Building a Tower; the Kingston Water Works
By Henk Wevers
A private water works company, chartered in 1849, gave high hopes to the citizens of the Town of Kingston, but it never performed adequately despite lofty words from politicians and stakeholders. Its history gives us a peek into the greedy, muddled and frustrating maneuvering by prominent citizens and members of Council, in the Victorian age of enlightenment in Upper Canada.
The provision of water before the founding of one of the first privately funded water works in United Canada was a haphazard arrangement. Most households would have a simple rainwater catchment system with barrels at the outside of the house and a primitive limestone cistern inside, below the first floor of the house. Rainwater would be used for washing clothes; if a dug well was available it might be used for general household activities, while carted water from the lake, having a higher “quality” would be for cooking and consumption. Carters would deliver about two buckets per person per day.  It would be relative expensive for the working class. The well-to-do would have a dug well where servants would find plenty of water albeit very hard from dissolved calcium and magnesium carbonate, in the limestone, and frequently contaminated with bacteria. The latter, however, would not have been known to exist at the time.
While Council had discussed the provision of piped water to those who could afford it, following the example of a limited service in Montreal and Toronto, they merely approved, in 1842, the erection of two water pumps at the foot of Gore Street at the harbour’s edge. Carters needed to buy tickets at one penny per “puncheon”, about 84 gallons, or close to 400 liters. The carter’s water tank was a large wooden barrel holding about four “puncheons”.  A “Water Bailiff” supervised the drawing of water. This primitive system served Kingston at the time it was the capital of United Canada, from 1841-43. Later, in 1848 these “useless pumps” were replaced by two, presumably, larger pumps that filled a reservoir at the foot of Maitland Street. These pumps were steam driven and the bailiff would be present to maintain the volume of water in the reservoir, prevent it from being polluted, and attend the steam engine.  The Maitland site at the edge of the town was deemed cleaner than the downtown location; it was near the site of the private Kingston Water Works Company that was shortly after given its charter by the parliament of United Canada. Council mandated that all carters in the city must draw water from this reservoir for all purposes except fighting fires, making mortar, and manufacturing goods. This measure not only brought some money into the city coffers from the licensing, but was also an attempt to secure some minimal standard of water quality; at least the reservoir could be kept free of garbage and dead animals. The carters might have used a primitive cloth filter over the funnel that channeled the water into their barrels. Filtering through sand and chlorination would come later in the early 1900s.  Households buying the carted water by the bucket might use some homemade filter while pouring the water in a jug, pail or similar container in the kitchen. It was known by some that boiling would make it more wholesome.
Figure 1. An example of a water carter in 1841.  the jolly impression is likely false; carting water was hard and routine work. The carters in Kingston would have had similar conveyances for delivering water to the houses around the center of town. In 1848 they were legislated to fill their barrels at a point near the foot of Maitland Street.
In 1849, the recently elected John A. Macdonald introduced in Parliament the bill to incorporate the City of Kingston Water Works Company; he stated that the stock in it would be a good investment. The article in the paper reporting on his statements wrote: “Two thirds of the city is now supplied with water for all household purposes by the carters – often from suspicious localities – and the other one-third from wells, which owing to the filtration through limestone, all are injurious to health – many of them brackish; whereas the Water Works Company will supply the town with pure article from the limpid Lake Ontario.”
William Ford Esquire, President of the new Kingston Water Works Company, in a toast after breaking ground at the Colbourne Street reservoir on June 15, 1850, stated proudly: “… setting forth in a very bright character the importance to the City of their (the company’s) undertaking and showing that the great part of the Stockholders had promoted and supported the undertaking not from the hope of pecuniary profit but solely for the benefit of the city.” 
The Whig in its report on that event closed the article with: “…and we have no doubt when at a future day we drink of the company’s crystal fount (sic) we will frequently recall the day when we assisted ‘to break ground’”
These words would come to haunt these men in 1887 when the private company was bought out by the City of Kingston after almost forty years of hit-and-miss operation.
Turbulent Times at the Water Works
The private company operated a low pressure walking beam steam engine on a timber foundation in a rough limestone building at the foot of West Street on the shore of Lake Ontario.  Part of that original building was retained in the later additions. The low technology engine lumbered to pump barely enough water to the Colbourne reservoir, 70 feet or above the lake level.  If there was enough water in the reservoir to keep up with evaporation and consumption, the pressure at the hydrants and in the homes near the reservoir was very low, since the difference in elevation would be minimal. Only in the more well-to-do areas downtown would the pressure be acceptable. Most important the “pure article” and the water from the “crystal fount” were in fact polluted from the solid waste and effluent that was discarded in the lake along the entire populated shore; the water intake pipe was only 200 feet long and located in relative shallow water that was severely contaminated with solids and unseen chemicals and bacteria. Citizens grumbled about the quality of the water and towards the late 1800s, suspected a link between several cholera and typhoid outbreaks the city suffered. It would take another 44 years until March 21, 1894, before citizens of the City of Kingston were provided with clean water.
Several major fires had exposed the almost complete lack of performance of the private company. The fire on January 24, 1886 that consumed the Methodist Church on Queen Street near the reservoir was the straw that broke the camel’s back. There was little water in the reservoir and since the church was close to the reservoir, the difference in elevation resulted in very low pressure at the only water hydrant nearby. The firefighters were left impotent to battle the fire and the church was completely destroyed. 
Shortly after the fire a “Special Committee on Water Works” was established by Council to bring out a report about what might have gone wrong on that fateful day, and determine what should be done to improve the water works.
Crucially, at the same time, the Canadian Fire Underwriters Association sent Alfred Perry, a consultant, to thoroughly inspect and assess Kingston’s fire protection system. He found fire protection lacking at the higher elevations of the city and suggested the need for building a 40,000 gallons reservoir, at least 65 feet above ground level on a strong stone masonry base at the location of the present reservoir. In other words: built a water tower! This, in itself was an expensive project but it also required a new main of 12 inch diameter from the pumping station at the foot of West and Ontario Street to the Colbourne site, a distance of xxx miles. The new tower would provide a pressure of at least 20 pounds per square inch, (just over one atmosphere), with the tower half full, at the hydrant located at the corner of Clergy and Queen Street near where the church had burned.  Current day pressures are about 75 pounds per square inch or about five atmospheres.  The city was also required by the Canadian Fire Underwriters Association to expand the number of hydrants to secure the growing town outside the core.
The private water works had in the meantime offered the city a deal on more hydrants, a twelve inch water main upgrade along Ontario, King, Wellington and Bagot Streets and a 55 foot iron tank with a capacity of 50,000 gallons. All of this for a high price to be paid for by the city. This proposal fell short of the Underwriter’s report; as a result the private company shortly after upped the ante with a tower that would meet the specifications of the underwriter’s report, asking an even higher price.
Over the next two years aldermen, citizens, the water works, and insurance company, debated and haggled over either meeting the demands of the company or purchase the company outright and invest in it as a publicly owned water works. On August 10, 1887, out of nineteen hundred “free holders” able to vote, almost a thousand turned out to approve of the purchase of the water works, on behalf of fifteen thousand inhabitants of the Town of Kingston. 
From Private to Public Utility
On October 1, 1887 the city took formal possession of the water works. The city took immediate action for the reorganization and upgrading of the run down water works. This evolution from private water service to public owned water works was almost universal across developed North America and was driven by the expansion of cities and towns, and the increasing concern for public health and the supply of clean water. At the same time the need for ample quantities of water for firefighting remained as important as it had been since the mid-1800s.
On December 19, 1887, the Committee on Water Works provided an estimate of costs of needed extensions to the water works.  It included the following:
20 inch suction pipe extended 200 ft into Harbour 2,500
Hyatt Filter to discharge 1,000,000 gallons daily 10,000
16 inch main pipe from Works along Ontario, Union, Wellington,Queen,
Barrie Streets to Reservoir 25,000
Steel Tower at Reservoir 30 feet diameter, 120 ft. high 18,750
Extension of Pipes 83,750
In its meeting, two months later, on February 27, 1888, the committee recorded an amended list. Note that within this latest budget, a “New Pumping Engine” was added. Other line items were rearranged and priced somewhat differently, the total stayed the same. It is obvious that the committee had realized that the old refurbished walking beam engine in its dilapidated pump house, together with a newer high pressure smaller pump that the private company had installed at the last moment, could not be relied on to serve the new expanded system. The proposal for the new bylaw was worded as follows:
The the Bylaw submitted herewith for $140,000 to improve the Works be approved of by the Council and the rate payers.
