User Tools

Site Tools


sulphur

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision
Previous revision
Last revisionBoth sides next revision
sulphur [2021/08/21 17:44] therbligsulphur [2021/08/21 18:30] therblig
Line 23: Line 23:
  
 The canal still exists, but is cut by cross-fill at a number of points for roads, so it is now a series of long sloughs rather than a working canal. It runs east-west, oddly enough, from where the Union Sulphur Works were (a region now filled with other mining and petroleum facilities) to the Sabine River to the west. The Sabine itself is enlarged in several passages until it is of a size for barge traffic, through Sabine Lake, to the Gulf, near Port Arthur, Texas. It is not clear why Union Sulphur took this extremely long route compared to the 4-5 miles to Lake Charles, which already had barge-scale connections to the Gulf. A study of the history of the era and when canals were dug and extended would probably provide an answer. It may have been as simple as right-of-way. The canal still exists, but is cut by cross-fill at a number of points for roads, so it is now a series of long sloughs rather than a working canal. It runs east-west, oddly enough, from where the Union Sulphur Works were (a region now filled with other mining and petroleum facilities) to the Sabine River to the west. The Sabine itself is enlarged in several passages until it is of a size for barge traffic, through Sabine Lake, to the Gulf, near Port Arthur, Texas. It is not clear why Union Sulphur took this extremely long route compared to the 4-5 miles to Lake Charles, which already had barge-scale connections to the Gulf. A study of the history of the era and when canals were dug and extended would probably provide an answer. It may have been as simple as right-of-way.
 +
 +**UPDATE:** The 1908 //Moody's// article linked below was just found, and pleasantly confirms nearly all my careful guesses about the history of this project. It claims FBG was paid in full for the project despite Union Sulphur having them abandon it.
 +
 +**UPDATE**: The presence of what are evidently Army Corps of Engineers is explained in the //Moody's// and //Motor Boat// articles; it would seem that FBG called on the US government to survey their path to the start of dredging and possibly the route of the canal, since it probably lies on public lands or rights-of-way. That both articles specify the canal length to the absurdly precise sixteen and one-fifth miles speaks to the presence of master surveyors.
  
 ==== FBG Provenance ==== ==== FBG Provenance ====
Line 35: Line 39:
   * //Railroad Gazette//, 3 Nov 1905:   * //Railroad Gazette//, 3 Nov 1905:
 {{ :fbg-sulphur-canal-railroad-gazette-3-nov-1905.jpg?direct&400 |}} {{ :fbg-sulphur-canal-railroad-gazette-3-nov-1905.jpg?direct&400 |}}
 +
 +  * //The Motor Boat//, 10 Apr 1906:
 +{{ :fbg-sulphur-canal-account-the-motor-boat-10-apr-1906-p34.jpg?direct&300 |}}
  
   * //Engineering Digest//, Jun 1908:   * //Engineering Digest//, Jun 1908:
-{{ ::fbg-multiple-job-list-ed-jun-1908.jpg?direct&400 |}}+{{ :fbg-multiple-job-list-ed-jun-1908.jpg?direct&400 |}}
  
   * //System// ad, Nov 1907; image notes may indicate 29 Jan 1906:   * //System// ad, Nov 1907; image notes may indicate 29 Jan 1906:
sulphur.txt · Last modified: 2021/08/21 18:31 by therblig

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki