I have added a paragraph about a site visit and linked in a Photo gallery.

Can I suggest that the title of this page should be Fuel Depot Mountblow and the one for Montefode - Fuel Depot Montefode as this would follow the pattern set by the AA Batteries?

The picture you have labelled as "Perimeter Wall" is problematic.  It is a sunken area beside a road above the pier. The square shape to the right is a short low tunnel blocked at the other end.  I have no idea what the purpose of these structures was but I would not describe it as a perimeter wall.

Re the naming.

The AA battery pages were amongst the first to be named, with no hindsight in place, or activation of the inbuilt Categories function. The naming convention used for them came about simply because that was what seemed be used in most of the literature I was consulting at the time.

With hindsight, I would now prefer the reverse, and have imposed that on most other subject, such as the various depots.

The grouping should take place by correct allocation of a Category tag on the subject page, and not in the general site index (the Contents Page).

In general, page titles that correspond to a reasonable plain language description of the subject are now preferred, although I don't see anything objectionable in using a group prefix where there may only be a few members - eg Regional War Room, of which there are only ever going to be three, so having them together up front seem fine and doesn't spoil the index, while ROC Posts (if they ever arrive) would be a bad idea, with 336 entries, they'd decimate the 'R' section of the Contents.

In the absence of anything else, perimeter - in the sense of the edge of the site - seemed as good as anything. The use wasn't intended in the same way as a security or boundary perimeter.

It's collaborative authoring here, so anything better's welcome.

I didn't want to elevate any descriptive name to the level of something definitive. For example, it could be a leakproof spillway, a concrete bund of sorts, or some kind of safety overflow trap, intended to catch something diverted up the tunnel mentioned in the event something blow out at the other end.

Without knowledge of the site, or knowing what might have been installed there, and now be gone, it's a bit of a toughie to have a stab at, so any thoughts are welcome, and might even solve it.

The original pipeline was built by the US Navy in WWI.  They followed the line of the Forth and CLyde Canal because it was reasonably level and the tow path could be used.  Western terminal at Old Kilpatrick on Glasgow Corporation land.  Pipeline was eight inches. Heave work done by Royal Marine Engineers.  Three sections with pumping stations at Hungryside and Castlecary.  The canal was drained at the Eastern end and a trench dug to cross it.

From Shield of Empire

PS
The pipeline was completed 9th November 1918, two before the end of the war!