An AC Pioneer: United Electric Light & Power Company [History]

84 ieee power & energy magazine may/june 20131540-7977/13/$31.00©2013IEEE

Joseph J. Cunningham

an ac pioneerUnited Electric Light & Power Company

hist

ory

IIT OFTEN APPEARS THAT EvERy-thing that could be written has been written with regard to the 1890s com-petition between alternating current (ac) and direct current (dc) electric power systems. Much is inaccurate and, unfortunately, is repeated ad infi-nitum. One factor that all writers, both popular and scholarly, overlook is that the issue was not resolved in a single event nor was it immediate. The ac sys-tems that ultimately prevailed required decades of research and development prior to universal application.

The Early DaysLeading experts, including legend-ary mathematician and electrical engineer Charles Steinmetz, believed ac distribution to be impractical in urban areas of dense load concentra-tion. Their reasons included the lack of battery reserve, poor voltage regu-lation, the inefficiency of ac motors, and the limited understanding of reac-tive power management and related ac phenomena.

Others believed those obstacles could be resolved. The United Electric Light and Power Company of New york (United) was destined to be a foremost leader in the adoption of ac for urban loads. Founded in 1887 as the Safety Electric Light and Power Company (Safety Electric), the company was approached by George Westinghouse, the nation’s most dedicated proponent of ac development. His Westinghouse

Electric and Manufacturing Company of East Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, held patents critical to the commercial development of ac, the transformer pat-ent of William Stanley, and also the polyphase system and induction motor

patents of Nikola Tesla. Westinghouse also had rights to significant European patents.

Safety Electric management, uncer-tain of a system considered impracti-cal by many, expressed skepticism but

Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MPE.2013.2245589

Date of publication: 17 April 2013

The competition in North America between direct current (dc) and alternating

current (ac) to determine which electric power technology would power the

coming massive residential, commercial, and industrial development largely

played out in New York City. Thomas Edison entered the arena in 1882 with his

well-known pioneering Pearl Street dc central generating station and the first

electric utility service area. By the late 1880s, ac electric power systems, cham-

pioned by the industrialist George Westinghouse, began to appear.

Most accounts (including two that I have written) focus on the advances made

by both dc and ac systems during the 1880s and 1890s and events central to the

competition in those years. These accounts then usually conclude with a short

paragraph noting that, due to its inherent advantages, ac prevailed and dc power

systems experienced inevitable decline.

This “History” column, authored by Joseph J. Cunningham, details the long,

arduous, and costly effort required before ac systems gained general acceptance

and application, thereby supplanting dc for the provision of electric utility service.

This article marks Joseph J. Cunningham’s fifth contribution to these pages.

Cunningham’s interest in electric power systems dates to his youth when his high

school science project, “The Theory and Operation of Alternating Current,” was

awarded a first place gold medal. This success led to a scholarship for the study of

physics in college. He has researched and authored numerous booklets, articles,

and books on topics such as industrial electrification, electric utility power sys-

tems, and electric rail transportation. In 1976, he coauthored a definitive three-

volume History of the New York City Subway System. He has also lectured and

taught widely on the history of electrotechnology and has consulted on numer-

ous history projects and television productions.

We welcome Joseph Cunningham back as our guest history author for this

issue of the IEEE Power & Energy Magazine.

—Carl Sulzberger Associate Editor, History

86 ieee power & energy magazine may/june 2013

licensed a Westinghouse system. Reor-ganized under Westinghouse control, it took the United name on 9 December 1889 and was merged with the United States Illuminating Company (USI), an arc light firm with significant fran-chises and corporate connections. Over time, the most important USI contri-bution was Frank W. Smith, a man-ager who had started as a 12-year-old office boy in 1880. United initially installed a Westinghouse 1,000-v, 133-Hz, single-phase lighting system in lower Manhattan. Each customer was supplied through a transformer con-nected to overhead lines. Despite the inefficiency of many small distribution transformers, the company persevered.

