Craighill Channel Upper Range Rear Light

The Craighill Channel Upper Range Rear Light is one of a pair of range lights that marks the second section of the shipping channel into Baltimore harbor.

Craighill Channel Upper Range Rear Light
Craighill Channel Upper Range Rear Light
LocationEast side of Sparrows Point on the north shore of the Patapsco River
Coordinates39°12′58.32″N 76°27′45.72″W
Year first lit1886
Automated1929
Foundationstone
Constructioniron skeleton tower
Tower shapepyramidal with square central shaft
Tower height64 feet (20 m)
Focal height22.5 metre 
CharacteristicFixed red (originally white)
Heritageplace listed on the National Register of Historic Places 
Cut-off Channel Range Rear Light Station
Nearest cityEdgemore, Maryland
Arealess than one acre
Built1886
MPSLight Stations of the United States MPS
NRHP reference No.02001423[1]
Added to NRHPDecember 02, 2002

History

This light was constructed in 1885 as part of a range light pair to mark the then newly excavated Craighill Cutoff Channel. A modest iron skeleton tower was erected, pyramidal in form with a wooden, corrugated iron-sheathed square shaft at its center to house the lamp and the access stairway. Its only architectural ornaments were a few windows to light the stairwell and a gallery to allow the outside of the light's window to be cleaned. A keeper's house was built nearby, connected to the light by a brick walk. The original light was a locomotive headlight displaying a fixed white light; this has since been replaced with a more conventional fixture displaying a red light.[2]

The grounds were (and are) surrounded by private property, and in 1888 there was a dispute over access to the light. Other than that the light has passed a quiet life, punctuated only by automation in 1929 and the demolition of the keeper's house. It is still an active aid to navigation.

gollark: The browser omnibox, I mean.
gollark: Besides, I always just type into my search bar directly.
gollark: These are basically identical functionally. And æsthetically.
gollark: ???
gollark: I'm going to be metacontrarian and say that *both* are too reductive!

References


This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.