A Note on Lock Numbering

Since I am a photographer and not an historian, I didn't know much about the numbering of the locks when I decided to put this site together. I had always kind of accepted as gospel the numbering used by Gard & Vodrey in THE SANDY AND BEAVER CANAL. So I decided to use their numbering system for the sake of tradition, and because I didn't have a good reason not to do so.

But a problem soon developed. A big problem in the nature of a lock that Gard and Vodrey didn't mention. A lock that I could see with my very own eyes. Well, if the truth be told it was more of a lock remnant, but an undeniable lock remnant. It was the length of a lock, the width of a lock, and it was lined with stone. This problem was located between Dam 19 and Lock 55. Read Gard and Vodrey for yourself. There's not supposed to be a lock there. BUT, in the 1854 auction of the parcels of the Sandy and Beaver Canal, published in The Ohio Patriot Newspaper of New Lisbon, and compiled by Baird Stewart (a copy of which came to me in an Ebay auction), there is this:

"Parcel No. 1 - Begins where the canal leaves Pennsylvania. It contains locks number fifty-four and fifty-five. Appraised at $50.00."

"Parcel No. 2 - Includes dam number nineteen and it's guard lock. Appraised at $50.00."

Did you catch that? Going upstream, Parcel No. 1 contains Locks 55 & 54. Then comes Parcel No. 2 and Dam 19. Uhh. There are two locks, in Ohio, downstream of Dam 19. Yes there are. But if Lock 54 is downstream of Dam 19, that changes the numbering on several other locks. But Lock 54 is there, so this is the numbering system I will use for this website. Though where the numbering is different, I will place Gard and Vodrey's numbering in parenthesis, for instance: Lock 53 (G&V Lock 54).

There are other numbering problems involving Lock 22 and the locks in Furnace Hollow that I will cover in their respective sections.

Many thanks to Doug Bacso for his help with this and his patience in answering my many questions.