Following the forced removal of overhead lines, by 1895 United had leased a total of 135 mi (217.3 km) of underground ducts throughout Man-hattan in a bold display of confidence in the future of ac distribution. Custom-ers were limited to the area below 59th Street, but major technical change came with adoption of the Westinghouse two-phase system to supply 60-Hz power for motors as well as lights. The power was generated by a pair of 1,500-kW alternators installed in a reconstructed arc light plant on 29th Street at the East River. These machines had been rebuilt after removal from the 1893 Colum-bian Exposition in Chicago, the site of the first large-scale Westinghouse installation.

As United sought to expand the market, the East 29th Street property was enlarged into a full-scale power plant that measured 197 ft (60 m) × 160 ft (48.8 m), one of the largest of that era. At that time, the majority of United customers were located along the waterfront areas as the Edison Electric Illuminating Company had focused on the central portion of the island. Arc lamp illumination of streets remained a major business as well, and United acquired the Brush Electric Company in 1892. By 1895, United’s revenue totaled US$500,000 annually.

New, direct-connected alternators (claimed to be the first without belt drive) went into operation at 29th

Street in 1896 as lines were extended northward. On 26 December 1899, United lines reached the northern end of Manhattan to supply a customer on Dyckman Street. Company leadership aggressively pursued new approaches to the extent of the exploration of a steam turbine as a prime mover for alternators. A Westinghouse-Parsons unit was ordered but never installed, possibly because of impending corpo-rate change. It was installed instead at a plant in Hartford, Connecticut. Electric franchises in and around New york City had been acquired by utility magnate Anthony N. Brady to achieve the economy of large-scale operation, a reorganization that established a new role for United.

United Established as a Leader As United came under the control of the Consolidated Gas Company in 1900, Brady’s plan placed operational and technical decisions under the gifted engineer and inventor Thomas E. Mur-ray. Smith continued to rise through the ranks of United management and became Murray’s associate in devel-opment plans. Smith shared Westing-house’s belief in the ultimate superiority of ac, and he believed that United would be the keystone of 60-Hz ac systems in New york City. Unlike other Manhat-tan franchises, it was not merged into the Edison Company although it shared property and facilities.

In 1906, Electrical World maga-zine remarked upon the success of United in a variety of areas. A record industrial ac load included 174 motors in the National Biscuit Company plant on the lower west side. Midtown customers often used huge lighted signs, and the largest was the ani-mated Heatherbloom Petticoat “Silk’s

Only Rival” sign with 1,837 lamps that depicted a girl in a storm, her skirts battered by wind and rain. Mounted upon a 55-ft (16.8-m) wide frame were the outlines of a 70-ft (21.4-m) tall skirt with a 50-ft (15.2-m) wide bloom; the shoes measured 12 ft (3.7 m) long with 3-ft (0.91-m) buckles.

United sought residential custom-ers with newspaper ads backed by billboards and banner signs at major street intersections. Small merchants were provided with free electric signs. The signs were expensive, with mul-tiple sockets and ornate metal scroll work detail, but the cost was recovered through increased power consumption. Market surveys had determined that those merchants would not otherwise have installed electric signs. A free planning kit and promotional booklet titled “Lights and Shadows” was dis-tributed to customers, architects, con-tractors, and realtors.

As forecast load surpassed the capacity of the 29th Street power sta-tion, additional power was made available through frequency and phase-changing motor-alternator sets that received 25-Hz, three-phase power from the New york Edison Water-side station. The city took title to the 29th Street site for the construction of Bellevue Hospital in 1907, which made United dependent on Waterside power. A pair of 16-MW, 60-Hz, two-phase alternators were installed in Waterside as a dedicated supply. The frequency and phase-changing motor alterna-tor sets were relocated to New york Edison substations and connected to available United feeders.

A new United power station had been scheduled two years prior, but various issues delayed construction. In late 1913, United opened a mod-ern power station at 201st Street on an inlet of the Harlem River named Sherman Creek. That location was selected in recognition of the north-ward shift of the United system load center, a move depicted in an Elec-trical World comparison of statistics from 1909 and 1913, as shown in Table 1.

table 1. Load statistics.