That said amount be expended as nearly as possible as follows:
Extension of Suction Pipe 2,000
Apparatus for filtering 12,500
New Steel Tower at Williamsville 21,000
New Main Pipe from Engine House to Iron Tower 38,000
New Pumping Engine 10,000
Extension of Pipe and Hydrants 56,500
On April 3, 1888, this important and costly bylaw was approved with very little opposition of those who were registered to vote. The $140,000 was raised by issuing Water Works Bonds with interest paid half yearly.
More than a year would go by for planning, designing and specification of the expansion and upgrading of the water works. With the inclusion of a new pump it must have been clear to the committee and its planners that a new pump house was also necessary. This is confirmed from the files when at a special meeting of the Committee on Water Works held on October 1, 1889, in the Engineer’s Office tenders were accepted for the building of a new Engine House. The following tenders were chosen for approval in Council. 
J.Newlands Mason Work $4,555.00
D. McEwan & Son Iron Girders 1,550.00
W. Kelvert Birch Tinsmith 800.00
Ino Davis Carpenter and Joiners work 550.00
Well-known local architect Joseph Powers designed the engine house, located at a prominent site just minutes west of City Hall. The Romanesque building was intended to impress, however the boiler room of the old water works was retained, and can still be seen at the east side of the main building. The new pump from the Osborne-Killey Company in Hamilton had a price tag of $11,000. With the tower estimated at $21,000 it appeared that building a prestigious pump house was one of the lowest costs in the budget. Labour and local building materials were relative inexpensive, while steel plate and cast iron pipe was imported from Scotland, England or Wales.
Water Towers and Standpipes
Public institutions were symbols of civic pride in the age of Victorian enlightenment. When it came to water towers it depended where their location was. If near downtown or well-to areas of a city they would also be architectural pleasing, otherwise not. One such an edifice in downtown Manhattan is the High Bridge Water Tower built in 1872. It was a truly world-class engineering and architectural showcase. It drew its water via a 41 mile aqueduct from the Croton Reservoir, stored it in a ten million gallon reservoir near the tower and pumped it up to a 47,000 gallon, tank at the top of the tower. The tower had a height of 185 feet; it served the communities of Upper Manhattan.
This construction is a true water tower and not a standpipe. The advantage of a water tower is a combination of an ample supply of water stored at a high elevation above buildings in a town or city so that water could be delivered at enough pressure for household and most industrial uses and, most importantly, for firefighting. Even when the level in the reservoir drops, the pressure at the taps and hydrants only varies a little since the remaining supply is located well above ground level.
Figure 2. The High Bridge water tower in Manhattan NY, at the right the interior spiral staircase and pipes, one for pumping the water to the 47,000 gallon tank at the top of the tower, the other to return it to the delivery system.
A much more mundane solution for storing water and providing sufficient pressure is the standpipe. If it is high enough above the buildings and hydrants it serves the pressure in the delivery pipes will be enough. However, when the water level in the standpipe drops it will proportionally affect the pressure of the water, and therefore at the taps and hydrants. This can be a problem when the hydrants and “takers” are located near the standpipe. Under those conditions it is only slightly better than a reservoir at ground level. Of course, when the volume of the standpipe is large, and the utility pumps equal amounts of water into the standpipe as is withdrawn, the level can be maintained. With that, the pressure in the delivery pipes and in the hydrants will also be sufficient. Standpipes vary in size from as little as 2.5 feet in diameter to as large as 40 feet in diameter, and from 80 feet in height to as much as 250 feet, but mostly 100-140 feet. 
