It’s not clear to me how they became aware of the feature there, but the gentleman of the group showed me pictures of wood planking underwater.   He felt that it was the remains of another lock based on the fact that many, if not all of the locks had wood “floors”.  He told me though, that he had reviewed a canal map, and that all it showed was an aqueduct in the area.  I know however, that aqueducts carried the canal over other water features such as streams and such, and tended to be made of stone.   The wood planking was certainly suggestive of another lock in my mind as well.

Most of the remaining locks from the canal are dry now, and as such, the wood flooring would have long since rotted away.  In this case though, there is still water flowing through the feature, which would have the tendency to protect the wood.

Curious, I headed down to see if I could find the feature for myself.  Unfortunately, I did not, but then, I didn’t have time to look long.    Later though, I decided to take a look at the original plat maps for the canal.   Somewhat to my surprise, I found that the next lock south from lock 38 is lock 91.   Based on the plat map, lock 91 was just south of the Butler/Hamilton county line, which would put it very near where the feature the group described should be.    I’m not sure which map the gentleman reviewed, or perhaps, if I misunderstood his explanation.  In any case though, there was definitely another lock in the area.   Looks like I have another canal mystery to explore!

On another day, I’m going to spend more time with the maps and try to determine where exactly lock 91 was, or perhaps, is.  After that, I’ll go check it out.   If you’re curious, here’s a clip of the plat map showing lock 91:

If you’re interested, here’s where I get the plat maps I’ve been reviewing: Ohio DNR    To open them, you have to have a TIFF viewer and plenty of memory.  The images are huge!  I’ll try to convert snippets to JPG and share them as I explore.

I also need to spend some time understanding the plat maps station designations and how they correlate to more modern navigation mechanisms.   It would also help to know more about how the locks were numbered.  They obviously aren’t sequential along the canal.   I think they were numbered as they were constructed, but I don’t know if they were contiguous.

I’ve learned that there is a collection of canal information archived at Wright State.  Might have to go check that out!

Update: after a bit more research, I found the book: “A photo album of Ohio’s canal era, 1825-1913″  indicates the lock in the Crescentville area was lock 39, not 91.  It also references a Crescentville aqueduct as well as a Port Union aqueduct.   I wonder if the cement structure I found could have been the remains of the Port Union aqueduct.

Looking back at the plat map, the lock is pretty clearly marked 91, but the nearby mill race is marked 39.  It’s also worth noting that the plat maps on file with DNR were traced in 1919 from the original survey results.  I wonder if the 39/91 issue could be an error.   More questions than answers at this point.

I decided that when I was in the area again with a few minutes to explore, I would see if I could locate the remains of the lock.  As luck would have it, I had need to visit a consulting client in West Chester today.  Having finished with plenty of daylight left, I decided it was time for a bit of exploring.

From my research using the original plat maps from the canal and comparing that to present day maps of the area, I learned that the canal followed what is now Port Union Rialto Rd.  Specifically that the road was probably built on the tow path.   According to the plat maps, the lock appeared to be in the area where the canal turned from flowing south east to due south at about the area of what is now the intersection of Port Union Rialto Rd and Rialto Rd.

Since I was less than a mile from that point, I headed that way.   As I reached the intersection I rode slowly, looking around and hoping to catch a glimpse of the cement structure.   Based on a picture I had seen of the lock from the 80′s, I expected the lock to be overgrown in the woods.

Wrong.

Rolling through the intersection, I looked left and damn near wrecked the wing.  Rolling over a culvert, I could see that what I though was a culvert, was really the remains of the canal and 50 yards down a gravel drive was the massive lock.

Not only was it not overgrown, the current owners of the property have obviously made an effort to preserve the remains of the lock.   It is clean and clear of debris and the vegetation around the lock is obviously maintained.    The historical inventory mentioned in my previous post reports that the house near the lock is actually the lock-keepers house.   I don’t know if this is true, but it appears that it could be of the proper vintage.   I spent more time looking at the lock proper.

According to the historical inventory, the east wall of the lock is on private property, which is where the gravel drive is.  The west wall is still owned by the state.   I headed down the gravel drive and immediately headed for the house to see if they’d mind if I looked around and took some pictures.  Unfortunately no one answered the door.   I did take a few pictures, featured below, but I didn’t stay long.   At some point in the future, I’ll go back for permission and do a more detailed photo essay.

If all of this wasn’t amazing enough, moments after I arrived, a minivan with several occupants pulled down the gravel drive behind me.   Imagine my surprise when I learned that it was several volunteers from the Cincinnati Museum Center who were also looking for the lock.   If I understood them correctly, they are working on a education program on the canal which apparently includes a tour.

I told them the whole story about my exploits, research and interest in the canal system.   They want me to volunteer for the Museum Center.  Imagine that!   Not sure I have time for it, but it would be cool to do some lectures.    I guess we’ll see how that plays out.

For those of you that know what a GPX file is and what to do with it, you can download a GPX with the lock waypoint in it here.  Note that you’ll want to right-click and save-as.  Chances are, your browser isn’t going to know what to do with a GPX.

Lastly, remember:  this lock is at least partially on private property.  If you decide to visit, make sure you have permission before you go tromping around in their front yard.

Enjoy the pictures!

[Show as slideshow]

[View with PicLens]

One of the things I noticed while walking along the path were the remains of a cement stucture to the south at the point where what is now a creek crosses the remains of the canal and the towpath.   The cement structure appeared old enough and of the relative size and shape to have been part of a canal lock, leading me to wonder if in fact it was.