Load Location 1909 1913

South of 59th St. 45.86% 32.66%

59th–135th St. 21.49% 20.22%

Above 135th St. 32.65% 47.12%


Sherman Creek supplied power not only to United cus-tomers and those of affiliated Consolidat- ed Gas companies as far as 30 mi (48.3 km) away, but also through contract to the New york, New Haven, and Hartford Railroad for which dedicated 25-Hz alternators were installed. Sys-tem supervision remained at the Edison Waterside station, apparently transferred there upon closure of the 29th Street plant.

Distribution IssuesThe first 60-Hz, two-phase system of 1895 connected 2,300-v feeders from 29th Street to primary distribution points from which lines radiated to the individual transformers that supplied single-phase “lighting” power and two-phase power for motors. When Sherman Creek opened, new 7,500-v (described as 7,800 v at the plant bus) three-phase lines connected to substations in which T connected Scott transformers pro-vided the 2,300-v, two-phase power to

the primary distribu-tion points from which the lines radiated. Thus, new transmis-sion lines and substa-tions were overlaid on an existing system.

The substations were located along the length of Manhat-tan, one in a company garage and warehouse

on West 146th Street and two others in former arc light plants on West 24th Street and Elizabeth Street. New com-pact structures designed to fit city lots were erected on 187th, West 97th, and West 45th Streets (see Figure 1). The Elizabeth Street property was subse-quently rebuilt to the new standard. All substations were attended as dis-tribution regulation was their prime function, that being obtained by feeder switches to balance transformer loads. Synchronous condensers were used when needed to supply reactive power and stabilize power factor.

West 187th Street was the largest substation as it supplied all of north-ern Manhattan. West 45th Street car-ried a late evening peak demand from

theaters and advertising signs. Eliza-beth Street showed a late afternoon industrial peak, while the others expe-rienced the early evening peak com-mon to residential neighborhoods. In most cases, multiple routes were used for as many as four feeder sets to pro-tect against outages.

As United continued to expand, the distribution system became more com-plex. United engineers worked closely with those of Westinghouse to evolve a simpler system since what was in place could not be extended indefinitely. By 1920 there were a total of 70 area distri-bution points, with each supplied over a dedicated feeder from a substation and interconnected by “manhole” switches to enable a fault to be bypassed. A total of 250 such interconnecting switches were in place. Although this was ade-quate for the United system, which then supplied about 10% of the utility power distributed on Manhattan island, the scheme was by no means a replace-ment for the New york Edison dc dis-tribution system.

Extensive DevelopmentUnited continued to add customers while new products were promoted in United Service, a monthly maga-zine with color covers and inserts sent to United customers (see Figure 2). Selected appliances were offered at a discount. Illustrated articles detailed dozens of new industrial, commercial, and residential customers from the lower west and east sides and modern luxury apartments on the upper west side and in northern Manhattan. For some, ac power possessed a definite advantage. One was the Erbograph Company on West 146th Street, a manufacturer of movie film. The pro-cess at that time carried a high risk of explosion, so the sparkless ac induc-tion motor was an attractive option that United promoted vigorously in its industrial advertising.

During the 1920s, United con-ducted a number of advertising cam-paigns in New york City’s daily morning and evening newspapers. Each campaign included a series of

figure 1. The control room of the compact substation built by United in 1915 and located at 345 West 45th Street. A synchronous condenser is shown in the lower right foreground. (Photo courtesy of Electrical World, 5 February 1916, p. 313.)

As United continued to expand, the distribution system became more complex.


advertisements promoting a particular theme. Figures 3–5 show representa-tive advertisements published during three such advertising campaigns.

The sign business continued to grow as new multicolor animated signs appeared. The Wrigley’s gum sign was considered the world’s greatest with 15,000 lamps and changing colors. It was a full block in length, stood 34 ft

(10.4 m) high, and spelled out three product lines alternately: “Spearmint,” “Doublemint,” and “Juicy Fruit.” Pub-lic monuments supplied by United included Grant’s Tomb in Riverside Park. United also provided back-up lighting power for the tunnels of the Interborough subway with circuits isolated from the transit company’s power system.