At the time of building High Bridge water works, the Town of Kingston drew water from Lake Ontario and stored it in a simple dug reservoir, a small man-made pond, at a high elevation in town. The town council and its citizens were not even dreaming of a well-engineered water works; that had to wait another two decades…
When the time finally came after many years of muddling through and under threat from the fire insurance association, Kingston’s council and its consultants chose to comply with the underwriter’s demand for a “40,000 gallons reservoir, at least 65 feet above ground level on a strong stone masonry base at the location of the present reservoir.”  This was the least the town administrators could get away with. It would replace the dug reservoir at Colbourne Street in a working class area of town, and since finances were limited, it would be a modest standpipe, of 12 feet in diameter.
There are no photographs of this standpipe, but examples of other towns show what it might have looked like. Figure 4 is an early photograph of the standpipe of Albion, Michigan and one in Ainsworth Nebraska. The first one is twice as high as the structure erected on Colbourne Street at the site of the reservoir. Other dimensions and construction methods would have been the same. The second standpipe comes close to size and appearance of the one in Kingston.
Figure 3. The standpipe in Albion, Michigan. It is 12 feet in diameter and 134 feet high, built in 1889. The Kingston standpipe would have been of the same diameter but half as high, it was built in 1888. The example to the right is a standpipe built in Ainsworth, Nebraska. It is similar in size and appearance as the Kingston standpipe would have been. The windmill is no longer in use in this photo judging from its broken blades in the rotor. Windmills were often used for pumping quantities of water as long as the wind blew, of course, and they were effectively used for irrigation and household needs, especially on the great plains of the U.S. and Canada, or any windy location .
Standpipe Engineering, Design and Construction
Standpipes were not difficult to construct using wrought iron and later steel plates, usually 5 feet by 10 feet long, riveted along the short side with a 5 to 8 inch overlapping joints to form a large ring having the diameter of the tower; this was the first course. The plates could be ordered in different lengths while the width would be more standard as a result of the width of the mill they were rolled in. The first ring would be riveted to an angle iron, itself riveted to a steel plate base as in Figure 5; the base was to be “a strong masonry base” according to the underwriters report and the figure indicates how this might be achieved. After the foundation was built, the bottom was constructed and the first course was finished; another ring would be built up onto the existing one, plate by plate, and course by course to reach the required height. The riveting technique would be the same as that applied in shipbuilding. A local contractor would have had access to many skilled riveters in Kingston, it being a shipbuilding town and the location of a locomotive company. While the pipe was in progress wooden scaffolding would be framed requiring general carpenter skills. The scaffolding would have a platform with a portable forge to heat the rivets and other tools to do the riveting itself, which required two people on both sides of the plates to be joined.
Figure 4. An example of a granite and masonry foundation for a standpipe, notice the steel bottom plate and the angle iron positioned at the outside, in this example, the bottom course is made of 1and 1/32 inch thick wrought iron; the standpipe has a large 40 feet diameter. In the photo to the right the method of scaffolding is shown, note there are adjustable working platforms on the outside at the level of the inside platform to allow the riveters to work in teams of two: one to use the rivet setter and the other the rivet header to forge the closing head. 
The plates were thicker at the bottom of the standpipe than at the top, using steel plates, a better material they could be as thin as 11/16 inch in the bottom courses to 1/8 inch for the final top courses. The pressure from the stored water was of course the highest in the lower part of the standpipe that is why the plates were thicker. “Safety factors” of the structure would have been around five to ten times but even then, many failed catastrophically!  The standpipe is a tall and slender cylindrical vessel; these structures were susceptible to buckling, a phenomenon that was caused by physical instability which in turn could precipitate a sudden collapse of the standpipe if loading from a strong wind or other natural occurrences happened. The theory of elastic buckling was unknown at the time, but the accidents due to buckling ware all too common.
Figure 5. Example of buckling at the thin wall of the top section of a 140 feet high and 40 feet diameter steel standpipe under construction, caused by a gale with a wind speed of 38 miles per hour. The thinner wall, 3/8 inch, at the top vibrated and elastically buckled inwards. The day following the accident the standpipe was inspected and deemed sound, when pumped full with water, the buckled section sprung back in shape! 
The accumulation of ice in the standpipe during winter months could also have catastrophic effects because at lower temperatures, the steel, but especially the wrought iron would become brittle and could suddenly shatter or ripped to pieces by the pressure of the ice, not unlike the failure of the Titanic’s hull in 1912. The theory of low temperature induced brittleness of steel or wrought iron plates was also not fully understood at that time. 