After doing some research, I learned that in fact, lock #38 was in the area.  Unfortunately for my speculation though, it appears that lock 38 was actually in the area that once was Rialto and based on map features, was probably in the area near where Port Union Rialto and Rialto Road meet.   Here’s a map of the area if you’re curious.  I’m basing my assessment on a review of the original canal plat maps I found on a DNR site.  I’ve saved the map that covers that area, but it’s a bit big to put up here.

So, being interested in such things as canals and canal locks, I did a bit of research on lock 38.  Apparently, based on this picture and information, the remains of the lock are still visible at least as of 1983.  I’m sure you can guess what comes next!  I’m planning on doing some exploration to see if perhaps the remains are still visible and accessible.  I’ll report back when I do, with pictures of course!  Wouldn’t that be a cool place to put a geocache?

So, what of my cement structure?  I don’t know.  Based on the plat maps, the structure I found is northwest of what was Port Union and probably corresponds with some canal features on the map I haven’t figured out yet.  It isn’t a lock however.   For the moment, that is still a mystery.   Perhaps, when I go seek lock 38, I might make a side trip and wade in the creek for a closer look at this structure too.

Edit:

Hot-diggity    With a bit more research, I found that the lock shows up on a “historic inventory” of Union Township.  The good news is, since it’s on such a list, it would have been on the radar for protection in the event of development in the area.  Further, the site links to the actual form that was filled out when the inventory was conducted.  Pretty cool!  The form also confirms the location I suspected.  Field trip!

In my research on the mine, I learned that there were a number of other mines in the area, one of which suffered a similar fate to the Richland Mine, namely the Nelson Mine, which according to maps, is nearby.  I also found:

The NY Times article on the disaster (be sure to click the link to see the full article) and

a transcription of an article from the  Evening Herald Syracuse New York 1901-05-28.

(I’ve printed all  of these to PDF in case the links should expire…)

I also found another article apparently from Trenton Evening Times, Trenton NJ 21 Dec 1895 on (I think) another mine explosion in the area.  I thought this might have been the Nelson Mine, but it isn’t cited in the article, so I’m not sure.  If it is the Nelson Mine, there’s an apparent date discrepancy.  This article on the Nelson Mine from the Ticonderoga Sentinel New York 1902-04-03 puts the Nelson Mine disaster in 1902, after the 1901 Richland Mine disaster.  Perhaps the 1895 disaster was a different mine still.

Fascinating stuff.  In another post, I’ll put up some maps of the mines in the area.   One of the things I noticed was that the actual location of the Richland Mine entrance doesn’t match the USGS topo maps of the area… but that’s a subject for my next post!

** Addendum – while poking around some more, I found a digitized copy of the book:

So, Elizabeth and I decided to do this one on Saturday.  Boy, I’m glad we did.  The geocache is just inside an abandoned mine near Dayton TN in an area that I’ve seen referred to as the Bowater Pocket Wilderness and the Laurel-Snow Pocket Wilderness. Tennessee DNR calls it the Laurel-Snow Pocket Wilderness.  Locals tell me that it “used” to be called Bowater…  In any case, you can find the DNR site on the place here.

What we found when we arrived was nothing short of amazing.  I’ll have some other posts on the Wilderness and other geocaches here shortly.  As for this one though, we had the opportunity to meet one of the locals who was busy picking up some trash.  I think his name was Arthur.  He told us all about the history of the area and in particular of the mine that the geocache was in.  It’s called the Richland Mine and back in the early 1900s there was an explosion and collapse at the mine that trapped and killed 21 miners.  He tells me that his grandfather was one of the men working in the mine, although he wasn’t one of the ones killed.  Apparently, a number of the bodies of the miners were not recovered and are still entombed in the mine.  Others who were recovered and some that died later of injuries sustained are apparently buried in wilderness near the mine.  Arthur tells me he has looked for evidence of those graves and so far has found none.

Among other things he told us, he indicated that we should use extreme caution if we choose to venture off the marked trail, especially above the mining areas.  Apparently there are a number of ventilation shafts for the old mines that open up above them, and most are not covered.  It would suck to fall in one!

After chatting with Arthur for a while, we finally got to venture into the mine a short distance. Arthur had warned us about venturing too far into the mine, because there was a shaft back in there that dropped an unknown distance.  That wasn’t an issue for us though (not that we would have anyway) because the mine was flooded and we couldn’t get much further than about 20ft in without getting into the water.  We ended up not finding the geocache because of the water.  I would have waded a bit, but I couldn’t be sure about the depth and didn’t want to do anything foolish.  We got a bunch of pictures too:

[Show as slideshow]

[View with PicLens]

12►

I was reading the online Journal News one morning late in January and learned about the Somerville School.  Apparently the structure had been built in the early 1900′s and served the community for a very long time.  A search netted these details:

Abandoned for more than a decade, Somerville School was completed in 1916 and used for all 12 grades until 1953 when the district became part of Tallawanda City Schools which includes the City of Oxford, Oxford Township, Milford Township, Reily Township, and parts of Hanover Township and the City of Hamilton, making it one of the largest school districts (geographically) in the state. The school wasn’t closed until the early 1980′s though.

Unfortunately, according to the article, the building was slated for demolition the next week.  Disappointing.  Wanting to get some documentation of the building before it was lost forever, I waited for a nice day THAT week (after all demolition was slated for NEXT week right?) and headed out to Somerville.

Turned out to be a good thing I didn’t wait another day because I got there to find demolition already in progress!

[Show as slideshow]

[View with PicLens]

12►

So, I didn’t get to get any pictures of the inside at all…  I did find these interior pictures and discussion on urbanohio.com.  Personally, I think the demolition of this building really sucks.  Look around the world and you can find buildings thousands of years old.  We can’t even keep one for a hundred.

I tried to dig up more history on the school and area, but found little.   There is some discussion about the school here on darrtown.com.