himself 

to his original enterprise, the Iron Works. 

The invention of improved iron-making machinery 

punctuated the growth and success of Burden's career 

as an iron master. He regularly acquired more shares 
SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

LAYOUT OF 

HENRY BURDEN &. SONS' FACTORY, 

SHOWING RELATION OF 

WATER-WHEEL TO MACHINERY, 

RESTORED. 

FIGURE 51.—The Great Burden Water Wheel 

was historically treated by F. R. I. Sweeny in 

the Transactions of the American Society of 

Civil Engineers in 1915: a, Sweeny's plan of 

the LTpper Works; b, Sweeney's view of the 

wheel after dismantling of the Works was 

nearly complete, cl899; c, the wheel, cl900, 

fully exposed. The hand regulating-wheel is 

just above the main bearing; at the right is 

the flywheel for maintaining the speed of the 

rolls under varying loads; on the same shaft 

is the bevel gear that drove the jackshaft 

driving the roll trains (see Figures 49, 51a). 

The Great Wheel collapsed in 1914 and the 

final remnants were scrapped just prior to 

World War II. d, The wheel in its last agonies, 

cl930. (a: Sweeny, 1915, page 710; b: 

Sweeny, 1915, page 711; c: courtesy of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Library; d: courtesy 

of National Museum of History and Technology, 

Smithsonian Institution.) 
- . .

. • • 

t 
82 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 52.—Iron Works site: (above) Only the pit and end of the supply conduit in the bank 

mark the site of the Burden Waterwheel today; the Upper Works site has practically reverted 

to nature; (below) general view, 1971. (Vogel) 
NUMBER 26 83 

of the Troy Iron and Nail Company, until by 1835 

he owned half of the stock. Most of his expanding 

financial interest in the business was received as 

compensation for the assignment to the firm of the 

rights to his iron machinery patents. By 1848 he was 

full owner of the works, which thereafter were corporately styled Henry Burden and Sons. In the 

meantime the works were steadily enlarged (Figure 

50). Until the Civil War they were located on the 

slope of the hill above the Hudson River and were 

powered by Wynants Kill water. In 1851 they reached 

their greatest capacity when Burden designed and 

installed the "Niagara of Water Wheels," the most 

powerful, if not the largest in the world, to derive 

several trains of rolling mills. An overshot wheel 

with a capacity of 500 horsepower,6 it was 60 feet in 

diameter and 22 feet wide. It had thirty-six buckets, 

each 6 feet 3 inches deep, and made two revolutions 

per minute. One of the industrial wonders of America, 

the Burden wheel inspired, among other things, a 

series of senior theses by students of nearby Rensselaer 

Polytechnic Institute, which were at once reverential 

and scientific in character. Even in its decaying state 

after abandonment about 1900, the wheel commanded interest as a sight to visit along with the 

Cohoes Falls on the Mohawk River across the Hudson 

River (Figure 51). A caption on a picture postcard 

of the wheel printed cl907 reflects the contemporary 

local sentiment, "A movement was begun to take the 

wheel to pieces, but the Trojans desired that it be 

left standing as a monument to the skill and enterprise of him who had developed in their midst a 

most useful and powerful industry" (files of Museum 

of History and Technology). 

The Wynants Kill as a power source had the 

advantage of a steady flow of water from a chain 

of lakes to the east of Troy, but Burden further 

improved its regularity by developing a series of 

reservoirs in its lower stretches, including one on top 

of the hill overlooking the wheel. Long neglected, 

these reservoirs are now sluggish bodies of water 

choked with vegetation, a sad reminder of earlier, 

more useful days. 

By the time of the Civil War the complex of 

structures known as the Upper or Water Works had 

reached its capacity, and still the demand for expansion grew. Beginning in 1862, a new complex of 

8

 The horsepower of the wheel is variously given as ranging from 500 to 1,000. Sweeny (1915) in 1914 calculated 

it at 278 assuming a hydraulic efficiency of 84.25 percent. 

works was constructed on a forty-five acre farm lying 

between the railroad and the river. This was to be 

known as the Lower or Steam Works, as the blast 

furnace blowers and all of the other iron works 

machinery was driven by large steam engines. Coal, 

iron ore, and lime flux were brought in by rail and 

river. Burden, in fact, at that time acquired large 

tracts of land in Vermont, which contained ore and 

marble for flux. Materials came also from northern 

and eastern New York State. 

The Burden firm thus became an early example 

of an integrated iron works, encompassing all stages 

of manufacture from raw materials to pig iron to 

finished products. A contemporary description of the 

works by his daughter, Margaret Burden Proudfit, 

in Henry Burden provides a detailed account of this 

American industry, under one management, at its 

peak toward the end of the nineteenth century. 

Pages 70-77 of that account are reprinted below. 

The little wooden mill which he [Burden] entered as a 

superintendent long ago disappeared to give place to his 

larger works, which today, were they to stand in one alignment, would occupy a tract of land a mile in length. This 

immense establishment comprises two works—the "upper 

works," or water-mills, on the Wynants Kill, a short distance east of the Hudson River: and the new works, called 

the "lower works" or steam-mills, located on the "farm 

company" property, and the "Hoyle farm" embracing about 

forty-five acres of land between the Hudson River railroad 

and the river, extending from the Wynants Kill to the 

Clinton foundry. 

The "upper works" embrace the following buildings: 

A rolling-mill and puddling forge, 358 x 136 feet. 

A horseshoe factory, two buildings, one 125 x 34 feet, 

and one 120 x 50 feet. 

A rivet factory, 120 x 80 feet. 

A horseshoe warehouse, semi-circular, 168 x 120 feet containing 16 large bins, in which can be stored 7,000 tons 

of horseshoes. 

A scraphouse and shop, 175 x 50 feet. Here are also the 

general business office, a supply store, a rivet warehouse, 

the stables, etc. 

The "lower works," or the new works, embrace the following 

structures: 

Two blast furnaces, each 65 feet high and 16 feet at their 

boshes, with two casting-houses, each 92 x 47 feet. 

Two stockhouses, each 114 x 65 feet. 

An engine room, 85 x 50 feet. 

A puddling forge, 492 x 83 feet. 

A rolling-mill, 421 x 96 feet. 

A swaging shop, 271 x 45 feet. 

A punching shop, 253 x 45 feet. 

A horseshoe warehouse, 318 x 60 feet. 

A square building, containing offices, showroom, etc., 96 x 

96 feet. 
84 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

a 

FIGURE 53.—Views of the Lower Works. The Office Building, 1881, is in the bottom view, 

far right, (a: Lossing, 1876, opposite page 220; b: Weise, 1886, page 44.) 

fM0S^, 

FIGURE 54.—The twin blast furnaces, Lower Works of the Burden Iron Company. 

(Weise, 1886, page 45.) 
NUMBER 26 85 

A machine shop, 140 x 57 feet. 

A blacksmith shop, 130 x 55 feet. 

A foundry, 250 x 57 feet. 

A pattern shop, 85 x 55 feet. 

A tin and plumbing shop, 64 x 55 feet. 

A building containing a supply store, draughting-room, 

laboratory, etc., 105 x 55 feet. 

An iron warehouse, 167 x 55 feet. 

The erection of these works began in 1862, several 

buildings of which have been recently completed. This 

property has a river frontage of nearly a mile in extent, and 

an average elevation of eleven feet, being one foot higher 

than the track of the Hudson River railroad, east of it. The 

ground, before the erection of these great buildings, was 

low, and on account of periodical freshets made dangerous 

to persons residing thereon. At great expense, these low 

grounds have been filled up and made valuable to the 

owners. The depth of water in the river adjacent to the 

works was shallow and full of bars, but by dredging, an 

average depth of about fourteen feet has been obtained 

and made H. Burden & Sons' dock accessible to the largest 

vessels plying on the upper Hudson. 

ACRES OF MACHINERY 

For the manufacturing purposes of these extensive mills 

a great amount of machinery is required. Could all the 

machines which are now in constant operation in these 

buildings be placed together in an open space of ground, 

it is more than likely that they would occupy more than 

a half score of acres of ground. Not to refer to their 

respective dimensions, the various classes of machinery 

found in the upper and lower works combined are the 

following: 

Sixty puddling furnaces. 

Twenty heating furnaces. 

Fourteen trains of rolls. 

Three rotary concentric squeezers. 

Nine horseshoe machines. 

Twelve rivet machines. 

Ten large and fifteen small steam engines. 

Seventy boilers. 

One large water-wheel, already described. 

In and about the buildings of the lower works is a network of railroad tracks, upon which daily are to be seen 

moving trains of cars conveying iron ore, kaolin, sand, 

stone, etc., to the different departments, or being loaded 

with horseshoes and merchant-iron for distant purchasers. 

For shifting these cars from place to place, H. Burden 

& Sons own a locomotive, which is in constant requisition. 

The steam derricks used for unloading coal from boats 

in the river, which attract so much of the attention of 

passengers on the passing steamboats, when going by the 

docks of the lower works, the invention of the late William 

F. Burden, are very ingenious contrivances, peculiar to these 

mills. Each one of these labor-saving appliances consists 

of two lofty wooden frames, placed one at the dock and 

the other at the rear of the coal-heap, some 300 feet 

distant. A strong wire cable is stretched over these frames, 

on which an iron carriage travels to and fro, carrying a 

self-dumping iron bucket, which has a capacity for holding 

about a ton of coal. The power is furnished by a steam 

engine near the rear frame which hoists the bucket filled 

with coal from the boat to the cable and conveys it back 

to the point where is fastened the tilting apparatus that 

overturns its contents upon the pile. 

Alongside of these mammoth heaps of coal are seen vast 

deposits of iron ore. These are chiefly brown hematite and 

the dark magnetic ore of Lake Champlain. Here, too, are 

piles of a fine quality of limestone, brought from Hudson, 

N.Y., which is used as "flux" to aid in the fusion of the 

ores. 

THE ROMANCE OF MAKING HORSESHOES 

The processes by which the mined iron ore is melted and 

moulded, the cast metal puddled and cut into small bars, 

these reheated and fashioned into long, narrow rods, to be 

passed to the horseshoe machines, are of peculiar interest 

to a spectator, and seem to him, like a dreamy romance, 

full of strange incidents and unthought-of dispositions. Step 

by step let him follow these different metallurgic operations, 

if he wishes to discover what are the secrets which are 

behind the smoky curtain that nature here places about 

these great furnaces and dusky forges. Entering the engineroom he inspects the admirable action of the two splendid 

engines, each of 250 horse-power, projecting a stream of 

air for the blast of the furnace; and here also are two 

Worthington pumps for supplying with water the boilers 

and other machinery of the mills. Here he sees the carefully kept hydrometrical, thermometrical, and barometrical 

statistics, the number of the total "charges" of ore as 

regards their character and weight, the amount of coal and 

of limestone, the quality and the quantity of the pig-iron 

made, the pressure and the temperature of the blast, and 

other important data. The blast furnace that to him had a 

close resemblance to the high walls, strong towers and lofty 

battlements of an ancient castle, as he first viewed it from 

the windows of the cars on the Hudson River railroad, he 

now sees is a massive brick and stone structure, sixty feet 

in height. Alongside of the extensive heaps of iron ore and 

limestone are groups of men filling handbarrows, which 

with their contents will soon be hoisted to the top of the 

furnace. Before doing this, the ore in the barrows is 

weighed. Stepping upon the platform of the "elevator," 

upon which have been run several of these barrows of ore 

and limestone, he soon is carried upward until the fuming 

breath of the heated furnace fills his nostrils and warns 

him of the internal fires raging within its capacious depths. 

Here he sees a chimney-like structure over the mouth of 

the furnace supported by six iron columns, each of which 

marks a division into which at set intervals a certain 

number of barrows of ore, limestone, and coal are dumped 

in order to keep the furnace filled evenly to its mouth. 

Through this great quantity of burning and melting material 

is a heated blast of air pouring night and day the year 

round, and the molten metal flowing down into the hearth 

below where it is tapped and run-off into the casting-house. 

Over the floor of this building is spread a covering of sand 
86 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

PLAN . 

BURDE N I RON WORKS 

TROY.N. Y 

A. I, II.)IM \ <: i; Q 

. ; _ i Hz.- J>— • 

I ' ' m>. 

. : . ' i J_ - r T^ 

J_j ..„•„ 

OTt 

I I I I I I I I I I 

-A°uDOL//>to famcr 

• H I I 1 I I I I I 

0 

FIGURE 55.—Lower Works site plans of Burden Iron Works by A. L. Holley: a, cl875; 

b, 1885. (a: A. L. Holley Collection; b: Sanborn Map and Publishing Co., volume 1, plate 5.) 
NUMBER 26 87 

FIGURE 56.—Site plans of Lower Works of Burden Steam Mill, 1903. 

(Sanborn Map Co., 1903, volume 2, plates 119-120.) 
88 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

© 

L~ 

FIGURE 57.—Recent Lower Works site plan, 1955, reflecting what will probably be the last 

iron/steel manufacture in the Troy area. (Sanborn Map Co., 1955, volume 2, plate 119.) 

two or three feet deep, which is called "the pig-bed." 

Longitudinal trenches are made in this bed, which are 

termed "sows," from which at right angles are formed 

smaller trenches of "pigs." When the molten metal flows 

from the furnace it runs through and fills these trenches, 

where it slowly cools, and when taken out it is known as 

pig-iron. 

THE WONDERS OF THE PUDDLING FORGE 

The chemical elements of pig-iron are such as to render 

it unfit for any serviceable use in these mills, and it 

therefore undergoes another process of melting in the 

puddling furnaces, where it is subjected to currents of air 

and flame while agitated by tools in the hands of the 

puddler. This manipulation brings it in contact with oxygen, which drives out the carbon in the pig-iron, leaving 

the metal afterward in a decarbonized condition. 

In this temple of Vulcan—the puddling forge—the 

visitor beholds a scene of stirring activity seldom witnessed 

elsewhere. Scattered in groups or dispersed singly through 

this spacious building are hundreds of brawny men, with 

faces bedewed with perspiration and begrimed with coal 

dust, nude to their waists, their feet incased in heavy hob-
NUMBER 26 89 

nailed shoes, and their strong hands turning, thrusting, 

pulling, and piling the molten of fashioned iron in ways 

innumerable amid the heat, the smoke and the short-lived 

splendor of a thousand red-hot metallic sparks. Here are 

sooty-faced men stirring through the open doors of flaming 

furnaces, glowing incandescent masses of iron that blind 

one's eyes with their fervent brilliancy; others again are 

taking great balls of puddled metal from the furnaces in 

iron buggies and casting them into the devouring jaws of 

the rotary concentric squeezers, from which, as unpalatable 

morsels, they are ejected in the shape of compact blooms 

which are immediately taken up red-hot as they are, and 

thrust between a pair of revolving cylinders, placed one 

above the other, and furnished with grooves of various 

sizes through which the bloom is run forward and backward, until it is shaped into a long bar of crude iron. The 

bars which have already cooled are then carefully tested 

by placing the end of each one on an anvil, where it is 

cut and bent before it receives its classification. These are 

then carried on cars to a great pair of iron shears, where 

they are cut as if they were ribbon, into pieces about three 

feet in length. These pieces, a number of them called "a 

pile," are again placed in furnaces, where they are reheated and again taken out and passed through the roll 

trains, whence they issue, like long fiery serpents, in narrow 

bars, and passed to the horseshoe machines. 

SIXTY HORSESHOES MADE IN A MINUTE 

Watch this wonderful piece of mechanism at work, which 

in a second of time makes a horseshoe. Before you are 

two strong frames between which are four revolving shafts 

geared together and getting their motion from a pulleywheel. On the shaft most exposed to view, you see three 

cams, one of which raises a cutting level, another lifts a 

bending frame on which is a bending tongue, and the third 

works the flattening pieces. This shaft also gives motion 

to the feed rollers. The center shaft revolves an iron wheel 

upon the periphery of which, at opposite points, are two 

iron dies to give form to the upper or concave side of 

the shoe—the side that is next to a horse's hoof. Another 

shaft in like manner revolves a die which gives form to the 

lower part of the shoe. These several dies are curved in 

form and "mash" into each other, at each revolution of the 

shafts. The shaft which carries the shaping apparatus has 

also two cams for working side levers which close in the 

heels of the shoe, the creasing shaft bears an iron block to 

which are attached the "creasers." 

Observe now the rapid movements of these shafts and 

their appurtenances. Gliding like a fiery serpent, you see 

a red-hot bar of iron, moving toward the machine, on the 

feeding rollers. Already the iron jaws of the monster are 

opening to catch between its incisive teeth this glowing 

rib of iron. The end of the bar has passed to the opposite 

side of the ravenous automaton's mouth, which is the 

proper measurement of the length of the intended shoe— 

the cutter comes up and severs it, and for an instant stops 

the feed; the bending tongue raises up and is pushed 

against the cut bar and bends it between two forked cams; 

it is then caught between the upper and lower dies, taking 

their impression, the bending tongue falls back, and the 

side levers close in the heel-ends. While yet upon the center 

shaft die, a partial revolution carries it against the creasing 

die, where it is creased and receives the indented marks 

for the nail-holes. A little farther around, it is taken from 

the lower die by two knives and falls down and is then 

carried by an endless chain of linked pieces of malleable 

iron to the punching-room. In the latter are seen a long 

line of men seated astride of the saddles of the punching 

machines making the nail-holes through the indented marks 

previously put in the creased part of the shoes. Thence they 

are conveyed in hand-cars to the swaging furnaces in which 

they are placed before they are swaged. 

Boys are at work here, taking with tongs the heated 

shoes from the furnace and putting them singly on the 

revolving dies of the swaging machine. After the heated 

shoe is seated upon one of these dies, it is carried to the 

top of the machine where it is stopped for a moment; a top 

die descends on it and two side steels swage the sides of 

the shoe, removing all bulges and making the outside edges 

of the shoe perfectly smooth; thence it is carried farther 

to the opposite side of the machine where there are two 

other side swedges which swedge up the heels of the shoe, 

thence it is carried beneath the machine where a wiper 

removes it from the die and the shoe falling upon an endless band of malleable plates is carried to the south end 

of the swaging shop where it is dropped off to cool and 

to be rigidly inspected before being transferred in hand 

cars to the bins of the shoe warehouse. The shoes when 

packed for shipping are then taken out, weighed and 

packed in kegs, in each of which are to be found 100 

pounds of perfectly made horseshoes. 

Above the lower openings of the great bins in the 

horseshoe warehouse are the printed names of the pattern 

and size of the different classes of shoes. There are three 

patterns of Burden's improved swaged horseshoes, namely, 

the light, medium, and heavy. As the visitor's eye glances 

along the long line of the bins, he sees the sizes marked 

as follows: Horseshoes "fore," Nos. 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7; and 

"hind" of the same sizes; mule shoes, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. 

SHOES FOR MORE THAN TWELVE MILLIONS 

OF HORSES 

The stupendous manufacturing resources of H. Burden & 

Sons' establishment are really only comprehended by the 

visitor when he asks how many horseshoes the machines 

he has so intently watched produce annually. The answer 

that the works have a capacity for making 600,000 kegs, 

or about 51,000,000 shoes, is to him almost too amazing 

to be believed, and yet he has himself looked upon the 

practical evidences of this great power of production. The 

two warehouses, one at the upper and the other at the lower 

works, have storage capacity for more than 250,000 kegs. 

The nine horschoe machines in use, which he has witnessed 

in their separate operations, can make sixty shoes in a 

minute. As he pictures to himself this army of twelve 

millions of horses that can be annually shod with the 

shoes made at these works, he realizes the important and 

useful character of the wonderful machine designed by 

HENRY BURDEN. Where are these shoes sold? Everywhere 
90 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

throughout the United States and Canada. Here in the 

lower warehouse a visitor, a day or two ago, could have 

seen hundreds of these kegs filled with shoes, their marked 

destinations being San Francisco, Cal., and Portland, Oregon. 

These shoes for their excellence of quality and finish have a 

world-wide reputation, and this single establishment, to 

which Troy points with pride, manufactures more horseshoes than all the other works in the world put together. 

One can still picture these works spewing forth 

streams of smoke and soot over the whole of south 

Troy, which comprised a remarkable example of a 

nineteenth-century industrial settlement, with grocery 

stores and saloons on almost every street corner. Even 

in their present quiescence, the surviving houses still 

bear the grime of an age of coal. Here were collected 

over the century the diverse components of the first 

wave of immigration that populated this country and 

filled its mills and shops with labor. There were the 

early families of Scottish, English, and Welsh mechanics, many brought over by Burden, who gave 

their name to Scotch Hill. More numerous were the 

Irish immigrants who occupied the streets and alleys 

in the valley below. To complete, as it were, the 

character of industrial feudalism which the whole 

possessed, there was the Woodside Presbyterian 

Church, built by Henry Burden in memory of his 

wife. Over all, on top of the hill, stood Woodside, 

the manorial house occupied by the master, Henry 

Burden, and his family. 

At its peak, the Burden Iron Company employed 

more than 1400 men, with an annual output of 

600,000 kegs containing more than fifty million horseshoes. It was the largest factory of its kind in the 

country, probably in the world. In addition, the 

Burden company turned out vast quantities of railroad spikes, rivets, and other iron products. "Burden's 

Best" became a trade name for iron of high quality. 

The vast Burden complex, both as a productive 

mechanical plant and as a flourishing business organization, was largely the accomplishment of Henry 

Burden himself during a dedicated lifetime between 

1822 and 1871. It was soon thereafter troubled and 

even threatened with dissolution, although it survived another half a century before its final disintegration. The first source of difficulty was internal, 

deriving from interfraternal friction. There were 

only two surviving brothers of an original four, to 

whom the succession passed even before the father's 

death. They were James A. and I. Townsend Burden, 

who were quite different both temperamentally and 

in their suitability for industrial management. The 

older, James A., apparently inherited his father s 

mechanical as well as business skill, but I. Townsend, 

the younger son, was more inclined to lead the life 

of a rich man's son, driving fine fast horses and 

traveling luxuriously and widely. 

In the original partnership of Henry Burden & 

Sons, both sons owned equal shares and had independent as well as conflicting ideas on management. 

Friction was therefore inevitable and threatened the 

very partnership itself by 1881. What might have 

happened to the whole Burden business under these 

circumstances is problematical. For good or for ill, 

a way out was found through incorporation and 

reorganization as the Burden Iron Company, the 

basis of which was actually an effort to cover over 

division in the family. Under it James, with a somewhat larger share of stock ownership, became president, and I. Townsend had to be content with a 

smaller interest and virtually no authority. The 

capitalization was $2 million. Actual management 

was turned over to a third man, John L. Arts, who 

had worked at Burden's from boyhood. He became 

general manager on the ground, since both brothers 

were now away from Troy much of the year, living 

in New York City. Thus early did the Burden family 

dissociate itself from Troy and from the actual operation of the plant and direct it from a physical as 

well as social distance. 

Even incorporation did not solve the problems of 

the Burden business. In 1889 I. Townsend entered 

suit against his brother James, to put the company 

under a receivership. The internal affairs and quarrels 

of the family were aired in open court during a 

prolonged hearing, and the proceedings were published in all their lurid details. It came out for 

example that, after the father's death, the company 

had suffered decline and deterioration. The early 

patents for Burden's machines had expired, and 

competition in horseshoe manufacture had become 

intense to the detriment of the Burden business. Only 

James' mechanical ingenuity saved the day as a 

new improved swaging machine restored a kind of 

leadership in the horseshoe field and the remote and 

expensive iron ore obtained in Vermont from lands 

acquired in the Civil War years was replaced by 

cheaper, better ore brought from the Adirondacks. 

With the fortunes of the company improved, the suit 

was dismissed. 

The Burden company acquired, as it were, a new 

lease on life and prosperity, and flourished for a few 
NUMBER 26 91 

FIGURE 58.—The Burden Office Building, looking northwest (Weise, 1886, page 47.) 

WV:':•••• Y 

ft 

FIGURE 59.—Burden Office Building, east and north elevations. 
92 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

decades longer, despite continued friction between 

the brothers. Even the erection of an office building 

in 1882, an interesting example of nineteenthcentury business architecture and the principal surviving physical relic of this one-time iron company 

in Troy, was the source of disagreement. It is evident 

from this intrafamily squabble that divided management was to remain a chief source of weakness in the 

company, to which were added in due course technological stagnation and the changing geography and 

composition of the American iron industry, particularly after 1900, which left Troy behind as an iron 

center. 

Consequently, gradual decline soon set in and 

spread out over half a century. Well before 1900 the 

upper water-works became uneconomical. It was 

eventually abandoned to a sad state of deterioration, 

including the slow ruin of the magnificent water 

wheel. Production was concentrated in the lower 

steam-works. Here too, changes became evident after 

1900. Horeshoes, once the principal Burden product, 

diminished in importance, although as late as 1933 

United States Army horses were still shod with 

Burden shoes. Nevertheless, a company catalog of 

1920 entitled Burden Iron and Its Uses, did not 

even mention horseshoes. Instead, it argued for the 

superiority of wrought or puddled iron, particularly 

of Burden quality, over steel, for many purposes. The 

principal products were now advertised as [boiler] 

stay and engine bolts, rivets, and chain iron, and in 

addition to "Burden's Best," were lesser grades of 

merchant iron. In the modern age of steel it was not 

possible for Burden's manufacturing iron specialties 

alone to maintain the scale of operations developed 

in the nineteenth century. 

The decline of Burden's was part of a general 

slowdown of Troy's role as an iron-making center. 

The steel works and other heavy metal establishments either suspended or were sharply curtailed as 

the pull of the West, with better access to coal, ore, 

and markets, asserted itself. As an older center of 

iron manufacture, Troy's technology and machinery 

tended toward obsolescence, and its labor was perhaps more turbulent and troublesome. Management 

too tended to become less driving and dynamic. 

In this connection the role and association of the 

Burden family with this enterprise during its last 

phase are especially noteworthy. Henry Burden's 

sons, James A. and I. Townsend, continued to manage the works until their death. Both lived during 

their last years in New York City, and Woodside was 

only their address for occasional visits to Troy. 

James A. died in 1906 and I, Townsend in 1913. 

The last Burden president of the company was 

James A. Burden, Jr., who died in 1932. The family 

was now fully established in New York City, where 

its descendants still enjoy social prominence. 

In 1925 the Burden company ventured into a new 

field of activity, the Hudson Valley Coke & Product 

Corporation, located on the Burden site, for the 

manufacture of coke, gas, and pig iron. James A. 

Burden, Jr., was chairman, with immediate direction 

in new, but changing, hands. It was not, however, 

very successful. 

By 1934 the Burden Iron Company was in obvious 

difficulties and apparently in receivership. The 

Burdens were now listed as trustees, while William E. 

Millhouse, formerly the general superintendent, was 

both president and treasurer. The officers changed 

frequently, although a Burden appeared as a trustee 

until 1939, when even that remote connection was 

apparently severed. The Burden Iron Company was 

making desperate efforts to operate during those 

years of depression in reduced circumstances and to 

discover new products. Failure was impending, and 

by 1940 the company was in liquidation. 

The Republic Steel Corporation acquired the 

Burden blast furnace, built in 1925, and has operated 

it since then. In November 1940 the Burden Office 

Building, the lone survivor of this one-time vast 

plant (except for the furnace and a few decrepit 

storage sheds), was emptied of its accumulation of 

company records. They were turned over to the 

Division of Manuscripts of the New York State 

Library in Albany for preservation. Thus ended the 

long history of an industrial establishment which had 

been originally created in the infancy of Troy and 

of American industry. It had thrived for a century 

and then suffered decline for a generation longer. 

Its end was only part of a general process of decline 

which affected other industries in Troy, both metal 

and textile. 

Sources of Information 

UNPUBLISHE D 

Burden Company papers. Manuscript Division, Albany, 

New York. New York State Library. 

Troy. Rensselaer County Clerk's office. Deeds and land 

grants of the Burden family and the Burden Company. 
NUMBER 26 93 

FGURE 60.—Burden Office Building; a, East elevaton; b, south elevation; c, entrance detail, east elevation; d, roof detail from south. 

Troy. File in office of Republic Steel Corporation, now occupying and using the "lower mill" site for a blast 

furnace. 

New York City. Consultation with Mrs. Wesley Metcalf, 

research associate to Mr. W. A. H. Burden. 

A. L. Holley collection. Division of Industries, National 

Museum of History and Technology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 

PUBLISHE D 

American Artisan, 1 February 1871. New York. 

American Railroad Journal, volumes 20 (1847), 22 (1849). 

New York. 

Barton, William. Map of the City of Troy and Green Island, 

N.Y. Troy, 1869. [Map printed 1858, bound later.] 

Burden Iron and Its Uses. 30 pages. Troy: Burden Iron 

Company, 1920. [Catalog of iron products and description 

of Works; brief history.] 

Lossing, Benson J. The American Centenary. Philadelphia: 

Porter and Coates, 1876. 

Proudfit, Margaret Burden. Henry Burden, His Life. Troy, 

1904. 

Sanborn Map Co. Insurance Maps of Troy, Rensselaer 

County, New York. 2 volumes. New York, 1903. 

. [Insurance Maps of] Troy, New York. 2 volumes. New York, 1955. 

Sanborn Map and Publishing Co. [Atlas of] Troy. 2 volumes. New York, 1885. 
94 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Sweeny, F. R. I. "The Burden Water-Wheel." Transactions 

of the American Society of Civil Engineers, volume 79, 

paper 1343 (1915), pages 708-726. 

Uselding, Paul J. "Henry Burden and the Question of 

Anglo-American Transfer in the Nineteenth Century." 

Journal of Economic History, volume 30, number 2 

(June 1970), pages 312-337. 

Weise, Arthur J. The City of Troy and Its Vicinity. Troy: 

Edward Green, 1886. 

Weise, Arthur J. One Hundred Years of Troy. Troy: William 

H. Young, 1891. 

Young, William H. and Blake. Map of the City of Troy, 

N.Y. Troy, 1873. 

Various articles in Troy newspapers, especially regarding 

Burden suits. 

Various articles on the Burden Water Wheel are in the files 

of the Division of Mechanical and Civil Engineering, 

National Museum of History and Technology, Smithsonian 

Institution, Washington, D.C. 

THE BURDEN IRON WORKS 

Henry Burden, i native of Scotland, and educated there in engineering 

and drawing, and who came to the United States in 1819, was the first 

inventor of a machine for making spikes. He settled in Troy, New York, 

where iron-works in which he became interested, had been established as 

early as 1813. Mr. Burden became connected with them in 1822, when they 

were owned and worked by an incorporated company under the name of the 

"Tro y Iron and Nail Factory." The works were then small, but through 

the energy, industry and inventive genius of Henry Burden, they rapidly 

increased in importance. He was successively superintendent and agent of 

the works, and president of the Company. After many additions had been 

made to the establishment, the works were entirely re-built on a much 

larger scale. 

Before his settlement in Troy, Mr. Burden had invented a plow and a 

cultivator. In 1825, he patented 1 machine for making ship-spikes which, 

up to that time, had been made by hand. On the same machines countersunk railroad spikes for flat rails were afterward made. About 1830, he 

invented a machine for making horse nails. In 1834, he was granted a 

patent for an improvement in the method of constructing steamboats and 

other vessels. The year before, he built at the Troy Iron Works a steamboat 300 feet in length with paddle-wheels 30 feet in diameter, which, on 

account of its shape, was called the "cigar boat." He anticipated the 

younger Brunei in advocating the construction of ocean steamships. In 

January, 1846, a prospectus of" Burden's Atlantic Steam Ferry Company " 

was issued at Glasgow, Scotland, in which it was declared that the present 

Atlantic steamers [of the Cunard line,] magnificent though they be, are as 

inferior in their results to what they may become, as a well appointed stage 

coach is to a railway train. 

In 1840, Mr. Burden obtained a patent for a process of his invention for 

making " hook-headed " railroad spikes. He had used the process several 

years before the patent was granted. The same year he obtained a patent 

for a machine for rolling puddled iron balls, called the " Burden Rotary 

Squeezer," which caused important changes in the process of manufacturing 

iron throughout the world. At one time about three-fourths of all the puddled iron made on the earth, passed through these machines. 

Mr. Burden's greatest invention was the machine for making horse-shoes, 

which was first patented in 1835. An improvement was patented in 1S53; 

and in 1857 he obtained a patent for another horse-shoe machine, which was 

again improved and patented in 1S62. As fast as Mr. Burden's inventions 

were perfected, they were put into operation in the works at Troy. In those 

works ship-spikes, hook-headed railroad spikes, and horse-shoe nails were 

first made by machinery. There Burden's Rotary Squeezer was first put in 

operation : and there horse-shoes were first successfully made by machinery. 

From time to time Mr. Burden purchased stock in the Troy Iron and 

Nail factory, until the entire interest was finally acquired by him. His 

three sons, William F., James A. and I. Townsend Burden, whom he had 

educated to the business, were associated with him as partners. The business 

was largely increased. They purchased ore mines and lime-stone quarries— 

limc-stonc quarries—acquired property in coal mines, and built on the river 

bank in the southern suburbs of Troy, new works far surpassing the old 

ones in magnitude and appointments. The name of the establishment was 

changed to Burden Iron Works, and the firm name became " Henry Burden 

and Sons." Mr. Burden died iii January, 1871 ; his eldest son, William F. 

Burden, had died December 7, 1867. The works arc now owned by the two 

surviving brothers, who retain the firm name of Henry Burden and Sons. 

The old establishment called the " Upper Works, " or "Wate r Mill " are 

in the valley of the VVynantckill, a short distance from the Hudson river. 

They consist of the following buildings: a rolling-mill and puddling forge 

under one roof in a brick building 358 by 136 feet; a horse-shoe factory in 

two buildings, which are 125 by 34 feet, and 120 by 50 feet respectively; a 

rivet factory 120 by 80 feet; a semi-circular horse-shoe ware-house 168 by 120 

feet, divided into sixteen large bins capable of holding 7,000 tons of horseshoes ; scrap-house and shops 175 by 50 feet; the general office, supply store, 

ware-house for rivets and spikes, stables, ct cetera. In these works is a celebrated overshot water-wheel, designed and built by Henry Burden, in 1851. 

It is Co feet in diameter, and 22 feet in width. It has 36 buckets each six 

feet deep, and has a horse-power of 1200. It is believed to be the largest 

water-wheel in the world. 

The " Lower Works," or "Steam Mills " are on the bank of the Hudson 

river, a short distance from the other works. There the Messrs. Burden own 

an extensive tract of land, with a river front of nearly a mile, affording ample 

room for receiving materials and shipping the products. 

The Lower Works were built in 1862, and consist of two blast-furnaces 

each 60 feet in height, and 16 feet in diameter at the base, with two casting houses each 92 by 47 feet, two stock houses each 114 by 65 feet, and one 

engine-room 85 by 50 feet. There is a puddling forge in a building 492 by 

83 feet; rolling-mill 421 by 96 feet; a square building containing blowingrooln, offices, et cetera, 96 by 96 feet; machine-shop 140 by 57 feet; blacksmith-shop 130 by 55 feet; foundry 250 by 57 feet; pattern-shop 85 by 55 

feet; tin and plumbing-shop 64 by 55 feet; a building 105 by 55 feet, containing supply store, draughting-room, "duplicates " room, et cetera, and an 

iron ware-house 167 by 55 feet. 

Adjoining the rolling-mill building, is a horse-shoe factory consisting of 

two buildings respectively 130 and 150 feet in length, and a horse-shoe warehouse 20O by 60 feet. This portion of the works is devoted to the manu 

facturc of the new swaged horse-shoe on machines invented by James A. 

Burden, for which he obtained a patent in January, 1876. The different 

departments of these works are connected with each other by railroad tracks 

over which the material to and from each is hauled by a locomotive owned 

by the firm, who also own many freight .cars. Shipments from the works 

arc made by boats from their wharf, or by railway cars placed on thcii 

switch by the railway companies. 

In the Upper and Lower Burden Iron Works combined, are sixty 

puddling furnaces ; twenty heating furnaces ; fourteen trains of roll-.; three 

rotary squeezers; nine horse-shoe machines, each of which can make sixty 

horse-shoes a minute ; twelve rivet machines, each of which can make eighty 

boiler rivets a minute ; ten large and fifteen small steam-engines; seventy 

boilers; hook-headed railway spike machinery; and the great water-wheel 

just described. 

The Messrs. Burden own a hematite ore mine in Vermont, and a charcoal 

blast-furnace in the same State ; also an interest in the magnetic ore mine 

of the Port_Hcnry Iron Ore Company on Lake Champl.un, and coal interests in Pennsylvania. The products of their works at Troy, are pig-iron ; 

" H . B. & S." and " Burden's Best " merchant iron; horse and mule-shoes; 

boiler rivets and railroad spikes. 

The capacity of the Burden Iron Works is 40,000 tons of iron annually, 

not including pig. The bulk of this is converted into horse and mule-shoes, 

the works having a capacity for making 600,000 casks of loo pounds each, 

of horse-shoes a year. They employ 1,400 persons in the establishment. 

FIGURE 61.—Contemporary description of Burden Iron Works. (Lossing, 1876, pages 217-220.) 
NUMBER 26 95 

ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION 

General Statement 

Character: A moderately decorative office building 

in an eclectic style. 

Condition of Fabric: Poor; interior gutted. 

Description of Exterior 

Overall Dimensions: Approximately 60' by 40' 

(structure not measured). 

Layout, Shape: One-story, Greek cross plan. 

Wall Construction, Finish, and Color: Red brick 

in running bond, laid in red mortar. Brick quoining. 

Floral, classical-revival detailing on the entrance wall 

and Ionic pilaster capitals of light red sandstone. 

Structural System: Brick bearing walls; wooden 

roof framing. 

Stoop: A light red sandstone stoop at the main 

(east) entrance. 

Chimneys: Three brick pilastered chimneys with 

decorative corbeled cages from fireplaces that formerly heated the rooms. All mantels and other interior 

details have been removed. 

Openings: Doors and Doorways: Wooden door 

frames with nonoriginal wooden doors. 

Windows: Wooden window frames within brick, 

round arches, one-over-one double-hung sashes. The 

semicircular fanlight areas subdivided into small, 

square panes. The sills are of light red sandstone. 

Roof: Shape and Covering: Cruciform, hipped 

roof, with asphalt shingles. The north and south arms 

have a gabled dormer at each end and a skylight at 

the peak. 

Cornice and Eaves: Brick cornices; galvanized 

metal eaves. 

Cupola: Red-painted, galvanized iron, louvered 

cupola at crossing, with ogee roof and bulbous finial. 

Site and Surroundings 

The Office Building is located at the Burden company's former Lower or Steam Works, occupied in 

1862. All that remains of the operations are the Office 

Building, two or three brick storage buildings and 

the 1925 blast furnace now operated by Republic 

Steel. [Operations ceased in 1972.—ed.] The remainder of the site has been cleared and is occupied 

by piles of raw material for the furnace and piles of 

the small pigs of iron that are its product. 

The Upper or Water Works is today totally 

abandoned, its rather pleasantly parklike atmosphere 

broken by an occasional ruin of one of the once 

numerous brick buildings. The site of the famed 

waterwheel is identifiable only by the pit, excavated 

from the native stone, in which the lower part of 

the wheel worked, and the brick penstock outlet 

sixty feet above (Figure 52). 
Chronological Notes 

Troy's Iron and Steel Companies 

Compiled by Richard S. Allen 

Section One: Albany Iron Works Group 

1807 Albany Rolling & Slitting Mill of John 

Brinkerhoff & Co. of Albany. Built on site 

of DeFreest fulling mill on north side of 

lower fall of Wynants Kill. 

1826 Purchased for $5,280 by Erastus Corning. 

John T. Norton associated with Corning in 

this. 

1826 Albany Nail Factory of Norton & Corning. 

cl830 Norton left. James Horner became partner 

with Corning. 

1838 John F. Winslow joined the firm. 

1838 Albany Iron Works of Corning, Horner & 

Winslow. 

1849 Steam mill erected on south side of Wynants 

Kill. Gilbert C. Davidson and Erastus 

Corning, Jr., admitted as co-partners. 

1861 Style changed to Corning, Winslow & Co. 

Made railroad (rail) chairs, rifled cannon, 

plates for the Monitor. 

1864 Style changed to Comings & Winslow. 

1867 Style changed to Erastus Corning & Co. 

1875 Consolidated with Rensselaer Iron Works 

to form: 

Albany & Rensselaer Iron & Steel Co. 

Incorporated 1 March by Erastus Corning, 

Chester Griswold and Selden Marvin. 

1885 Reorganized as: 

Troy Steel & Iron Company. 

1855-1887 Erected three blast furnaces on Breaker 

Island; operated four separate plants. 

Section Two: Rensselaer Iron Works Group 

1846 Troy Vulcan Company. Composed of Le Grand 

Cannon & Co.'s rolling mill and Johnson & 

Cox's furnace. Rolling mill on south side 

of Poesten Kill, west of track of Troy & 

Greenbush Railroad. 

1852 Troy Rolling Mill Company purchased property 15 October and sold it 1 November to 

Henry Burden. 

1853 Rensselaer Iron Company received property 

from Burden. 

1854 John F. Winslow purchased Rensselaer Iron 

Company and transferred it to 

Rensselaer Iron Works. (Property of John A. 

Griswold & Co.: J.A.G., Erastus Corning, 

Erastus Corning, Jr., Chester Griswold) 

1866 Rail mill erected on north side of Poesten 

Kill. 

1868 Consolidated with Bessemer Steel Works. 

1875 Combined with Albany Iron Works to form: 

Albany & Rensselaer Iron & Steel Company. 

(q.v., Section One) 

Section Three: Burden Iron Works Group 

1809 

1813 

1822 

1835 

1848 

1862 

1864 

John Converse and others built rolling and 

slitting mill on south bank of Wynants Kill 

at upper fall. Property became: 

Troy Iron & Nail Factory of Troy Iron & 

Nail Factory Company. Ruggles Whiting, 

John Converse, Nathaniel Adams, E. F. 

Bachus, and Henry W. Delevan. 

Henry Burden became superintendent of 

works. 

Henry Burden owned half interest. 

Burden Iron Works of Henry Burden & Sons 

formed as Burden became sole owner. 

Burden's "Lower Works" or "Steam Mill" 

constructed. 

Reorganized as H. Burden & Sons. 

96 
NUMBER 26 97 

1881 Burden Iron Company. Incorporated 30 June 

by James A. and I. Townsend Burden and 

John L. Arts. 

cl898 "Upper Works" closed down. 

1940 Firm liquidated. 

cl940 Republic Steel Corp. (of Cleveland, Ohio). 

Purchased site and 1925 blast furnace, which 

was operated until 1972. 

Section Four: Bessemer Steel Works Group 

1863 Alexander L. Holley in England; purchased 

American rights to Bessemer steel process 

for Corning, Winslow & Co. 

1863 Bessemer Steel Works of Winslow, Griswold & 

Holley. 

1864 2 J/2 -ton plant built immediately south of 

mouth of the Wynants Kill. Designed by 

Holley; first in U.S. 

1865 First steel produced 16 February. 

1867 Plant enlarged to 5-ton daily capacity. 

1868 Plant nearly destroyed by fire. Transferred 

to John A. Griswold & Company and rebuilt (see Section Two). 
Number 3 ("Mastodon") Mill 1868 and 1872 

Harmony Manufacturing Company, Cohoes 

(HAER NY-8) 

Diana S. Waite 

Location: 100 North Mohawk Street, Cohoes, Albany County, New York. 

Latitude: 42° 46' 0" N. Longitude: 73° 42' 30" W. 

Dates of Erection: North section: 1866-1868; south and central sections: 1871-1872. 

Architect: D. H. Van Auken, C.E. 

Present Owner: CCCS Corporation. 

Present Occupant: Cohoes Industrial Terminal Corporation. 

Present Use: Various manufacturing purposes by ten companies. 

Significance: Known locally as the Mastodon Mill, the Harmony No. 3 Mill is exceptionally 

interesting for its decorative architectural treatment, uncommonly elaborate for an industrial 

structure. Although the building is nearly 1100 feet long, its finely articulated facade, 

mansard roof, and central tower make it a well-scaled element of the Harmony Mills 

complex, which includes mill buildings, power canals, workers' houses, and commercial 

structures. Harmony is one of the finest examples of a large-scale textile mill complex 

outside of New Engand, and it has played an important role in the economic development 

of Cohoes. 

Architectural Information: Prepared by Richard J. Pollak; additional data by Robert M. Vogel. 

98 
NUMBER 26 99 

HISTORICAL INFORMATION 

Physical History 

Dates of Construction: Ground was broken for the 

north section in late May or early June 1866. The 

first machinery was run in the factory on 1 January 

1868. Cotton was taken into the pickers on 1 February 

1868. 

Architect: A Cohoes architect and civil engineer, 

Van Auken was also the engineer for the Cohoes 

Company, which supplied water for power to various 

Cohoes mills, including those of the Harmony Manufacturing Company. 

Original and Subsequent Owners: One account of 

the Harmony Mills states that the Cohoes Company 

held title to the lands on which the Harmony Mills 

were located until 1915 (Clark, 1952:43). However, 

records in the office of the Recorder of Albany County 

indicate that the transfer must have taken place at 

an earlier date (see top of page 100). 

Builder: John Land had the contract for carpentry 

and joiner work, a large job in that two million feet 

of lumber were used. In order to proceed with his 

work, it was reported, that 

Mr. Land is now building a large shop, 150 by 40 feet, in 

which he designs to put a steam engine, to run planes and 

saws, which will greatly facilitate the work. (Cohoes 

Cataract, 16 June 1866). 

Original Purpose and Construction: In excavating 

for the foundation of the north section of the building, the bones of a mastodon were found. Subsequently 

the mill became popularly known as the "Mastodon 

Mill." The skeleton of this mammoth was presented 

to the State of New York, and it still remains on 

display at the State Museum in Albany. An 1868 

article in the Cohoes Cataract described the mill 

and its construction: 

The main building is 565 feet long, 77 feet wide, and 

five stories high, with a fireproof wing of the same height 

100 feet long and 50 feet wide, in which the pickers are 

placed. 

To prepare the foundation and wheel pits, there were 

removed 40,000 [cubic] yards of earth and rock. 

In the erection of the building the following material 

was used: 1,000,000 yards of stone, 3,000,000 brick, 4,500 

yards of sand, 30,000 bushels of lime, 1,000,000 lbs. cast 

and wrought iron, 800,000 ft. hemlock planks, 500,000 ft. 

pine timber, 45,000 ft. southern pine flooring, 400,000 ft. 

pine ceiling, and 1,000 kegs of nails. 

FIGURE 62.—Panoramic view of the Harmony Mills on the brow of the Mohawk River, 

with the "Mastodon" Mill on the right. (Vogel) 

-*• itft A 

• 

Hi 

it 

Lin 

^K 
100 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Transfer 

13 Mar. 

31 Aug. 

29 June 

30 June 

30 June 

date 

1911 

1937 

1938 

1967 

1967 

Seller 

Purchaser 

Harmony Mills, N.Y. 

Harmony Mills, Mass. 

Harmony Properties Inc. 

Industrial Properties Inc. 

Industrial Properties Inc. 

Day Court Builders Inc. 

Day Court Builders Inc. 

Cohoes Assocs. Ltd. 

Cohoes Assocs. Ltd. 

CCCS Corporation 

Liber Page Recording date 

301 52 20 Mar. 1911 

887 410 2 Sept. 1937 

901 105 30 July 1938 

1910 219 6 July 1967 

1910 233 6 July 1967 

The motive power, equal to 1,200 horse power, is furnished by the [three] Boyden Turbine wheels made by the 

Ames Manufacturing Co., of Chickopee [sic], Mass. [Figure 66a] They are all geared to one shaft ten inches in 

diameter, on which are six pulleys, each 12 feet in diameter, 

and 26 inch face. 

These wheels and shafts connected, have 100 tons cast 

iron, 70 tons wrought iron, and 314 tons brass and bronze, 

and are all made and fitted with all the care and accuracy 

of fine machinery. They drive over two miles of shafting 

and 1,400 pullies, besides those connected with the machines. 

There are six main belts driving from the water wheel 

shaft, one to each room. These belts are of double leather 

24 inches wide, and their united length is 950 feet; there 

are also over 10 miles of other belting of various widths. 

The mill is warmed by over five miles of small pipe 

supplied with steam generated by three boilers situated some 

distance south of the mill. 

It is lighted by 1,000 gas lights supplied by four miles 

of gas pipe. The machinery is all of the most approved 

kinds, which could be found in England and America, and 

includes 70,000 yarn spindles, and 1,500 fast looms. When 

all running, it will produce 60,000 yards of cloth per day. 

The mill at that time was the largest in Cohoes and 

one of the largest in the United States. A report of 

1873 (Bean, 1873:21-24) described the operations 

in each section of the mill: 

The first floor of this portion of the Mill is occupied 

in part by the wheel-pit as aforesaid, the remainder is 

devoted to repairing machinery, and cleaning, folding, and 

baling the printing cloths, produced by these mills. The 

cloth is baled by means of machines, similar in operation 

to a hay press. The contents of each bale measured 1,800 

yards. 

West of this section of the building, and communicating 

therewith, is another large building, built of stone, and 

brick, and iron, and perfectly fire-proof, constituting 

THE PICKER ROOM 

This building is filled with costly and heavy machinery of 

brass, and steel, and iron, for opening, picking, and preparing the raw cotton for the different operations necessary to change it into elegant fabrics suitable for 'the trade.' 

THE WEAVE ROOM 

is on the second floor. The noise of this vast apartment, 

70 x 600, with its 1,000 looms and 300 operatives, is perfectly deafening. And the effect upon a person unaccustomed 

to the scene is something like that experienced when standing 

on the brink of Niagara, or near a ponderous and mighty 

moving railway train. The whole number of looms in the 

entire Mill is 2,700. A remarkable feature here, is the 

absence of all visible shafting—the intricate machinery 

receiving motion from the shafting on the floor below. The 

weavers, nearly all of whom are females, tend from three to 

five looms each, according to experience and ability. The 

walls of the room at their line of junction with the ceiling 

are decorated with a plain gold border, and the air of 

neatness and taste which pervades the entire establishment, 

would do credit to any well appointed parlor. 

T HE CARD ROOM 

is directly above the Weave Room, and also extends the 

entire length and width of this section of the building, 

and is occupied by ingenious and complicated carding 

machines and their accessory contrivances, employing in 

their proper management, hundreds of men, women, and 

boys and girls. 

THE MULE ROOM 

This apartment is occupied by sixty self-operating mules, 

each sixty-five feet long. Each operative tends two mules. 

These self-acting machines, with their thousands upon 

thousands of rapidly revolving spindles, drawing out, twisting and winding up myriads of delicate threads with infallible precision and unerring certainty, with no hand 

to direct or control their operations, present to the beholder 

a most convincing exemplification of what the wonderful 

mind is able to contrive and accomplish. 

THE SPOOLING AND WARPING ROOM 

is in the fifth story. The operatives here are mostly boys 

and girls. One set of hands are busily engaged winding the 

thread from the 'cop' as it comes from the Mule Room, 

upon spools, by means of a winding apparatus. Others are 

making the 'warp,' which process combines operations of 
NUMBER 26 101 

o 7- 5 :' 

i . AAT^ 

4 HI 

;^rrrrn,iiinniiiii;;;:::;!:::^rrcfc•••,i.l!.,!|ji|i|;:!!!: . 

Va 

i 

r s 

LY?»5 3 

"«r r . - ntg5

^/,; 

i§ 

f < ^ «/ No. 1 .Vjlt 

C 

«> 

Zti P 

<r/ 

^YNo' I i McUw * Stree t 

• 

R n 

HARMON Y Co. 

No. 3 

.'.A1,

1

'" 

?\'>i) l *c^ BUHk 

3 

5 5 & x 76 

1

 ^ v — 

U 

c "r*_ 

W K 

Ctt\ | 

. •— 

FIGURE 63.—Early view and plan of the Harmony No. 3 Mill, cl870, before enlargement. 

From a fire insurance survey. (Courtesy of Factory Mutual Engineering Corporation.) 
102 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

ijiiiiiiiaiiiii f iKiifiiiiiiisiiiiBiffifiEfi R 

IIIiIlBflffifil!fiiIlRlltiJE£fifiI«IIKllIfi«IlflI lElHlilffeiltlllf 

iii!iifisf£itfi£fifi£fi|jtifisefiifififitiififfifffiii|eEPFiiiiiisitjEiti 

iiiiigiiiiiiiit|i|EgiiiiBiEiifii£iiiiijE|ij # 

jR> »iRfrftfi»fi^a'ffi,fiftftftRfifr&aS£g 

<.*«#&< 

•Ar.-

•jAail'KJIY iJj U a * 84$!<J*ift.V .SX/J.A JMH. 

FIGURE 64.—Harmony No. 3 Mill was selected to exemplify the ultimate development in 

American cotton mill technology by the eminent British textile engineer, Evan Leigh: a, cl870, 

the initial configuration; b, the full mill, enlarged to the south, was illustrated in Leigh's second 

(later) volume. Today the stair-tower caps are gone, although the spectacular decorative 

features of the central block fortunately have been left intact. (Leigh, 1873: a: volume 1, 

plate 20; b: volume 2, plate 39, top.) 
NUMBER 26 103 

sizing, drying, &c. The machinery of this room, although 

less intricate than the 'mule' of carding machine, is a very 

admirable and effective combination of mechanism. Throughout the entire extent of this spacious apartment, not a 

single supporting column obstructs the view, as the selfsustaining properties of the French roof, which forms the 

sides and ceiling of the room, render such appliances unnecessary. 

FIGURE 65.—Site plan of Mills Nos. 1 and 3 in the Harmony 

complex, at the height of the corporation's development. 

(Sanborn Map Co., 1925, sheet 27.) 

Additions: In 1871 an addition to the mill was 

begun. This addition was part of the original total 

scheme for the No. 3. The second section was to be 

constructed to the south after the first was in operation. This addition, completed in 1872, was 76 feet 

wide and 510 feet long. The operations of this section of the mill were described thus in 1873 (Bean, 

1873:24): 

The basement, which is fire-proof, contains the wheel-pit 

and a large room adjacent, which is used for opening, 

picking, and lapping cotton. This room contains 3 openers 

and lappers, 3 finishing lappers and 96 40-inch carding 

engines, from which a lap is made for the finishing cards, 

passing thence by an elevator to the third story, in which 

are 96 finishing cards, 16 railway heads, 16 drawing frames, 

and 96 slubbing and roving frames, from which the roving 

is carried to the mule spinning room in the fourth floor, 

where are 60 self-operating mules, each sixty-five feet long; 

the yarn is carried thence to the fifth story, which contains 

the frame, spinning, spooling, and warping machines; there 

the yarn is carried to the sizing room on the first floor and 

prepared for the weave rooms, which occupy the balance 

of the first and the whole of the second floor. The cloth 

is then carried to the central tower, where it is examined, 

measured, baled, and shipped for market. It is the intention 

of the company to make wide and fine Muslin in this 

portion of the Mill, in imitation of the best French Dress 

Goods. This section of the Mill contains 130,000 spindles 

and 2,700 looms, and produces 700,000 yards per week. 

Corporate History 

The Harmony Manufacturing Company, later 

known as the Harmony Mills, was incorporated in 

1836. Various prominent business men were among 

the founders of the company, including Peter 

Harmony, after whom the company was named. 

In 1837 the first mill for cotton spinning was 

erected on a plot of land that became the nucleus of 

the holdings of the company. This operation was not, 

however, a financial success, and in 1850, the property was sold to Garner & Co. of New York and to 

Alfred Wild of Kinderhook. Garner & Co. operated 

mills in Rochester, Newburg, Wappinger Falls, and 

Rockland, New York, and in Reading, Pennsylvania. 

Thomas Garner also held a controlling interest in 

the Cohoes Company. A bronze statue of Garner by 

Millman, a Boston sculptor, was placed after Garner's 

death in a niche in the central tower of the mill, 

where it still stands. 

Robert Johnston, who had previously managed a 

cotton mill for Nathan Wild in Valatie, New York, 
104 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

o 

.Hj\i2ifi]®jnr ffiflm, S3?an g'dSQoss, a.X 

SCAL E OF FEET , 

.. „ ' 1 - .J XLUjlLiLLI 

•SO Putt, 10 JO 20 10 A O 

SECTIO N OF MIL L SHOWINC TURBINES AND BELTING. PART PLAN OF MIL L AND TURBINES. 

FIGURE 66.—a, The "Mastodon's'' great vertical turbines, at the time among the largest in 

the United States, and the American system of transmitting the drive to the main line shafts 

on each floor by leather belt, were given particular notice by Leigh. Only about half the 

available hydraulic drop between the power canal and the river was utilized in the turbines 

(see Figure 62, which shows leakage from the tailrace discharging from the bluff below the 

mill), b-c, Boyden-type turbine by the Holyoke [Massachusetts] Machine Company. Holyoke 

was the major builder of the Boyden turbine, an improvement on Fourneyron's fundamental 

outward-flow type. Boyden's first wheel was used at the Appleton Mill in Lowell in 1844, 

the type soon becoming a near standard in the textile industry for major installations, retaining 

that position until about 1880. Holyoke built 32 Boyden turbines between 1873 and 1876, 

the two 800-horsepower units for Harmony, with 102-inch-diameter runners, being the largest 

of the group. The runner is shown at D-E, the water entering through the induction pipe at 

A and discharging at D. (a: Leigh, 1873, volume 1, plate 21; b-c: Holyoke Machine Company, 

1876, pages 8-9.) 
NUMBER 26 105 

FIGURE 67.—From about 1890, horizontal-shaft turbines 

in light boiler plate casings replaced vertical wheels in 

cast-iron housings (the term "waterwheel" persisted among 

both manufacturers and users long after turbines had 

completely displaced wheels, and even today it is commonly 

heard in mills). This unit probably replaced one of Harmony's very early waterwheels. The grooved friction wheels 

in the foreground permitted a fire pump to be engaged 

with the main drive while the turbine was operating at 

full speed. (Swain Turbine & Manufacturing Co., 1897, 

page 15.) 
106 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 68.—Principal face of the Harmony No. 3 Mill from the northwest: 

central and south blocks. 

was appointed by Wild's son, Alfred, agent of the 

Harmony Mills. Johnston, and his son David J. 

Johnston, so successfully managed the mills that in 

1873 the Harmony complex was described as "the 

richest, the largest, and the most complete Cotton 

Manufacturing Establishment on the American continent" (Bean, 1873:16). 

The Harmony Mills took a great interest in the 

well-being and surroundings of its employees. The 

company built tenements for its workers. The streets, 

which were lined with shade trees, reputedly were 

kept very clean; the sidewalks were paved with 

asphalt; and a Sunday school and afternoon worship 

services were sponsored by the company. The company's very influential role in the development of 

Cohoes was acknowledged by a contemporary writer 

(Masten, 1877:241) : " 

The existence of a manufacturing concern of such magnitude has of course been of the utmost benefit to Cohoes in a. 

business point of view, and contributed largely to its prosperity. Through its means large accessions have been made 

to the population, and the constant expenditures made by 

the corporation in wages, in the erection of buildings and 

in various improvements have been of marked advantage 

to the commercial interests of the place. 

After Robert Johnston died in 1890 and David J. 

Johnston in 1894, D. S. Johnston in 1903 became the 

third generation of his family to hold the position of 

agent of the company. In 1910 Garner & Co. sold its 

interest in the Harmony property and in the Cohoes 

Company as well. The mills were purchased by the 

Saco-Lowell and Draper Corporation of Hopedale, 

Massachusetts, major manufacturers of textile machinery. The Harmony Mills Corporation was liquidated between 1932 and 1937, and the real estate 
FIGURE 69.—Harmony No. 3 Mill: a, View across the Mohawk 

River of the rear (east) elevation; the south addition did not have 

the separate wing for the picking (cotton opening) machinery as 

did the original north section (see Figure 63); b, detail of centralblock tower roofs; c, mansard and dormers, attic story, west elevation ; d, the bronze statue memorializing Samuel Garner, Harmony's 

principal developer, is a unique embellishment for an industrial 

strurcture; e, tablet on the north stair tower, south block. 
108 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 70.—a, Typical stairway and stair-tower 

entrance door, b, Typical interior, second floor. 

Why alternate (original) cast-iron columns have 

been replaced by ones of wood with heavier castiron caps is not known, c, Attic story, looking 

south. The mansarded attic enjoyed a great 

popularity with mill engineers during the 1870s, 

as a means of gaining an additional operating 

floor with full ceiling height—in opposition to 

the traditional pitched roof. By the end of the 

decade, however, it had become clear that the 

same advantage was available simply by carrying 

the masonry walls up another story, eliminating 

the expense and fire hazard of mansard framing 

and the elaborate wood cornice below, d, View in 

the attic looking southwest. The low-pitched roof 

is supported not on trusses, which would have 

provided a full clear floor area, but on double 

rows of columns as the floors below. The flats on 

the column caps originally carried bearing hangers 

for the longitudinal line shafts that drove the 

machinery. 
NUMBER 26 109 

FIGURE 71.—General view of the Holyoke turbines and wheel room, south block in Harmony 

No. 3 Mill. The installation is original, although the turbine runners (the rotating elements) 

were undoubtedly replaced several times during their operating life. These units are similar 

to those installed in the north block, now removed, but were twice as powerful, hence two 

rather than three units (see Figure 66a). The cast-iron service bridges between the turbines 

were for oiling the main bearings and the gears. 

properties were sold. The No. 3 Mill was sold along 

with some other buildings for $2,500. 

Old views in the collection of the Cultural and Historical 

Society of Cohoes. Material unavailable at time of writing. 

Sources of Information 

UNPUBLISHED 

Adams, Elmer L. "History of the Harmony Mill, Cohoes, 

N.Y." Typewritten copy at the Troy Public Library, 

New York. 

Clark, Edward J. "Economic History of the Harmony Mills 

of Cohoes, New York.'- Master's Thesis, Graduate School, 

Siena College, 1952. 

Telephone conversations with William Magee, Manager, 

Cohoes Industrial Terminal Corporation, and with his 

secretary. 

PUBLISHED 

Bean, William. The City of Cohoes, its Past and Present 

History, and Future Prospects: Its Great Manufactories. 

Cohoes: The Cataract Book and Job Printing Office, 

1873. 

The Cohoes Cataract. 1866, 1868. 

Holyoke Machine Co. Illustrated Catalogue. Holyoke, Massachusetts, 1876. [Copy in Division of Mechanical and 

Civil Engineering, National Museum of History and 

Technology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C] 

Howell, George R., and Jonathan Tenney, editors. History 

of the County of Albany, N.Y., from 1606 to 1886. New 

York: W. W. Munsell & Co., 1886. 
110 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 72.—Harmony No. 3 Mill: a, View into the wheel pits. The water, after passing 

through the turbines, was discharged downward and into the river below the mill, b, For 

distribution to the mill, the motion of the vertical turbine shafts was turned to the horizontal 

by large cast-iron mortise bevel gears that also increased the speed. The teeth of the turbine 

gear (hidden by the protective shrouding) are of hard wood, set individually into mortises 

in the gear body. These engage the iron teeth of the jack-shaft or driven gear, visible in upper 

left. The wood absorbed vibration, resulting in quiet, smooth operation. The hand wheel 

operated the turbine control gates, whose position was shown on the indicator to the left of 

the shaft, c, General view of the north turbine, d, Snow-type mechanical governor for maintaining the turbine speed constant despite varying load. The centrifugal flyballs sensed the 

shaft speed and engaged ratchets to open or close the control gates, admitting more or less 

water as the turbine load increased or decreased. The hand wheel permitted manual override 

if needed. 

Leigh, Evan. The Science of Modern Cotton Spinning. 2nd 

edition, 2 volumes. Manchester, England: Palmer & 

Howe, 1873. 

Masten, Arthur H. The History of Cohoes, New York, from 

Its Earliest Settlement to the Present Time. Albany: 

Joel Munsell, 1877. 

Sanborn Map Co. [Insurance Maps of] Cohoes, New York. 

New York, 1925. 

Swain Turbine & Manufacturing Co. Water Wheels [Turbines], Mill Gearing, Shafting, Pulleys, etc. Lowell, 

Massachusetts, 1897. [Copy in Division of Mechanical and 

Civil Engineering, National Museum of History and 

Technology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C] 

ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION 

General Statement 

Architectural Character: The Mastodon Mill is 

an unusually elaborate example of Victorian textile 

mill construction. The two principal blocks, north 

and south, built several years apart, are similar and 

coaxial. Each is of five stories including the usable 

Mansard attic, plus full, usable basement. At the 

approximate third-points, projecting from the principal (west) face of each section, are two six-story 

stair towers originally surmounted by convexoMansard roof caps, since removed. Projecting to the 
NUMBER 26 111 

FIGURE 73. a, View north along North Mohawk Street; b, view to the east of the Mastodon 

Mill over the contrasting roofs of the earlier No. 1 Mill. (Vogel) 
112 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

rear of the early (north) section and at right angles 

to it is a five-story wing originally constructed for the 

picking-and-opening machinery. It was common 

cotton-mill practice to place the picking machinery 

in a separate wing, isolated from the main mill by 

fireproof doors, because of the considerable liability 

of fire in the pickers. Pickers operated at high speed, 

the stones and other bits of rubbish in the raw 

cotton frequently striking sparks when passing the 

metal parts of the machine, igniting the mass of 

cotton. 

When the south section was built, it was joined to 

the original section by a large central pavilion, projecting slightly beyond the front and rear faces of 

the main blocks, with a high Mansard roof rising 

one story above the main roofs. At each corner of 

the pavilion is a highly detailed square tower capped 

by a straight Mansard roof crowned with decorative 

ironwork. A niche at the fifth story level contains a 

heroic bronze statue of Samuel Garner, standing, 

marked on its base "GARNER." 

Condition of Fabric: Fair to good. 

Description of Exterior 

Overall Dimensions: Approximately 1100 feet by 

75 feet. North section 56 bays long; south 51 bays; 

both three bays wide divided by two rows of cast-iron 

columns. 

Foundation: Cut granite blocks laid in random 

ashlar. 

Bearing Walls: Standard red brick in running bond. 

Quoins, window heads and sills of sandstone in the 

north (early) section and cast iron in the central and 

south sections. Most of the molding and detail of the 

central pavilion is sheet metal. 

Structural System: Standard slow-burning mill construction of heavy timber lateral beams supporting 

structural floor planks; cast-iron columns at the beam 

third-points. 

Openings: All frames, doors and sash, wood; all 

sash double-hung, 12-over-12. All openings segmentally arched except dormers and doorways, which 

are full-arched. 

Roofs: Mansard faces: slate; pitched portions: 

built up. Form described above. Sheet metal cornice 

and eaves. 

Description of Interior 

Floor Plan: Five floors of large open space are 

interrupted only by the cast-iron columns. The fifth 

floor has slanting walls and dormers created by the 

Mansard roof. 

Mechanical Equipment: In the basement of the 

south section are the two original Holyoke hydraulic 

turbines and a governor. The turbine runners (moving parts), however, have probably been replaced 

several times. According to its Illustrated Catalogue 

(1876:5), the Holyoke Machine Co. built two 102-

inch Boyden-type turbine water wheels, 800 horsepower each, for the Harmony Mill in Cohoes. "The 

economical use of water is not its [the turbine's] only 

. . . excellence; for it is the most substantial and 

permanent of the fixtures of a mill, and all the parts 

can be inspected without being taken apart. It 

occupies but little space above the wheel-pit; and 

all its connections being made watertight, the room 

may be kept dry and clean." These were the largest 

wheels on the company list to that date and nearly 

the most powerful. 

The governor was manufactured according to 

Snow's patented design in Bennington, Vermont. 

Although the turbines are not used, as the mill is no 

longer powered by water, they remain entirely intact 

and are excellent specimens of typical nineteenthcentury hydraulic power machinery. The original 

turbines in the north half of the mill have been 

removed. The two surviving turbines in the south 

half are unmarked, but are unquestionably the pair 

by Holyoke, which was one of about four builders 

of large Boyden wheels. 

Stairways: The four stair towers and the central 

pavilion contain curving wood staircases. 

Flooring: Wood. 

Site 

General Setting and Orientation: Southwest bank 

of the Mohawk River, on the northeast side of North 

Mohawk Street, facing the Cohoes Power Canal. 

Related Structures: The No. 3 Mill is part of an 

industrial complex consisting of about eight major 

mill buildings plus a variety of secondary service 

structures. 
Power Canals 1834-1880 

Cohoes Company, Cohoes 

(HAER NY-9) 

Richard S. Allen 

Location: Immediately east of, and generally parallel to, North Mohawk Street, Cohoes, 

Albany County, New York. 

Latitude: 42° 46' 00" N. Longitude: 73° 42' 30" W. 

Date of Erection: 1834-1880. 

Designer: Canvass White (1790-1834), C.E., and others following. 

Present Owner: Cohoes Industrial Terminal Corporation, with the majority of the shares 

held by the City of Cohoes. 

Present Use: Part of the canal system is being utilized for hydroelectric power. Other parts 

are used for sewage and drainage, while some areas are completely clogged. 

Significance: The canals of the Cohoes Company comprised a typical, major power canal 

system, providing the power source for the city's mills and factories by supplying water for 

the water wheels and later for the turbines that drove the machinery in the mills. 

HISTORICAL INFORMATION 

Physical History 

Original Owner: The Cohoes Company was organized in 1826 to utilize the water power potential of 

the Cohoes Falls on the Mohawk River drawing all 

the water not already taken for use in the Erie and 

Champlain canals. 

Designer: Canvass White, a prominent civil engineer, canal-builder and the discoverer of hydraulic 

cement, envisioned Cohoes as a great manufacturing 

city. It was he who instigated the formation of the 

Cohoes Company. Backers of the concern included 

Stephen Van Rensselaer of Albany, Peter Remsen 

of New York and David Wilkinson (1771-1852), a 

cotton manufacturer and mechanical genius from 

Rhode Island. In addition to serving as first president of the concern, White devised the details of the 

intricate power canal system around which Cohoes 

Engineering Information: Prepared by Richard J. Pollak. 

was to grow. Unfortunately, ill-health dogged the 

engineer, and he died before his brainchild became 

a reality. 

Construction of the Cohoes power canal system 

fell to Canvass' brother Hugh (1798-1870), who 

directed the building of the first company dam in 

1831-1832 and the first canals in 1834. 

Original Purpose and Construction: A wooden 

dam across the Mohawk River above the falls backed 

up the river. The first power canals completed were 

"Basin A" at the lower end of the present Harmony 

Mills, and "Basin B" immediately west of the upper 

end of Remsen Street. 

Next came the Upper Levels, with a fall of 18 feet 

to bring water to the basins below. These ran on the 

east side of the old (original) Erie Canal and parallel 

to it. In the vicinity of the present School Street the 

water was taken under the canal by means of two 

wooden trunks four to five feet in diameter. At the 

lower end (present Remsen Street) the water was let 

into the basins to the south. In addition, it again 

113 
FIGURE 74.—North half of Cohoes, 1856. The Cohoes Company dam is oft' the map, to the right. 

(Beers, 1856, plate 39.) 

tunneled under the canal and back into the Mohawk 

River to the north. During the last process the water 

was used to power an early iron foundry (1834-1867) 

after already having been used by saw mills, grist 

mills, and a paper mill in the course of its fall. 

[By 1836, the Cohoes power canal system was described as] 

an independent canal nearly two miles long unconnected with the state [canal] works. The head and fall 

is 120 feet permitting the use of the water under six successive falls from 18 to 23 feet . and may be carried on 

these levels to almost any part of the company's estate. 

The minimum supply of water is 1,000 cubic feet a second, 

competent to drive from 3 to 4 millions of cotton spindles. 

Alterations and Additions: An enlarged Erie Canal 

was planned in 1837 and finally completed in 1843. 

This involved a number of changes and exchanges 

between the navigable State canals and the Cohoes 

Company. Two sections of the old Erie Canal (one 

to the west of Mohawk Street between the present 

Harmony Mills, and another west of Remsen Street 

as far south as White Street) became levels of the 

Cohoes power canal system. 

At first, the role of the Cohoes Company was both 

to provide almost unlimited power for manufacturing, and to attract potential industries to the town 

in order to utilize it. Originally, the company engaged 

in some manufacturing itself, but it gradually became 

more of a benevolent overseer, leasing lands and 

providing power only. The passing years saw the 

phenomenal growth of such industries as the Harmony 

Mills, one of the nation's largest cotton manufac-
NUMBER 26 115 

turers, and Daniel Simmons' Axe Works, whose 

products were sold world-wide. 

Gradually, as both Cohoes and its industries grew, 

the power canal system was extended and improved. 

In 1865 a solid stone masonry dam was constructed 

across the Mohawk River, supplanting the older 

dam at the head of the canals. Stretching 1,443 feet 

across the river, it was designed by and built under 

the supervision of engineer William E. Worthen of 

New York. 

By 1880, the Cohoes power canals were complete 

as far as they ever would be. Their arrangement was 

as follows: 

Level 1 (Upper Level) Extending from the dam to the 

rear of the early Harmony Mills. A fall of 18 

feet. 

Level 2 West of Mohawk Street between the Harmony 

Nos. 1-2 and No. 3 Mills (original Erie Canal). 

A fall of 25 feet. 

Level 3 From East Remsen Street to just south of Ontario 

Street. A fall of 23 feet. 

Level 4 A short section west of and adjacent to the upper 

end of Remsen Street. A fall of 20 feet. 

Level 5 South of Ontario Street, running east to the 

Rensselaer & Saratoga (Delaware & Hudson) 

Railroad tracks. A fall of 20 feet. (No longer in 

existence, 1969.) 

Level 6 South of Courtland Street (a spur of Level 4). 

(No longer in existence, 1969.) 

Level 9 South of Grove Street to the Rensselaer & Saratoga (Delaware & Hudson) Railroad tracks. 

(No longer in existence, 1969.) 

Three other levels (Level 7, east of t,he Rensselaer 

& Saratoga Railroad southward; Level 8, between 

Saratoga Street and the Champlain \Canal; and 

Level 10, an extension of Remsen Streets Level 4) 

were planned and some work was done, but they 

were never finished. A 360-foot tunnel, completed 

in 1876, was excavated from the end of Level 1 to 

the bank of the Mohawk River. By means of this 

tunnel, ice and accumulated debris could be jettisoned without stopping the mills below. 

The Cohoes Company's officers in later years were 

the heads of the mills that used the power. They 

charged nominal rates, the annual rental running 

to only about $20 per horse power. The exact quantity of power used by each manufacturer was accurately measured and charged for accordingly. 

By developing the water power and thus offering 

inducements for the establishment of industrial enterprises, the Cohoes Company laid the foundations for 

all of the varied industries that at one time or 

another made the City of Cohoes their home. Only 

changes in industry and the use of electric power 

have brought gradual abandonment of the canals. 

Today, four of the levels of the Cohoes Company 

power canal system still exist, including the two that 

are parts of the original Erie Canal. The uppermost 

level is still a hydraulic power canal. Others serve 

for drainage and sewerage; the two lowest levels, however, are clogged with silt and debris and are close 

to abandonment. An intricate system of hand and 

machine-operated guard gates, inlets, and outlets 

control the remaining portions, much of the machinery being over a hundred years old. 

Some of the nation's early hydraulic engineers had 

a hand in fashioning the Cohoes power canal system, 

and it is still a monument to their foresight, planning 

and execution. 

Sources of Information 

UNPUBLISHE D 

Conversations with William Magee, General Manager, 

Cohoes Industrial Terminal Corporation. 

Records and maps on file at Albany County Clerk's Office, 

Albany, New York. 

PUBLISHE D 

Bishop, John Leander. History of American Manufactures. 

Philadelphia: E. Young & Co., 1861. 

Child, Hamilton. Gazetteer and Business Directory of Albany & Schenectady Counties, N.Y. for 1870-71. Syracuse, 1870. 

Howell, George Rogers. Bi-centennial History of Albany: 

History of the County of Albany, N.Y. from 1609-1886. 

New York: W. W. Munsell & Co., 1886. 

Masten, Arthur Haynesworth. History of Cohoes, New York 

from its Earliest Settlement to the Present Time. Albany: 

Joel Munsell, 1877. 

Weise, Arthur James. City of Troy and its Vicinity. Troy: 

Edward Green, 1886. 

MAPS 

Beers, S. N. and D. G. New Topographical Atlas of the 

Counties of Albany and Schenectady, New York. Philadelphia, 1856. 

Brevan, John. Map of Cohoes, Albany County, New York. 

1860. 

Gould, Jay. Map of Cohoes, New York. cl856. 

Sampson, Murdock Company, Inc. Map of Troy, Watervliet, 

Cohoes, Waterford & Green Island. 1889-1935. 

Map of Cohoes Company Canal & Erie Canal. 184?. (Drawing. Copy at New York State Library.) 
FIGURE 75.—Second level canal: a, South end, gate control to let water directly into the 

third level canal; b, arches over intakes at Harmony No. 2 Mill; c, looking north between 

Harmony Nos. 2 and 3 Mills; d, south end, spillway into the Mohawk River to prevent overtopping of the berm. 

ENGINEERING INFORMATION 

General Statement 

Structural Character: Typical canals formerly used 

to feed the turbines that powered the machinery of 

Cohoes' mills and factories. The system, planned and 

developed by the Cohoes Company to utilize the 

energy of the Cohoes Falls on the Mohawk, was 

similar to the scheme already established at Lowell, 

Massachusetts; Paterson, New Jersey; and Nashua, 

New Hampshire. 

Condition: The general condition is poor, with 

most sections drained of water and filled with refuse. 

The original diversion canal extends south from the 

head gate house at the dam, and currently serves the 

Niagara-Mohawk Power Corporation as a headrace. 

Physical Description 

The earth-banked canals are trapezoidal in section, 

4 feet deep, varying in length and width according to 

the number and size of the mills they were designed 

to serve. The amount of water drawn by each mill 

determined the power rates charged. A section of the 

canal which utilized an abandoned (1840) portion 

of the original (1824) Erie Canal has been filled in. 

Site 

Orientation: Generally north and south but directions vary as to mill served. 

Setting: Industrial area: mills, factories, and corporation housing. 
Head Gate House 1866 

Cohoes Company, Cohoes 

(HAER NY-9A) 

R. Carole Huberman 

Location: North end of the power canal abutting the east bank. 

Latitude: 42° 47' 43" N. Longitude: 73° 42' 52" W. 

Date of Erection: 1866. 

Designers: William Worthen, C.E., and David Van Auken, C.E., architect. 

Present Owners and Occupant: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. 

Present Use: Head gate house for hydroelectric station. 

Significance: In addition to its practical function as a gate house controlling the flow of 

water to the canal, the Head Gate House was conceived romantically as a RomanesqueRevival brick bastion at the head of the power canal, where it is fed by the Mohawk River. 

HISTORICAL INFORMATION 

Physical History 

The inscription on the builder's stone formerly inset 

on the front of the central tower reads (Figure 76a) : 

1866 

COHOES COMPANY 

ALFRED WILD, President 

T. G. YOUNGLOVE, Agent 

DIRECTORS 

ALFRED WILD, WILLIAM T. GARNER, 

CHARLES VAN BENTHUYSEN, DAVID J. JOHNSTON, 

SAMUEL W. JOHNSON, WILLIAM W. NILES, 

TRUMAN G. YOUNGLOVE 

STONE DAM ERECTED 1865 

HEAD GATES AND GATE HOUSE ERECTED 1866 

W M . E. WORTHEN, Engineer 

DAVID H. VAN AUKEN, Assistant Engineer 

JOH N BRIDGFORD, Contractor 

First Dam Erected 1831. Partially 

Destroyed by Ice 1839 and Repaired 

Same Year. 

Second Dam Erected 1839. 

Original Purpose and Construction: According to 

one source, "the cost of the dam and appurtenances 

[i.e., the head gates and head gate house] was 

$180,000" (Masten, 1877). David Van Auken, assistant engineer for the head gate house, was the architect for Harmony No. 3 Mill which also began 

operation in 1866. 

Alterations and Additions: The square, crenelated 

tower on the central part of the Head Gate House 

has been removed as well as the hipped roofs of the 

flanking, two-story towers, which now are flat-roofed, 

as the center tower had been. In 1911, when the 

entire power canal system was abandoned in favor 

of hydroelectric power transmission, the stem of the 

T-shaped building was extended by a slightly higher, 

one-story brick addition housing the additional gates 

necessitated by the widened canal (headrace). 

Data obtained from secondary sources listed in "Sources of Information'' (p. 119) as the building was inaccessible at the time 

of the initial survey. 

117 
^w^jwwigp^ijgjij^ 

FIGURE 76.—Head Gate House: a. Principal (east) face, probably shortly after completion 

in 1866: b, view northeast, looking upriver. Head of the upper-level canal is in the foreground. 

c, View southeast. The dam is to the left of the Gate House; the addition of c 1911, accommodating additional gates, is in the foreground, (a: Courtesy of Niagara-Mohawk Power 

Corporation; b: Boucher; c: Pollak.) 
NUMBER 26 119 

FIGURE 77.—View north along the second level canal, Harmony No. 2 Mill on left; 

No. 3 Mill on right. 

Sources of Information 

UNPUBLISHED 

Early photograph of the original front elevation. This print 

also provides the information incised on the commemorative builder's stone. From Niagara Mohawk Power 

Corporation. 

PUBLISHED 

Masten, Arthur Haynesworth. History of Cohoes, New York, 

from its Earliest Settlement to the Present Time. Albany: 

Joel Munsell, 1877. 

Weise, Arthur James. City of Troy and its Vicinity. Troy: 

Edward Green, 1886. 

ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION 

General Statement 

Architectural Character: A Romanesque-Revival 

brick structure founded in the water and over the 

headgates of the canal. 

Condition of Fabric: Good. 

Description of Exterior 

Overall Dimensions: According to Masten (1877: 

182), "It is 218 feet long; and the front tower is 31, 

and the main towers are 43 feet in height." 

Plan: Symmetrical T. 
120 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Foundations: Stone masonry. 

Wall Construction and Finish: Brick running bond 

with decorative, corbelled arcade at cornices and 

beltcourse levels. 

Structural System: Probably solid brick masonry 

construction. 

Openings: Doors and Doorways: An arched brick 

doorway in the center of the building with substantial, diagonally panelled, wood double doors. 

Windows: Within tall, narrow and shallowly 

hooded and bracketed brick arches are wood frame 

6-over-6 double-hung windows with fanlights. 

Ventilators: Slender arched apertures with horizontal louvers and shallow brick hood and bracket 

detail, on the upper level of the end towers. 

Roof: Shape and Covering: The original section 

of the building, aside from the tower areas, has a 

low-pitched, slated roof. Originally, the end towers 

boasted steep roof peaks of slate shingle crowned 

with ironwork at the ridge. The new section has a 

flat roof with a raised brick parapet. 

Cornice: The brick cornice is delineated and 

decoratively accented by corbelled arcades which are 

heavier at the end tower roofs. Originally, there was 

a central tower with a crenelated termination. 
Cohoes: The Historical Background 1811-1918 

Samuel Rezneck 

The Cohoes Company takes its name from the 

Cohoes Falls of the Mohawk River, just above its 

confluence with the Hudson. This was also the point 

at which the Erie and Champlain canals joined 

before their descent to the Hudson level and termination at Troy and Albany. The juxtaposition of canal 

and company is more than a matter of geographical 

coincidence. The Cohoes Company was, in fact, an 

early by-product of the Erie Canal improvement, 

and the fortunes of both were closely linked from 

the outset. 

The very foundation of the Cohoes Company in 

1826 was an outgrowth of the Erie Canal. It was the 

year following the completion of the canal and the 

inauguration of its use between Buffalo and Albany. 

Two men of great note were significant as builders 

of the Erie Canal. One was Canvass White, who 

along with Benjamin Wright, John B. Jervis, and 

others, was a pioneer figure in hydraulic engineering 

in America and whose work on the Erie Canal brought 

him to this terminal point at the junction of canal 

and river. The other was Stephen Van Rensselaer, 

principal landlord and patron of the area, whose 

vast estate embraced the lands on both sides of the 

Hudson River, as well as the great water rights on 

the Mohawk. He was, moreover, a promoter of the 

canal and chairman of the Canal Commission. To 

both of these men the value of the water power at 

the Cohoes Falls was quite apparent, leading to the 

merger of their interests in this unusual corporation. 

The Cohoes Company had, in fact, a predecessor 

as early as 1811, in the Cohoes Manufacturing Company, which was formed by a group of promoters 

from Lansingburgh, just across the Hudson River. 

It acquired a sixty-acre lot of land, part of the 

Heamstreet farm, together with a water right on the 

Mohawk. The capital stock was $100,000, a large 

sum for the time, divided into two thousand shares, 

and its object was to initiate the manufacture of 

textiles and iron mongery. Its first and only project 

was the manufacture of wood screws, which is described in Spafford's Gazetteer of New York State. 

Spafford refers to a William C. Penniman, a selftaught artist, who built the machinery for this little 

factory. It burned, however, in 1815, and the whole 

venture languished for a decade. The completion of 

the Erie and Champlain canals, with their numerous 

locks within what was to become the settlement of 

Cohoes, brought considerable activity to the area. 

The Cohoes Manufacturing Company was revived 

and a cotton mill was erected, while plans were 

made for further development of the water power 

and the eventual establishment of many factories 

there. There was even a complaint that the canals 

drew off too much water from the Mohawk. 

The Cohoes Manufacturing Company ultimately 

failed, despite, or perhaps because of, its ambitious 

plans. Another organization was formed in 1826— 

the Cohoes Company—inspired largely by Canvass 

White, who interested Stephen Van Rensselaer, Peter 

Remsen of New York, and other potential capitalists 

in the project. On 28 March 1826 the Cohoes 

Company was incorporated, with Canvass White as 

president and the son of Stephen Van Rensselaer, 

Stephen Jr., as vice president. The latter succeeded 

White as president a few years later. Capital, set at 

$250,000, doubled a decade later. Van Rensselaer 

turned over his water rights on the Mohawk to the 

company for one dollar and other considerations, and 

it acquired adjoining lands. The plan was to build 

a dam across the river above the Falls and from 

there divert water into a canal that would distribute 

it in measured amounts across the company lands 

for industrial uses. It was even contemplated to build 

factories, wharves, and houses and to lease them to 

various enterprises. 

Actual development was delayed, partly because 

Canvass White was in demand as a hydraulic and 

canal engineer elsewhere. His brother, Hugh White, 

took over the direction of the projects, settling in 

nearby Waterford, where his house now serves as 

the home of the Waterford Historical Society. In the 

121 
122 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

meantime, the moribund Cohoes Manufacturing Company was liquidated, its rights and land acquired by 

the Cohoes Company at a receiver's sale in 1829. 

In 1831 the first wooden dam was built across the 

Mohawk near the present dam site. At first the 

company used the Erie Canal to distribute water, 

but it shortly built its own diversion canal, more 

than a mile long, which in an enlarged form still 

serves to supply the hydroelectric station now located 

below the falls. Other canals were built in later years 

to distribute water on several levels, each with a 

head of some 20 feet, suitable for the small waterwheels of the time. These canals still thread their 

way through the City of Cohoes, sluggish and choked 

with vegetation and refuse. They have served no 

purpose for more than a half a century, and indeed 

are a menace to health and safety. They are to be 

filled in as part of an extensive urban renewal program which is to convert Cohoes from a rather drab, 

shadowy reminder of the past into an "All-American 

model city," as selected by the Federal government. 

The industrial development of Cohoes began in 

1830, thanks to the activity of the Cohoes Company. 

New settlers came, among them particularly David 

Wilkinson and his brother-in-law, Hezekiah Howe, 

both from Pawtucket, Rhode Island. Wilkinson was 

a brother-in-law of Samuel Slater, who introduced 

power cotton-spinning machinery from England. 

Wilkinson became, in fact, a prime inventor and 

manufacturer of textile machinery in Rhode Island 

and New York. Hezekiah Howe, also a mechanic, 

was the first contractor for the Cohoes Company 

Canals. The first dam was carried away by ice and 

high water in a fast-flowing stream in its first year, 

and despite rebuilding, it remained vulnerable to 

frequent damage. 

Under the paternalistic encouragement of the 

Cohoes Company, Cohoes acquired an industrial 

character, developing from what was only a canal 

town straggling across farmland. Among the early 

notable arrivals in Cohoes, who gave its industrial 

development a special character, were Egbert Egberts 

and his associates: two brothers, Timothy and 

Joshua Bailey. A storekeeper in nearby Albany, 

Egberts, becoming interested in the possibility of 

power knitting, converted the traditional manual 

knitting frame into a power-driven machine. As practical mechanics, the Bailey brothers accomplished this 

successfully, and in 1832 they came with Egberts to 

Cohoes to set up several sets of knitting machines in 

an existing cotton mill supplied with Cohoes Company water power. Thus, a new industry was born 

in the United States, and Cohoes became, in due 

course, a major knitting center with more than a 

score of mills. 

A few years later, Daniel Simmons established a 

factory for the manufacture of axes and other edge 

tools in Cohoes. The Simmons axe became nationally 

famous, and other axe and tool factories were established here as well. Perhaps most important in this 

decade of the 1830s, which was one of industrial 

beginnings in Cohoes, was the arrival of Peter 

Harmony, a Spaniard from New York who, with the 

support of others, founded the Harmony Manufacturing Company in 1837. 

Among the first stockholders were some persons 

already interested in the Cohoes Company, namely 

Peter Remsen, Hugh White, and Stephen Van 

Rensselaer, Jr., thus establishing personal links between the two principal companies in Cohoes, which 

persisted to the end. Capitalization was initially set 

at $100,000, later greatly increased as the enterprise 

grew. In 1837 a brick factory building costing $60,000 

was erected, equipped with [water] wheel houses and 

flumes. Originally it contained 3,000 spindles. As was 

customary in other new industrial villages, particularly those being developed at the time in New 

England, the Harmony corporation built several 

tenements for its workers. In subsequent years these 

were to grow into a substantial part of Cohoes, 

located in a section adjoining the expanding Harmony 

mills. While the corporation no longer exists, and 

the mill buildings are used for many other purposes, 

these houses are still occupied and comprise an 

important part of the housing available for the city's 

working population. 

Despite these industrial beginnings, progress in 

Cohoes was slow in the early years. In 1839 after a 

freshet washed away a part of the dam, it was rebuilt 

more substantially by the company, at a cost of 

$60,000, of timber filled in with stone and concrete 

masonry, 1,500 feet long by 9 feet high. In the same 

period, the Erie Canal was relocated westward and 

enlarged. The Cohoes Company was allowed to take 

over the abandoned waterway and to incorporate 

it into its canal system. By 1848 there were some 

4,000 people in Cohoes, which was incorporated as 

a village. Two decades later, in 1869, it became a 

city. There was now a weekly newspaper, The Cohoes 
NUMBER 26 123 

Advertiser, and a considerable variety of industries 

was using Cohoes Company water power. 

The Cohoes Company was now looked to for still 

another service to the village. In 1847 it had been 

asked, and it had agreed to install, water pipes and 

hydrants in the principal streets and to supply water 

from the upper-level canal. At a later date the village 

bought the water pipes and a company reservoir, but 

it continued to draw water from the company canals. 

All was not harmonious, however. Friction between 

company and village developed, which grew to a 

climax in the last years of the company's existence, 

as will be elaborated later. In the early years, there 

was the complaint that the village was already cut 

up with roads and canals. The canals, in particular, 

were a source of inconvenience and discomfort from 

the outset. There was an early controversy over 

whether the company or village was obligated to 

maintain the number of bridges and safety railings 

required. The company insisted that these were a 

public obligation. As a result, there was a tendency 

on both sides to neglect maintenance, and in 1850 

a bridge fell into a canal, nearly taking a full 

omnibus with it. The village authorities sued in court 

but lost to the company. This incident illustrates the 

special character of the Cohoes Company as not 

only a private business, but also as a quasi-public 

utility with social responsibilities—a concept not yet 

fully developed a century ago. 

In this connection, it is noteworthy that the Cohoes 

Company owned not only the water rights of the 

Mohawk, but also much of the land on which Cohoes 

developed. The company offered for joint use, a 

water right with the appropriate amount of land on 

which a mill could be built. As early as 1835 the 

Cohoes Company printed and publicized a "Map and 

Proposals .. . for the Sale of their Water Power and 

Lots at Cohoes." 

The unit of water power or "Mill Privilege" was 

described in detail as comprising 100 square inches 

of water with a head of twenty feet, i.e., the volume 

of water flowing through an opening ten inches 

square, under the pressure due to a head or fall of 

20 feet, with adequate water guaranteed. Together 

with a reserve fund for repairs, the rental was set 

at two cents per square inch of water and every foot 

of fall, to be paid annually in perpetuity. Further 

conditions were set forth in the proposal as to the 

rights and obligations of each party. All buildings 

were to be of brick or stone and none was to be 

used for "any laboratory, powder mill, furnace, or 

forge nor any chemical or other works whatsoever 

upon lots bordering or bounded on the East side of 

Canal and Basin A" which may be "so noxious or 

dangerous from fire—as to impair, injure, or endanger the life, safety or reasonable comfort of any 

person . , or which shall endanger the buildings, 

property, or works now or hereafter placed upon the 

grantor's land . ." (Cohoes Company, 1835). 

By 1846, an actual indenture between the Cohoes 

Company and Samuel H. Baldwin, machinist, set 

the annual rental for 100 square inches of water 

with a fall at 20 feet at $104 (vs. $40 originally), 

indicative of the steep rise in the value of the sites. 

The usual restrictions were repeated including a prohibition against establishing a tavern on the land, 

"without license from the grantor, nor a public house 

of entertainment nor any livery stable, nor sell any 

spirituous liquors of any kind in any shop, store, or 

other building" (Indenture, 1846). This would 

appear to have been an unusual degree of social and 

business regulation in a free enterprise age, reflecting 

not only the business interests but also the social 

standards of a puritanical society. 

All of this points to a basic question arising out of 

the role of the Cohoes Company in the evolution of 

the Cohoes community. It has existed wherever a 

private, profit-making organization has become such 

a controlling factor in the life of the community, 

whether by the ownership of its land or its principal 

resources. This situation was also present in the case 

of Lowell, and to a slightly lesser degree, Lawrence, 

on the Merrimack River in Massachusetts, where 

Boston capital dominated the growth of these textile 

cities through the exploitation of the water power 

site by a similar canal company, even to the extent 

of having these settlements named after the principal 

promoters. In more usual form, the problem has 

arisen as well in company mining towns, where a 

single company owns everything, including housing 

and business. The question is, ultimately, whether such 

an arrangement, however, paternalistic, is conducive 

to the welfare of the community and its people. At 

the least, it introduces a private monopolistic influence which limits and dominates, if it does not 

hurt, the common interest of all the rest. 

The division between private and public interest 

in the case of Cohoes was accentuated after 1850, 

when the Harmony Manufacturing Company was 

taken over by a New York firm, Garner and Com-
124 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

pany, and reorganized as Harmony Mills. The 

Garners brought in capable management in the 

persons of Alfred Wild, William E. Thorn, and 

Robert Johnston and son, David J. Johnston. In the 

period that followed, especially during the Civil War 

decade, the Harmony Mills experienced a dramatic 

expansion, until it comprised six large structures containing 130,000 spindles and 2,700 looms, and employing 2,500 operatives. Here, by the 1870s, was one 

of the largest cotton factories in the United States, 

if not in the world. In addition, the Harmony Company owned 900 tenements, most of them built since 

1860. There was also a Harmony Hall and a Sunday 

school as well as a weekday school. Altogether there 

prevailed the "perfect discipline of a well-trained 

army corps. An air of excellence and neatness of 

taste prevades and distinguishes the entire works" 

(Masten, 1877:000). For thousands of workers and 

their families the Harmony Mills were their "support, 

their friend, their constant benefactor, and their own 

sweet home." These well-meant words of a contemporary observer convey perhaps an unintended 

note of skepticism and irony. 

The condition of Cohoes, however prosperous and 

growing during the latter nineteenth century, was 

affected by the fact that the same principals, particularly the Garners, an absentee ownership family 

in New York City, dominated both the Cohoes Company and the Harmony Mills. There was an interlocking of interests and officers between them. A 

colossal bronze statue of Thomas Garner was installed in a niche in the main elevation of the ornate 

Number 3 or "Mastodon" Mill, erected in 1873. 

The Cohoes Company too, undertook some major 

renovation at this time. A solid new stone dam was 

built across the Mohawk in 1865-1866 with a gate 

house that controlled the flow of water into a new 

and enlarged canal. The entire installation was considered the finest of its kind in America. The total 

available horsepower was estimated at 10,000 with 

about two-thirds of it in use. The rental was now 

twenty dollars per horsepower, which was described 

as "the cheapest in the country." Cohoes had grown 

into a city of some 15,000 people, and in 1870 

David J. Johnston, the superintendent of Harmony 

Mills, was elected its first mayor. This was at once 

evidence of public spirit but also of an interlocking 

interest between city and business. Cohoes was a 

polyethnic community, its people largely recent immigrants, half of them French Canadians from Quebec. 

The 1870s were probably the heyday of Cohoes and 

the Cohoes Company. Despite the influence of the 

mills, labor unrest and trouble were almost endemic. 

It was in this period that Arthur H. Masten (1877) 

wrote the principal history of the city, which he 

celebrated enthusiastically in conjunction with the 

celebration of the Centennial of the Declaration of 

Independence. He extolled the Cohoes Company as 

the basis of Cohoes' prosperity by its policy of 

"developing the water power and offering the inducements for the settlement here of capitalists. .. . It has, 

moreover, by the construction of creditable works 

and improvements, by liberal donations of lands for 

public purposes, and in many other ways contributed 

to its growth and prosperity." Its facilities, in the 

form of ten canals, threaded their way through the 

city. Water was made available in small usable units 

on six different levels, each with a fall of approximately twenty feet, and it was thereby used repeatedly 

and economically. A mill power comprising six cubic 

feet of water per second, rented for $200 annually, 

at twenty dollars per horsepower. The city's two 

principal industries were then recovering unequally 

from the effects of a long and severe depression. Its 

17 knitting mills had suffered the greatest suspension 

and fall of prices, but the large Harmony mills were 

back at virtually full strength. Its six mills now had 

258,054 spindles and 5,650 looms, employing more 

than 4,100 operatives. 

A decade later, in the 1880s, a new power age 

was ushered in unobtrusively, which was ultimately 

to have profound effects on the Cohoes Company 

and the power technology of Cohoes industries, which 

were linked so closely together. This was electricity, 

first appearing as a means of improved lighting, and 

subsequently as a highly efficient form of power transmission. In 1887 the Cohoes Company contracted 

with the City of Cohoes to supply fifty arc lights in 

the streets. For this purpose it built and maintained 

the first electric light plant, presumably powered by 

water from its own canals. This was, however, only 

a small beginning. A quarter of a century later, in 

1911, came the revolutionary transformation in the 

means of utilizing the Cohoes Falls, when the Cohoes 

Company proposed an extensive project of electrification in the form of a hydroelectric plant on its water 

power site. Dam, gate house, and diverting canal 

were already in existence. What was needed was an 

electric generating plant at the base of the falls. Thus, 

at one stroke, as it were, the system of canals pro-
NUMBER 26 125 

viding water power in small units on six levels for 

the direct mechanical driving of the mills was to be 

rendered obsolete. Instead, a total of 30,000 electrical 

horsepower was to be generated in three hydroelectric 

units, and the alternating current thus provided could 

be distributed not only in Cohoes but over a wider 

area. It could supply light and heat, where required, 

as well as power. Interestingly, the model for this 

type of development had been provided as early as 

1895, in the construction of the first Niagara hydroelectric plant, on an even larger scale. 

This changeover did not occur without considerable 

controversy. It required, of course, a large investment 

of capital, but also a renegotiation of power contracts 

with the participating mills, which would also have 

to make substantial outlays of capital for wiring, 

controls, and motors to apply the new power. 

Moreover, once begun, the venture would have to 

be carried out promptly and as a whole, since the 

electric power would be available for use at once. 

The general negotiations between the Cohoes Company and its lessees occurred during 1911 and produced some controversy and bitterness, which found 

expression through the press. Of 31 lessees, some 

15 refused to sign new agreements. The Cohoes 

Evening Dispatch reported that behind their reluctance was the fact that these mills would now have 

to pay for all their power. At present, they were 

drawing more water than they paid for, and the 

Cohoes Company was not enforcing its rights. This 

situation would be corrected, and charges made for 

power actually used. 

An article in the Albany Telegram, however, presented the opposite side. For many years the company 

had neglected maintenance, and mills had to shut 

down periodically for want of water. The present 

plan was a "Wall Street financial game" to mulct 

users of millions instead of thousands of dollars. At 

present, in fact, the same "little clique of men" was 

in control of the Cohoes Company, the Harmony 

Mills, the Cohoes Gas Company, and the Cohoes 

Electric Light Company. The knitting mills were to 

be the next victims of the Wall Street plan. Moreover, 

the Garner interests were now in the hands of three 

daughters, who were married to foreign noblemen, 

and American funds were thus to go abroad to support them. The mills were to be asked to pay up to 

four times more for their power. By increasing the 

power output from an existing 5,500 horsepower to 

an estimated 25,000, the company income would 

rise to over a half million dollars per year. In two 

years such income would repay the cost of the whole 

investment. 

Despite these grievances, progress was not to be 

stopped. By 1915 the electrification project was executed by Sanderson and Porter of New York as 

engineers. General Electric Company supplied the 

generators and other equipment. Three generating 

units were installed, with a total capacity of 30,000 

horsepower. Two more 12,000 horsepower units were 

added in later years. The power generated was fed 

at high voltage into a system supplying Troy and 

Albany, as well as Cohoes. 

This modernization of Cohoes power really spelled 

the doom of the Cohoes Company, as well as of its 

canal system. In 1918, a newly formed Cohoes Power 

and Light Company acquired the Cohoes Company 

together with the associated gas and electric companies. The Cohoes Company had assets of over 

$6 milion, and the corporate surplus was valued at 

nearly $4 million. This was a notable showing for 

an old company that had been rendered obsolete by 

time and technological progress. In 1927 the Cohoes 

Power and Light Company was in turn absorbed by 

the New York Power and Light Company, which in 

1950 finally became part of the Niagara Mohawk 

system, stretching across upper New York state between the great water power sites at each end: 

Niagara and Cohoes. Thus were united the oldest 

and the newest power companies in the state, the 

Cohoes Company dating from 1826. 

The provision of hydroelectric power unfortunately 

did not halt the decline of Cohoes as an industrial 

city. The Harmony Mills were eventually closed in 

the 1930s, and the vast structures were emptied of 

their machinery. The remaining shells have taken on 

the drab patina of neglect and are partly occupied 

by small new industries. The many knitting mills too 

suffered decline, and most of them were eventually 

closed down. The old canals, useless and clogged 

with an accumulation of vegetation and refuse, still 

wind their way through the city, hampering its traffic. 

Only a newly projected program of urban renewal 

gives promise of disposing of these relics of a past 

age. They are to be filled in and turned into parks. 

In the meantime, they are still there and interfere 

with the fulfillment of a dream of Cohoes as a 

"Model All-American city," a title it has taken to 

itself, which is as yet more hope than reality. 
126 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Sources of Information 

UNPUBLISHED 

"Indenture of January 27, 1846 between the Cohoes Company and Samuel H. Baldwin.'' Manuscript Division, 

New York State Library, Albany, New York. 

File on Cohoes Company in the offices of the Niagara 

Mohawk Power Corporation at Albany. Contains many 

items of interest and value. 

Deeds and land grants of Cohoes Company, Albany County 

Clerk's Office, Albany. 

Consultation and city tour with Dr. Edward J. Vandercar, 

Cohoes City Historian, who has also been compiling a 

newspaper diary of Cohoes happenings. 

PUBLISHED 

The City of Cohoes: Its Past and Present History Albany: 

Cohoes "Cataract" Book and Job Printing Office, 1873. 

Cohoes Company. Map and Proposals of the Cohoes Company for the Sale of their Water Power and Lots at 

Cohoes. New York: Cohoes Company, 1835. [In New 

York State Library, Albany, New York.] 

Cornell, B. R. "The Hydroelectric Development of the 

Cohoes Company.'' General Electric Review, 1915. 

Masten, A. H. The History of Cohoes. Albany, 1877. 

Spafford, H. G. A Gazeteer of the State of New York. 1st 

edition. Albany: H. C. Southwick, 1813. 

Weise, A. J. The City of Troy and Vicinity. Troy, 1886. 
Gurley Building 1862 

W. & L. E. Gurley, Troy 

(HAER NY-13) 

Samuel Rezneck 

Location: 514 Fulton Street, northeast corner of Fulton Street and Fifth Avenue, Troy, 

Rensselaer County, New York. 

Latitude: 42° 43' 50" N. Longitude: 73° 40' 50" W. 

Date of Erection: 1862. 

Designer: Unknown. 

Present Owner: Teledyne Corporation. 

Present Occupant: W. & L. E. Gurley Manufacturing Company. 

Present Use: Manufacture of surveying instruments. 

Significance: Manufacturing engineering and surveying instruments since the mid-nineteeth 

century, the Gurley Company made the first all-aluminum transit, for exhibit at the 1876 

Philadelphia Exposition. Highly acclaimed by civil engineers, Gurley instruments have been 

used in the building of major structures. The firm remains an active and important skilled 

industry in Troy. The building is a typical urban factory of the period, but considerably 

above average in workmanship and detail. It remains essentially unaltered from its original 

design. 

HISTORICAL INFORMATION 

Physical History 

Original and Subsequent Owners: Previously owned 

and operated continuously by the Gurley family and 

local associates, the W. & L. E. Gurley Company was 

recently acquired by the Teledyne Corporation of 

California. 

Original Purpose and Construction: The original 

Gurley Company Building was destroyed in the Great 

Fire of May 1862. The present building was completed and the firm back in operation by December 

of the same year. 

Alterations and Additions: Sometime after 1889 

two cast-iron balconies were attached to the second 

and third stories on the Fulton Street facade, toward 

the east end. The display windows at the Fifth and 

Architectural Information: Prepared by Richard J. Pollak. 

Fulton corner which appear on an early engraving 

(Figure 78) have been transformed into a diagonal 

doorway. The original floral finials on the cornice 

have been removed. 

Corporate History 

W. & L. E. Gurley, Historic Manufacturers of 

Surveying and Scientific Instruments: In the long 

history of this unusual industrial concern, dating back 

to 1845, is embodied a remarkable record of an 

ambivalent, almost contradictory character. On the 

one hand there is its continued location on the same 

site in downtown Troy since its very foundation, the 

longest on record in Troy's history. It has, indeed, 

occupied the same four-story building since 1862, 

which was built hurriedly in less than a year, to 

127 
128 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 78.—The Gurley Building, cl885. 

(Weise, 1886, page 104.) 

replace an older structure destroyed in Troy's greatest 

fire. Its outer appearance and inner arrangement of 

rooms and furnishings convey the quaint air and 

patina of age and tradition. The organization and 

management of its industrial and business processes 

still suggest the personal and paternal characteristics 

of a past age of small-scale, individualized, and family 

operation. 

Their surveying and measuring instruments require 

great skill to manufacture. Used in many fields, their 

relatively limited demand and great variety of form 

would seem to resist any high degree of production 

mechanization or automation. Nevertheless, and on 

the other hand, the Gurley business has grown continuously and acquired a progressively advanced 

character. Its line of products from the original few 

surveying instruments has broadened to include a 

wide spectrum of new instruments and devices in 

such fields as weights and measures, meteorology, and 

hydraulics. Its technical skills of hand, eye, and tool 

have persisted and continue to determine the quality 

FIGURE 79.—General view of the Gurley Building from the southwest. 
NUMBER 26 129 

of product. It is perhaps noteworthy that when the 

final and almost inexorable process of modern merger 

finally reached the Gurley firm, only as recently as 

1967, by one of the most dynamic and technologically 

oriented conglomerates in American industry, the 

Teledyne Corporation of California, it proved to be 

a valuable acquisition, however modest in magnitude. 

Teledyne's other components include underwater 

exploration for oil, electronic and space mechanisms 

and devices, and similar sophisticated areas of modern 

technology. If absorption into a large industrial complex was an inevitable trend, it was almost a compliment to be sought out as suitable by such an advanced 

and, as it were, fast company. 

The roots of the Gurley concern go back to the 

founding of American and Troy industry in the 

early nineteenth century. Indeed, the surveying instruments that were its principal products belong 

to an even earlier age of discovery and exploration 

through which the American continent was surveyed 

and plotted and by which the roads, canals, and 

railroads were planned and constructed. Surveying 

instruments accompanied the earliest explorers, surveyors, and engineers who laid the basis for the 

American nation, politically, economically, and socially. Their manufacture goes back to such skilled 

mechanics and artificers as David and Benjamin 

Rittenhouse of Philadelphia, whose contributions are 

recorded in The Makers of Surveying Instruments in 

America Since 1700 by Charles E. Smart, a former 

Gurley president and the creator and curator of its 

remarkable collection of early surveying instruments. 

The origins of the Gurley enterprise, however, are 

in Connecticut, that early home of the mechanical 

arts in America, which produced Eli Whitney, Eli 

Terry, and Samuel Colt, among many others. The 

Gurleys came from Mansfield, Connecticut, which 

also was the home of the Hanks family, celebrated 

as pioneers in the manufacture of bells, surveying 

instruments, and other metal products. Benjamin 

Hanks and several sons came to Gibbonsville, across 

the Hudson River from Troy, as early as 1808, where 

he established a foundry and shop for these products. 

This enterprise developed into the Meneely bell works, 

controlled by Andrew Meneely, an apprentice who 

married into the Hanks family. His descendants 

flourished in the bell industry on both sides of the 

river, operating manufactories both in Troy and 

Watervliet until quite recent years. Julius Hanks, a 

son of Benjamin, came to Troy in 1825 where he 

established a foundry for church bells, clocks, castings, and surveyor's instruments. The site was at the 

corner of Fulton Street and Fifth Avenue, precisely 

where Gurley's is now located. Here arose a rather 

graceful frame building, which even boasted a bust 

of Benjamin Franklin, the patron of American science, over one of its doorways. It was here also that 

Oscar Hanks succeeded to his father's business, and 

where William Gurley, founder of the Gurley enterprise, entered as an apprentice in 1840. 

William Gurley's own antecedents were of the 

same character. His father, Ephraim, as early as 

1813, moved to Gibbonsville, now Watervliet, where 

a new arsenal, established during the War of 1812, 

gave an impetus to industry. In 1818 Ephraim Gurley 

settled in Troy and, in partnership with two of the 

Hanks brothers, established the Troy Air Furnace 

for castings of various kinds. On Fifth Avenue, near 

the present Gurley plant, both his sons, William and 

Lewis E., were born. Ephraim died in 1829, and the 

boys were raised by their mother. William Gurley 

attended the Rensselaer Institute, a newly conceived 

institution founded in 1824 for the "application of 

science to the common purposes of life." The patron 

was Stephen Van Rensselaer, the principal landlord 

in the region, but the innovative head was Amos 

Eaton, a zealous advocate of and itinerant lecturer 

on applied science. He was William's teacher, and 

he recommended Gurley highly for scientific competence upon his gradaution in 1839. 

Armed with Eaton's recommendation, William 

went west to Michigan in 1839, a year of severe 

depression, but was unable to find engineering employment. Returning to Troy, Gurley entered the Hanks 

works as an apprentice and in time became foreman 

of the shop. In 1846 William Gurley formed a 

partnership with Jonas Phelps, another Hanks apprentice, and as the firm of Phelps and Gurley began the 

manufacture of "mathematical and philosophical 

instruments." Some of the early products of this 

period are in the Gurley museum. In 1851 Gurley's 

younger brother, Lewis, joined the business following 

his graduation from Union College in Schenectady. 

Phelps soon sold out, and the two brothers launched 

on their long business career together in 1852 by 

buying out Oscar Hanks and acquiring the Hanks 

works at their present location. Thus was launched 

an enterprise that was to expand and become, by 

the end of the nineteenth century, the largest manufacturer of surveying instruments in the country. 
130 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Their instruments went with the engineers of both 

North and South America, many of them graduates 

of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, to survey the 

wild western lands and lay out the railroads that 

were to unite it into a single market and nation. 

Gurley instruments were, indeed, used all over the 

world, in Asia, Africa, and Australia, as well as 

throughout all of Latin America. During the Civil 

War, the Gurley firm demonstrated its flexibility and 

prospered by turning its facilities to the manufacture 

of fuses for shells and even brass fittings for cavalry 

saddles. Although the factory was totally destroyed 

in the Great Fire of 1862, it was restored within the 

year, and its continued use to the present time bears 

testimony to the solidity of the structure. 

Throughout the century there was the continuity 

of enterprise and management provided by the Gurley 

brothers. As they prospered, both men found time 

to devote to numerous civic activities. William Gurley, 

particularly, participated in the political life of the 

community, but even more in the patronage and 

promotion of cultural and educational institutions. 

William and Lewis were involved in the affairs of 

the Young Men's Christian Association and the public 

library that it sponsored. Both shared in the reorganization and modernization of the Emma Willard 

School, and William was a trustee and vice-president 

of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. 

The Gurley enterprise was fortunate to have the 

life-long services of Edward Arms, a mechanical 

genius, who became chief engineer of Gurley's. His 

employment began in 1862, at seventeen years of 

age, and lasted for seventy-two years until 1934, 

a not uncommon but unequaled phenomena in this 

long-lived family enterprise. In 1869, Arms graduated 

from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and subsequently dedicated himself to the improvement of 

surveying instruments and their manufacture. He 

was particularly interested in the refinement of the 

circular dividing engine, so vital in the production 

of transits and compasses as precise measuring devices. Arms and Theodore Schneider, another Gurley 

employee, helped Henry A. Rowland in his research 

at Rensselaer. As a result of this research Rowland 

was appointed the first professor of physics at the 

recently established Johns Hopkins University at 

Baltimore, where he became world famous for his 

development of the fine dividing engine that ruled 

the lines on glass defraction gratings used in spectroscopy. Schneider followed Rowland to Johns Hopkins 

as his mechanical assistant. 

Arms' autobiographical account of his life and 

work at Gurley's describes many other improvements, 

too numerous to itemize. Among them, however, was 

the construction of the first light-weight transit, made 

from aluminum bought in France at $1.30 per ounce. 

Now in the Gurley museum, it was displayed at the 

Centennial Exposition in Philadelphia in 1876, across 

the aisle from Alexander Graham Bell's newly invented telephone. A version of the transit was subsequently offered for sale as a light-weight mountain 

transit. Arms devised a method for drawing platinum 

wire to the fine diameters required in the transit 

telescope, and he was skilled in lens optics as well. 

At the Columbian Exposition of 1893 in Chicago 

Gurley's displayed an Arms 11-inch telescope, which 

won the approval of Alvin Clark, the world's greatest 

lens maker. 

Not only a manufacturer of surveying instruments 

the Gurley concern entered into related activities. 

In 1855 it published A Manual of the Principal 

Instruments Used in American Engineering and 

Surveying. The first of its kind in America, it was 

an illustrated, instructional account of the instruments and their uses, without any reference to prices. 

This manual was reissued and sold at a nominal 

figure year after year, the fifty-second edition as 

recently as 1951. In 1881 Gurley's published an 

ephemeris, for use by engineers, which is still issued 

in an annual edition, as an Abridgement of the 

Nautical Almanac. A Manual of Gurley Hydraulic 

Engineering Instruments was brought out in 1881. 

In addition, the Gurley concern offered for sale a 

substantial list of books for engineers as well as a 

wide variety of engineering supplies, from paper and 

tracing cloth to pens and pencils. It had become, 

by the end of the century, a leading manufacturer 

and supplier of engineering instruments and related 

materials in the nation. 

William Gurley died in 1887 and his brother Lewis 

a decade later. This brought to an end the first stage 

of the company's history, one of growth and prosperity. By 1899 Gurley's had been incorporated, 

although it was still carried on as a family business by 

Lewis' son, William F. Gurley, and by William's 

son-in-law, Paul Cook. During these years the company expanded into new fields. In connection with 

the establishment of the National Bureau of Standards 

in 1904 Gurley's was pursuaded to engage in the 
NUMBER 26 131 

manufacture of weights and measures. The first 

edition of Gurley's Handbook of Weights and Measures for the Use of Sealers appeared in 1906. In 1908 

a new department was created under the name of 

"Department P," for physical and scientific instruments, and a publication was then issued listing 

Physical and Scientific Instruments and Mechanical 

Apparatus. It was not successful and "Department P" 

was sold a few years later to a Massachusetts concern. 

By the time of World War I, Gurley's line of direct 

family management had run out, and there was a 

great need for new outside personnel to carry on the 

business. In 1919 and 1920 two men were brought 

in, who became respectively General and Works 

Managers and successively presidents of the firm 

during the next generation. They were Charles I. 

Day, a Columbia-trained engineer, and Charles E. 

Smart, a graduate of Massachusetts Institute of Technology. They were joined by Lester C. Higbee, a 

graduate of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, who 

subsequently succeeded Smart as president of Gurley's. 

Under their combined leadership the methods and 

machinery of Gurley's were modernized. New lines 

of products were added and others revived, among 

FIGURE 80.—Gurley Building: a, The south elevation from the southeast; b, entrance detail; c, detail of cornice and ornamental parapet; 

d, grill over entrance, southwest corner. 
132 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

them hydraulic and meteorological instruments, which 

were used for measuring both wind and water currents, as well as the traditional surveying instruments. 

World War II resulted in a great demand for 

technical instruments of all kinds, and as early as 

1942 the United States Navy and Army awarded the 

firm the "E" pennant, which flew over Gurley's as 

a symbol of efficiency and excellence in meeting war 

demands. During the war the largest output of transits in all of its history was recorded. The growth of 

electronic and space technology in postwar America 

also provided an impetus to the development of new 

devices and instruments in these fields. 

In time, however, the question of whether the 

company could operate and grow in the relative 

isolation of its traditional Troy setting became acute. 

This was of particular concern as the problem of 

new management arose and the established line of 

family and intraplant direction was exhausted. The 

trend of the time was toward industrial consolidation 

into large and diversified conglomerates, favored by 

the advent of computers and other new means of 

control and coordination. In 1967, a California conglomerate, Teledyne, Inc., acquired the local company and installed its own management in the person 

of a new president. 

New problems arose affecting the continued survival and operation of Gurley's as a separate, autonomous enterprise. Particularly there was a question 

of complete urban renewal and the consequential 

removal of the business to a new site in Troy. 

Negotiations with the city's planning authorities 

began for a location in a new industrial park established in the outskirts of the city because the old site 

and buildings stood in the downtown renewal area. 

Thus Gurley's is engaged at this moment in a crucial 

process of relocation and renewal, on which could 

depend its future evolution as a member of a national 

complex of companies operating in highly sophisticated technological industries, both old and new. 

Gurley is obviously the oldest of these, and its survival is greatly to be desired, both for its own sake 

and for the future of Troy. It is perhaps noteworthy 

that out of Troy's past only two major institutions 

have persisted and grown, by adaptation to new conditions. These are significantly related to each other: 

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, originating in Troy 

in 1824, and W. & L. E. Gurley, manufacturer of 

surveying and other "mathematical and philosophical" instruments, dating from 1845. 

Sources of Information 

UNPUBLISHE D 

Consultation with and materials obtained from Charles E. 

Smart and Robert G. Betts, former presidents of W. & 

L. E. Gurley. 

"Edward J. Arms: Autobiographical Sketch.'' Manuscript, 

Gurley Company Files, Troy, 1930. 

"Charles E. Smart: Autobiography." Manuscript, Gurley 

Company Files, Troy, 1963. 

PUBLISHE D 

The Gurley Story. Troy: W. & L. E. Gurley, 1947. 

W. & L. E. Gurley. Miscellaneous catalogs and manuals. 

Published intermittently between 1855 and 1951. 

In Memoriam, William Gurley. Troy, 1890. 

Smart, Charles E. The Makers of Surveying Instruments 

in America Since 1700. Troy, 1962. 

Weise, Arthur James. City of Troy and Its Vicinity. Troy: 

Edward Green, 1886. 

. Troy's One Hundred Years. Troy: William H. 

Young, 1891. 

ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION 

General Statement 

Structural Character: A typically Victorian commercial expression of Renaissance revival architecture. 

Condition of Fabric: Good. 

Description of Exterior 

Overall Dimensions: 130 feet wide, 90 feet deep 

on Fifth Avenue, and 118 feet along Union Street 

(Weise, 1886:15). Aside from its extended depth on 

one side, the building is 16 window bays by 10. It has 

15-foot ceilings. 

Shape: U-shaped, four-story building around an 

open courtyard. 

Foundation: Cut stone, light in color, probably 

limestone. 

Wall Construction and Finish: Brick bearing wall 

pierced by arcaded windows and doorways with cast 

iron pilaster capitals. 
NUMBER 26 133 

Structural System: Exterior brick bearing walls; 

interior cast-iron columns approximately 8 inches in 

diameter, and timber beams. 

Stoops and Balconies: Cut stone entrance stoop. 

Two cantilevered cast-iron balconies on the Fulton 

Street facade near Union Street. 

Chimney: Red brick. 

Openings: Doorways and Doors: For such a regular building, the entrances are arranged quite asymmetrically. The principal entrance at the eastern end 

of the Fulton Street facade is flanked by two windows 

and topped with a triple, round-arched entablature 

reading: "ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS INSTRUMENTS." 

The secondary entrance, at the southwest corner of 

the building (Fulton and Fifth) has an entry way 

created by two perpendicular open arches separated 

by the heavy brick corner pier. Wrought-iron scrollwork gracefully fills the open fanlights. There are 

simple, double wooden doors with long rectangular 

glazing recessed in the entry. 

Windows: Wooden framed windows are set into 

the round brick arches on the first, second, and third 

floors and into segmental arches on the fourth. The 

first floor windows are plate glass with the fan area, 

at present, opaqued or filled with air conditioners. On 

the second, third, and fourth stories, the windows 

are double hung with 12-over-12 and 9-over-9 glazing, 

depending on the size of the arch. 

Roof: Shape and Covering: Flat pitched, covered 

with sheet metal (probably tin plate). 

Cornice and Eaves: Heavily bracketed sheet 

metal cornice on Fulton Street and Fifth Avenue 

faces, and partial-parapet with name and date centrally placed on the Fulton Street facade. 

Description of Interior 

Floor Plans: Large open space structured by 

painted, cast-iron columns. The first floor is subdivided into office space, and areas for storage and 

shipping; the open areas on the other floors are used 

for the manufacturing activities. 

Wall and Ceiling Finish: The walls are painted 

plaster with a smooth trowel finish. In the office 

reception area, there is a notable stamped metal 

ceiling. 

Doors and Doorways: Wooden frames and doors 

with rich Victorian detailing. 

Special Cabinetwork: A built-in, cherrywood cabinet, with nineteenth-century classical detailing, serves 

as an information desk and space divider in the entry 

office. 

Notable Hardware: The door hardware is cast 

metal, quite elaborate, and in a classical style. 

Site and Surroundings 

Setting: Located on the northeast corner of Fulton 

Street and Fifth Avenue, at the edge of the city's 

business district, the Gurley Building is in a neighborhood of contemporary brownstone rowhouses, some 

of which were owned by the Gurley family in the 

nineteenth century. 

Outbuildings: The Gurley Company also owns the 

buildings across Fulton Street and to the east across 

Union Street. These were probably built no later 

than the 1860s. The building to the east has a fine, 

cast-iron front on the first story. 
PART THREE 

The Record: Transportation 
Whipple Cast- and Wrought-iron 

Bowstring Truss Bridge 1867 

Albany 

(HAER NY-4) 

Richard S. Allen 

Location: Spanning a ravine 250 feet north of Normans Kill and 965 feet west of Delaware 

Avenue, Normanskill Farm, north of Normansville, within city limits of Albany, Albany 

County, New York. 

Latitude: 42° 38' 00" N. Longitude: 73° 48' 00" W. 

Date of Erection: Fabricated in 1867 (cast into top-chord members) and originally erected 

at another site; moved and re-erected at Normansville site cl900. 

Designer: Squire Whipple, C.E. (1804-1888). 

Present Owner: Mark Stevens, Normanskill Farm, Albany, New York. 

Present Use: Vehicular bridge, trucks and busses restricted. 

Significance: One of only two known surviving "Whipple" bowstring truss bridges, and one 

of the few remaining composite cast- and wrought-iron bridges, this span was built according 

to the patented design of Squire Whipple, which was used widely during the second half 

of the nineteenth century, mainly in New York State. When Whipple's patent of 1841 expired 

in 1869, the design was copied down to the last detail by a number of builders such as 

DeGraff, who were glad to avoid royalties. 

HISTORICAL INFORMATION 

Physical History 

Original Builder: Simon DeGraff, after basic pattern of Squire Whipple. 

Original Plan and Construction: This bridge is a 

fine example of Whipple's Patent Iron Arch Truss 

Bridge, or the Whipple Bowstring Truss, invented 

in 1841 by Squire Whipple. It was fabricated by 

Simon DeGraff of Syracuse, New York, whose name 

with the date 1867, is cast into several iron parts. 

Alterations: Beyond the moving of the bridge itself 

from another site, there are no apparent alterations 

except the occasional maintenance replacement of 

the wood deck. 

Engineering Information: Prepared by Richard J. Pollak; 

additional data by Robert M. Vogel. 

History at Present Location: Normansville, once 

known as Upper Hollow, is a hamlet located approximately two miles west of downtown Albany, New 

York. It is situated in a deep ravine formed by the 

Normans Kill, which once provided water power for 

saw mills, woolen mills, and a paper factory. 

The old Albany & Delaware Turnpike crossed the 

kill at that point, first with a wooden bridge, and in 

1869 by means of an early two-span iron structure 

built by the Town of Bethlehem. 

In 1866 Upper Hollow had seven dwellings, and 

since nothing is indicated on a map of that year, 

it is assumed that the present Normanskill Farm was 

established subsequent to that date. The original 

access to the farm was by means of the steep road 

up the bank of the Normans Kill to the west of the 

village. 

137 
FIGURE 81.—Squire Whipple (1804-1888) 

(Engineering News, 24 March 1888.) 

FIGURE 82 

WHIPPLE CAST ft WROUGHT-IRON BOWSTRING TRUSS BRIDGE • 1867 

THE GENERAL DESIGN OF TH E BRIDGE WAS PATENTED IN 1841 BY SQUIRE WHIPPLE, 

CIVIL ENGINEER OF ALBANY. IT WAS THE FIRST ALL-IRON BRIDGE TRUSSING SYSTEM 

TO FIND WIDE USE, HUNDREDS OF EXAMPLES HAVING BEEN ERECTED BY WHIPPLE AND 

LICENSEES OVER THE ERIE CANAL AND OTHER WATERWAYS, MOSTLY IN NEW YORK STATE, 

ALL FOR HIGHWAY USE. ONLY TWO ARE KNOWN TO REMAIN. THIS SPAN WAS FABRICATED 

BY S. DEGRAFF OF SYRACUSE, NEW YORK FOR AN UNKNOWN LOCATION AND MOVED TOTHE 

PRESENT SITE AROUND 1900. ITS PRIVATE OWNERSHIP GOOD MAINTANCE, AND REMOTE 

LOCATION ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SURVIVAL OF ONE OF THE EARLIEST IRON BRIDGES 

IN THE U.S. 
4 "ti'i aw^u>* : 

END ELEVATION sc^e SECTION SCALC A 

FIGURE 83 

I 

gnrjo^^^^ 1 •-' ^ -' • • < ^Hr~—^^^^^^^1^^^^ ^ 

FIGURE 84 

P£7?)/L /JTr/JAZrL /°tP//vr9 P£77}/L JT /^A/A^L ft?/AK5 3,5 V 7 

sate piiawy /969 

WHIPPLE CAST a WROUGHT-IRON BOWSTRING TRUSS BRIDGE 

SPANNING A RAVINE 250' N. OF NORMANS KILL B 965' W.OF DELEWARE AVE., ALBANY, ALBANY CO., NEW YORK 

HAE R 

NY-4 

HISTORIC AMERICAN 

ENGINEERING RECORD 

•KUT 4 or 5 t«im 
140 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

P£7?ML /ir/VAFL fZV/Vr I 

CXAKLE3 rAX/POTT /// 1971 

MOHAWK-HUDSON AREA SURVEY WHIPPLE CAST 8 WROUGHT-IRON BOWSTRING TRUSS BRIDGE HAER 

"

HSZZTM£:iiiSl.\ZlS£l°2?%j:i"-,"mZ'" SPANNING A RAVINE 250' N OF NORMANS KILL & 965' W. OF DELEWARE AVE, ALBANY. ALBANY CO., NEW YORK NY- 4 

FIGURE 85 

In 1899 plans were made to relocate the Albany & 

Delaware Turnpike (Delaware Avenue) to the north 

of the original route. It would descend to Normansville by an easier grade along the contours of a hill 

adjacent to another ravine made by a tiny, unnamed 

tributary of the Normans Kill. On a map of that 

year no bridge is shown, and the property was owned 

by an Amanda M. Lightbody. 

After the new, yellow bricked route of Delaware 

Avenue was constructed, it was obvious that an easier 

entrance to the Normanskill Farm could be made by 

bridging the ravine at the eastern edge of the property. Moving and re-erection of small iron truss 

bridges was common practice by the various New 

York State-based iron bridge companies of the 1880s. 

The owners of the farm acquired a 113-foot Whipple 

Bowstring Iron Truss Bridge that would more than 

adequately span the ravine. The bridge was a secondhand structure, most likely originally built for a site 

nearer Syracuse (perhaps over the Erie Canal or 

one of its branches), and, while still serviceable, 

superseded by a larger span of greater strength and 

subsequently disposed of to another town or municipality. It is generally reported to have been brought 

to Normanskill Farm "from Schoharie." "From 

Schoharie" could refer to the county of Schoharie, 

the village of Schoharie, or the valley of Schoharie 

Creek. The Schoharie area is about 25 miles west of 

the site. If the bridge originally stood there it was 

undoubtedly dismantled and moved in sections over 
NUMBER 26 141 

~~f~ "^v-OTTH SIDEWALKS 7-3

 f' MPAN. 19 f

' PROM f'KNTRE TO I'ENTBH OPTRUSS '" VAN R RICHMOHD 

•Stair Knq r A 5ur\-\- ' 

FIGURE 86.—General plan for 72-foot span Whipple Truss Bridge of seven panels. 

(State Engineer and Surveyor of the Canals, 1860, plate D.) 

the old route of the Delaware Turnpike to Normansville (possibly its third location), where it was carefully re-erected on suitable stone and concrete abutments previously prepared to receive it. Indeed, one 

of the happiest features of the bolted and pinned 

form of bridge construction in use before riveting 

became common about 1900, was not only the speed 

of erection, but the ease with which a span could 

be knocked down, moved in small pieces, and as 

easily and quickly re-erected on a new site. 

Mark W. Stevens has owned the Normanskill Farm 

for many years, and it appears on some maps and 

records as the "Stevens Farm." 

Bearing only light vehicular traffic, this Whipple 

Bridge is one of the earliest examples of iron bridge 

building still in existence. 

Biographical Background 

Squire Whipple and the Whipple Design: Whipple 

was a prominent civil engineer who in 1847 published 

the first work in America describing the theory of 

stresses in bridge trusses. It was widely distributed 
( frKErraiRAiLIpiiifiiPr o 

WHIPPLE*! PATENT AIU'H TRUSS BIUDGE IOO F' SPAN 

19 I" llMdiray rrom Center lo Critter ofTruss <nth& mlhoul Side It'alte 

' Srdlf orrian^EICTauon Sol an Inrli to the fool Details sari inch per fool 

FIGURE 87.—General plan for 100-foot span Whipple Truss Bridge of nine panels. 

(State Engineer and Surveyor of the Canals, 1860, plate E.) 

FIGURE 88.—General view of Whipple Truss Bridge from the north. 
NUMBER 26 143 

and reprinted, having a far-reaching effect in establishing scientific bridge design in this country. He has 

been rightly called "the father of iron bridges in 

America." 

Squire (his given name, not a title) Whipple was 

born in Hardwick, Massachusetts, and came with his 

family to live in New York State at thirteen. A farm 

boy, he was self-educated in an amazing number of 

subjects, including Greek and astronomy. He studied 

as well at Fairfield Academy and was graduated 

from Union College in 1830 after only one year 

there. His early work experiences included teaching 

and surveying. 

Whipple's early engineering work was with the 

first American railroads and the New York State 

canal system. When plans were being readied in 

1840 to enlarge the Erie Canal, Whipple realized 

that hundreds of new bridges would be necessary to 

span the widened waterway. He managed to save 

$1,000 with which he constructed his first iron bowstring bridge over the canal at Utica, New York. 

It was the first of hundreds that in the next thirty 

years would find acceptance all over the northeastern 

United States. 

The inventor-engineer duly patented the design 

and details of his bridge in 1841, and thereafter tried 

in vain to stem the appearance and use of truss spans 

similar to his own. Other builders managed to incorporate "improvements" and "refinements" just 

sufficient to contest paying the originator any royalties 

on his patent. Even the State of New York formally 

adopted "Whipple's Patent Iron Arch Truss Bridge" 

as standard for its canals (Figures 86, 87), but decreed 

that the bridges were to be erected "for the public 

good," thus evading royalty payments. In a rare 

outburst of righteous indignation Squire Whipple 

FIGURE 89.—Whipple Truss Bridge: a, View from the northeast of the north line of trussing; 

b, through view from the east; c, general view from the southeast; d, through view from 

the west. 

NUMBER 26 145 

FIGURE 90.—Whipple Truss Bridge: a, Detail at northeast 

corner of bearing and bottom-chord connection; b, top-chord 

details; c, underside of deck showing bottom-chord bracing 

and floor beams; d, bottom-chord connections. 

penned a wry comment in Latin which roughly 

translates as: "These little bridges I invented, rats 

get the pay!" 

Despite injustice, Whipple proceeded to write a 

small book entitled: A Work on Bridge Building, 

which he published himself in 1847. Through it, the 

obscure New York State inventor has been recognized as the first man ever to analyze correctly and 

adequately the stresses in a bridge truss. His calculations were simple and precise and even employed 

short-cut processes that are logical and still useful. 

Although it took nearly thirty years for the contents 

of Whipple's book to be appreciated, bridge building 

itself gradually became accepted as a scientific profession rather than a trade. 

From 1850 onward, Squire Whipple lived at 227 

State Street in Albany, which is only two miles from 

the site of the Normanskill Farm bridge. As late 

as 1869, he continued to invent new types of lift 

and draw bridges, and built spans similar to that at 

Normanskill Farm. One bridge of this date over 

Cayadutta Creek at Fonda, New York, and the 

Normanskill span are the only known survivors of 

the type. On his death in 1888, the inventor-engineer 

was buried in the Albany Rural Cemetery near 

Menands, New York. 

Squire Whipple was issued U.S. Patent 2064 for 

his Iron Bowstring Truss on 24 April 1841. When 

this patent expired after fourteen years, it was extended for another fourteen on 26 March 1855. 

Infringements on the patent, as noted above, were 

notorious. The patient but frustrated inventor gave 

up trying to collect royalties long before the patent 

finally expired. Considering the design within the 

public domain, or perhaps even ignorant of infringement, many companies and individuals fabricated 

and erected Whipple-type iron bowstring truss bridges 

during the 1860-1890 period. Among them was 

Simon DeGraff of Syracuse, New York. 

Simon DeGraff: Simon DeGraff (also in directories as "Harmon" and "Samuel") lived at 35 East 

Onondaga Street in Syracuse, and apparently maintained a works there as well. First appearing in 1851 

listings for Syracuse, he is noted as a "contractor" 

from 1857 to 1865, and as a "bridge contractor" 

during 1866-1867. 

DeGraff was evidently a small local contractor who 

gradually came to specialize in bridge work. It is 

probable that the castings of the Normanskill bridge 

were cast to his order in a Syracuse foundry, quite 

likely that of George Draper with whom DeGraff 

was soon to form a partnership. 

By 1869 Simon DeGraff, "Bridge Builder" is listed 

at a new location, 107 West Onondaga Street. For 

two years (1869-1870) he is also found as a partner 

with George Draper in Draper & Co., James St., 

at the corner of Pearl. This firm advertised: "Iron 

bridges, iron fence, railing, balconies, stairs, doors, 

grates, and general forging." 

For another year DeGraff appears on his own as 

a "contractor" once more, and then as a householder 

still at 107 West Onondaga Street. The last listing 

for this builder of Whipple truss bridges is 1873. 

FIGURE 91.—Whipple Truss Bridge, top-chord end casting 

with builder's inscription. 
146 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 92.—Whipple Truss 

Bridge: a, b, Bottom-chord 

details; c, abutment masonry. (Pollak) 
NUMBER 26 147 

FIGURE 93.—Whipple Truss Bridge: a-c, Top-chord details; 

d, bottom-chord detail. (Pollak) 
148 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 94.—Bottom-chord details of 

Whipple Truss Bridge. (Pollak) 
OA'ATE CANALS . 

I S 7 1 . 

SPECIFICATIO N 

Of the Manner of Constructing Whipple's Patent Iron Arch 

Truss Bridge Superstructures, 

For 

Each Suporetniolnro lo consist of :t phiilk and timber flooring, supported l>y livo or more tniwri of 

wrought and east iron, ami, in cases of bridge" wilh aidcwnlks, an iron railing ttiri-ij fuel high .. Hit outside 

of each sidewalk. 

Tho trusses to he composed of cast iron arches and connecting block", and wrought iron chords wiriirliLs 

and diagonals; and the flooring of iron needle beams, pine joists and oak planking, as shown on the plans 

exhibited at the letting. 

Tho truss arches to consist of straight pieces, diverging and widening horizontally, from a width of about 

1-13 tho length of the piece, in the middle, to about 4, the height of the truss (and rather more in shot I trusses) 

at the end of the arch, each widening in proportion as it pitches downward from a horizontal position. In trusses 

from 55 to 75 feet in lcnglh, tbe arch is to contain 7 pieces, meeting at angles of 82 degrees, the ends being 

beveled 4 degrees, so as to form a joint, with a deflection of 8 degrees from otto piece to the next contiguous 

In trusses from 75 to 100 feet in length, the arch is to contain 0 pieces, with ends beveled a degrees at the joints, 

giving C degrees angle of deflection from piece to piece, or such other angle of deflection as may be directed by 

the Resident Engineer in charge of the work. 

Tbe extremities of tho arch arc to be formed into feet resting on the abutments with a flat bearin" of 11 

to 13 inches from heel to toe, and have a firm connection with tbe ends of the chords by having the endmost 

links left open at the connection, and after passing through the feet from heel to toe, secured by screw nuts at 

the toe; in which ease, the portion of the rod where the screw thread is cut, is to have at least 8-8 inch 

greater diameter than the rest of the chord. 

The cuds of the arch castings al the joints arc to be BO shaped as to form vertical holes for the uprights to 

pass through, and afford horizontal bearings for the nuts of the uprights on tbe upper, and for the eyes of the 

diagonals on the under Bide, the holes being so placed that the plane of tho arch joint may cut tho center of the 

uprights about two incites below the upper side of the castings. 

The depth or width of arch castings (towards the center of tho general curvature) is lo be not less 

than 1-18 the length of the pieces respectively, unless a compensating increase bo made in the cross sections of 

tbe piecca; which cross sections, multiplied by the natural sine of the inclination of the pieces respectively 

from the vertical, are in all places to give products of not less than one square inch for each 00 square feet of 

bridge floor supported by the trusses respcoliicly, not including the coping tinder the trusses and railing; 

and in trusses supporting less than 10 feet width of flooring each, the cross sections of the arch eastings, 

multiplied Ofi above stated, aro to give products of not less than one square inch to overy 70 square t'eet of 

flooring, and to have not less than half au inch in thickness of iron in any part, and not less than 7-8 inch 

in thickness within 3 incbcB of the joints. 

No wedging of tho arch joints will be allowed. The ends of the pieces must be plaited by machinery, or 

accurately hand-drcBscd, as may be directed by said Kngineer. 

Near the outer or upper corner of the joints are to be projections of about 3-4 of an inch in length and 

depth, and I\ to 2 inches in width, cast on one piece, and extending into the angles of tbe contiguous piece, to 

assist in keeping the ends in place. 

Kach piece of the arch casting is to have at least 4 cross bars connecting the side portions; the end ones 

being ."> to 0 inches wide, and of a depth, at the upright hole, not less than 1-5 the ui.ltIt of castings at the 

point of location; tho others al uniform distances between the former, ami in section equal lo 1-3 that of the 

longitudinal parts of Iho castings. 

Korthr forms and proportions nf the imiw-linis, ami for nlbcr pariieithrs not here s| ifietl, as well as for 

the belter understanding «f llm* specifications generally, reference is had lo I he drawings, and to instructions 

and directions of tbe Kngineer in charge of the wotk. 

The connecting blocks are to be of east iron; the cml portions, where the links go on, to bo about 2} 

inches deep, with a cross section nowhere less than 84 times the cross section multiplied by tho diameter of 

the iron in the chords, and divided by the width of thu connecting block. The edges of the blocks to bo fitted 

lo the semi-circular ends of the links. 

The central portion of the block is to lie so enlarged as to admit of the holes for tho uprights and diagonals, 

and not allow of being cut or fractured in that part without au area of section or fracture at least 20 per cent 

greater than the cross section of the block where it receives the links of the chords. 

The lengths of connecting blocks arc to be, for those next tho ends of tho truss, such that tho endmost 

links of the chord may run parallel from their c'onncctions with tho feet of tho arch, and connect on tho ends 

of the block, the next succeeding links being inside of the former, and so on to the middle of the truss, with the 

tiro links of each pair parallel, or nearly so, and the blocks diminishing in length BucceBBively by about twice 

the diameter of the iron in tho links. 

AU the iron to bo of such kinds, mixtures and qualities as to produce sound and strong castings, equal to 

the best descriptions of metal used for machinery. 

Tho ends of tho chords and lite feet of the arches on tho abutments aro to be covered with a cast iron box 

to protect them from contact with the earth of tho approach. 

•WZROTTG-HT IE.01T WORK . 

The chords to each arch piece are to be composed of two links of such lengths as to bo joined in pairs 

by the cast iron connecting blocks directly under the arch joints, and connected with tho extremities of tho 

arch in the manner before described. Tbe aggregate cross section of the chord to each truss is to contain 

not less than one square inch for each 120 squaro feet of bridge flooring (copings not included) sustained 

by tho truss. 

The uprights arc to bo one at each joint of Iho arch; the middle ones (and more When required) in each 

trnss, to bo composed of two rods united into one at tho upper end, for that portion which passes through 

the eyes of the diagonals, the arch, and the nut on the top; with a collar or ring of 7-8 inch square iron welded 

on just below tho eyes of Iho diagonals, to prevent the latter from sliding down. From 2 to 3 inches below tho 

collar, tho two rods diverge at au angle of 10 to 12 degrees, and pass through tho connecting blocks outsido of 

the chords. The upper end, or single portion in theso uprights, is to bo of tho same diameter as in tho singlo 

uprights of tho same trusses, and the double portion of 1 5-8 inch iron tor sidewalk bridgca of spans over 75 foot, 

and of 14 inch iron for all other bridges of less titan 10C feet span, unless otherwise directed. 

Bach branch of the double uprights is to have a nut to bear on the upper side of tho iron needle 

beam, and another on the under side of tho connecting block, tho uprights passing through enst Iron thimbles 

or washers, intervening between tho bottom of the needle beam and connecting block, to afford s bearing 

for the beam. 

The rest of the uprights aro to be each formed of a singlo round bar or rod, with a collar aud nut, as abovo 

described, at tbe upper end, and passing through the center of the connecting block, to be secured by a nut on 

the lower end, ami to have an adjusting nut to bear on the top of the iron needle beam. Tdie diameters of the 

Hingle uprights to be not less than 2 inches for spans of 00 to 120 feet, and 1 3 4 inches for spans of 50 to 00 feet 

for single roadways without sidewalks. For double roadways and bridges with sidewalks, the sizo of both single 

ami double uprights to be increased, as may be directed by suid Kngineer. 

The diagonals are to Im two, crossing each other in each of the quadrilatoral panels of tho truss, of 1 1-8 

inch round iron in all sidewalk bridges of over 70 feet span, and of 1 inch iron for all other bridge*, except when 

••tin t wise partit ulaily specified. They are to be funnel willl a strong eye at the upjsr end for the upright, and 

bint mar the eye, so that it may lit horizontally upon 111" collar of tho upright, or upon the eye of the diagonal, 

connecting at the nunc point. Where thu diagonals g In I he uprights, the one running downward towards 

the centre of the truss is to go on last, or above the ••liter; and the bettil at the eyo is to bo close to the outer 

edge of Hie collar, or of the other eyo u| which it Wars. 

The lower end or the diagonal is In pass obliqtu ly through ll netting block, with a screw nut at tho 

end for adjust men!, thu screw being cut at le.-cl H inches from lite •-ml, anil to have a diameter [ inch larger than 

the rest of the rod. 

JUKI auto on both uprights ami diagonals iu be hexagonal, anil properly proportioned lor the purpoaca 

intended. 

There shall be a pair of diagonal swny rmls in curb panel of lite bridge; those in the end panels to 

bo 7-8, ami in the inter Male panels :I-J inch round iron, and tit bridges of Im lo l.'n feel span, there shall 

bo two pairs al each end, of 7-n inch iron. Tim sway rods lire !•• I.. imccled with I he single uprights of the 

trusses at the upper sido or the connecting blocks by eyes through which the uprights shall pass, and in a similar 

manner to n horn east . 0 tho upper sido ol' llm crotch n.d saddles. 'Clio sway rods I-., have turn buckle 

adjustment near one cud, the screwed portion being enlarged | inch. 

At lilt! cuds of tbe bridge, the sway rods are lo conned by eyes wilh llie screws und nuts uniting the chord 

with the led of the arches, or in any other convenient and substantial waiaierThc sidewalk railing is to be of wrought iron, except the corner posts, and when not otherwise Hpccini d, 

is to consist of vertical posts of 1 1-H inch square iron, once in I lo 5 feet, a bottom mil or 1 inch square 

iron about 4 inches above the bottom ol the posts; a tup mil of I 3-4 inch by \ inch iron, flatwise on the 

top of the post, willi a strip of 1 inch by J inch on the top of the last; and balusters ol 3-4 inch square 

iron, once iu G inches, doweled and rivet.-.I to and between the top ami bottom rails. At the Isittom of each 

post, and crotuu be of the railing, is to be a loot piece, li to 7 inches long, 21 inches wide, and half an inch 

thick, firmly riveted to the bottom of the post, and having two boles, one on each sido of the post, and about 

3$ to 4 inches from center to center, for bolting down to the wood work with 5-8 inch bolts. On tho outside 

of tbe railing, the foot plate is to be welded to the lower end of a scroll or ogee brace of 3-4 inch square 

iron, running up, and riveted to the post about midway of its length. 

The posts at the ends of the railing, or at the corners of the bridge, are to be of hollow cast iron, 3 to 4 

inches in diameter, and of any neat and comely pattern approved by the Engineer. 

The wrought, iron work is to bo made of tbe best qualities of American rolled iron, for all parts except 

sidewalk railings, which may be made of good common English bar iron. 

NEEDL E BEAMS . 

The trusses are to be connected by cross girders (or necdlo beams) of wrought iron, one at each upright, 

and resting upon tbe eyes of tho sway rods at the single uprights, and on cast iron thimbles or washers 

at tbe double ones. The cross girders to consist of a vertical web plate \ of an inch in thickness, with top 

and bottom flanges each of two angle irons, riveted on with 3-4 inch rivets having 4 inch pitch; the beam 

to have suitable holes for uprights, and be of such depth, length and form as shall bo shown upon the 

drawings exhibited for letting, or as may be directed by tho said Engineer. When required, solid wrought 

iron beams to be inserted in lieu of vertical web plate beams, and to be so proportioned as to give the 

requisite cross sections for the variable spans proposed. 

^TLrOOItllTO- . 

The joists are to be of good pine timber, with a depth equal to about 1-12 of their length between bearings; 

placed not over 28 inches apart from center to center, nor more than 0 inches from the ends of the plank (or more 

tban 4 iuohes in case of sidewalk plank), and to have an aggregate thickness in carriage-ways not less than 1 7, 

and in sidewalks 1-8 tbe length of plank or width of flooring supported. 

When not otherwise specified, the carriage-ways are to bo planked with 2J inch oa«, spiked crosswise upon 

the joints, with G inch cut or wrought spikes, having a cross ecetioti not less than one inch to each 5 square feet 

of plank. Sidewalks to be planked with 2 inch pine plank, spiked with 5 inch spike or nails. 

Under each arch truss, just above the flooring, is to be a coping of 2 inch pine plank, not less than 3 feet 

wide, consisting of 2 strings of plank, one on each side of the uprights and diagonals, and fitted about them so as 

to bring their edges together at the center of the truss, the outer edges coming just over tbe ends of the floor 

plank, and being supported by tho cross pieces between the joists on either side of the truss. 

In bridges without sidewalks, the outer coping lo bo 15 inches wide, with a facia plauk of a pro|ier depth, 

and 1J inches in thickness under the coping, placed 21 inches rrom thu outer edge. 

On the outside o( sidewalks is to ho a stringer, » or 10 inches deep and 0 inches thick, with its upper 

side about £ inoh above the sidewalk plank, and surmounted by a coping ;! by 10 inches, beveled about 2 

indies by 1 inch on the upper corners, with grooves 3-8 inch witle ami B-l* deep on the under side, about 

j inch iron, each edge. 

Upon (his coping, near tbe center. Iho railing is to lie secured by two 5-8 bolls to each post, passing through 

coping anil stringer, and through the ends of needle beams when practicable. Hut when this is not convenient, 

the stringer may be first bolted lirnily lo the ends of the beams, and the I idling bolted only to the stringer and 

coping. Bolt heads and nuts arc iu no case to act against wood without suitable iron washers. 

All the coping, facing plank and rail stringers to be of good pine timber, planed on the upper and outer 

surfaces and edges, and painted v ith at least two good coats of white lead or zinc paint and linseed oil. 

All parts of tho iron work which tire accessible after the work is put together, aro to be painted with two 

good coats of lampblack ami boiled linseed oil, or other paints approved by the Engineer in charge, except the 

under sides of the arch costings, which may be painted only one good coat. Those parts of the trusses not 

accessible for painting after being put together, are to be thoroughly painted at bast one good coal before 

pulling together. 

Tl o preceding specifications are intended to be applicable to all bridges upon the general plans here referred 

to, whether with two or a greater number of trusses. 

Iu all cases, not otherwise specified, trusses are to be placed 19 feet apart between centers; and the center of 

sidewalk railing, when used, 6 feet from center of IrusB. 

For a mora full and perfect explanation of the form and tlimonsions of all tho work, and of the manner of 

executing it in all its details, plans and bills of limber will bo furnished by tho said Engineer, who will also 

give such directions during the progress of tho work aa may appear to him necessary to have the same done 

in every respect complete and perfect, on the plan contemplated in the foregoing specifications; and the said 

directions Bhall in cvory respect bo complied with. 

FIGURE 95.—Specifications of the Whipple Truss Bridge. 

(Ffnrntin Sf.vmnur Collection, volume 1. base 40.) 
150 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Sources of Information 

UNPUBLISHED 

Horatio Seymour collection of scrapbooks on the New York 

canals, 1878-1882. Manuscript and History Division, 

New York State Library, Albany, New York. [Seymour 

was Chief Engineer and Surveyor of the New York State 

canals.] 

Maps and Records on file at Albany County Clerk's Office, 

Albany, New York. 

United States Patent Office Records, Washington, D.C. 

PUBLISHE D 

American Society of Civil Engineers. Transactions, volume 

21 (1889), pages 14-15, 19-20. 

Boyd's Syracuse Directory. Syracuse: Sampson and Murdock Co., Inc., 1851-1875. 

Engineering News, 24 March 1888. New York. 

Howell, George Rodgers. Bi-Centennial History of Albany: 

History of the County of Albany, N.Y., from 1609 to 

1886. New York: W. W. Munsell & Co., 1886. 

Sayre, Mortimer F., Shortridge Hardesty, and Carl B. 

Jansen. "Squire Whipple, Class of 1830." Union Worthies (Union College, Schenectady), volume 4 (1949). 

State Engineer and Surveyor of the Canals. Engravings of 

Plans, Profiles & Maps, Illustrating the Standard Models, 

from which are Built the Important Structures on the New 

York State Canals, Accompanying the Annual Report of 

the State Engineer and Surveyor of the Canals for 1859. 

Albany, 1860. 

Whipple, Squire. A Work on Bridge Building Consisting 

of Original Plans and Practical Details for Iron and 

Wooden Bridges. Utica: H. H. Curtiss, 1847. 

. The Canal Bridge. . 1852. 

ENGINEERING INFORMATION 

General Statement 

Structural Character: A Whipple bowstring truss 

vehicular bridge fabricated of cast and wrought iron 

and originally used at another site. 

Condition of Fabric: Excellent. The bridge has 

been well maintained by its owner. 

Description 

Overall Dimensions: The span is 109'-10" in 

length and 22'-9" wide. 

Shape: Polygonal "bowstring" truss divided into 

nine panels. 

Foundations: The end abutments are of stone and 

concrete. The stone is laid in random ashlar pattern; 

the concrete is presumably not reinforced. 

In each truss the top chord ("bowstring" or 

"arch") is formed of nine tangential castings of 

inverted square U cross-section. The lower chord, 

at deck level, is formed of two lines of nine wroughtiron open links, made from l/ 2 -inch square-bars. 

The four center vertical web members are inverted 

Vs of two 5^-inch bars, welded together at the top, 

the threaded lower ends inserted into holes in the 

floor beams. The four end verticals are single 2-inch 

rods. Web diagonals are double in each panel, of 

^8-inch rods. The cast floor beams are trussed with 

two %-inch rods, strutted at the center and approximately the quarter points. 

All tensile connections are threaded except for 

the lower chords, where the links simply bear upon 

cast-iron joint blocks. The end links, however, are 

open ended, upset to round section and threaded, 

and bear against the top-chord ends by nuts to 

provide a limited adjustment. 
Delaware Aqueduct 1848 

Delaware & Hudson Canal, Lackawaxen, Pennsylvania, and 

Minisink Ford, New York 

(HAER NY-5) 

Robert M. Vogel 

Location: Crossing the Delaware River between Lackawaxen, Pike County, Pennsylvania, and 

Minisink Ford, Highland Township, Sullivan County, New York. 

Latitude 41° 28' 57" N. Longitude: 74° 59' 05" W. 

Date of Erection: 1847-1848. 

Designer and Builder: John A. Roebling, C.E. (1806-1869). 

Present Owner: Lackawaxen Bridge Company (owned by E. H. Huber, Scranton, Pennsylvania). 

Present Use: Highway toll bridge crossing the Delaware River approximately twenty miles 

northwest of Port Jervis, New York. 

Significance: The oldest suspension bridge in the United States that retains its original elements and the earliest extant example of Roebling's engineering genius. The Secretary 

of the U.S. Department of the Interior has designated the Delaware & Hudson Canal a 

National Historic Landmark and an NHL bronze plaque has been placed on the aqueduct. 

New York State has also recognized a structure with a roadside historical marker. It has 

been declared a National Historic Civil Engineering Landmark by the American Society of 

Civil Engineers. 

HISTORICAL INFORMATION 

The Delaware & Hudson Canal 

The major purpose of towpath canals in nineteenthcentury industrial America was to serve as a highway 

for freight. Unlike the Erie and other canals, the 

Delaware & Hudson Canal was conceived as an 

essentially one-way route for a single commodity. 

As a means of exploiting their great anthracite coal 

fields in northeastern Pennsylvania, Maurice and 

William Wurts proposed the construction of a canal 

as the only feasible way of getting bulk coal to the 

New York market. The Wurtses obtained charters 

Abstracted from Robert M. Vogel, "Roebling's Delaware & 

Hudson Canal Aqueducts" (number 10 in Smithsonian 

Studies in History and Technology, Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1971), 45 pages, 57 figures. 

from the Pennsylvania and New York legislatures 

to build a canal and improve the navigation of the 

Lackawaxen River, which almost reached into the 

Lackawanna coal fields at Honesdale. The canal 

would extend from the mouth of the Lackawaxen, 

where it joined with the Delaware, to the Hudson 

River, down which the coal could be readily transported to the city. 

In the spring of 1823 the Delaware & Hudson 

Canal Company contracted with Benjamin Wright, 

chief engineer of the Erie Canal, to survey and 

locate a suitable route. Wright was instructed to 

select a line from tidewater on the Hudson at 

Rondout (near Kingston), up the valleys of the 

Rondout, Neversink, Delaware, and Lackawaxen 

rivers to the coal fields. The total distance was 108 

151 
152 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 96.—John A. Roebling (1806-1869). (Courtesy of Division of Mechanical and Civil 

Engineering, National Museum of History and Technology, Smithsonian Institution.) 

miles with a lockage of 1,086 feet. Construction 

began in 1825, the year of the Erie's opening, Wright 

acting as chief engineer with the later renowned 

John B. Jervis as assistant. The entire canal was 

opened for business in October 1829. It reached its 

operational peak in 1872 when 2.9 million tons were 

moved. From that time, competition from an expanding railway network rapidly rendered the canal 

obsolete, with tonnage gradually declining until final 

cessation and abandonment in 1898.7 

7

 The best account of the history of the D & H Canal 

is Wakefield's extremely detailed, beautifully illustrated, 

and thoroughly enjoyable Coal Boats to Tidewater (1965). 

When the canal opened it was shallow—four feet 

in depth—with a waterline width of 28 feet (soon 

increased to 32 feet) and a bottom width of 20 feet. 

The first boats held 20 tons of coal. With a supply 

assured, the use of anthracite for heating, iron smelting, and steam generation expanded rapidly engendering more business for the mines and canal. Even with 

the introduction of 30-ton boats, by 1841 the demand 

for coal had so increased that the canal's limit had 

been about reached. 

The Delaware Aqueduct was built as an integral 

element in an almost continuous program to increase 

the canal's capacity. The need for periodic enlarge-
DELAWARE AQUEDUCT-DELAWARE AND HUDSON CANAL • 184-7-1848 

THE DELAWARE AQUEDUCT IS PROBABLY THE OLDEST SUSPENSION BRIDGE IM THE US. 

IT WAS DESIGNED AMD BUILT BY JOHN A. EOEBLING, A PIONEER OF SUSPENSION 

BRIDGE TECHNOLOGY, AFTER. HIS COMPLETION OF A SIMILAR STRUCTURE OVER 

THE ALLEGHENY IN PITTSBURGH. HE FAVORED THE SUSPENSION SYSTEM 

OVER CONVENTIONAL /MASONRY ARCHS OR TIMBER TRUSSES AS THE GREATER 

PERMISSABLE SPAN LENGTHS REQUIRED FEWER RIVER PIERS, LESSENING 

IMPEDANCE TO ICE, FLOOD WATERS AND RIVER TRAFFIC. THE DELAWARE AQ.UEDUCT WAS THE LONGEST OF FOUR BUILT DURING A MAJOR IMPROVEMENT IM 

THE CANAL AND IS THE SOLE SURVIVOR. AFTER THE CANAL WAS ABANDONED 

IN 1898, THE AQUEDUCT WAS DEWATERED AMD CONVERTED INTO A HIGHWAY 

TOLL BKIDGE WHICH FUNCTION IT CONTINUES TO SERVE. THE WOOD TBUNK WAS 

REPLACED 8Y THE PRESENT DECK SYSTEM FOLLOWING A FIRE IN 1932. 

N. W. ELEVATION- SECr/O// SCAIC I'-if 

o^aur 19*9 

MOHAWK-HUDSON AREA SURVEY DELAWARE AND HUDSON CANAL DELAWARE AQUEDUCT 

DEHHARE WVER-FROM LACKAWAXE*I,P1KE CO, PENNSYLVANIA TO MINISINK FORD,HIGHLAN0 TOWNSHIP, SULLIMW CCLNEW YORK] NY-5 

HISTORIC AMERICAN 

ENGINEERING RECORD 

SHOT 2 <* 4 stvm 

FIGURE 97 

FIGURE 98 

LONGITUDINAL SECTION LOOKING AT PIEB 3 AND WEST ABUTMENT 

roc 0V&D1 f cositj M rotti ov 

MOHAWK-HUDSON AREA SJJRVEY DELAWARE AND HUDSON CANAL DELAWARE AQUEDUCT 

[CUWane IWER-FBCM LACMWAXEN.PIKE Ca.PEMCYLyWIATOMNJSNK FORD.HmJWTCWNSHgSULJJANCOyNEWKIwq NY- S 
154 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

cr. ucDir coyicwi. imtAinim Limaarnr-mm »ABOI£ 

'# Mae sosrciaw aet£ 

rmaxnr-acw cliTLAimnc} um. 

avoir curmij 

C. 1.1ADCLI 

tOlTACJMCSrJ Of wooc TIUIMK. 

7ow r*T+ 

TYPICAL 

P/&2 £l£WT/0/V 

SCALE A IU^-l'-t 

SCALSB i/a'-f 

MOHAWK-HUDSON AREA SURVEY DELAWARE AND HUDSON CANAL DELAWARE AQUEDUCT 

DELAWARE MVER-FROM LACK«AXEN,PIKE,CO,PENNSrU«*A TO MMSKK FDRD.HKSHLAND TOWNS*! SLUJWN CO..NEW TOR* 

HISTORIC AMERICAN 

ENGINEERING RECORD 

FIGURE 99 

ments had been assumed almost from the outset, 

since the modest capital initially available and the 

uncertainty of later needs dictated many expediencies 

and compromises in the first works. 

With the profits from the first decade's operations, 

it was possible to begin enlarging the canal. The 

first enlargement, begun in 1842 and finished in 

1844, accommodated 40-ton boats (originally capacity 

had been 30 tons), and in 1845 the canal was 

deepened to 5/2 feet to pass boats of 50-tons capacity. 

The most ambitious enlargement plan, authorized 

by the Delaware & Hudson directors in 1846, was 

to increase both the canal's capacity and the speed 

of passage in order to compete economically with 

the Erie Railroad, which by then had progressed 

into the Delaware Valley and toward the coal regions. 

This involved deepening the canal to 6 feet and 

widening it to accommodate 98-ton boats, thus 

approximately quintupling the canal's original capacity, an indication of the growing importance of both 

anthracite and the canal in the coal industry. The 

principal consequence of the widening was the necessity for rebuilding all locks and aqueducts. 

The most significant improvement to the canal's 

operation, however, was to be a material reduction 

in the passage time by removal of the worst bottleneck in the system: the slack water crossing of the 

Delaware between Lackawaxen, Pennsylvania, and 

Minisink Ford, New York, just above the mouth of 

the Lackawaxen. As capital originally had been inadequate to build an aqueduct across the Delaware, 

a still pool had been formed by damming the river, 
NUMBER 26 155 

FIGURE 100.— (Above) Delaware & Hudson Canal Company's canal and railroad system, 1866; 

(below) the Canal at Lackawaxen, cl860, showing the new route across the "flats'' between 

the new aqueducts and the section of the old route on the west side of the Delaware. 

(above: Delaware & Hudson Company, 1925; below: Wakefield, 1965.) 
156 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

>MA<.H/C^H. V^<L, 

0 tu^C, (f(.>„V 4(<><r LL fe^.C /,t- « /t<*C~. 

nf-C^:^- <-zt<_ ty^LcC^f- c> (', ,«/x_ Tttrrs.) *„ * it tt.C 

of~ /try /^•-f-; i,Jxx. lU t*u+.fit.ut< (., g^f^Tu, <u^ M/£^- tL.a*. ft,^ ,JU«H S. _ ^ 

/A^ C •f^.rO / / * A* • 

M^Ld*^y±?%£—- **~~ 

KJCcc „,.<. ^r/<,X ^, t ^ «: ^ -vfi«.—.,/f.tUtr 

'r 

y ^ . 

j/*<^-**—, cT*.- f~ (tXT^ C ^OC L\j^ eA_ £cusS£&^ 

&^L-<- (*£,.*_ *JL£ZZ CALC„J^ 7ZZZT 

Of^.4A^rT c>L^ U/U/U. ^ B.<^4-

{ILC C^*- t- ^A^. Z&ty- £fiZ~ Sc.£. 

fO^c t(f~tz7„„^ ... /^-/.^itr ^,^/. V 

New York Shore, 

On this shore, the last span stretches over 

the guard Bank & towpath; the present 

Canal, (which will be used for a feeder 

after the aqueduct is completed) and a 

foot path next to the abutment. The Bank 

& Canal at this point, will be overflowed by extraordinary floods, and afford 

water way for the river. The measurements are taken below Canal Bottom; at 

the abutment the ground is about 23 feet 

below Canal Bottom, and slopes up to 

Bottom in about 90 feet. Then the hill 

rises more bold, and approches nearer the 

river as you go down it. There will be a 

bold curve soon as practicable after passing 

the aqueduct, and three locks to connect 

with the Canal soon as consistant. 

Delaware Aqueduct, 

The viewer is standing on the up stream 

side and looking down the River, with 

the Pennsylvania shore on right hand. 

The high water mark, is the highest point 

that ice has ever reached, and that an 

unusual flood and damming up of ice. 

Common floods do not overflow the towpath bank as laid down on New York 

shore. 

Paved Wasteweir in towpath at each end 

of Aqueduct. 

Pennsylvania Shore, 

On this shore the ground at the abutment is about 11 feet below Canal 

bottom, and slopes up to bottom in 

about 50 feet, and thence about 50 

feet more it reaches about 5 feet cutting. This shore is uniform about as 

laid down, and there will be a gentle 

curve soon after leaving the aqueduct; 

the slope of ground between the abutment and pier will be excavated and 

increase the water way for the river— 

iXf^^^C^cAFIGURE 101.—Cross-sections of the ground and masonry at the Delaware Aqueduct site: 

(above) R. F. Lord's rough sketch of 27 February 1847 to Roebling; (below) Roebling's refined 

drawing. (Courtesy of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute). 
NUMBER 26 157 

r~f 

j i • 

i • 

\ 

\ »

:

: 

• \ 

FIGURE 102.—The Delaware Aqueduct superstructure, February 1847. By the time of construction, Roebling had abandoned the floor-beam trussing shown, and had adopted saddle 

covers rectangular in cross-section (Figure 99). Otherwise the drawing reflects the aqueduct 

as built, following the Allegheny Aqueduct design. (Courtesy of Rensselaer Polytechnic 

Institute.) 

into which the boats were locked down on each 

bank. They then crossed either by momentum or 

hand haulage along a ferry rope strung between the 

banks, the mules being carried over separately on a 

small rope ferry. Under ideal conditions the crossing 

was slow and a serious operational snag. At worst, 

during high water in spring and fall, the passage was 

impossible and canal operations came to a halt for 

days at a time. A further hazard was conflict with 

the considerable traffic of timber rafts on the river. 

The raftsmen, forced to traverse the low canal dam 

either by shooting it on the flowage over the crest 

or passing through a sluiceway, in general were 

understandably hostile to the canal interests and 

engaged the company in constant physical and legal 

harassment. An aqueduct had, in fact, been projected 

from the canal's beginning. The need now being 

pressing and the capital available, it was included 

in the enlargement plan. 

Construction of the Delaware Aqueduct 

R. F. Lord, chief engineer of the canal, in planning 

the enlargement of the canal relocated the route at 

Lackawaxen, establishing the aqueduct over the 

Delaware not at the rope ferry site above the mouth 

of the Lackawaxen River, but just below. This necessitated, in addition, construction of a second new 

aqueduct, over the Lackawaxen (Figure 1006). Every 

D & H Canal scholar and author has speculated on 

Lord's reasons for planning the new route in that 
158 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 103.—Contemporary views of the Delaware 

Aqueduct. At a time when public works wrought 

less havoc to the landscape than today, engineering 

structures could frequently be appreciated for their 

esthetic as well as their technical contribution, even 

in an area as scenically hallowed as the upper Delaware Valley, (a: Bryant, 1874, volume 2, page 474; 

b: Erie Railroad, 1887.) 
NUMBER 26 159 

seemingly extravagant way. There were obvious disadvantages to the scheme, notably the added cost of 

the second aqueduct and the fact that the piers of 

the Delaware Aqueduct would be subject to the 

collective flow and battering of ice from both rivers. 

Two reasons are most commonly assumed for the 

re-routing: political consideration, and river bed and 

bank conditions unfavorable to the upstream location. 

The first, in the case of a private company under the 

scrutiny of its stockholders, seems unlikely, and there 

is nothing in the topography of the site lending much 

support to the second. More reasonable is a recent 

hypothesis proposed by Manville B. Wakefield, author 

of the definitive D & H Canal history, that if the 

aqueduct had been built at the ferry, practically 

opposite the Lackawaxen's mouth, the piers would 

have been in constant jeopardy from the great ice 

flows that annually came down the Lackawaxen, 

grinding across the Delaware to the eastern shore 

with great force. 

Another likelihood, however, is suggested by the 

site conditions. Had the ferry location been selected, 

the aqueduct would have been right in the slack 

water pool, with several consequences. First, there 

would have been less vertical clearance under the 

aqueduct for the rafts, probably an insufficient amount 

at spring high water when much of the rafting was 

done. Worse, the cofferdams used in building the 

aqueduct piers would have to have been considerably 

higher and heavier, and the entire problem of pier 

construction would have been a good deal more 

difficult in the deeper water of the dammed pool, 

probably to a degree more than offsetting the added 

cost of the Lackawaxen aqueduct. There is also the 

probability that in the twenty years the Delaware 

had been stilled above the dam, quantities of silt 

had been deposited in the pool so that there would 

have been that much more material to excavate 

before reaching a solid footing. Finally, the river, in 

addition to being deeper, was, on the evidence of 

contemporary photographs, apparently somewhat 

wider above the dam, which would have necessitated 

a longer structure. 

In February 1846, the canal directors authorized 

the two aqueducts at Lackawaxen, and by late 

December that year two proposals had been received. 

One was for a conventional trussed timber structure 

on masonry piers, in six spans. The other, submitted 

by John A. Roebling, C.E., of Saxonburg, Pennsylvania, was for a wire-cable suspension aqueduct 

*-+-. Z*-~CJ 

/V/1fZ,<«^ 

FIGURE 104.—Roebling's sketch plan for the wire shed at 

Lackawaxen. The coils of cable wire as received were placed 

on the front reels (A). The wire was drawn through the pins 

in the straightening blocks (B) by being wound upon the 

drawing drums (c), and finally reeled on the back drums 

(D). The reels were taken to the bridge site for cable 

making. The wire also was given an initial coating of 

protective oil in the shed. (Courtesy of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.) 

of four spans. The management inclined toward the 

latter scheme as it not only was cheaper, but more 

important, the longer spans meant two less river 

piers, and thus reduced impedance to flood water and 

ice, as well as greater horizontal clearance for the 

river traffic. Another major advantage, not generally 

recognized by D & H historians, was that suspension 

spans, unlike either truss or masonry-arch spans, 

could be erected without falsework in the river, a 

matter of some significance at a site so subject to 

flooding and ice jams. The cables were laid up in 

place, without support. When they were complete 

and the suspenders attached, the timber cross frames 

of the trunk were hoisted into position from barges 

anchored below, following which the rest of the 

suspended structure was easily laid down. The freedom from falsework continues to be one of the 

suspension bridge's chief advantages. 
FIGURE 105.—a, Delaware Aqueduct from above the mouth of the Lackawaxen, shortly before 

suspension of canal operations. The Delaware & Hudson Canal dam, retained after construction of the aqueduct to provide water for the section of the canal to the east, is just in front 

of the aqueduct piers, b-c, Downstream side of the Delaware Aqueduct before abandonment. 

Except for the canal's absence, Lackawaxen, Pennsylvania, seen across the river, has changed 

little over the years. In c may be seen the Erie Railway's truss bridge over the Lackawaxen, 

the remains of the 1828 canal, and the canal company's dam across the Delaware, (a: Courtesy 

of Delaware & Hudson Railway Company; b: courtesy of Jim Shaughnessy; c: courtesy of 

Delaware & Hudson Canal Historical Society, Ghear Collection.) 
NUMBER 26 161 

Roebling's plan was tentatively accepted on 6 January 1847. On the 19th Lord arrived in Pittsburgh for 

a four-day visit to inspect a similar aqueduct built 

by Roebling in 1844-1845 to carry the Pennsylvania 

Canal over the Allegheny. This aqueduct was the 

first bridge of any kind built by Roebling, who until 

then had done general civil engineering—mostly railroad surveys—and manufactured wire ropes for haulage on the inclined planes of the Pennsylvania state 

and other canal systems. The aqueduct replaced, and 

was erected on the piers of, an earlier timber structure 

of seven spans that had been damaged by ice. 

Lord was impressed with both the aqueduct and 

Roebling's Smithfield Street suspension bridge over 

the Monongahela, also in Pittsburgh, built in 1845-

1846, and concluded that Roebling's abilities were 

far ahead of their time. Aside from Lord's report 

and the natural advantages of a suspension aqueduct, 

a further factor no doubt influencing the D & H's 

selection of Roebling to build the aqueducts was 

their confidence in him resulting from the long and 

satisfactory use of Roebling wire ropes on the inclined 

planes of the company's gravity railroad at the west 

end of the canal. 

FIGURE 106.—One of the last boats through the canal crossing the Lackawaxen Aqueduct, about 1898, moving unloaded toward Honesdale. (Courtesy of Delaware & Hudson 

Railway Company.) 

FIGURE 107.—Neversink Aqueduct at Cuddebackville, New York, which had the longest single 

span of the Delaware & Hudson Canal suspension aqueducts. (Courtesy of Division of 

Mechanical and Civil Engineering, National Museum of History and Technology, Smithsonian 

Institution.) 
162 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 108.—After standing derelict for nearly twenty years following abandonment of the 

canal, fire destroyed the wooden trunk of Roebling's Delaware & Hudson aqueduct at High 

Falls, New York, cl916. The cables and suspenders were left in a state not unlike that 

during original construction, just before the first of the trunk frames had been hoisted into 

place. (Courtesy of Delaware & Hudson Canal Historical Society, Ghear Collection.) 

The contract for both final design and construction 

of the Delaware and Lackawaxen aqueducts was 

given to Roebling, for a combined price of $60,400: 

$41,750 for the Delaware Aqueduct and $18,650 for 

the Lackawaxen. Roebling claimed a clear profit of 

$8,600. While almost 15 percent of his actual cost, 

it is hardly excessive when we realize that his contracting profit included his engineering fee as well. 

Possibly because of their remote location, these structures cost considerably more, relatively, than the 

Pittsburgh aqueduct: $82 and $78 per foot vs $48. 

Roebling's construction contract covered only the 

superstructure or suspended spans, "including all iron, 

timber and wire work, the company to do all masonry 

and cement." His presentation and estimating drawings apparently were based only on general site 

information, for shortly after his return from Pittsburgh Lord sent Roebling detailed data on the bank 

and riverbed conditions for preparing the working 

drawings (Figures 101a, b). With these in hand, 

Lord's crews in March 1847, despite the dual handicaps of weather and probably river ice, commenced 

the foundation work and the laying of the pier and 

abutment masonry. Although the canal company was 

primarily responsible for that portion of the work, 

continual coordination with Roebling (during most 

of this period at home) was necessary concerning 

setting of the great iron anchor plates in the abutments. These huge castings resisted the pull of the 

chains of eyebar links that rose up through the 

masonry mass ultimately to restrain the main cables. 

Roebling presumably visited the site periodically, 

but much of the consultation was conducted through 

correspondence. In late March, Lord advised him 

that "we are proposing to get the abutments for 

Delaware Aqueduct in a state of forwardness so that 

the anchors may be put down soon after 1st of July; 

and have the piers all done so that you can have a 

chance to commence the superstructure in the fall 

and pursue it during the winter." The substructure 

work on the Lackawaxen span lagged somewhat 

behind, Lord anticipating that the last of the four 

anchor plates there could not be placed until well 

into the winter, "probably by building a roof over it 

[the abutment foundation] so that we can use a fire, 

hot water &c." That excavation and masonry work 

could be carried on in that period, at that season, 

in that notoriously cruel climate is something of a 

miracle, and a sure reflection of the company's 

eagerness to capitalize on the improvement. 
NUMBER 26 163 

FIGURE 109.—a, Early twentieth-century view of the Delaware Aqueduct from New York; 

b, the Delaware Aqueduct and Minisink Ford, New York, shortly after the canal's abandonment 

in late 1898. Except for removing the berm wall on the outside of the curve at Lackawaxen 

to provide road access, nothing has yet been done to alter the structure for toll-bridge service. 

(Courtesy of Delaware & Hudson Railway Company.) 

Roebling took up his work at Lackawaxen in the 

summer or fall of 1847, working on both aqueducts 

simultaneously throughout 1848, completing them by 

year's end in time for the opening of the 1849 canal 

season on 26 April. They were, needless to say, an 

unqualified success structurally and operationally. The 

Lackawaxen Aqueduct, about half a mile west of the 

Delaware, was almost identical but had only two 

spans, each of slightly less than 115 feet, with a single 

river pier. 

Decline and Recent History 

The 1847-1850 enlargement of the canal was spectacularly successful. In the D & H annual report for 
164 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

1849 the management noted that "the two WireSuspension Aqueducts over the Delaware and Lackawaxen Rivers, are a part of the new work brought 

into use last year, and proved to be all that was 

expected or can be desired of such structures, and a 

great facility to the navigation." With a slight additional deepening and widening, the canal by 1852 

was able to pass 130-ton capacity boats, which had 

the coincident advantage of being large enough to 

be river-worthy. They could thus make the downHudson trip to New York directly, eliminating the 

expensive trans-shipment of the coal to sloops at 

Rondout, the boats being hauled up and down the 

river by tugs. 

Chief Engineer Lord estimated that in the first 

year following the construction of the Delaware and 

Lackawaxen aqueducts, nine days stoppage of boating due to high water had been avoided and total 

passage time was reduced by a full day. Consequently, 

the company was able to reduce rates by half, bringing the transportation cost down to about fifty cents 

per ton. On this basis the canal was able to compete 

successfully with the railroads for bulk coal haulage 

well into the 1870s. From the peak year of 1872, 

however, the competitive situation deteriorated rapidly 

for the canal. While the canal had reached its maximum practical capacity, the technology of the railroad was in a state of flourishing and seemingly 

unlimited advance. In the last decades of the century, 

locomotive weights doubled, with corresponding increases in car capacity and train lengths, and decreases 

in rates. 

The Delaware & Hudson Company management 

had the wisdom to march with, rather than against, 

this trend, and although the canal was operated 

almost to the century's end, it was under rapidly 

declining conditions as the company expanded its 

own rail network, commenced decades earlier. In 

1898 the last boat moved over the waterway, and the 

following year the physical plant of the system was 

liquidated. 

Of the four suspension aqueducts that Roebling 

designed as part of the major enlargement operation, 

only the Delaware had any apparent adaptive usefulness. The spans over the Lackawaxen, Neversink, 

and Rondout all were simply abandoned and eventually demolished. Abutments and remains of anchor 

chains are evident at all three sites. 

The Delaware Aqueduct, however, being in a 

strategic location well away from any road-crossing 

FIGURE 110.—Delaware Aqueduct: a, View from Lackawaxen, cl910. The towpaths have been removed in the 

alteration but not the tow-rope rail. During the canal 

period, the upstream faces of the piers were protected by 

pointed wooden ice-breakers. Renewed as needed, they 

prevented the type of deterioration of the masonry that 

has occurred since. The pier faces were shelved to support 

the ice-breaker framing, b, Interior of the trunk after conversion to a toll bridge, cl900. (Courtesy of Delaware & 

Hudson Railway Company.) 

of the river, was purchased privately and converted 

into a highway bridge. From the evidence of photographs the process of adaptation was simplicity itself: 

the towpaths were sawn off, a low railing was run 

along the downstream side of the trunk floor to provide a separated pedestrian walk, a toll house was 

built at the New York end, and some grading was 

done at each end for accommodation to the existing 

roads. 

The first private owner was Charles Spruks, a 

Scranton lumber dealer, who specialized in the heavy 

timbers used as supports in the area's coal mines. 

His principal timber lands being in Sullivan County, 

New York, he purchased the aqueduct primarily to 

afford a simple means of getting the logs across the 
NUMBER 26 165 

Delaware to the railhead in Lackawaxen. The collecting of tolls from common-road traffic was actually 

a side line (pers. com., Edward H. Huber, Scranton). 

In about 1929 the bridge was purchased by the 

Federal Bridge Company of Washington, D.C, a 

toll-bridge holding company, which operated it under 

the style Lackawaxen Bridge Company, incorporated 

10 January 1930. In late 1930 plans were announced 

by Colonel P. K. Schuyler, Federal's president, to 

rebuild the floor system for "highway traffic of the 

heaviest class." It may have been at that time, or 

in about 1832, after a fire that destroyed the woodwork of the west (Pennsylvania) span and part of 

the one adjacent, that virtually all of the original 

timber was removed—trunk, floor beams, and all. 

The simple floor system of today was substituted, 

consisting of transverse floor beams hung from the 

suspenders, longitudinal stringers, and plain transverse 

plank decking. 

FIGURE 111.—The Delaware Aqueduct 

Suspender System: a-d, All ironwork in the 

present suspender system is original. Unlike 

the plan adopted by Roebling for his 

Niagara and other later bridges where wirerope suspenders were hung from clamps 

bolted tightly around the unwrapped main 

cables, on the Delaware & Hudson aqueducts he first wrapped the cables for their 

entire length between the tower saddles and 

hung the doubled-rod suspenders from small 

cast-iron saddles that simply sat on the 

cables. The scheme had the advantage of 

avoiding the many joints where the wrapping 

was interrupted at the suspender clamps, a 

problem in the later system (and today). 

It was necessary, however, to prevent the 

saddles near the towers, where the cable 

slope was greatest, from sliding downhill by 

a series of restraining links engaging the 

saddles in a series. Adhesion was adequate 

to hold the saddles in place near the center 

of the cable span. 

The long iron bushings between the suspender nuts and the bearing castings are 

recent, placed to compensate for the reduced 

thickness of the present deck system. (Vogel) 
166 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

***** ' , S/,l *tM> 

-&*&i>a&c */rc&&**i. . ,/"f2. #*/• //trf 

*- # £ •> 

FIGURE 112.—Roebling's pattern drawings for the (a) restrained and (b) unrestrained 

suspender saddles. (Courtesy of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.) 
NUMBER 26 167 

FIGURE 113.—Delaware Aqueduct Anchorages, Cable Connections, and Saddles: a, The 

Pennsylvania towers and saddles. Surprising survivals are the guides that prevented snagging 

of the canalboat tow ropes as they passed over: the iron bar just above the back-span 

strand loops and the casting bolted to the tower corner on the river face, b, New York south 

anchorage, showing projection of the stone blocks supporting the knuckles of the curving anchor 

chain; c and d, saddle, strand loops, and attachment of loops to anchor chains, Pennsylvania 

north anchorage. (Vogel) 

The Lackawaxen Bridge Company was purchased 

in March 1942 by E. H. Huber of Scranton, who 

presently maintains the operation. A toll of 25 cents 

for cars and 5 cents for pedestrians is charged, all 

passage free when the collector goes home at night. 

The fabric is generally in good condition. The 

masonry, except for an understandable minor deterioration of the upstream pier faces from river ice, 

is quite unimpaired. The floor system is good, the 

planking being periodically replaced, and the cables, 

despite unwinding of the outer wrapping in a few 

areas, are kept painted and appear as adequate as 

when made. The posted allowable load of six tons 

is almost ludicrous in view of the fact that each span 

originally contained about 500 tons of water plus 

the additional dead load of the trunk and towpaths. 

True, it was an evenly-distributed, nonmoving, nonimpact load, but there can be little doubt that the 

cable system today is not working very hard. 

The Aqueduct's Historical Status 

There is good reason to believe that the Delaware 

Aqueduct is the oldest suspension bridge in the United 

States today. There are, however, two other possible 

contenders for this distinction: The famed EssexMerrimack Bridge designed by James Finley and 
\s..... /?„..... •/ 

/ 

fj'.Sfp! It ...-.j .,!•..j ,/... At. . •,. 

• ,4 «» r <£ / . s* JJf/.. ,„,,,/• 

,..«...<, #./... ,....'.- . .... 

„ , i. . /'.,.„,...'. . - A^JLttut 

//.. .. S..X. .A- .,-,., ' 

. 4 , A... . At 

«• p ^ 

•'• • ! I : 

y 

Is • v M 

• *> 

I—J r^J— 

'.'-

\i ; 

_^ 

« i • 

w' 

• — 

,£*. •'». 

* 

.',,/.;„. ,'SA r 

FIGURE 114.—Roebling's drawing of the eyebar anchor chains. 

(Courtesy of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.) 

FIGURE 115.— The Delaware Aqueduct and Lackawaxen, looking southwest. 

(Helicopter aerial, April 1971) (Jack E. Boucher for HAER.) 
NUMBER 26 169 

FIGURE 116.—Looking downstream at Pennsylvania shore. (David Plowden) 

erected in 1810 over the Merrimack River at Newburyport, Massachusetts; and the "Wire Bridge" over 

the Carrabasset River at New Portland in central 

Maine. While the Finley bridge at first appears the 

oldest, its entire superstructure was replaced in 1913. 

The new one only loosely resembles the original form 

with the pier masonry below deck level the only 

remaining original fabric. 

Although the "Wire Bridge" has undergone a 

certain amount of rebuilding, the majority of the 

tower framing, the main cables and their anchorage 

hardware—the prime elements of a suspension bridge 

—are entirely original. According to local tradition, 

the bridge was built in 1842. This date could be valid, 

as Charles Ellet's wire bridge over the Schuylkill 

River in Fairmount Park, Philadelphia, the first wire 

suspension bridge of consequence in America, was 

built in 1841-1842; and there is no technical reason 

why the Maine bridge could not have been constructed at that time. If it was, then it would rightfully supersede the Delaware Aqueduct as the oldest 

standing suspension bridge in the United States. 

The 1842 date is doubtful, however, considering 

the lack of historical authority and the former presence of two similar suspension bridges in the immediate area, one built in Kingfield in 1852-1853 and 

the other in Strong in 1856. Since the cables of the 

Kingfield span were not of wire as in the other two, 

but of chain, a more familiar and less novel material, 

it is reasonable to assume that it was erected first. 

The New Portland bridge, in that case, must have 

been built after 1852, invalidating its traditional date 

of 1842. Taken altogether it seems reasonable to 

consider the Delaware Aqueduct America's earliest 

standing suspension bridge. 

Its future seems reasonably secure. Although it is 

in a remote area, between the Poconos and the 

Catskills, it remains the only crossing of the Delaware 

for ten miles upstream and four down. Vacation and 

local traffic make it an economic, if not wildly profitable, venture for its owner, well worth adequate 

maintenance. 
170 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 117.—Delaware Aqueduct: a, Cables and 

saddles, downstream side; b, upstream side from Pennsylvania abutments; c, tollhouse and tollgate, Minisink 

Ford, looking toward Pennsylvania; d, looking toward 

Minisink Ford. (David Plowden) 

Sources of Information 

PUBLISHED 

[Annual Report of the] Delaware & Hudson Canal Company 

for 1849. New York. 

Bryant, William Cullen. Picturesque America. Volume 2. 

New York, 1874. 

Delaware & Hudson Company. A Century of Progress: History of the Delaware & Hudson Company. Albany, 1925. 

Erie Railroad. Erie Route. N.P., 1887. 

Wakefield, Manville B. Coal Boats to Tidewater—The Story 

of the Delaware & Hudson Canal. South Fallsburg, 

New York: Steingart Associates, 1965. 

ENGINEERING INFORMATION 

The aqueducts were designed, like the locks, to 

pass only a single boat, but nevertheless had a path 

on each side. The design closely followed that used 

by Roebling at Pittsburgh with a heavy wood trunk 

or flume holding between 6 and 6I/2 feet of water, 

19 feet wide at the water line. The trunk sides were 

built up of two thicknesses of 2 J/2-inch untreated 

white-pine plank, laid tight on opposite diagonals 

and caulked up to the water line, in effect forming 

a rigid, solid lattice truss, but without functional top 
NUMBER 26 171 

FIGURE 118.—Essex-Merimack Bridge near Newburyport, Massachusetts: a, 1810. b, 1913. In 

the 1913 "rebuilding'' of the 1810 structure, the entire superstructure was replaced with a 

loose replica, leaving of the original fabric only the pier masonry below deck level, c, The 

"Wire Bridge," New Portland, Maine. While having undergone some rebuiding, the bridge is 

original in its principal elements, a rare survival of an early suspension structure, (a, b: Engineering News, 25 September 1913, page 585; c: David Plowden.) 
172 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

and bottom chords (Figure 1106). The stiffness of 

these great trusses was such that they were capable 

of sustaining their own dead weight, leaving the 

cables to carry only the water load. The floor was 

also of double plank, carried by transverse double 

floor beams, in turn hung from the suspenders as 

in a conventional suspension bridge. The 8-foot tow 

and foot paths, on opposite sides, were bracketed out 

from the trunk sides, level with its top. 

All was supported by the continuous main cables, 

one on each side of the trunk. At the bottom of their 

dip the cables were slightly above floor level, rising 

to be carried at each pier and the abutments over 

cast-iron saddles atop squat stone towers that stood 

about 4 feet above the trunk top. The suspenders 

were (and are) plain 1}4-inch-round wrought-iron 

rods, doubled over the cables into stirrup form, the 

bottom ends threaded for the floor-beam nuts. They 

bear upon the cables on small cast-iron saddles, those 

nearest the towers where the cable slope is greatest 

being prevented from sliding downhill by wroughtiron restraining links or stays (Figures 111, 112). 

Roebling's technique of anchoring the suspension 

cables at their ends and resist the great stress imposed 

by them on the anchorage system was in general 

based upon European practice, but with two significant improvements. The principal of these was the 

solid encasement of the iron anchor chains in cement 

grout to exclude air and moisture and thus prevent 

rusting (Figure 114). European engineers traditionally 

left open galleries around the chains and anchor 

plates to permit air circulation and, more importantly, 

inspection and painting. 

The other departure was placement of a solid 

timber grillage between the anchor plates and the 

superincumbent masonry mass, to act as a slight 

cushion between them and evenly distribute the stress 

between the two unyielding surfaces (Figure 114). 

Roebling patented the system after applying it on 

two earlier structures in Pittsburgh (U.S. Patent No. 

4710, 26 August 1846). The timber, well below the 

water table, was not susceptible to rot. 

The radial thrust of the chains, as they change 

angle from vertical at the anchor plates to the backspan angle, is borne by a series of stone blocks set 

into the abutment side walls. The projection of these 

is seen in Figure 1136. 

Equal stress in all the anchor chain links in a 

section was obtained by drilling their eyes simultaneously, in a pile, to insure equal length. 

Roebling had developed at Pittsburgh a method 

for fabricating and anchoring the cables of major 

suspension bridges (U.S. Patent No. 4945, 26 Jan. 

1847: "Apparatus for Passing Suspension Wires for 

Bridges Across Rivers, &c"). It was used by him in 

every bridge he built (except the one at Smithfield 

Street) as well as by most of his successors to the 

present day. The 2,150 iron wires forming each of 

the Delaware Aqueduct's 8/ 2 -inch cables were individually laid up in place. Each cable is composed 

of seven strands, formed by carrying the wires across 

from anchorage to anchorage, over the saddles, in 

a bight of two wires at a time carried by a traveling 

sheave, so that at each anchorage a loop was formed 

which passed over a cast-iron strand shoe, pinned 

to the anchor bars, anchoring the strand. The strands 

are thus actually skeins formed of a single, continuous 

wire, spliced at the ends. Between the towers the 

seven strands were compacted into a single cylindrical 

form, virtually solid, then varnished and served with 

a continuous wrapping of iron wire for protection 

from the weather. However, where they splay out 

between the abutment towers and the anchor bars, 

the strand loops are exposed to view, clearly showing 

their formation as they join the strand shoes (Figure 

113). Although photographs of the aqueducts in use 

show wood guards over these sections, the loops 

would still have been subject to a certain amount of 

condensation and other moisture. The exposure to 

the weather of so much area of such small-diameter 

unwrapped strands is in odd discord with Roebling's 

consistent advocacy of solid, single cables, the wires 

within protected overall by the envelopment of a 

close wrapping. It was, in fact, on this very point 

that he inveighed most critically against Charles 

Ellet, a contemporary and sometimes rival suspension 

bridge builder, and other members of his school. 

Ellet favored, rather, cables composed of many small, 

separate wire bundles, because, he claimed, with the 

solid, wrapped cable it was impossible to so lay the 

individual wires that each carried its proportional 

share of the total load. Unwilling to encase any wires 

in masonry because of the difficulty in achieving the 

positive airtight seal needed to prevent corrosion, and 

aware that the stress on these backspan sections was 

less than on those carrying the suspenders, Roebling 

seems to have been satisfied to depend for weather 

protection upon the varnish and oil coating of the 

individual wires and on a heavy coating of the 

completed loops. 
FIGURE 119.—Additional views of Delaware Aqueduct: a, Looking toward New 

York; b, pier face; c, New York south anchorage; d, New York pier (No. 3) ; e, New 

York south anchorage and tollhouse; f, New York north anchorage face; g, New 

York Pier (No. 3); h, south tower and saddle, Pennsylvania pier (No. 1); i, deck 

and suspender details; ;, anchor bars and cable-strand loops; k, date stone, face of 

Pennsylvania abutment; /, north tower and saddle, New York anchorage; m, Pennsylvania pier (No. 1); n, top view of anchor bars and cable-strand shoes and loops; 

o, south tower and saddle, Pennsylvania pier (No. 1). (Vogel) 
174 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Another of Roebling's principal reasons for favoring the solid wire cable was that it added considerably to the overall stiffness of the suspended structure 

in its resistance to the dangerous oscillations caused 

by gusting winds under certain conditions. Here 

again, this effect would have been of no consequence 

in the aqueducts' short, unloaded backspans between 

the end towers and anchorages, where there were 

no suspenders. 

The anchor bars were carried down through the 

anchorage masonry, terminating in 6-foot-square 

cast-iron anchor plates upon which the masonry 

bears, its dead weight resisting the pull of the cables. 

Roebling calculated the ultimate strength of the pair 

of cables at 3,870 tons and the stress on them (and 

thus on the anchors) from the loaded trunk at 

770 tons. 

The difference in the four span lengths of the 

aqueduct has been a matter of occasional speculation. 

The three spans closest to the New York shore are 

all so close to 131 feet that the present differences 

are obviously the result only of construction discrepancies and the shiftings of age and long service. The 

original design did indeed call for equal lengths of 

131'0". But what of the odd 142-foot length of the 

first Pennsylvania span? That too, is specified, as 

early as 27 February 1847, in Lord's rough sketch 

(Figure 101a), which is the earliest mention found 

of the aqueduct's relationship to the site. The correspondence between them does not make it clear 

whether Roebling or Lord made the basic determination of the span lengths. Undoubtedly they conferred during the Pittsburgh visit and perhaps reached 

a joint conclusion. Tha t does not, however, answer 

the initial question. Although Lord obviously had 

far greater knowledge of the site conditions, his 

sketch shows a relatively level river bed, with no 

particular circumstances on the Pennsylvania side 

that would have led to a span variation there. In a 

presumably later refined sectional drawing of the 

river and masonry (Figure 1016), however, Roebling 

clearly does show a slight rise in the surface of the 

river bottom at the first Pennsylvania pier, and it 

was probably to take advantage of the shallower 

water at that point that the pier was placed there. 

Had the adjacent abutment been located further out 

into the stream to make that span also 131 feet, it 

would have projected so far beyond the bank as 

to form an impediment to the flow of river and ice 

during high water. The span lengths (in feet: inches), 

from the Pennsylvania to the New York sides, are: 

Original design 

142:0 

131:0 

131:0 

131:0 

Shi >wn by Rot 

as built 

141:9 

131:0 

131:0 

131:0 

'bling As measured 

August 1969 

141:5 

131:4 

130:10 

131:6 

535:0 535:2 535:1 
Schoharie Creek Aqueduct 1841 

Erie Canal (Enlarged), Fort Hunter 

(HAER NY-6) 

R. Carole Huberman 

Location: Crossing Schoharie Creek 0.4 miles southeast of its confluence with the Mohawk 

River, Fort Hunter, Montgomery County, New York. 

Latitude: 42° 56' 00" N. Longitude: 74° 17' 00" W. 

Date of Erection: 1841. 

Present Owner: Division for Historic Preservation, New York State Office of Parks and 

Recreation. 

Present Use: The aqueduct, now abandoned and only partially intact, is to be structurally 

stabilized and made accessible to the pubilc as a historic monument, part of a state park 

commemorating the Erie Canal installations at Fort Hunter. 

Significance: One of the major aqueducts of the enlarged Erie Canal, the aqueduct replaced 

the difficult slackwater crossing of Schoharie Creek. 

HISTORICAL INFORMATION 

Physical History 

Dates of Construction: Begun 1839; completed 

1841; put into service 1845. 

Original and Subsequent Owner: New York State 

continuously. 

Designer: John B. Jervis, C.E., was responsible for 

at least part of the basic aqueduct design. At the 

time of the canal's first enlargement he proposed a 

plan, ultimately adopted, of stone arches for the 

towing path and a timber trunk for the boat channel, 

its height above the river being insufficient for the 

rise of masonry arches. (Whitford, 1906, 1:800). 

Builder: Incised on a stone in the tow path parapet: 

"BUILDER: OTIS EDDY 184 1. " 

Historical Information: Based on material assembled by 

Robert M. Vogel. Engineering Information: Prepared by 

Richard J. Pollak. 

Original Purpose and Construction: Before 1845, 

when the Erie Canal Aqueduct No. 5 was put into 

service, crossing the Schoharie Creek was a difficult 

and dreaded operation. The canal boats had to 

traverse the stream behind a dam using ropes and 

windlasses. Several dams were built at different times, 

but all proved inadequate especially when the waters 

were turbulent. The Schoharie Creek Aqueduct, part 

of the enlargement program initiated in 1836, was 

located slightly downstream from the slackwater 

crossing, between Locks No. 30 and No. 31, the 

realignment carrying the canal right through the 

center of Fort Hunter. 

Alterations and Enlargements: In 1855, a new 

timber trunk was built for the aqueduct costing 

$32,899.68; it was again replaced in 1873 for 

$44,070.12 (Whitford, 1906, 1:962, 967). All but 

the nine arches at the southwest end were demolished 

cl915 to reduce impedance of flow, when the canal 

was abandoned upon completion of the New York 

State Barge Canal. 

175 
176 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

SCHOHARIE CREEK AQUEDUCT-ERIE CANAL-1841 

THE AQUEDUCT, BEGUN IN I&39. COMPLETED IN 1841, AND PLACED /N SERVICE 0 

1845, WAS FURT OF A MAJOR MODERNIZATION PROJECT FOB THE CANAL. PRIOR 

TO THIS TIME, BOATS CROSSED THE CREEK ON SLACKWATER EXPOSED TO NUMEROUS 

HAZARDS AND DELAYS. THE SCHOHARIE CQEEK AQUEDUCT WAS ONE OF THE LARGEST 

ON THE ERIE CANAL , BEING ONER 630 FEET LONG. STONE ARCHES SUPPORT 

THE TOWPATH AND STONE PIERS ON APPROXIMATELY 45 FOOT CENTERS CAROLED r/¥E WOODEfV CANAL TRUNK. /VINE OF THE ORIGINAL FOURTEEN ARCHES 

AND P/ERS REMAIN BUT No TRACE OF THE AQUEDUCT TRUNK. THE STRUCTURE 

/S LOCATED IN A STATE PARK Ci/ROENTL/ BEING DEVELOPED AND /S TO BE 

STRUCTURALLY STABILIZED. 

WEST ELEVATION 

o..«r rr. DAVID BOUSC 1969 

SCALE I"-1S' 

MOHAWK-HUDSON AREA SURVEY ERIE CANAL (ENLARGED) SCHOHARIE CREEK AQUEDUCT 

CROSSING SCHOHARIE CREEK OA MLE S OF CONFLUENCE WITH MOHAWK RIVER , FORT HUNTER , MONTGOMERY CO, NEW YORK 

HAE R 

NY-6 

HISTORIC AMERICAN 

ENGINEERING RECORD 

H I T 2 or 3 m m 

FIGURE 120 

Other Erie Canal Structures at Fort Hunter Sources of Information 

Yankee Hill Lock No. 28: Builder's inscription: 

LOCK No. 28 

Archt. C. Powell Rest. Engr. 

William Coleman & Co. Contractors 

1841 

Empire Lock No. 29: Built in 1841, it stands 

adjacent to the remains of Empire Lock No. 20, 

part of DeWitt Clinton's Big Ditch of 1822. Its 8-foot 

lift replaced the old 4-foot lock. Improvements were 

recorded in 1885. 

UNPUBLISHE D 

Gayer, Albert E. A comprehensive collection of visual material on the Erie Canal Eastern Division structures. 

Schenectady, New York. [Mr. Gayer is founder and director of the Canal Society of New York State.] 

Hutchinson, Holmes. "Map of the Erie Canal," Volume 9 

(6 September 1834). Manuscript and History Section, 

New York State Library, Albany, New York. 

New York State Department of Transportation Archives. 

Book 11 [original title: Aqueducts, volume 1], 1893. 

State Campus, Albany, New York. 
NUMBER 26 177 

^MORTISE aaoov£ Aoa TOI/NX. SUPPORT 

SECT/ON LOOKING AT P/5Q 9 

FW2TIAL WEST ELEVATION LOOiY/WG AT PIERS 8 $ 9 

. w..atwo eouse 1949 

MOHAWK-HUDSON AREA SURVEY ERIE CANAL (ENLARGED) SCHOHARIE CREEK AQUEDUCT 

CROSSING SCHOHARIE CREEK CO MILE S OF CONFLUENCE WTTH MOHAWK RIVER , FORT HUNTER , MONTGOMERY CO, NEW YORK 

HAE R 

NY- 6 

HISTORIC AMERICAN 

ENGINEERING RECORD 

FIGURE 121 

/IrS.srt • ttiltfjPi't 

FIGURE 122.—Hutchinson's map of the canal crossing of 

Schoharie Creek, 1834. The dam pooled the Creek above, 

providing sufficient depth for the canal boats to cross directly 

in the water of the Creek. The towpath was bracketed out 

from the downstream side of the timber highway bridge 

adjacent to the crossing (see Figure 124). (Hutchinson, 

1834. volume 9, plate 39.) 
178 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

6.Ifir A-/rk 

FIGURE 123.—Fort Hunter area, 1853, showing re-routed enlarged Erie Canal, now crossing 

Schoharie Creek by means of the aqueduct. The timber-tower wire suspension bridge over the 

Mohawk at Tribes Hill, built 1854, was itself a structure of considerable scale and eminence. 

(Geil and Hunter, 1853, detail.) 

PUBLISHE D 

Canal Society of New York State. Bottoming Out: Useful 

and Interesting Notes Collected for Members of the 

Canal Society of New York State. Volumes 18—19. Syracuse, 1962. 

Geil, Samuel, and R. J. Hunter. Map of Montgomery 

County, New York. Philadelphia: Peter A. Griner and 

Robert P. Smith, 1853.* [Original at New York State 

Library, Albany, New York.] 

New York State Engineer and Surveyor. Annual Report 

on the Canals of New York State for 1863. Albany, 1864. 

Shaw, Ronald E. Erie Water West: A History of the Erie 

Canal 1792-1854. Lexington: University of Kentucky 

Press, 1966. 

Sheehan, Edward J. A Prospectus for a New York State 

Canal Town Museum at Fort Hunter, New York. Fonda, 

New York, 1955. [Mimeographed pamphlet in MS collection, New York State Library, Albany, New York.] 

Vcedcr, David. The Original Erie Canal at Fort Hunter. 

Fort Hunter: Fort Hunter Canal Society, 1968. 

Whitford, Noble E. History of the Canal System of the 

State of New York. Volumes 1, 2. Albany: Brandow 

Printing Company, 1906. [Supplement to the annual 

report of the New York State Engineer and Surveyor.] 
NUMBER 26 179 

FIGURE 124.—Composite map of the crossing site by Daniel J. Mordell, showing all canalrelated structures. (Canal Society of New York State, 1962, volumes 18-19.) 

ENGINEERING INFORMATION 

General Statement 

Structural Character: Extensive physical remains 

of an 1841 Roman-arch aqueduct built as part of 

the enlargement of the Erie Canal. 

Condition of Fabric: Good to poor. Nine of the 

original arches remain (on the southwest end) ; the 

others were demolished cl915 to reduce impedance 

to creek flow. There has been considerable subsidence 

and cracking in the two end arches due to lack of 

counter thrust from the demolished adjacent arches. 

All piers have settled heavily toward the towpath 

side from the eccentric loading resulting from absence 

of the weight of water on the trunk side. 

Detailed Description 

Overall Dimensions: 415 feet (original length: 

631 feet or 624 feet 3 inches (Whitford, 1906, II: 

FIGURE 125.—Schoharie Creek Aqueduct: a, Towpath side, looking east; 

b, view along trunk piers, looking north; c, looking east; d, southward view 

of broken end; e, arches 9, 8, and 7; /, arches 7 and 6; g, arches 7 (partial), 

6, and 5; h, arches 4 and 3; i, arches 3 and 2; ;, arches 2 and 1 from 

southwest end; k, looking northeast; I, looking west; m, end pier and arch 

(opening of the joints is due to the absence of counter thrust from the 

missing arches); n, looking northwest through arch 1; o, looking northeast 

along trunk piers; p, looking northeast along towpath; q, looking north; 

r, looking southeast; s, looking east; t, looking north through arch 1; u-v, 

looking northeast; w, parapet and wingwall, west corner, looking east; 

x, looking northeast along towpath; y, abutment, northeast bank, looking 

northeast; z, riverwall, northeast side of river, looking north. 
182 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

GENERAL DESCRIPTION. 

ith wing walls, and piers of substantial stoDe 

i of the canal, and a lowing path bridge 

not olhi directed, to be 50 feet n d 7 

ck occurs, 

in charge 

T HE aqueducts to be composed of abutments 

masonry, on which a trunk of timber and plank for 

is to be placed. The trunk ol the aqueduct, wli 

feet deep, and the lowing path to be li! leet wide in the clear. The whole, except where 

to rest on a foundation of timber and plank; and when required by the Resident Engine 

of the work, bearing piles shall be driven to support and protect the foundation. 

1st. SPECIFICATION. The foundation pit shall be excavated in such form and dimensions, and 

the earth from the same shall be deposited as may be required by said Engineer; and the bottom made 

smooth and even, to give a liim and unilonn support to the foundation. II the material shall be removed 200 feet from the place excavated, and be deposited in a necessary bank, it shall be estimated both 

as excavation and einbaukuicut. 