Figure 6. An example of ice damage in a wrought iron standpipe. Note the standpipe disintegrated because the wrought iron, becoming brittle in lower temperatures, shattered when the ice built up, and its expansion pushing outwards on the wall, overloading the metal. 
“Unknown Unknowns” in Engineering
A fascinating set of letters between the Chairman of the Water Works Committee, G. J. Gildersleeve; J. D. Bolger, City Surveyor; and the consultant on the project, John McIntyre, Naval Architect & Marine Surveyor, from Montreal, shed light on the wise engineering advice that the Committee on Water Works received during the construction of the standpipe. The letters also indicate the sophisticated quality controls that already existed in the 1880s in the steel manufacturing business. These tests were developed by scientists, and used by engineers and designers to fabricate structures matching specified requirements.
In a letter dated December 19, 1888, to “G. J. Gildersleeve Esq.” McIntyre wrote: Dear Sir, Yours of 14th to hand. In reply the plates used in the Tower are all marked with the West of Scotland Steel Co. monogram, the plate name of the Works, and the Stamp of Lloyds Registry under whose inspection the material was tested. The marks are in appearance and size as per sketch, and it does not surprise me that you could not find it on the tarred plates when bare. The stampings are shown in Figure 7. 
Figure 7. The lower part of the first page of McIntyre’s letter to the chairman of the water works committee reassuring him that the steel plates were properly tested and stamped by the company and Lloyd’s Registry.
The Hallside Blochearn Works in 1888 would have been at the forefront of innovation in steel making and plate rolling; it was part of the Steel Company of Scotland. It was the second works in Great Britain to install a Siemens open hearth furnace to make steel with superior mechanical properties over wrought iron as exemplified by the approvals from the Royal Navy and Lloyds.  Siemens was a German-born engineer who, for most of his life, worked in Britain and later became a British subject. The standard test to certify the quality of the steel would have been a tensile test at room temperature to determine its yield and ultimate strength and its ductility, a measure of toughness. This might have been complemented with bending of a coupon, with or without rivet holes.
Figure 8. Bending-test coupons, the left sample shows insufficient ductility, the third coupon shows good ductility, the middle specimen has two notches machined in the top side of the coupon to determine the steel’s ductility in the presence of cracks. The figure on the right shows bending of plate samples with rivet holes. Rivet holes would have small cracks in their walls as a result of punching the hole; the bend test would reveal how this affected the ductile behavior of the steel plate. Note in the caption: “Bessemer Steel Plate.” 
But no matter how good the steel was –the Kingston water works had ordered “the best”– it could not have predicted the standpipes resistance against elastic buckling nor ductile to brittle transition at lower temperatures that normally occur during Canadian winters. The theoretical basis of both of these phenomena was not known at the time.
McIntyre had an inkling of those dangers based on standpipe failures in Canada and the US. As the Kingston standpipe was built, an engineering publication had just drawn attention to unexplained standpipe failures, some partly damaged, others suffering total collapse. He therefore made it clear to the committee that the standpipe was designed without any framing and wind bracing of the thin plates, which made him feel uncomfortable about its overall strength. He continues in this letter:
No doubt, the structure is theoretically strong enough for any stresses likely to come upon it, but my experience and also the experience of many others, of structures of this kind, would suggest I strongly recommend the use of framing which would bind the structure and strengthen it in a manner not possible by present design, but which could be added at a small cost. I cannot too strongly recommend the value of framing in a structure of this kind; it would lengthen the life considerably and possibly saves lives by it capacity to resist storms…
It is clear that the water works committee needed to address the issue of framing and to avoid any future liabilities should take the consultant’s advice seriously. In a letter, dated December 28, 1888, from McIntyre to J.D. Bolger, City Surveyor and engineer on the project, we read:
Re. The Kingston Water Tower
Yours of 26th inst. to hand and contents notes.