Displays at the annual electric show hammered the theme of the efficiency of ac equipment with “United Alter-nating Current Service” spelled out in lights. Billboards announced that modern ac appliances “Save Work; Preserve youth” with bright illustra-tions of new appliances wielded joy-fully by a young lady. Electric clocks developed by the Warren Self Winding Clock Company were promoted with a 10-ft (3.4-m) diameter outdoor clock on the 146th Street office of United. The clock kept perfect time, regulated by the alternators at the power station. Those in turn were regulated by a mas-ter clock set by telegraph signal from the U.S. Naval Observatory.

United Superpower Superpower was a buzzword of the day, describing systems that supplied a large region rather than just a city. A second station, Hell Gate, located in the Bronx opened in November 1921 and brought United full status as a superpower system as it supplied power to affiliated companies in the Bronx, Queens, and Westchester (see Figure 6). Small plants of low effi-ciency in those areas were retired. For a time, Hell Gate held the status of the world’s most powerful steam-operated power station.

United sales for April 1922 tell a remarkable story. The incom-plete Hell Gate station, built at a cost of US$18 million, sup-plied 40 million kWh with a peak load of 103.5 MW. The older Sherman Creek station, which cost US$6 million in pre-WWI dollars, sup-plied 33.5 million kWh with a peak load of 94 MW for a total of almost 200 MW peak load with total sales of 73.5 million kWh. That was a stu-pendous achievement for a relatively small company confined to an island with only 82,150 customers, 56,277 of which were primarily residential in northern Manhattan. Moreover, it distributed only 60-Hz ac in a totally urban environment, a unique achieve-ment as the concept still sought full acceptance in the utility industry.

figure 2. An advertisement published in United Service magazine during 1917 that promoted industrial and commercial ac motors.


(a) (b)

figure 4. (a) and (b) Two of a series of 20 advertisements promoting electrical appliances that offered “summer comforts.” These advertisements appeared in New York City evening newspapers during July and August 1920. (Images courtesy of Electrical World, 24 July 1920, p. 197.)

(a) (b)

figure 3. (a) and (b) Two of a series of 27 advertisements promoting the affordability and benefits of residential electric service that were published in New York City daily newspapers during March, April, and May 1920. (Images courtesy of Electrical World, 3 April 1920, p. 796.)


By 1922, United distributed 15% of the metered utility power consumed on Manhattan Island, and the balance was dc from New york Edison Com-pany substations in its franchise area south of 135th Street. Utilities across the nation had pursued improved ac distribution as the investment in dc substations and the cables required by the heavy currents of 120/240-v dc distribution soared. A variety of ac distribution schemes were developed but all had limitations that prevented standardization. United operated only

(a) (b)

figure 5. (a) and (b) Two of a series of 25 advertisements promoting adequate house wiring that were published in New York City morning newspapers during the spring of 1921. (Images courtesy of Electrical World, 4 June 1921, p. 1326.)

figure 6. An artist’s drawing of the Hell Gate generating station, circa 1922. (Image courtesy of T.E. Murray, Power Stations, 1922, p. 83.)

in urban territory and thus took the lead in the perfection of ac distribution.

Distribution Revolution: The United Automatic NetworkThe goal was a reliable system with reduced installation and operational costs that did not “saturate” neighborhoods with ducts and manholes. Though radial feeders worked well with loads up to 300 kvA, nonuniform loads prevented the operation of distribution transformers at the design load, which increased reactive power and reduced power factor. In the event of an outage, the hand-operated manhole switches produced lengthy delays of up to 30 minutes or more as crews had to reach the manhole before the fault could be isolated and bypassed. Reli-ability could be improved only through the use of duplicate feeders, a costly and inefficient method at best.

The interconnection of distribution lines in a network was deemed the most practical resolution and for that a set of what were called “essentials” was determined. A network had to be of practical (limited) size, adequate for peak load and reasonable future growth, with transformers spaced reasonably, and with voltage regulation equal to that of dc distribution. If substations were to be retained, the feeder voltage to the area transformers would have to be as high as practical.

