Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1832-01-12


or improvements would farmers desire il, they had
pleasant conveyance which could take them with their
produce to Richmond W they chose TO sell it accompa
ny themsevcs) aud bring them back the next il not the
yelling.
If canal, however shonld be decided upon I do not
readily perceive what great advantage there would be
one oil dimension larger than the present 40 feet wide
| aud 3 l-2 feet deep.
Judge Wright assigns as reason for the canal he re-
commcnds 80 feet wide feet Deep that boat load
ed and moving at the rate OF miles hour, the power 10
move Will be nearly 20 per less in the large than
the smaller canal Zone of the size of the New York Ca
nal 40 feet wide and feet deeply
This rule is too indefinite be applied; he does not de-
gnatc the size Of the boats for which he gives the rule
Uor he certainly cannot the boats mentioned after
wards, as feet long Ii feet wide and feet water
such boats would drag on the bottom of the New York
naD This gain of 20 per cent in the power, which he
obtains for certain boat, by charging the canal
likewise be obtained by reducing size of the boat
proportion to that OF smaller canal; and do not think
boats large he proposes very necessary deem
less size for canal good; very large boats may cost
by the difficulty of completing load and the time lost in
obtaining it, The adopting Of so large canal would
an enlargement OF the canal Richmond which Judge
wright is inclined to the opinion could be done, 'whou
very great expense"
The books of the James river Company will shcw the
con'rary there, oar ocn experience, relative to the
argement othe old canal its present size, will warn us
that similar undertaking, upon the present one, would
cost nearly as much as making canal. For, almost
every work must be subvcred and built again How
for instance could that gentleman give the additional depth
the cast iron culver whose tops the bottom
the canal OF the large aqucuc the of the arch
which reaches also TO the bottoms how could he give
this same depth to the locks, without dcmolshng them
AS to the cost OF the canal up TO Lynchburg, my own
estimate for canal 30 feet wide by feet deep was
$1,000 per mile, including contingencies these dmcn
sons were fixed by law.
This size is, however rather too SMALL width of 30 feet
would think be preferable, its might be 1922 900
My own estimate of canal 90 feetby proposcdby the
associate engineer would be 2S 000 The opinion of this
gentleman is that such canal be built along the valley
of James river, under good management for Is or $780,
900 per me provided water cement can be at
ycral pru1p midi
tons attached this estimate, as that the canal
must be made under good management. the width is
be reduced at heavy bluffs and elsewhere, allow
barely two boats to pass each Others hydraulic lime must
come from the Blue Ridge, sc. Still, insist that less
price than that have stated will make canal so wide
and deep recommended.
In the first place, il the conditional measures by which
this gentleman contempatcs keeping the cost within his
own estimate, rcsortcd to- TO any adequate extent
we should not have the erceent canal promised;
and in the next, of them will not much;
the reduction of width for instance be very
rial, will shew.
Experience, since canals have been known has taught
that the banks should have slope Off toI down TO BERN
or offset at the waters edge but that water -2 TO
is quite sufficient Here, however, the slope of two TO
one proposed TO be carried under water the
dent disadvantage OF the water way Then of course,
boats drawing feet water, could not, without injury TO
the banks, TO the waters edge than feet on
each side To double this distance at wicel4 Uhe pro-
posed width of the boas) and allow foot between them
and the whole amount, As feet, will be about the least
width should consider practicable; that it would be
hardly worth while to break the uniform width of so feet
II once adopted.
But will not fatigue you with details, will only add
as general conclusion that the Canals of Pennsylvania
the cost of which is well known; and still less work
the Ohio and Chesapeake canal do not iust
~ so low estimate, for large The Ohio and
Chesapeake canal go feet wide, feet deep estmat
ed for with these dimensions in 1925 the of
AZ 6S100 miles already completed about 1923 76O ne
mile, exclusive of contingencies.
In 1880, when two-thirds OF the work done and
one-thrd estimated to be done, the tabular
work done and TO be done alrendy 32 474 per mile
What were the reasons given for this excess?
siondf enlargement Of the intended dimensions; unor
seen quality of ground for excavation of the price
labor, SC. &c.
This year US3D the work done, and small proportion
to- ss7o52 per mile
To which should be added, for contin-
gcncies incurred, 1910
And thus the cost of the Ohio and Ches-
apeake canal is $io,962 per mile,
the first section.
We told it true that S25 600 per mile is IN am
pie estimate for the eastern section of l26 miles Ia
bove arpers ferry, which, with reasonable contingent
cies might be 2S 600. But preceding Observation-Disclosures
invite TO reasonable caution, and cannot aop this ia
vorabc anticipation practical basis until il has
ceved the character OF fact by actual execution The
cost oil the first section, sweed much beyond the
mate VIII serve TO give idea Of the of wide canals
Unless, therefore, the intended permanent and ercel-
tent canal be so muated by temporary materials and
contracted works. no longer be good work. unless
inc wide canal be often and materially reduced in
width as to become more properly canal, floating
narrow boats, which myself would certainly call
g0od management It'll quite impossible make this canal
% feet wide and feet deep along James river at Is or
$4,000 mile a maximum And, therefore should
canal be determined upon would prefer of the for
mer SIZE 40 feet wide, 12 feet deep, which can pass
boats large desrabe and the depth which allows
OF ords instead of Objectionable bridges thereby also the
present section might remain untouched.