In reply I have every reason to believe that as far as modern science can figure, your strengths are ample, and compared with the Stand Pipes of the Continent, as given in a recent number of “Engineering”, The Kingston Tower appears stronger than any, still some towers have collapsed; and it is to prevent even the possibility of collapse I would suggest framing.
I configure, that if vertical frames are placed either inside or outside, run from top to bottom, and securely riveted to each course for plating, collapse will then be impossible; inasmuch as the stress which might cause collapse by the weakness of our course, (without frames), would with frames be distributed over several courses and thus gain sufficient strength to resist the pressure.
Figure 9. The letter shows the proposal to frame the standpipe in response to the latest engineering reports about standpipe collapse. The sudden failure of a thin-walled structure, such as a standpipe, was not theoretically understood, but the McIntyre’s letter and proposal for framing shows his intuitive understanding that the framing would make the vessel act more like an integrated structure that would prevent the elastic buckling of the thin plates. Note in the letterhead that he is a naval architect and he would have been naturally sensitive to problems in large thin walled vessels, such as ships which are subjected to many load patterns.
The standpipe was completed in 1889 and ceased operation in 1896 after only seven years, when demand for more water for the expanding city, and no doubt increased demands for fire safety, necessitated the building of a larger standpipe on higher elevation at Tower Road.  This standpipe was much larger: 80 feet high and 40 feet in diameter, with a capacity of 628,000 gallons. It served the city until 1955. On the same location a modern water tower was built that is now one of City of Kingston’s many current water towers distributing water to the vastly larger amalgamated communities of Pittsburgh and Kingston Townships, and the original City of Kingston.
 Oral communication with Gordon Robinson, Curator Pump House Steam Museum at Kingston, ON.
 Defining Pure Water, Defending Pure Space. Sanitary Boundaries in Nineteenth Century Kingston, Ontario. Colleen MacNaughton, MA thesis, May 1996. Pages xxxxx
 Ibid. City of Kingston CKP Bylaw Book, Chapter XVII, “An Act to amend the Act relating to licensed carters in the Town of Kingston”.
 Speculation by author based on best practices of that period. See also Victorian London – Publications – Social Investigation/Journalism – Sanitary Ramblings, Being Sketches and Illustrations of Bethnal Green, by Hector Gavin, 1848 at http://www.victorianlondon.org/publications/sanitary-3.htm
 The History of Water Treatment. Lenntech at http://www.lenntech.com/history-water-treatment.htm
 Victorian Water Supply Heritage Study. Volume 1, Thematic Environmental History. Final Report, 31 October, 2007. Prepared for Heritage Victoria, Australia. Page 4
 Statutes of the Province of Canada, 12 Vic., c. 158. From John S. Hagopian xxxxx and Chronicle and News, February 14, 1849. From The Old Stones of Kingston, Margaret Angus, University of Toronto Press, page 15.
 Brad Rudachyk, A Tempest in a Tea Pot, The City of Kingston and The City of Kingston Water Works Company, History 327, Mr. C. Curatis. F1059.5KS R10, April 18, 1979. Draft thesis or project report. Archives Pump House Steam Museum at Kingston, ON.
 Press clippings from the Daily British Whig, Waterworks Memories, Retirement of Mr. W. Vince, The Veteran Engineer. In the Pump House Steam Museum archive nr. 2009-02-04 Hazlet
 Units are Imperial, for a rough comparison in metric divide feet by three to get a measure in meters, multiply inch by 2.5 to change to centimeters; multiply gallons by 4.5 to change to liters, divide that by thousand to get a cubic meter of volume. Miles can be changed to kilometers by multiplying with 1.6
 The Historic Kingston Water Works’ Intake Pipe; Victorian Politics, Business, Manufacturing, and Public Health in the late 1800s. Page 7. By Henk Wevers. http://me.queensu.ca/People/Wevers/files/weversjuly2010.pdf
 The City of Kingston’s Purchase of the Kingston Water Works Company. John S. Hagopian. Essay in HIS 849, Urbanization in Canada, Dr. Gerald Tulchinsky, Department of History, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario. Page 27. Pump House Steam Museum archives.
 The City of Kingston’s Purchase of the Kingston Water Works Company. John S. Hagopian. Essay in course HIS 849, Urbanization in Canada, Dr. Gerald Tulchinsky, Department of History, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario. Page 29
 Note: water tower height and pressure are directly related, but the pressure loss in pipes to the hydrants will result in lower pressures, the longer the mains the greater the pressure loss, and the nature of the hook-ups to the hydrants affect the pressure.
 Brad Rudachyk, A Tempest in a Tea Pot, The City of Kingston and The City of Kingston Water Works Company, History 327, Mr. C. Curatis. F1059.5KS R10, April 18, 1979. Page 24. Draft thesis or project report. Archives Pump House Steam Museum at Kingston, ON.
 Ibid. Page 31
 Book 220, Committee on Water Works, Queen’s Archives, Box xxxx City collectionxxx
 Daily British Whig April 3, 1888. From, Brad Rudachyk, A Tempest in a Tea Pot, The City of Kingston and The City of Kingston Water Works Company, History 327, Mr. C. Curatis. F1059.5KS R10, April 18, 1979. Page 32. Archives Pump House Steam Museum at Kingston, ON.
 Committee on Water Works minutes, January 16, 1889. Book 221, page 31. Queen’s University Archives.
 Committee on Water Works minutes, January 16, 1889. Book 221, page 52. Queen’s University Archives.
 Hydraulic and Water-Supply Engineering, by J.T. Fanning, C.E., Tenth edition. D. Van Nostrand Company, Hew York, 1892. Pages 602a-602d
 Brad Rudachyk, A Tempest in a Tea Pot, The City of Kingston and The City of Kingston Water Works Company, History 327, Mr. C. Curatis. F1059.5KS R10, April 18, 1979. Page 23. Archives Pump House Steam Museum at Kingston, ON.
 Diameter has been calculated by the author using the volume and height specified by the underwriter’s report.
 Steel or wrought iron plates were mostly 5 feet in width; by counting the courses the height can be estimated.
 Historical Albion Michigan. Frank Passic at: http://www.albionmich.com/history/histor_notebook/101114.shtml
 The Home Made Windmills, article V, by Erwin Hinckley Barbour. The University of Nebraska, U.S. Agricultural Experiment Station of Nebraska, Vol. XI, 1899.
 Standpipe Accidents and Failures in the United States. Wm. C.Pence, C.E. New York: Engineering News Publishing Company Co. 1895. Page 58-61.
 The author used material strength figures generally available in the mid to late 1800s and the actual dimensions of standpipes to calculate these “safety factors”
 Standpipe Accidents and Failures in the United States. Wm. C.Pence, C.E. New York: Engineering News Publishing Company Co. 1895.
 Ibid. Pages 51-53.
 Experiences with Ice in Standpipes. Leonard Metcalf, Journal of American Water Works Association, Vol. 7. No. 4, July 1920, pages 579-588
 It had to wait until 1901 when the man who researched this phenomenon reported for the first time on his findings. This man, Georges A. A. Charpy, graduated from the École Polytechnique in Paris, in 1887, a year before Kingston’s standpipe was built; his name has become synonymous with modern impact testing, using a pendulum to strike a notched specimen at room temperature or cooled to well below room temperature. This test reveals if the steel might transit from ductile to brittle.
 Experiences with Ice in Standpipes. Leonard Metcalf, Journal of American Water Works Association, Vol. 7. No. 4, July 1920, pages 579-588Pages 28-36.
 Letter dated December 19, 1888. Correspondence from city engineer Bolger. City of Kingston Records, Administrative Branch, City Engineer, Water Works Department Correspondence, Box 555, Vol. 558, Archives Queen’s University at Kingston, ON. Also available at Pump House Steam Museum at Kingston.
 Personal communication through e-mail Colin Findlay, at firstname.lastname@example.org
 The Bessemer process was the first inexpensive industrial process for the mass-production of steel from molten pig iron prior to the open hearth furnace. The process is named after its inventor, Henry Bessemer, who took out a patent on the process in 1855. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bessemer_process
 A Short History of the Public Utilities Commission of the City of Kingston, ON. Frederic F.Thompson. Senior student project or thesis, Royal Military College, page 18. In the archives of Pump House Steam Museum.