After those requirements were met, what were termed “desir-able” goals were set: lower first cost, with the flexibility to supplant any dc system with greater reliability. (The allegedly perfected dc systems in major cities had started to fail to such an extent that failure had been the subject of a national conference.) An ac net-work would have to maximize simplicity in terms of numbers of ducts, feeders, and junction box components. The long-term goal was to supplant the ac substation with an automatic network at a lower cost than the cumbersome dc distribution system.

An ac network would be three phase as new theorems (Fortescue and Clarke) made the balancing of single-phase loads on three-phase systems practical. The ideal operating volt-age had to be determined. United had reportedly used, in some locations, a three-wire, two-phase system that supplied 110 v for lighting and 191 v for motors, later 115 v and 199 v, respec-tively. Westinghouse engineers reviewed the use of 115/199 v, 120/208 v, or 125/216 v. It was determined that lighting was best above 115 v while motors operated best below 220 v, as the slight increase in load current reduced the relative percentage of reactive power to improve power factor and reduce heat. The present standard of 120/208 v, three-phase was thus selected.

To assure continuity (reliability) equal to dc required that a network permit rapid restoration by allowing low-voltage sec-ondary faults to “burn clear” without a shutdown and, if neces-sary, isolation of a high-voltage feeder without compromise to the rest of the system. Automatic reclosure of protective relays had to be limited to prevent “pumping“ (repeated cycling open and closed) when a fault was not cleared.

In 1922 United developed the “New york (or United) auto-matic network” after ten years of effort. It mandated a single set of mains for both power and light with voltage regulation

CAPESoftwarefor Protection Engineering

CAPE’s more accurate protection system modeling helps you fi nd lurking misoperations that other products can’t. CAPE is the only protection software detailed enough to support comprehensive wide area protection coordination reviews.

CAPE has the world’s largest library of detailed, manufacturer-specifi c relay styles. And CAPE’s many shortcuts and productivity features make all that detail manageable. Plus your investment in CAPE keeps getting better, with ongoing, responsive software development.

Try the CAPE 60-day demo. We can help you convert your existing protection database to CAPE. It’s a great way to take a better look at your protection system.

www.electrocon.com1-734-761-8612 • 1-888-240-4044 (U.S. only)

[email protected]


such that the starting of motors did not impact lighting. It was fully compatible with components on the market and was compatible with the high primary transmission voltage of the power sta-tions to allow future elimination of ac substations. It interlaced primaries and was designed to “burn off” secondary faults without compromise to the sys-tem. Single conductor cables ensured that most faults would be to ground and thus “burn off’ with less damage than phase-to-phase faults. Intended to maximize continuity, automatic net-work protection prevented “pumping.”

The ideal component location was a building vault that did not require expensive submersible transformers. If that was not practical, a sidewalk manhole location was preferred to the street to improve access and reduce the impact of traffic. Transformers would be located according to anticipated load centers unless the location was at an intersection where multiple access

paths would be a priority. The latter anticipated the future connection of networks to the high-voltage primary power station lines without substations.

“Moment of Truth”The first test installation was located to support a residential load adjacent to the West 97th Street substation. Rated at 300 kW, four transformer locations sup-plied apartment buildings containing 15 elevators. voltage regulation allowed for a maximum variation of ±3% and no visible change of incandescent lights upon the start of motors. Load balance could be adjusted by isolation of a trans-former when load was reduced. Trans-former impedance was set at 8.7% to assure an equal load on each.

The moment of truth came on 12 April 1922 when the new system was cut over in place of a radial system. Any attempt to accomplish so much held the possibility of unanticipated prob-lems, but the engineers of United and

Westinghouse had planned well. Precise logs of all events through April 1923 revealed no major difficulties, with most incidents being attributable to compo-nent problems. The only major change was an increase in transformer imped-ance to 10%. Both past and recent his-tories document that network as the first fully successful ac automatic secondary distribution network, the one that set the standard for all that followed.