2d. SPECIFICATION. If the ground on which it is to be placed be such as to require bearing 

piles, the same shall he driven and secured to the foundation timbers, as the said Engineer Bhall 

direct. The foundation shall be composed of hemlock timber, from 10 to 12 inches thick, and not less 

than 12 inches in width, covered with hemlock plank, from S to 3 inches thick, as shall be required; 

the plank shall be well treenailed to the timbers with treenails 7 inches long for 2-inch plank, and 8 

inches long for 3-inch plauk ; at each end of each plank, and at every three leet intermediate, there 

shall be two treenails lor plank of ordinary width, and a corresponding increase in number for those 

of greater width. If rock be found in the Inundation, then the limber and plank shall be wholly, or 

in part dispensed with, or varied in dimensions, as may be directed by said Engineer. In cases where 

it may be required by said Engineer, the foundation shall exteild between and cover the spaces between 

the abutments and the piers. A course of sheet piling, from four to six feet long, shall be put down 

along the upper and louei sides of the foundation, and at such other parts as the said Engineer may 

direct. The manner of putting them down, shall be by excavating a ditch to the depth of the sheet 

piling, and placing the pile plank edge to edge, and spiking the head to the foundation timber, so as to 

render the work close and substantial. Except when otherwise directed, a lining course of inch boards 

shall be put over the plank, so as to break joints with them, and be secured by nails. Where the 

gravel or other earth is liable to be washed by floods, so as to fill or obstruct the channel for the passage 

of water under the aqueduct, a breast or dam of suitable masonry shall be carried up at the liead or 

upper side ol foundation, in such manner as may be directed by said Engineer; the fall over said dam 

or breast shall be protected by a second course of planking, either level or inclined, as may be directed: 

and if said Engineer shall direct, other erections of a similar character shall be made at points further 

up the stream, in all cases to be well guarded against injury from floods. The spaces between 

foundation timbers, and each side of sheet piling, and above breast wall shall be filled with fine clean 

concrete, as said Engineer shall direct. 

abutments and side faces of the piers to be carried plumb 

losure; but those over large streams shall be battered, and have 

iv direct. The ends or the piers shall be battered from oneases where it maybe directed by said Engineer, the upper ends 

rom the foundation for ice breakers, which shall be coped with 

nd have a length equal to the thickness of the pier, and if 

n bolts in such manner as shall be directed. The wine, walls 

(-twelfth the height. Suitable pilasl 

Is. A buttress shall be formed at th 

in\ one to four feet beyond the wing 

gravel, well puddled in, 

3d. MASONRY. The front face of tl 

in aqueducts of ordinary height 

such 

twelfth to one-ninth the 

of the piers shall have z 

stone at least one foot 

required shall be well secur 

shall have a batter on the 

carried up on the face of tl 

one foot in the front, and ii 

En.i; 

table slopi 

by said Engineer; 

be four leet thick, 

I also he of the 

ject from lour to s 

wings between the centre buttress, shall I 

covered by the trunk shall be live feet thick 

to or near the top bank level, shall 

towards the foundation by the batter 

every : : l^et down froi 

to be four feet thiik 

hottom level of the canal by an oils 

down, corresponding with the offsets 

The top finishing oi all (he masonry 

That part of the abutments and piers 

the wall, and meeting in the centre, from ( 

shall, when required, be filled with riibbl, 

be coped with stone, that shall extend a 

face, and be not less than three feet wide 

braces shall be cut when directed by the s 

The masonry to be formed of sound 

than twelve inch 

lor the whole br. 

if directed, be 

end, projecting 

nay be directed 

ing, which shall 

feet hack from the wing. The rear of the abutment and 

e a batter of one to six. That part of the abutments 

lick at the bottom ol the canal, and that part which is carried 

four and a half leet thick on the top, and increase in thickness 

ove mentioned, and also by an offset of one foot on the rear, at 

1 of the canal bottom. 

Iiiik on the top, and increase downwards by the batter, and at the 

offset of one loot on the rear, and a similar offset at every six feet 

in the abutments. The piers shall be from four to six feet thick, 

shall be a coping of cut stone, not less than nine inches deep, 

under the ti link, shall have a course of coping alternately crossing 

on. each sideol the walls. The spaces between the floor timbers 

ihble masonry. The remainder of the abutments and wings shall 

id across the wall, and project forward to three inches over the 

wide in the direction of the wall. A recess for the toe of the 

d Engineer. 

veil shaped and durable stone, and laid in courses not less 

dressed to one-fourth of an inch joint on the beds, 

-e inches, twelve inches back from the face. 

less than n tin 

In all cases the beds shall be properly 

i laid; but no leveler shall be placed under a stone by 

s thick. Tin 

idth of bed, o 

: face 

mdo: 

stone shall be 

a the ends tweb 

The stretchers shall have a breadth of bed equal to the thickness or depth of the course, and in no 

less than IK inches; and Ihe breadth from the front lo the rear of the headers shall be in no case 

thickness of (he wall. One-lourth of the wall in front and rear of each course shall be 

,.„ neailers, arranged on both sides to give the greatest stability lo the work. In the larger 

aqueducts, one-lhird ol the headers, or at least one-twelfth of the slone in each course, shall extend 

through the piers at each end. The ends of Ihe piers shall be formed of one slone that shall fill the 

course and he at least three feel long ; and the next course of two Btones, that shall make the width or 

the pier, and he at least lour feel long; the ends to be composed or such alternate courses to the top. 

The same or larger sized stone shall be used in (he courses ol the abutments, at upper side or aqueduct. 

The miner courses or the coping to the breast and ice-breakers, shall be carefully beveled or rounded 

off as shall he directed. Where ice-breakers are to be constructed, this kind ol work will not be 

required below the top of the same. 

The backinc and interior wall shall be composed of large and well shaped stone, and in no case 

to be less than 0 in. lies thick, and three feet area of bed, and laid to form a good bond. The 

lower beds shall he dressed level and even, and all high projecting points hammered ofl u 

beds, so as to give the succeeding sl( 

prepared by leveling up before the nex 

raising it bom its bed. , , 

All the stone shall be well bedded in mortar, made of the best quality of hydraulic lime, and 

clean, sharp sand, and in such proportions, not more than two parts of sand to one or lime, as the said 

Engineer shall direct; and the vertical joints grouted with similar materials, and subject to the same 

directions; each course, as Tar as laid, Bhall be grouted fully before another is commenced, and spalls 

shall be filled in all the spaces after the grout is in. The masonry lo be carried up in regular courses, 

and the work during its progress, shall, ai no time, have more than two unfinished courses. 1 he stone 

shall be kept wet and free Ironl all dirt: no dressing Bhall be done upon a stone after It is laid. No 

cement shall be used unld after it has been approved by the Engineer. Where rock-dressed masonry 

is required a dralt about one inch wide around the edge of each face stone shall be cut, and the rock 

projection shall not exceed three inches. When rock-dressed masonry is not required, the front of the 

wall shall be dressed to a smooth and even surface. 

4th. TRUNK. The trunk shall be composed of white oak, or white pine string timbers, of such 

dimensions, and placed at such distances apart as may be directed by the alorcsaid Engineer. 

The two outside stringers shall be placed so as to embrace the side post tenons, and give them a 

firm support. The side posts shall be while pine or white oak timber, S by 114 inches at the top, and 

S by IS at the bottom shoulder, and placed 3 feet from centre to centre. The corner or end posts shall 

be white oak, and extend down three feet into the masonry, to give firmness to the corner of trunk. 

A white pine plate, 10 by 16 inches, shall be framed on the iop of posts. 

The bottom of the trunk, and the ends of the floor timbers in the abutments, to be covered with 

a course or two-inch while pine plank, ol a good quality, to make water-tight joints, free from shakes 

and unsound knots; the plank to be well treenailed to the foundation limbers, with treenails G inches 

long, of suitable size to fill an aperture one inch in diameter. The sides shall he planked wilh threeinch white pine plank, or suitable quality, and grooved and longued as may be directed, and secured to 

side posts with treenails 7 inches long, of suitable size to fill an aperture one inch in diameter. The 

sides and bottom of the trunk, if required, are to be braced from recesses to be cut in the masonry, in 

such manner as shall be directed. 

When required to increase the waterway ol' the stream in which the aqueduct is located, the sides 

of the trunk to such extent as may be directed, shall be constructed with posts and girths, and be 

planked vertically. Each side, for a length equal to the spaces between the piers, or the abutments 

and the piers, shall have two posts, one of which shall rest on a pivot and socket, and its upper end 

shall be secured by a collar and clamp: it shall have at least three girths and a roller or sheeve; shall 

be so secured to the under side of the lower girth as to roll on a circular rail plate of bar iron, which 

is to be let down level with, and secured lo the floor: and the whole is to be so constructed as to 

furnish a practicable and easy movement to the side, when it shall be necessary to open the space by 

moving the side or the trunk around in line with the piers. Suitable recesses shall be formed in the 

corners ol the piers nearest the trunk, lo receive hollow quoins or wood and toe posts, the lurmer ol 

which are lo he secured in their places bv tenons, and screw bolts, thinly anchored in Ihe walls. 

When required lo secure the floor ol" the trunk in case or opening the sides, recesses 8 inches deep 

and 10 inches wide shall be formed on the upper side ol Ihe floor timhers, over the centre of the piers 

and abutments, to receive a Umber S by 10 inches square, which shall be secured in ils place by bolts 

passing through and terminating at the lop or the same, once in every 10 leet. The bolts shall be one 

inch square, and extend at least 3 leet mm the masonry, and be firmly secured with an anchor, or by 

being driven with fox wedges, and be leveled as shall be directed. The top of each bolt shall have a 

screw, and the limher shall he held in its place by a nut and washer, so let in as to be even with the lop. 

TOWING PATH BRIDGE. To be 12 feel wide, and supported bv white pine stringers, of such 

number, width and depth as said Engineer shall require, accoiding lo Ihe span. A floor of white oak 

or red beech limber. 3 inches thick, lo he laid on Ihe stringers, and well treenailed lo the same. A 

timber or hard woorl, to be 0 by S inches, placed upon the inside end of the floor lo guide the towline, 

and securely laslened to the front stringer. A suitable railing to be placed on the rear of the bridce, 

of such form and dimensions, and built of such material as the said Engineer shall direct. The railing 

to be planed and well painted. 

The tie rods, screw-bolts and suspension-rods, with llmir appropriate straps, anchors, washers and 

nuts, shall be or first quality American wrought iron. 

5th. For a more frill and perrect explanation or the form, and dimensions of materials and parts, 

and of the manner ol constructing the aqueducts in all their details, plans, wilh bills or limber and 

iron, will he frirnished hy the said Engineer; who will also give such directions, from lime lo time, 

during the progress of the work, as may appear to him necessary and proper, in order to make the 

work, in every respect, complete and perlect, on the plan contemplated in the above specifications. And 

the said plans, bills of timber and iron, and directions, shall, in every respect, be complied with. 

FIGURE 126.—Aqueduct Specifications, 1854. (Courtesy of Division of Mechanical and 

Civil Engineering, National Museum of History and Technology, Smithsonian Institution.) 

960) ; or 627 feet (New York State Engineer and 

Surveyor, 1864) by 82 feet. 

Number of Arches: 9 (originally 14). 

Sub- and Superstructure: Random ashlar masonry 

of light gray limestone. No trunk material remains. 

Structural System: Stone arches supporting towpath. Span: ±3 9 feet; 45 feet on center; stone piers 

supporting the wooden trunk of the canal. 

Site 

Orientation: Northeast to southwest. 

Setting: Pleasant rural site which is presently 

(1969) being developed as a state historic site to 

include proximate Erie Canal structures. [Now (1973) 

fully developed.—ed.] 
Upper Mohawk River Aqueduct 

(Rexford Aqueduct) 1842 

Erie Canal (Enlarged), Rexford 

(HAER NY-12) 

R. Carole Huberman 

Location: Originally spanning Mohawk River adjacent to New York Highway 146 (Ball 

Town Road) between Rexford, Saratoga County and Niskayuna, Schenectady County, New 

York. 

Latitude: 42° 47' 44.5" N. Longitude: 73° 53' 00" W. 

Date of Erection: 1842. 

Present Owner: State of New York. 

Present Use: Historic site. 

Significance: Remains of one of the two aqueducts built to carry the enlarged Erie Canal 

over the Mohawk River. 

HISTORICAL INFORMATION 

Physical History 

Original and Subsequent Owners: New York State 

continuously. 

Original Purpose and Construction: One of the 

major aqueducts of the enlarged Erie Canal, the 

Upper Mohawk River Aqueduct, replaced the original 

aqueduct at Rexford, near Alexander's Mills. It was 

one of two crossings of the river; the other, the Lower 

Mohawk River Aqueduct, was at Fonda's Ferry 

(Crescent). This double crossing, approved in 1821, 

was devised by Canvass White, C.E., to avoid a section of steep, rocky terrain on the river's south bank. 

Both replacement aqueducts were completed in 1842. 

Alterations: Continuing in operation until the new 

State Barge Canal system opened in 1916, a major 

portion of the aqueduct was removed in 1918; nothing 

remains of the Crescent Aqueduct. All the stones 

Engineering Information: Prepared by Richard J. Pollak. 

removed from the Rexford Aqueduct are available 

for use if it ever is to be restored. 

Sources of Information 

UNPUBLISHE D 

Hutchinson, Holmes. "Map of the Erie Canal," volume 10 

(6 September 1834). Manuscript and History Section, 

New York State Library, Albany, New York. 

PUBLISHED 

New York State Historic Trust. Historic Sites of New York 

State [pamphlet]. Albany, n.d. [cl968]. 

Papp, John. Erie Canal Days: A Pictorial Essay. Schenectady, 

1967. 

Shaw, Ronald E. Erie Water West: A History of the Erie 

Canal 1792-1854. Lexington: University of Kentucky 

Press, 1966. 

Whitford, Noble E. History of the Canal System of the 

State of New York. Volumes 1, 2. Albany: Brandow 

Printing Company, 1906. [Supplement to the annual report 

of the New York State Engineer and Surveyor.] 

183 
184 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

1 / . ,M. //*> A'fAf 

FIGURE 127.—Hutchinson's maps: a, Rexford Aqueduct area; b, companion Lower Mohawk 

River Aqueduct at Crescent, of which no traces remain. (Hutchinson, 1834, volume 10: a: 

plate 21; b: plate 37.) 

ENGINEERING INFORMATION 

General Statement 

Structural Character: The remaining abutments, 

piers, and arches of an Erie Canal aqueduct; the 

end-sections not removed during the building of the 

present State Barge Canal which involved the 

canalization of the Mohawk in this area. 

Condition of Fabric: Good. 

Detailed Description 

Overall Dimensions: Approximately 160 feet by 

86 feet on south side (structure not measured). 

Number of Bays: Two arches and three piers remain on each side (originally 13 arches and 14 piers). 

Sub- and Superstructure: Random ashlar masonry, 

probably limestone. 

Structural System: Masonry arches spanning approximately 45 feet to support towpath; masonry 

piers approximately 45 feet wide to support original 

timber canal trunk. 

Site 

Orientation: North (east) to south (west) ; approximately 10°NNE. 

Setting: The aqueduct remains exist on either side 

of the river in a semi-rural area. 
NUMBER 26 185 

FIGURE 128.—Upper Mohawk River Aqueduct: 

a, West face of the aqueduct at the south bank 

of the Mohawk; b, view from the southeast of 

the piers that supported the timber trunk; c, view 

from the southwest showing the canal trunk bed 

and the south abutment; d, towpath arches from 

the southwest. 
Lock 18 (Double Lock) 1837-1842 

Erie Canal (Enlarged), Cohoes 

(HAER NY-11) 

Diana S. Waite 

Location: West of 252 North Mohawk Street, East of Reservoir Street, between Manor Avenue 

and Church Street, Cohoes, Albany County, New York. 

Latitude: 42° 46' 50" N. Longitude 73° 42' 43" W. 

Date of Erection: 1837-1842. 

Present Owner: Estate of Henry Bourgeois and the City of Cohoes. 

Present Use: Dry and abandoned. 

Significance: Lock 18 of the enlarged Erie Canal was part of a scheme to reduce the number 

of locks between Albany and Schenectady, thus making transportation easier and speedier 

on what was one of the most difficult stretches of the canal. Promoters of the enlarged Erie 

Canal, which was designed by some of the outstanding engineers of the day, believed that 

by doubling the locks on the canal, and by increasing the size of the locks and the canal 

bed itself, the economy of New York State would be improved and the chances of competition from railways lessened. Although the lock now contains no water, it remains a fine 

specimen of canal-era masonry work. 

HISTORICAL INFORMATION 

Physical History 

Dates of Construction: Enlargement of this section 

of the canal was under contract in 1836 (NY, Annual 

. Commissioners, No. 73). The contractors' first 

payment for the work is dated 27 June 1837 indicating that work was under way by that time (NY, 

Annual . . . Canals, No. 6). Masonry work on the 

lock was completed in 1841 (NY, Report . . . Canals, 

No. 173). Water was first admitted to the lock on 

20 April 1842; regular traffic used the lock the 

following day (NY, Annual . . . Commissioners, 

No. 25). 

Engineers: Holmes Hutchinson (1794-1865), a 

civil engineer, completed rough surveys and estimates 

for the enlarged canal by June 1834. His plans for 

Engineering Information: Prepared by Richard J. Pollak. 

the locks on the enlarged canal were adopted. He 

served as an engineer on the Erie Canal from 1819 

to 1835, and as Chief Engineer from 1835 to 1841. 

He was involved in the engineering of many other 

canals in New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, 

Massachusetts, and Vermont, and also was a director 

of two New York railroad companies. 

John Bloomfield Jervis (1795-1885) was appointed 

Chief Engineer of the Eastern Division of the Erie 

Canal from Albany to the Rome summit, in 1835, 

and prepared in that year a report and estimate of 

the proposed enlargement work. He also served as 

engineer for various other New York canals, water 

works, and for several railroad companies. 

William Jarvis McAlpine (1812-1890) was a student of Jervis, whom he succeeded as Chief Engineer 

of the Eastern Division. He was the resident engineer 

of this section from 1838 to 1846. McAlpine was the 

engineer most directly involved with the actual con186 
NUMBER 26 187 

struction of the locks. A contemporary source reported 

that 

the works on all this section [from the Lower Aqueduct 

to Albany] have been planned by and carried forward under 

the immediate direction of Mr. McAlpine, the resident 

engineer, of whose capacity and great efficiency we can 

speak in terms scarcely too strong and emphatic. (Albany 

Argus, 22 April 1842). 

McAlpine also designed water works in Albany and 

Chicago, served as a railroad commissioner and as 

State Engineer and Surveyor of New York, and was 

an engineer for several railroads and bridges. 

One James T. Smith was paid $42.52 on 26 June 

1837 for "hollow quoin patterns" for use on the 

Eastern Division (NY, Annual . . Canals, No. 6). 

Smith is not listed in the Albany, Cohoes, or Troy 

directories of this period. 

Original and Subsequent Owners: Lock 18 was 

constructed on land owned by Isaac D. F. Lansing 

(NY, Assembly Doc , 1835, No. 143). On 15 June 1838 

Abraham Lansing appeared before appraisers concerning his claim for damages caused by the construction of the canal on his property, which is 

indicated on an attached map as including the site 

of Lock 18 (Albany County Book 66, page 180). 

This property was acquired by the State and transferred to the City of Cohoes, after the canal was no 

longer used, about 1916. The city still owns the 

western portion of the lock. The city in transactions 

in 1943 and 1945 granted the eastern portion of the 

lock to Albina M. Bourgeois (Albany County Book 

1332, page 381; Book 1374, page 425). Mrs. Bourgeois 

deeded the property to her son Henry in 1953 (Albany 

County Book 1375, page 7). The property is now 

held by the Estate of Henry Bourgeois. 

Contractors: Merriam, Carr & Co., and Barker & 

Smith. The material for the new locks from Cohoes 

to Albany was "generally of the Amsterdam stone" 

{Albany Argus, 22 April 1842). 

Original Plan and Construction: The necessity of 

enlarging the Erie Canal was apparent as early as 

March 1825, seven months before completion of the 

original canal. The Canal Commissioners noted the 

need for double locks and the possibility of constructing a second canal parallel to the first. But it was 

not until sometime in 1833 that official preparations 

in the form of preliminary surveys were undertaken 

to enlarge the canal. On 29 January 1834, the Canal 

Commissioners submitted a special report to the 

legislature concerning the enlargement of the canal 

in which the Commissioners recommended that the 

locks be doubled (i.e., that a second lock be constructed beside the original lock). Holmes Hutchinson 

drew up the surveys, maps, plans, and profiles submitted with the report and recommended the following for Locks 33, 34, 35, and 36, which at that time 

were the northernmost locks located in Cohoes and 

the last before the Lower Mohawk Aqueduct: 

These four locks are situated above the Cohoes Falls, 

adjoining the land of Issac D. F. Lansing; the road and 

river so near, on the east side, that the new locks must 

be placed on the west side of the canal; the additional 

width to the canal will take the yard in front of Mr. 

Lansing's brick dwelling-house, and this new line, so near 

the building will materially injure Mr. Lansing's property. 

The excavation will be principally rock, with clay on the 

surface; the pound reaches between the locks are small, 

and I would recommend that the upper lock be placed 

twelve rods to the north, to give greater distance between 

the locks. 

The canal should be excavated wider opposite the Cohoes 

Falls, to give the necessary width to pass boats, the excavation would be slate rock, and the work must be done when 

there is no navigation (NY, Annual . Commissioners, 

No. 88, pp. 20-21). 

In response to this report, the legislature on 6 May 

1834 passed "An Act to Provide for the Improvement 

of the Canals of This State" (NY, Laws 1834), in 

which the Canal Commissioners were "authorized 

and required to construct a second set of lift locks, 

of such dimensions as they shall deem proper, on 

the Erie Canal from Albany to Syracuse. . ." 

Hutchinson prepared further surveys, estimates, 

and maps for the double locks, which were completed in June 1834. On 13 June 1834 the Canal 

Commissioners "met at Albany, and proceeded 

through the line, examined the locations recommended by the engineer at the several locks, and 

the appropriations necessary to be made for them" 

(NY, No. 143, p. 2). Hutchinson had evidently 

changed the proposed location of Locks 33, 34, 35, 

and 36, for he now reported that 

the new locks should be placed on the south side. The 

excavation will be clay and gravel, and all the foundations 

slate rock. The land is owned by Isaac D. F. Lansing, and 

the new location takes his brick dwelling-house, two woodhouses, two wells, his garden, fruit trees and shrubbery, 

and the western part passes through an old orchard and 

pasture. (No. 143, p. 45). 

Hutchinson's plans for double locks were used in 

their construction. Included in his report of 31 January 1835, were the following specifications for the 

new locks: 
188 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

a 

FIGURE 129.—Plans of Locks: a, Nos. 15 and 16; b, Nos. 17 and 18. Plans show proposed 

enlarged locks (never built). The Harmony Company's No. 1 Mill is shown in a, below 

a section of the original Erie Canal that became part of the Cohoes power canal system 

following realignment of the Canal during enlargement. (New York, State . . 1853.) 

The following description will show that the new locks 

are to be made much more perfect than the old; the stone 

are to be of better quality, and the defects in the first constructed masonary, that are now visible after ten years use, 

will be to a great extent avoided. 

FOR FOUNDATION 

The foundation when not on rock or piles, after the 

pit is escated [sic] and prepared, to be laid of square 

timber, 10 inches in thickness, placed so near each other 

as not to allow a space of more than 4 inches between the 

timbers. 

When piles are used, there shall be four rows under 

each lock wall, the centres three feet apart, and a row 

in the centre of the lock with the requisite quantity at the 

lower mitre sill, and on these piles, the foundation timbers 

shall be well secured on each row across the lock, by 24 inch 

treenails. 

All the foundation timbers to be 34 feet long, counterhewed on the upper surface, and firmly bedded, and to have 

a level surface for planking. 

The surface to be covered with 2'/j inch hemlock plank, 

well laid and secured, and in all cases a lining of two inch 

pine plank, to be laid on the inside of the lock walls. 

There are to be two rows of sheet piling, when not in 

rock, extending across the lock, of at least four feet long. 

On slate rock, the foundation timbers shall be of hard 

wood, and shall extend four inches under each lock wall; 

under the mitre sill to be 10 inches in thickness, and at 

the other parts of the lock, 8 inches in thickness, laid in 

grout or cement. In all cases, the timbers under the mitre 

sills, to be of hard wood. 

SUPERSTRUCTURE 

1. The locks to be made 138 feet long, 100 feet between 

the gates, and 15 feet wide; and the walls for an 8 feet 

lift, to be 6'/2 feet thick, except the buttresses. There 

are to be buttresses in the rear of the middle of each lock 

wall, and an enlargement opposite each recess, and at the 

ends of the lock; and in general, there is to be a space of 

26 feet between the chambers of the new and old locks. 

2. The lock walls shall be constructed of compact quarry, 

grey limestone, perfectly sound and free from seams, flaws, 

or other defects, and shall be laid in courses. 

3. The face stone shall be laid in courses of not less 

than 10 inches nor more than 24 inches thick; shall be of 

the same thickness through the whole course. And each 

stone in every course shall break joints of at least one foot 

with the stone on which it rests; and every quoin shall 

measure at least three feet in length of the wall, and shall 

alternately be a header and a stretcher. 

4. The front stone shall be cut true and even on the 

face, sides and ends, and of a uniform thickness between 

opposite surfaces.—The lower course shall be two feet wide 

on the top, and bevelled inward so as to increase the lower 

bed one foot in width, except at the quoins and recesses. 

The next course shall be three feet wide, and shall break 

joints at least one foot on the stone back of the face stone. 

In the second course, there shall be a header of 2I/2 feet 

in length on the wall, and extending back into the wall at 

least five feet, at least one in every twelve feet in the 

length of the wall. The front of the wall shall be made of 

such alternate courses to the coping. 

5. The backing shall be laid in courses corresponding 

with the front, with similar headers in the first and 
NUMBER 26 189 

FIGURE 130.—Lock 18: a, East face of lock structure; b, foot of wall at southeast corner of 

Lock; c, east lock chamber, looking south; d, east chamber, looking northeast; e, north (upper) 

face of lock, showing filling ports; /, north face. 
190 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

alternate course, and placed intermediate the headers from 

the front. Each stone, including the headers, shall be 

hammered to regular forms and sides, and shall form good 

close joints with the contiguous stone, and break joints 

at least six inches with the stone on which they rest; all 

the stone shall have beds of at least two feet wide, but 

opposite the front headers, they shall be of a width to 

fill the space. 

6. The coping shall be at least fifteen inches thick, 

four and a half feet wide on the upper surface, with a 

bevel on the back side, extending the lower bed to five 

feet; each stone to be at least as long as wide, and cut 

true and even on all their sides, and well secured by 

clamps and bolts. 

7. The front stone, and eighteen inches of the rear of 

the wall, shall be laid in hydraudlic [sic] cement; and the 

centre of the wall shall be faithfully grouted, as often as 

once in every course. Each stone to be laid in cement, 

shall be fitted to its bed and position, then raised by 

machinery, the cement placed, and the stone re-laid in 

the place previously prepared; and the front stone, and all 

stone weighing 200 pounds shall be brought, and moved 

on the lock walls by cranes. 

8. The cement to be obtained from Madison or Onondaga, of the best quality, and to be mixed with equal parts 

of pure, coarse, washed sand, for the grout and mortar. 

9. The lock gates to be made of the best white oak 

timber, and good, merchantable, seasoned white pine plank, 

and all the iron work to be of approved size and quality. 

Masonry, constructed according to the preceding specifications, it is believed, will be reasonably permanent. And 

although the expense will be greater than any locks heretofore constructed in this State, the increased costs will be 

fully repaid by their durability (NY, No. 143, pp. 38-39). 

On 11 May 1835 the legislative passed "An Act 

in Relation to the Erie Canal" (NY, Laws 1835) in 

which the Canal Commissioners were "hereby authorized and directed to enlarge and improve the Erie 

Canal, and construct a double set of lift locks therein, 

as soon as the canal board may be of the opinion that 

FIGURE 131.—Erie Canal: (1) Schoharie Creek Aqueduct; (2) Upper Mohawk River (Rexford) Aqueduct; (3) Lower Mohawk River (Crescent) Aqueduct; (4) Lock 18 ("Double 

Lock"); (5) junction of the Erie and Champlain canals. (New York, State . . . 1850.) 

Stati^tiaPpVoftlr >; 

<// <£vi$ttxn THtuston 

_, %'Din JIS 1-ji(in« in ihe 

(f»h> of Albany an5 terminating at lfii$rt.in*tiillc 

J)j'JiJi)j i 5 9 

n.C . 3IYK0U R S. £NG *C . 

16.11. 

.</. P (T.oodsril K r nidi-nl Kntuirrr . l>». .d v „.,ji... „ n ,„ri . •• 

Explanation 

Itf 'JP i> 

If. ,1.0lm»lfi1 |tivi.<i,m Knsini'rr. 

V M 

CANAJOMARI E 

31 

O I A xTi 

«*• i 

•'.Hiiro Lo p dill 1.14.92 .Milo 

S.-al.- of Tlir.-,- .Mil.-, I„ „„ | l u . h . 

0 
NUMBER 26 191 

the public interest requires such improvement" (NY, 

Laws 1835, pp. 313-314). The cost of these locks, 

including their construction and maintenance, was 

to be paid from the Erie and Champlain canals fund, 

not from ordinary repair and maintenance funds of 

the Erie Canal. 

On 30 June 1835 the Canal Board met and 

adopted the following resolution: 

Resolved, That the doubling of the locks, and the works 

connected therewith, ought to be commenced without delay, 

and prosecuted with all reasonable dilligence [sic], beginning with that portion of the Canal between the village of 

Syracuse and the city of Albany (NY, Report . . . Board, 

No. 98, p. 2). 

In addition, more surveys were to begin immediately. Acordingly, John B. Jervis prepared a report 

and estimate on the enlargement from Albany to 

Fultonville, which he submitted on 17 October 1835. 

Acting on the instructions of the Commissioners, 

Jervis included two estimates, one for a canal 6 feet 

deep and 60 feet wide at the top water line and 

another for a canal 7 feet deep and 70 feet wide. 

Jervis recommended that the canal be of the latter 

proportions and that the locks each be 16 feet wide 

and 110 feet long between quoins. In October the 

Canal Board approved the 7 x 70-foot dimensions for 

the enlargement and a few months later decided that 

the locks should be 110 feet long between quoins 

and 18 feet wide. 

In the same report Jervis advocated abandoning 

the parts of the old route of the canal at a point 

below the junction of the Erie and Champlain canals 

above Watervliet to the head of the four locks above 

the Cohoes Falls (i.e., to old Lock 33) and constructing instead a new line. Concerning the four locks 

specifically, Jervis wrote: 

•ivivirr.", mr 

\ '%""^«'i*>«e 

•—'•-•41 J> " ' , i 

B(K>w 

• ? r 

J A il A -f & & A 

fi :s A sr T -TfeM ,•'•*• ' .*• * 

j! 

© 

A L ii A Ifl V 

® r 

WATEHVLIC T f- ^ 

-

 r**>- "*±Zr- "*' "^~1' -

© 

Lllk «f R H Pr.. . AlWnv I T 
192 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

The 4 locks are located so near each other as to allow 

shorter pound reaches than at other locks and such as to 

render the navigation extremely inconvenient and embarrassing. To widen the old line and lay the new locks 

along side of the old ones, I consider entirely out of the 

question, and a new line indispensable for these locks; 

which has accordingly been laid, and the estimate made on 

the same. (NY, Documents Board, No. 99A, pp. 4-5). 

In the early spring of 1836, the line was once again 

surveyed, and in June, maps of the line between 

Albany and Schenectady were submitted to the Canal 

Board. Members of the Board examined the schemes 

for this area in the field and adopted one which 

called for a new line 4 miles and 28 chains long, 

beginning at a point I/2 miles above West Troy and 

joining the old line above the four locks. The Board 

explained its decision on the new line thus: 

The locks are so located as to give convenient pound 

reaches between them, the lifts of the locks are so arranged 

as to reduce their number from nineteen to sixteen, without 

making the lift of either of them over ten feet. This plan 

will add to the convenience of the navigation, save on 

annual expense of lock-tending and repairs, and enable 

the work to be done without the chance of interruption to, 

or from the navigation (NY, Annual . Commissioners, 

No. 73, p. 16). 

At some time during 1835 or 1836 the locks were 

renumbered. Previously they had been numbered 

beginning with the westernmost lock of the Eastern 

Division and ending with Lock 53 at Albany. Under 

the revised system, locks were numbered from east 

to west with Lock 1 located in Albany and the 

northermost lock in Cohoes being Lock 18. 

Work generally on the new line was put under 

contract in 1836, evidently during the last half of 

the year, after the location of the new line had been 

determined. 

The first payment for work on Lock 18 was not 

made, however, until 27 June 1837. Contractor Barker 

& Smith was paid $5,100 between 27 June and 

18 November 1837 for work on Lock 18. Between 

6 January and 31 August 1938 the firm was paid 

$4,697.63 for Lock 18. On 20 August 1838, Merriam, 

Carr & Co. received a payment of $3,000 for work 

on Locks 17 and 18. 

On 18 April 1838 the legislature passed "An Act 

to Provide for the More Speedy Enlargement of the 

Erie Canal" (NY, Laws 1838), which authorized a 

four-million dollar loan to finance the enlargement 

work. The Canal Commissioners encountered difficulties in obtaining some of the funds authorized in 

this loan, however, and that situation impeded work 

by the contractors in 1839. The Commissioners 

reported that 

a large amount of work has been done on the enlargement during the past season [1839], but not as much as was 

contemplated at the date of the last annual report. . . . 

Generally the contractors were not pressed to a vigorous 

prosecution of their work . 

[But] A heavy amount of work has been done on the 

first 14 miles from Albany ... . 

A lock of wood has been constructed at the Cohoes 

[Falls] for temporary use, while the enbankment [sic] for 

the enlargement is making opposite, which is to cover the 

site of the present lock. The lock of wood is completed, 

and will be ready for use in the spring; but the present 

lock for which it is a substitute, should not be taken up, 

until after the new lock has been satisfactorily tested 

(NY, Annual Commissioners, No. 60, pp. 46-48). 

In 1839 Barker & Smith received a final payment 

of $974.23 for "Lock 18, and additional allowance." 

Merriam, Carr & Co. received $31,200 for Locks 17 

and 18. 

Between April and December 1840 the Commissioners reported that "the construction of the work 

has been advanced more rapidly than in any previous 

season," due in part to the lowered cost of materials 

and labor as well as to favorable weather (NY, 

Annual . . . Commissioners, No. 72, p. 19). Work on 

Section 10, in which Lock 18 was located, was not 

as far advanced as on other parts of the new line. 

The contractors were busy on Section 10 with "a 

heavy side hill excavation and enbankment [sic.]," 

and work on Lock 18 was described as being "in a 

forward state" (six other locks on the line had been 

completed except for the gates) (Ibid.). The Commissioners hoped that 

with the proper energy on the part of the contractors, all 

the work on this line can be completed next season [1841], 

in time to admit the water, and test its permanency, before 

the close of navigation so that it can be safely brought into 

use in the spring of 1842. (NY, Annual . Commissioners, No. 72, p. 22). 

Merriam, Carr & Co. received another payment 

of $14,500 for work during 1840 on Locks 17 

and 18. 

The accounts for expenditures during 1841 when 

much of the work on Lock 18, as well as on Lock 

17, was done, were not, unfortunately, published. 

However, a report published in 1842 stated that 

Merriam, Carr & Co. had been paid $146,221 for 

all their work to date on Locks 17 and 18. Since that 

firm had received $48,700 through 1840, it could be 

assumed that the firm received $97,521 for work 
NUMBER 26 193 

during 1841 on the two locks. The firm received 

$1,550 for work in 1842. 

During 1841 contracts were let for paddle and 

valve gates for Lock 18. The masonry work on all 

locks under contract between Albany and the Lower 

Aqueduct was completed by 25 January 1842, 

although the work on the rest of Section 10 was 

behind schedule. 

Evidently the line was tested at some time before 

30 November 1841, when navigation was closed for 

that year; for in the following spring, on 20 April, 

water was let into the canal. A special party including the Canal Board, the comptroller, the contractors, 

and resident members of the legislature, traveled on 

that day from the Lower Aqueduct to Albany on 

board two boats, the Enlargement and the G. W. 

Little. In celebration of the occasion, the boats bore 

American flags, and a brass band was aboard, as well 

as a six-pounder which fired salutes along the route. 

The party left the aqueduct at noon and arrived at 

Albany between five and six p.m., having traveled 

over 11 miles of the enlarged canal and through 18 

locks. It was expected that the new line would reduce 

the travel time between Albany and Schenectady 

by five or six hours. A contemporary source noted 

that the new locks 

will vie with any work of the kind in America, the capaciousness, and for solidarity and beauty of masonry. . Notwithstanding their greatly increased size, they are worked 

with surprising ease and rapidity, the average time of 

locking in and out for each boat being only one minute 

and twenty seconds. 

But the difficulties of a part of the route were truly 

formidable. At the Cohoes [Falls], in attaining the elevation, 

the new route passing above the factories, the side hill was 

cut off 126 feet above the bottom of the canal, so that we 

now look upward on one side to that altitude, while on the 

other is an enbankment [sic] from 30 to 60 feet in height. 

This proved to be the most difficult portion of the route, 

the hill being of hardpan formation, and requiring continued blasting, and the enbankment [sic] requiring in its 

unfinished state, the greatest skill and care to prevent its 

yielding to the pressure. (Albany Argus, 22 April 1842). 

In 1843 an additional payment of $9,051.41 was 

made to Merriam, Carr & Co. for Locks 17 and 18. 

A locktender's house was not immediately constructed. 

A grocery store and barn, dating from before 1834, 

were located just west of Lock 18. 

Alterations and Additions: The gates of the lock 

have been removed. The portion of the lock owned 

by the City of Cohoes is being filled in because of 

alleged danger to children. The Bourgeois portion, 

according to the owners, will be preserved in its 

present state. 

Sources of Information 

MAP S 

Hutchinson, Holmes. "Map of the Erie Canal." Volume 

10 (6 September 1834). Manuscript and History Section, 

New York State Library, Albany, New York. 

Statistical Profile, Erie Canal Enlargement, Eastern Division, 

Commencing in the City of Albany and Terminating at 

Higginsville. Albany: R. H. Pease, 1851. 

UNPUBLISHE D 

Albany County. Deeds. Books 66, 1332, 1374, 1375. County 

Clerk's Office. 

PUBLISHED 

New York. Annual Report of the Canal Commissioners. 

Assembly Documents No. 16 (13 Jan. 1844), No. 24 

(25 Jan. 1842), No. 25 (22 Jan. 1843), No. 60 (28 

Jan. 1840), No. 65 (20 Jan. 1836), No. 72 (27 Jan. 

1841, No. 73 (25 Jan. 1837), No. 85 (24 Jan. 1835); 

No. 86 (22 Jan. 1839), No. 88 (29 Jan. 1834), No. 159 

(10 Mar. 1838). 

. Annual Report of the Comptroller. Assembly 

Document No. 16 (1839). 

. Annual Report of the Comptroller, Relative 

to the Expenditures on the Canals. Assembly Document 

No. 6 (3 Jan. 1838), No. 51 (21 Jan. 1841), No. 56 

(10 Feb. 1843), No. 105 (2 Mar. 1844), No. 131 (31 

Jan. 1840). 

-. Documents Accompanying the Report of the 

Canal Board. Assembly Document No. 99 (26 Jan. 1836). 

Laws, 1834. Chapter 312: "An Act to Provide 

for the Improvement of the Canals of This State." 

6 May 1834. 

Laws, 1835. Chapter 274: "An Act in Relation to the Erie Canal." 11 May 1835. 

. Laws, 1838. Chapter 269, "An Act to Provide 

for the More Speedy Enlargement of the Erie Canal." 

18 April 1838. 

Report of the Canal Board. Assembly Document No. 98 (26 Jan. 1836). 

. Report of the Canal Board in Answer to Resolutions of the Assembly Respecting the Canal Debts and 

Revenues, and the Enlargement of the Erie Canal, &c. 

Assembly Document No. 306 (1840). 

. Report of the Canal Commissioners, in Relation 

to Contracts on the Canals. Assembly Document No. 173 

(1842). 

. State Engineer's Report for 1853. Albany, 1854. 
194 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Masten, Arthur H. The History of Cohoes, New York, from 

Its Earliest Settlement to the Present Time. Albany: 

Joel Munsell, 1877. 

"Opening of the Enlarged Canal." Albany Argus, 22 April 

1842. 

Shaw, Ronald E. Erie Water West: A History of the Erie 

Canal 1792-1854. Lexington: University of Kenti 

Press, 1966. 

Whitford, Noble. History of the Canal System of the State 

of New York. Albany: Brandow Printing Company, 1906. 

[Supplement to the annual report of the New York State 

Engineer and Surveyor.] 

ENGINEERING INFORMATION 

General Statement 

Structural Character: Locally known as the "Double 

Lock," Lock 18 is part of the enlarged Erie Canal 

system of 1840. The masonry lock chambers, which 

is all that remains, are rapidly being filled with refuse 

and earth. 

Condition of Fabric: Good to fair. 

Foundation: Cut stone laid random, probably 

limestone. 

Wall Construction: Cut limestone. The blocks are 

approximately 3 feet long, 2 feet deep, and I/2 feet 

wide. 

Note: The lock gates were of wood, but no traces 

of the gates or their hardware survive. 

Description 

Shape: Long rectangle. 

Site 

General Setting: Suburban residential. 

Orientation: North to south. 
Waterford Locks 1826 

Champlain Canal, Waterford 

(HAER NY-14) 

R. Carole Huberman 

Location: Immediately north of Lock No. 2 of the New York State Barge Canal, 0.1 mile 

south of U.S. Route 4, Waterford, Saratoga County, New York. 

Latitude: 42° 47' 38" N. Longitude: 73° 41' 00" W. 

Date of Construction: 1824-1826. 

Engineer: Erie Canal engineering staff, under John B. Jervis, et al. 

Present Owner: State of New York. 

Present Use: Spillway for surplus water, New York State Barge Canal. 

Significance: The Champlain Canal was built to link Lake Champlain with the Erie Canal 

and with tidewater via the Hudson River. The canal is now part of the New York State 

Barge Canal system, the most extensive in the United States. When the Barge Canal was 

built, c 1911—1915, most of the original alignment of the Erie and Champlain canals was 

abandoned, although followed generally. The Champlain portion of the Barge Canal, which 

accommodates tug and barge traffic, for much of its route at the lower end is the canalized 

Hudson River. 

HISTORICAL INFORMATION 

History of the Champlain Canal and 

the Waterford Locks 

Construction of the Champlain Canal was first 

considered in 1792 when the Inland Navigation Company was chartered for the purpose of creating a 

waterway between Lake Champlain and the Hudson 

River. Although the company spent $100,000 on the 

project, no canal was built. The British civil engineer, Sir Marc Isambard Brunei (1769-1849, father 

of Isambard Kingdom Brunei) is known to have 

been associated with the Champlain Canal plans 

while he was working in America 1793 to 1799 

(Beamish, 1862). 

In 1816 the Canal Law and the plans for the Erie 

Canal included recommendations and specifications, 

as well, for the Champlain Canal, or Northern Canal. 

Engineering Information: Prepared by Richard J. Pollak. 

A group of commissioners including Stephen Van 

Rensselaer, DeWitt Clinton, Myron Holley, Samuel 

Young, and Joseph Ellicott were appointed "to consider, devise, and adopt plans to effect means of 

communication between the navigable waters of the 

Hudson River and Lake Erie, and the said navigable 

waters and Lake Champlain" (Whitford, 1906, I: 

410). Throughout the discussions and legislative 

activity of 1816-1817, the canals were treated together 

as one issue; the route of the Champlain Canal would 

appease the constituents of the northeastern part of 

the state who might otherwise object to Erie Canal 

expenditures. 

The advantages of connecting Lake Champlain 

with the Hudson River were summarized by the 

commissioners in an 1817 report to the State Assembly. 

The Champlain Canal would save vast sums in the price 

of transportation; it would open new and increasing sources 

195 
196 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 132.—Champlain Canal (New York State Engineer and Surveyor, 1856, 

following page 72.) 

of wealth; it would divert from the province of Lower 

Canada, and turn to the south, the profits of the trade of 

Lake Champlain; and, by imparting activity and enterprize 

[sic] to agriculture, commercial and mechanical pursuits, 

it would add to our industry and resources, and thereby 

augment the substantial wealth and prosperity of the State 

(Assembly Journal, 1817, p. 589, in Whitford, 1906, 1:411). 

Work began in 1817 at the northern end of the 

canal, near Whitehall at the lower end of the lake, 

concurrently with the start of work on the Erie 

Canal. Construction progressed southward and by 

1822 was completed to Waterford, the lower terminal 

where the canal entered the Hudson by means of a 

lateral cut with three locks. A low dam across the 

Hudson provided a still pool into which the boats 

were locked. Whitford (1906, 1:416-417) described 

the facility: 

The works consisted of a dam and a sloop lock. The 

masonry of the lock was completed in 1822, but a section 
NUMBER 26 197 of the dam had been left open in order to discharge the 

water of the river while the other works were being 

constructed. While the contractors were closing this gap, 

a heavy freshet occurred which undermined and carried 

away about one hundred and twenty feet of the unfinished 

dam. The high water continued so long that it was im-

possible to do any further work that season. In the spring 

of 1823 this breach was repaired, but during the season 

another one occurred in the old portion of the dam. In 

the following spring this breach became enlarged by the 

action of heavy freshets and the commissioners were in 

a quandry as to what they should do. Finally an agreement 

was made with certain responsible individuals that they 

should repair the dam at their own expense and risk. If the 

dam, as repaired, should withstand the fall, winter and 

spring floods and at the subsiding water in the spring 

should remain entire and undamaged, the contractors were 

to receive the sum of $25,750, otherwise nothing. The dam 

was repaired upon these conditions and in the spring of 

1825 it had withstood the test so well that it was accepted 

by the commissioners. 

The locks were finally placed in service by 1826. 

Below the lateral cut, the Champlain Canal con-

tinued southward in a slightly westerly direction 

crossing the Mohawk River on slackwater near its 

mouth, below Cohoes Falls, and formed a sharply 

acute angle in its junction with the Erie Canal at 

Juncta, due west of the Lower Sprout of the Mohawk 

River. 

Alterations and Additions 

1842. Another lock on the main canal was built at 

Waterford. 

1845. New gates were constructed on the guard locks. 

1852. Lock No. 7 at Waterford was rebuilt, probably 

enlarged to accommodate tow boats. 

1854. A contract was let to rebuild the three single 

locks on the Waterford side cut, and by 

1856. Three new combined locks were completed on 

the north side of the old side cut. 

1862. A weighlock built at Waterford was a signifi-

cant improvement to the canal system. 

A weighlock had been needed at Waterford 

as up to [1861] the only one available for 

weighing boats on the Champlain Canal 

was at West Troy on the Erie Canal. The 

Waterford side-cut had served as a con-

venient shunpike to any boats that were not 

FIGURE 133.—Hutchinson's map of the Champlain-Erie 

Canal junction at Juncta, south of Cohoes. (Hutchinson, 

1834, plate 43, right half.) 
198 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 134.—Waterford Locks: a, View from the north, looking down triple locks; 

b, view from the south of the three locks; c, view from the south; d, upper two 

locks; e, detail of sill and gate recess; /, masonry at upper entrance to locks. 
NUMBER 26 199 

bound for the Erie Canal, and consequently 

the State had been defrauded of a large 

percentage of its just tolls (Whitford, 1906, 

1:430). It cost $22,115.70 and relieved the 

congestion at the West Troy weighlock. 

1889. Waterford weighlock was enlarged. 

1903. By means of a referendum, the Champlain 

Canal became part of the New York State 

Barge Canal system. Work began on the 

Barge Canal two years later and the Waterford Locks eventually became a spillway 

for its surplus water. 

Sources of Information 

MAP S 

Geddes, James. Map and Profile of the Champlain Canal 

as Made from Lake Champlain to the Hudson River and 

Surveyed Thence to the Tide at Waterford. James Geddes, 

Engineer, 1820. [Library of Congress, Geography and 

Map Division, Alexandria, Virginia.] 

Mahon, S. Map of the Grand Erie Canal, with the Stage 

Roads from Albany to Buffaloe, and the Distances Between 

Each Place, Drawn and Engraved for the Tourist. S. 

Mahon, 1830. [Library of Congress, Geography and Map 

Division, Alexandria, Virginia.] 

Hutchinson, Holmes. "Map of the Erie Canal." Volume 10 

(1834). Manuscript and History Section, New York 

State Library, Albany, New York. 

New York State Engineer and Surveyor. "Map of the 

Champlain Canal and its Connections." Annual Report 

for Year 1856. Albany, 1857. 

State of New York Department of Public Works. Champlain 

Canal, Waterford to Stillwater, March 1, 1916. Sheet 

1 of 2. [Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division, Alexandria, Virginia.] 

Beamish, Richard. Memoir of the Life of Sir Marc Isambard 

Brunei, Civil Engineer. Second edition. London: Longman, 1862. 

Shaw, Ronald E. Erie Water West: A History of the Erie 

Canal 1792-1854. Lexington: University of Kentucky 

Press, 1966. 

Whitford, Nobel E. History of the Canal System of New 

York. 2 volumes. Albany: Brandow Printing Company, 

1906. [Supplement to the annual report of the New York 

State Engineer and Surveyor.] 

ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION 

Condition of Fabric: The masonry walls and floors 

are in good condition; the wood lock gates and the 

hardware do not remain. 

Overall Dimensions: Approximately 15 feet by 

150 feet in three levels. 

Construction: Limestone. "At the northern termination of the canal some limestone excavation would 

be necessary . , but the material would be very 

useful in the construction of locks, nine of which were 

considered necessary between the Hudson and Lake 

Champlain" (Whitford, 1906, 1:412). Stone stairways, 3 feet wide with 10-inch treads and 12-inch 

risers serve the different lock levels. 

Site: Neatly and pleasantly landscaped as typical 

of all State Barge Canal property. 
Hawk Street Viaduct 1890 

City of Albany 

(HAER NY-10) 

Samuel Rezneck 

Location: Hawk Street, one block north of State Capitol, Albany, Albany County, New York. 

Latitude: 42° 39' 00" N. Longitude: 73° 45' 30" W. 

Date of Erection: 1889-1890. 

Designer: Elnathan Sweet, C.E. (1837-1903). 

Present Owner: City of Albany. 

Present Use: Pedestrian bridge [from 1968]. 

Significance: First appearance of a cantilever arch bridge. 

HISTORICAL INFORMATION 

Physical History 

The Hawk Street Viaduct, originally called the 

Hawk Street Bridge, was closed to vehicular traffic in 

January 1968. A monument of another age, it has 

been condemned as unsafe, and only pedestrians now 

cross over this rusted, dilapidated structure. The City 

of Albany plans neither to repair nor to rebuild it. 

There is a proposal, however, to build a new viaduct 

across the same ravine a block farther west at Swan 

Street. [The viaduct was dismantled by the city in 

July 1970.—ed.] 

According to the commemorative plaques attached 

to the bridge, it was built in 1889-1890 by the Hilton 

Bridge Construction Company of Albany, when 

Edward A. Maher was Mayor. The bridge was 

rebuilt in 1925 under the leadership of William S. 

Hackett, Mayor; Lester W. Herzog, Commissioner of 

Public Works; and James G. Brennan, City Engineer. 

Davis and Post were the consulting engineers and 

the Boston Bridge Works, Inc., was the contractor 

who did the actual repairs. 

Engineering Information: Prepared by Richard J. Pollak; 

additional data by Robert M. Vogel. 

By 1949, however, extensive deterioration of the 

bridge made it necessary to reduce its allowable 

carrying load from ten to three tons. In 1958, the 

city appropriated $250,000 for reconstruction, but the 

plan was abandoned as impractical because of the 

bridge's condition. Neither plans for the bridge nor 

records of its maintenance exist in the Albany City 

records. In its dimensions alone, the bridge is inadequate for the demands of modern traffic. 

Despite its almost obscure record, the Hawk Street 

Viaduct is significant in the physical and social history of Albany. Spanning the ravine between Capitol 

Hill and Arbor Hill, it connected the fine residential 

section that had grown up around the government 

buildings, with working class neighborhoods. A canal 

at one time ran through the ravine, but it has been 

filled in and displaced by Sheridan Avenue. 

In the late nineteenth century, the Hawk Street 

Viaduct provided a solution to both a social and an 

engineering problem. It was necessary to establish 

direct access and communications between the separate camps of the city, but neither the city nor state 

governments worked rapidly toward a solution. All 

through the 1880s the state legislature rejected a bill 

authorizing a viaduct across the ravine, which, by 

200 
NUMBER 26 201 

ED .-.Ci^D.R, PCF^RY, V 

A* ' 

FIGURE 135.—Hilton letterhead, 1890s. E. Sweet, the firm's president, apparently also was its 

principal engineering force. The technical role of George P. Hilton, listed here as engineer, is 

unknown. (Warshaw Collection, National Museum of History and Technology, Smithsonian 

Institution.) 

that time, was at least an engineering and a financial 

possibility. Two successive mayors, city councils, and 

corporation counsels also opposed this logical civic 

improvement idea. The legislature finally approved 

the project in 1888, thanks to the efforts of Maurice 

Cranwell, the "father of the bridge," who facilitated 

the "poor man's short cut to town." The City of 

Albany at that time appropriated $125,000, but only 

$107,000 of it was used and the construction costs 

actually were only $90,000. 

As a significant engineering achievement, the construction of the Hawk Street Viaduct in 1889-1890 

heralded the use of the cantilever arch. It was 

regarded as "a genuine architectural wonder," and 

was much admired and copied in Europe and 

America, in spite of the fact that it was a dry-land 

structure and lacked the romance and boldness of 

bridges across water. Other major cantilever arches 

were erected over the Seine and Viaur in France, 

and the Elbe Canal at Molln, Germany, as well as 

on railways in Alaska and Costa Rica (Tyrrell, 1911: 

325-326). 

A contemporary writer described the viaduct as 

"a daring experiment in bridge construction." At its 

highest point it is 79 feet above the street below. 

A power plant on Sheridan Avenue barely rises to 

the level of the roadway. Undoubtedly, this elevated 

feature has been an invitation to the would-be suicide, 

and a considerable number are reported over the 

years to have leaped to their death from the railing 

to the pavement below. 

The original structural novelty of the viaduct has 

long since been eclipsed, and its abandoned, dilapidated appearance adds a note of sadness to the 

general disarray of central Albany as the city undergoes reconstruction and renewal. The vast South Mall 

and its gigantic buildings rising slowly on Capitol 

Hill on one side of the Hawk Street Viaduct is 

matched by the leveled surface that covers much of 

Arbor Hill on the other side. As these areas are 

rebuilt, the need for a new bridge linking them across 

the Sheridan Avenue ravine will become more urgent. 

It is expected that in due course a new and more 

modern viaduct will rise across Swan Street, a block 

west of the viaduct. Indeed, there may be need of 

another bridge across the ravine at a point closer to 

downtown Albany east of Hawk Street. All of this 

points to the growing importance and utility of a 

crossing at this strategic site, which has been evident 

since the last century. 
202 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 136.—Hawk Street Viaduct: a, Underside of the viaduct, looking north; 

b, detail of anchor arm underside and face of north abutment; c, the viaduct from 

the southeast, looking toward the city center; d, builder's plate and center pin, east 

face; e, view south along the roadway; /, balustrade newell detail. 
NUMBER 26 203 

FIGURE 137.—Demolition, July 1970. (Chester H. Liebs 

for [N. Y. State] Division for Historic Preservation.) 
204 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Biographical Background 

Elnathan Sweet: Designer and engineer of the 

bridge, Sweet was also president of the Hilton Bridge 

Construction Company, the bridge's builders. His 

contribution was significant both professionally and 

technically. In many respects the Hawk Street Viaduct 

was the most important engineering project in his 

long and diversified career. Born in Cheshire, Massachusetts, in the Berkshire Mountains, Sweet received 

a degree in civil engineering from Union College, 

Schenectady, in 1859. It was the age of railroad 

building, and he traveled westward to participate 

in some of its more ambitious undertakings. He was 

particularly involved with the construction of the 

Rock Island and Northern Pacific railroads. In 1875 

he came to Albany where Governor Samuel J. Tilden 

engaged him to help clean up the scandalous activities of the contractors on the state canals. Sweet was 

subsequently elected State Engineer of New York 

and served until 1887. 

Returning to private engineering practice, he became president of Hilton. In the Hawk Street Viaduct 

design he introduced some novel features, most 

importantly the combination of the arch and the 

cantilever in one structure. 

Sources of Information 

UNPUBLISHED 

Consultations with the City Engineer and City Planner of 

Albany. 

File on "Albany Bridges" in the Albany Room of the 

Albany Public Library. 

PUBLISHED 

Hislop, Codman. Albany: Dutch, English, and American. 

Albany, 1936. 

Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Hogan, and MacDonald, Consulting 

Engineers to Albany. Know Albany Survey. Albany. 

Reynolds, Cuyler. Albany Chronicles. Albany, 1906. 

Tyrrell, Henry Grattan. A History of Bridge Engineering. 

Chicago: (By the author) G. B. Williams Co., Printers, 

1911. 

ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION 

General Statement 

Structural Character: Steel three-hinged archedcantilever span. 

Condition of Fabric: Poor. Closed to automobile 

traffic. 

Description 

Overall Dimensions: 1,000 feet total length; 79 

feet from street level to highest point. 

Foundations: Light gray cut granite. 

Structural System: The viaduct's principal element 

is the center three-hinged, two-rib arch, spanning 

360 feet. Springing "backward" from each end of 

the arch is a 114-foot cantilver "half-arch" that 

balances much of the load on the central arch. 

Sixty-six-foot end spans extend beyond the cantilevers 

to the abutments. The total length of the bridge with 

its approaches, from Clinton Avenue to Elk Street, 

is 1,000 feet. 

The hinges in the arch permit its elements to 

adjust freely to changing temperature and traffic 

loadings. The hinges are composed of large iron 

pins, 12 inches in diameter. One pair of pins is at 

the top center of the arch, while the other pairs are 

at each of the springing points where the arch bears 

on underground piers of concrete. It thus combines 

stability and mobility. Eight-hundred tons of iron 

and open-hearth steel were used in the structure, 

which originally was paved with creosoted yellow 

pine blocks. 

Special Decorative Details: Cast- and wroughtiron railings. 
Green Island Shops 1872 

Rensselaer & Saratoga Railroad, Green Island 

(HAER NY-15) 

Richard S. Allen 

Location: West side of Delaware & Hudson Railroad tracks; 500 feet north of Tibbitts Avenue, 

Green Island, Albany County, New York. 

Latitude: 42° 45' 00" N. Longitude: 73° 41' 00" W. 

Dates of Erection: 1871-1872. 

Designer: Unknown. 

Present Owners: John J. Ryan & Sons, Inc., owner of buildings; Delaware & Hudson Railway 

Company, owner of land. 

Present Occupant: John J. Ryan & Sons, Inc., waste materials dealers. 

Present Use: Warehouse. 

Significance: An early railroad shop building of typical heavy timber and brick construction. 

HISTORICAL INFORMATION 

Physical History 

Green Island is located at the confluence of the 

Mohawk and Hudson rivers due west of the City of 

Troy. It was connected both to Troy and to more 

islands at the north of Waterford by bridges constructed in 1835 by the Rensselaer & Saratoga Railroad. LeGrand B. Cannon, who owned much of 

Green Island, was active in the management of the 

R&S. In December 1868, the railroad purchased 

more than 21 acres of the north central portion of 

the island from Cannon as a site for extensive locomotive repair and car-building and repair shops. 

The R&S shop site, however, should not be confused with the site of the Eaton, Gilbert & Company 

(later Gilbert Car Manufacturing Company) works 

on Green Island. That plant stood at George and 

Clinton Streets, six blocks to the south. Gilbert & 

Architectural Information: Prepared by Richard J. Pollak; 

additional data by Robert M. Vogel. 

Company, which operated on Green Island from 

1852 to 1893, was an early and well-known builder 

of coaches, railroad cars, omnibuses, street cars, and 

Civil War gun carriages. 

Begun in 1871, according to the builder's stone on 

the south face of the main building, the R&S shops 

were completed the following year. By that time the 

company had been leased in perpetuity to the Delaware & Hudson Canal Company. (All R&S properties have subsequently been operated by the D&H, 

although the R&S charter extends to 1 January 

2500). 

The Delaware & Hudson soon launched an 

ambitious expansion program, only slightly curtailed 

by the Panic of 1873. Heavy repairs and rebuilding 

of steam locomotives were carried on there, with this 

type of work for the railroad's tri-state system 

being equally divided among shops at Green Island, 

Oneonta, New York, and Carbondale, Pennsylvania. 

For forty years the Green Island Shops were a 

hive of activity, engaged in heavy industrial work. 

The majority of D&H locomotives were in work 

205 
206 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 138.—Rensselaer and Saratoga Railroad Shops: a, Earliest known representation of 

the Shops, 1873. b, By 1885 various auxiliary buildings had appeared but the principal shop 

structures were unchanged, c, By 1903 the locomotive and car shops had been joined, forming 

a single structure 750 feet long. The presently surviving building constitutes only the original 

locomotive, machine and forge shops, everything to the north having been razed, (a: Young 

and Blake, 1873; b: Sanborn Map and Publishing Co., 1885, volume 2, plate 55; c, Sanborn 

Map Co., 1903, volume 1, plate 63.) 

there at one time or another, the jobs ranging 

from simple repairs or paint to major overhaul and 

redesign. 

Locomotive work was discontinued in 1912, when 

all D&H locomotive building and repair was concentrated in new shops at nearby Colonie, New York. 

The Green Island plant continued in operation, however, into the late 1930s, devoted to the building of 

the D&H's wooden freight cars, as well as repair and 

light work on other freight equipment. 

Portions of the property were sold for industrial 

and private use in 1940. Since that period, the remaining buildings have stood idle or have been used 

for storage purposes. 

The shops, as indicated on the Sanborn insurance 

map of 1875, consisted of three separate brick buildings extending northward along the Rensselaer & 

Saratoga's Troy to Waterford line. 

First was the main machine shop, with office at 

the center on the east side. The large (32 feet to the 

eaves) southern section housed the five-bay locomotive shop on the first floor. The second story was 

used for wood work and pattern storage. The central 

section (18 feet to the eaves) was devoted to ma-
NUMBER 26 207 

chinery, with the blacksmith shop at the north end. 

Immediately west of this building were a 50-foot, 

brick-enclosed water tank of 51,819-gallon capacity, 

a stone cistern, a boiler room with two boilers totaling 175 horsepower and a 110 horsepower engine, 

capped by a 120-foot chimney, and various sheds. 

Southwest of the main building was a turntable, 

serving an eight-stall roundhouse, built in the form 

of a segment of concentric circles, with a single 

sloped roof. 

To the northwest stood the paint shop, which was 

20 feet to the eaves and contained as well the boiler 

shop and storage for hardware. Other nearby buildings included a two-story sand shed; a combined 

oil, varnish, and waste room; and a large frame, 

circular privy. 

The next principal building was the car shops, 

located next to an old roundhouse north along the 

track side. A one-story section used for sawing and 

planing came first, and then a two-story erecting 

shop, with sawing and turning on the second floor 

and storage in the loft under the roof. This section 

apparently was similar in character to the existing 

locomotive shop. 

A third one-story building 230 feet long stood 

approximately 450 feet further north. This was the 

car storehouse. Adjacent to this on the east were 

various lumber sheds, storage for castings, and a 

coal pile. 

The shops were heated by stoves mounted on brick 

and iron bases and burning wood shavings and coal. 

Light was furnished by kerosene lamps. A work force 

of 75 to 125 men worked six days a week, with three 

night watchmen and one Sunday watchman. 

According to the data on the Sanborn map, the 

three-story, five-bay locomotive shop/machine-forge 

shop, which is still standing, was originally separate. 

It is now connected with the one-story section of the 

former car shop. The connection was made between 

1885 and 1903. Adjacent are the wooden roundhouse, 

brick water-tower base, boiler room, etc. The paint 

shop of 1872 burned on 23 January 1904 and its 

site is occupied today by a more recent structure used 

for storage. 

Sources of Information 

PUBLISHED 

Delaware & Hudson Railway Co. A Century of Progress: 

A History of the Delaware and Hudson Company 1823-

1923. Albany: J. B. Lyon Co., Printers, 1925. 

. Inspection of Lines. 1928. 

Howell, George Rodgers, editor. Bi-centennial History of 

Albany: History of the County of Albany, N.Y., 1609— 

1886. New York: W. W. Munsell & Co., 1886. 

Shaughnessy, Jim. Delaware & Hudson—The History of 

an Important Railroad Whose Antecedent Was u Canal 

Network to Transport Coal. Berkeley, California: HowellNorth Books, 1967. 

Weise, Arthur James. City of Troy and its Vicinity. Troy: 

E. Green, 1886. 

. Troy's One Hundred Years 1789-1889. Troy: 

W. H. Young, 1891. 

MAP S 

Sampson, Murdock & Co., Map(s) of Troy, also West Troy 

and Green Island. 1889—1935. 

Sanborn, D. A. Insurance Maps of the City of Troy, N.Y. 

Including West Troy and Green Island. New York, 

1875. 

Sanborn Map and Publishing Co. Troy, Including West 

Troy and Green Island, N.Y. New York, 1885. 

Sanborn Map Co. Insurance Maps of Troy, Rensselaer 

County, Including Green Island and Watervliet, Albany 

County, N.Y. New York, 1903. 

. Troy, N.Y. 1955. New York, 1955. 

Young, William H. and Blake. Map of the City of Troy, 

New York. Troy, 1873. 

Additional records and maps on file at Albany County 

Clerk's Office, Albany, N.Y. 

ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION 

General Statement 

Architectural Character: The R&S Shops are representative of railroad repair facilities of the period, 

designed for work on both locomotives and railroad 

cars. The single surviving shop building is of brick 

and heavy-timber construction throughout. The 

principal block, on the south, is multistoried, the high 

ground story for accommodating the locomotives in 

work and the upper stories for light work on the 
208 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 139.—View of the Green Island Shops from the southwest showing the boiler-engine 

house ell and the water tower base. 

FIGURE 140.—Green Island Shops: a, Brick water tower base; b, joining of machine and 

locomotive shops and north face of water tower base; c, window in water tower base, 

showing diaphragm walls that supported tank floor; d, interior of the north section, (a-c: 

Boucher; d: John Courtney Fisher for [N.Y. State] Division for Historic Preservation.) 

wooden cabs and other small components. The singlestory shop to the north housed the larger machine 

tools, the forge, and the other heavy metal-working 

operations that required foundation on grade. 

A single-story brick ell with pitched roof and a 

one-bay lean-to addition on its north side joins the 

north section of the building perpendicularly on its 

west face, just north of the brick watertower base. 

This was the boiler and engine house, and is original 

construction. 

Condition of Fabric: Good. 
NUMBER 26 209 

FIGURE 141.—Green Island Shops: a, Southwest view. The plan of the locomotive shop is 

typical of locomotive construction and repair shops, to about 1890, in which a series of short 

parallel tracks held one locomotive each. They remained stationary while in work, all parts 

being manhandled or rigged into and off of the engines. In later plans, the locomotives were 

moved about on a few long, longitudinal tracks by massive traveling cranes, which also handled 

the heavier components, b, South elevation of the locomotive shop and water tower base; 

c, west side of the machine shop and north face of the boiler-engine house; d, north end of 

the building with wall remains of the connector between the car and forge shops; e, detail of 

the locomotive doors, south face; /, dormer details; g, detail of head, materials door, west face, 

showing iron castings from which the arches spring; h, interior of the north section, (a-g: 

Boucher; h: Chester H. Liebs for [N.Y. State] Division for Historic Preservation.) 

Description of Exterior 

Overall Dimensions: The rectangular building is 

approximately 80 feet by 400 feet. The south portion, 

about 80 feet long, is five bays wide by six; the north 

portion, about 320 feet long, is three bays by twentyFoundation: Cut stone, probably limestone. 

Wall Construction, Finish, and Color: Red brick 

bearing wall construction. The interior is painted, 

the exterior unfinished. 

Structural System: The heavy-timber roof trusses 

of the north section bear on the brick exterior walls 

and wood interior posts. There are wrought-iron rods 
210 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

in the roof trussing. Purlins and roof sheathing are 

wood. In the south part, the timber framing is supported by cast-iron columns and the exterior walls, 

enlarged into piers at the bearing points. 

Chimneys: Two brick chimneys at south front; 

miscellaneous brick chimneys on north portion. 

Openings: Doors and Doorways: On the south 

face are five wooden panelled double locomotive 

doors. 

Windows: The windows on the south face are 

boarded over. On the west side, they are wood, double 

hung with 12-over-12 sash. All openings are segmentally arched. 

Roof: Shape, Covering: The north section has a 

gabled roof with full-length, high, glazed monitor and 

slate and asphalt shingles. The south portion has a 

slated double-pitch roof best described as gambrel 

with shallow dormers in the steep-pitched lower 

section. 

Cornice, Eaves: Brick cornice; sheet metal eaves. 

Description of Interior 

Floor Plans: All three floors and the loft of the 

south section as well as the first floor of the north 

section are large open spaces interrupted only by 

columns. 

Stairways: In the south part there are wooden 

stairs in a straight, single run from floor to floor. 

Flooring: The first floor is concrete; the upper 

three floors of the south end are wood. 

Site 

General Setting: The building is situated on a 

north-south axis in a completely flat, moderately industrial area. Adjacent to it on the east is a large, 

modern Ford assembly plant. 

Outbuilding: A three-story, octagonal brick base 

for a water tower stands just west of the south front. 

The tank itself no longer remains. 

ft U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1973 0—497-570