The network was installed rapidly throughout the system. Substation feed-ers to distribution transformers were increased to 3,000 v prior to 1922, most likely around the time the transmission voltage of 7,500 v was increased to 13,200 v (13,800 v in some reports). Networks had then to accommodate both substation feeders (2,300 and 3,000 v) and also 13-kv power station transmission lines. A subsequent devel-opment was the “spot” network for large institutional users and tall structures. As network installation expanded, it slowed

REAL TIME DIGITAL SIMULATION FOR THE POWER INDUSTRY

New developments in protection and control for the RTDS Simulator:• Synchronizing the simulation timestep to GPS clock (1PPS, IEEE 1588, IRIG-B) for testing PMU devices• Streaming IEEE C37.118 data from simulated PMU devices to the outside world• Testing of digital substations with IEC 61850 GOOSE and Sampled Values• Performing protection testing with a combination of both physical and simulated protection deviceswww.rtds.com

Is your system up to the test?

may/june 2013 ieee power & energy magazine 97

and then reversed expansion of the complex radial feeder sys-tem of United, which had reached 2,000 mi (3,219 km) of cable by 1922.

The goal of the direct connection of networks to power sta-tions without substations was accomplished in 1926. As net-works were installed, three phase soon predominated with 65 MW of United’s 83 MW of distribution converted by 1928, a year pivotal in the long history of the ac revolution.

United’s VictoryPower companies across the United States had begun replace-ment of dc distribution by the early 1920s, some with ac radial feeders and others with various ac network concepts. Electrical World projected, in 1923, that only Boston, New york, Chicago, and Philadelphia would retain dc in the downtown areas. The lat-ter two cities began plans for a “changeover” (as the process was termed) later that year. New york Edison continued to extend the dc system until it reached a total of 41 substations with 282 rotary converters in 1928. Plans were underway for additional substa-tions even as long-time dc proponent John Lieb acknowledged, at the dedication of the New york Edison East River (25 Hz) station in 1926, that a change to 60-Hz ac was on the horizon.

Matthew S. Sloan, upon becoming president of New york Edi-son, sought standardization. After an extensive review of the dc distribution, commenced in 1927, the results were announced on 20 November 1928. With the words “In light of the reliability, economy, and efficiency of the automatic A.C. network perfected by the United Company, there is no justification for continued extension of D.C. service,” Sloan issued a series of orders to retire dc service at company expense.

The competition was ended; the controversy silenced; the issue settled. Thirty-five years after the celebrated events at the Chicago Exposition of 1893 and the subsequent installation at Niagara Falls, ac had become the dominant system foreseen by Westinghouse, Smith, and the others. That victory came about not with great machines or stupendous structures but through the ingenious application of relays hidden in underground vaults and manholes.

Ironically, the very name United Electric Light and Power Company, the pioneer that achieved the success some believed to be impossible, has been long forgotten. The changeover at New york Edison was long, and the last dc utility entrance and meter were retired on 14 November 2007. Sloan had projected a period of 35–45 years to complete the changeover of all cus-tomers as the estimate of installed investment in dc customers’ property was US$100 million in 1928 dollars. To assist the changeover, United and New york Edison merged their techni-cal departments in 1932. Three years later United was merged into New york Edison by transfer of stock, and the 46-year-old company ceased to exist. The merged corporation, New york Edison Company, Inc. merged with parent Consolidated Gas Company in 1936 to become Consolidated Edison Com-pany of New york, Inc. (Con Edison). Later authors referred to the innovation as “the New york Edison network,” apparently unaware of the role of United. More recent technical papers,

Whether a network application is run for systemcontrol, market operation (e.g., LMP), or planningstudies, certain parts of the external and internalnetworks need reduced power flow modeling.

Such applications are severely compromised byinaccurate and ill-conditioned model reductions.

MODELEX is a unique analytical tool that:• Is expressly designed to help engineers derivereduced power flow models that are accurate,well-conditioned, and computationally small.

• Automates the most time-consuming parts ofthe processes of designing, validating, androutinely updating such models.

• Is available as a package with or without Nex-ant network-modeling consulting services.

MODELEX addresses key issues such as:• What parts of an overall interconnected sys-tem need to be modeled?

• How accurately do individual external injec-tions and statuses need to be modeled?

• What are the data exchange requirementsbetween external and internal systems?

• What parts of a system can be replaced bya reduced model; which equivalents workbest?

• How to avoid models with unrealistic,convergence-inhibiting, state-dependentimpedances and poor reactive responses?

Why MODELEX is used by major utilitycompanies throughout North America

Grid Management

[email protected] (415) 369-1197

MODELEX®

Good network applications needgood network models

IEEE 2011-09-22:Layout 1 11/29/2012 9:42 AM Page 1


however, give credit where it is due, to that small company that defied con-ventional wisdom to turn a goal into a reality.

EpilogueThis article came about after com-ments and questions that followed publication of my previous article; “Architect of Power: Thomas E. Murray & New york’s Electrical Sys-tem,” which cited United extensively. I realized that United itself is another piece of lost history. Having lived in prime United territory during my high school and college years, I had never heard of the company although I do recall a United logo on a meter panel. If I thought about it at all, I probably assumed it referred to a contractor or component supplier.

While doing research in the 1990s, I again encountered the name but knew lit-tle of it. Old articles and company reports

revealed the long-forgotten primacy of the role of United in power distribution. Articles in Electrical World lavished praise upon United, while a masterpiece article by H. Richter in the August 1925 issue of Electric Journal helped unravel the Gordian knot that was the mystery of network evolution. Questions remain however. There are references to looped-through feeders but where is uncertain. References also mention 4,160-v feeders but details are few.

United supplied the Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in 1928 by connection to both the 146th Street and the 187th Street substations as a protection against complete outage. It would appear that 146th Street was supplied from Hell Gate, while 187th Street remained on Sherman Creek lines, presumably with transmission lines between both plants. Again details are minimal. In 1938, flood waters shut down the boilers at Hell Gate to black

out major portions of the Bronx and Westchester plus former New york Edison dc territory in Manhattan. This flooding did not interrupt power to northern Manhattan and older sections of former United terri-tory, which appear to have been sup-plied primarily by Sherman Creek. In later years after the merged syst ems were integrated fully, Hell Gate supplied for-mer Edison dc terri-tory directly. On 17 August 1959, a Hell Gate feeder failure shut down Manhat-tan from the south side of 110th Street to 59th on the west but only to 86th Street on the east.

While much has been lost or forgotten

in the years since United ceased to oper-ate under its own name, I was rewarded a few years ago with a casual com-ment from a long-retired Con Edison employee. In recounting his first days on the job at Sherman Creek around 1946, he referred to the old timers then who had been there at the beginning as “the United guys.” Someone actually knew! Hopefully this story will shed a little light on the labyrinthine story of electric power development and the contributions of those unknown “radi-cals” who believed in ac distribution for all loads even in cities with dense load concentration.

For Further Reading “Alternating current supply in New york City: I,” Elect. World, vol. 63, no. 6, pp. 307–311, Feb. 1914.

“Alternating current supply in New york City: II,” Elect. World, vol. 63, no. 7, pp. 365–369, Feb. 1914.

“A compact alternating-current city substation,” Elect. World, vol. 67, no. 6, pp. 313–317, Feb. 1916.

R. W. Lobenstein and C. L. Sulz-berger, “Eyewitness to dc history: The first and last days of dc service in New york City,” IEEE Power Energy Mag., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 84–90, May–June 2008.

A. H. Kehoe, ”Underground alter-nating-current network distribution for central station systems,” AIEE Trans., vol. 43, pp. 844–853, discussion pp. 869–875, June 1924.

H. Richter, “Evolution of the ac network system,” Elect. J., vol. 22, pp. 320–336, July 1925.

F. W. Smith, “Development of an al-ternating current system,” Elect. World, vol. 80, no. 11, pp. 555–557, Sept. 1922.

“Changing from 7,800 to 13,200 volts,” Elect. World, vol. 81, no. 13, pp. 755–756, Mar. 1923.

F. W. Smith, “Alternating current in New york,” Elect. World, vol. 81, no. 21, pp. 1196–1198, May 1923.

J. J. Cunningham, “Architect of power: Thomas E. Murray and New york’s electrical system,” IEEE Power Energy Mag., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 80–94, Mar.–Apr. 2012.

p&e

Documents

An AC Pioneer: United Electric Light & Power Company [History]