This sprawls into buildings as well, but I thought I'd mention a wander I took along the Clyde, ending up at Dalmarnock.
I found...
Dalmarnock road bridge, which turns out to be the third over the Clyde at that point, having been preceded by two wooden bridges since 1821.
Dalmarnock rail bridge 2, which is built almost on top of Dalmarnock rail bridge 1. The first bridge is gone, apart from the impressive cast iron pillars that supported it, still surviving in full.
An ancient boatyard, beside the rail bridge, and still operating today.
Three unidentified piers west of the road bridge - these are new as in present day items from the past decade or two, but already abandoned and rotting - and there's no indication why they are there, unless they were just a good idea when the Clyde Walkway was added a few years ago.
Most interesting at the time was the wall along the river. The engineer in me smelt something interesting here, and closer examination revealed the wall was massively strong, made of steel reinforced concrete and 50 ft high at a guesstimate. When I got back and did a bit of digging I found it had to be strong, as it was holding up the former Dalmarnock Road Power Station, and stopping it from sliding into the Clyde. The whole station is now gone completely apart from this wall. Although the piers I mentioned earlier had nothing to do with it, the same spot was where the coal boats came along the Clyde to deliver to the power station.
You never know what your going to find, and I didn't even mention the Belvidere Housing development on the old hospital site.
I can't tell the direction from what little I've read, but in terms of time the station was there from 1915, and demolished 1980/81. Coal is referred to as "coal up the the river", but no source is given.
Do you remember a WW2 landing craft was found on the river bed around the flats at Dalmarnock about 8-9 years ago? I can't remember how close to he bridge it was. There was absolutely no record of it being lost, so it might just have been quietly 'disposed of' immediately postwar to save bookkeeping.
To use a well worn word, that's interesting, but I have to admit that the story is new to me, and I wasn't aware of it - but - I have a sort of 'memory hole' around that period, so would probably have missed the story then. Something may turn up.
I have to say I was rather disappointed this evening...
I have two books that cover the Clyde from a walking perspective, which one totals to about 200 miles of related paths, so they are not just a page or two. Expecting to get a little more detail around Dalmarnock, I got nothing for my efforts of digging then out, and both flew past with almost no mention. Another did have details of the Clyde bridges, and correctly noted that the Dalmarnock road bridge was the first in Glasgow to have a completely flat road surface, but singularly failed to mention either of the rail bridges located little more than a stone's throw away.
Regarding the Tidal Weir under the Pipe Bridge, I was going to say you'll be looking at around 100 years old as a guess, as it is bound to date back to Victorian engineering times, and that might be as good a guess as you will get. Then, I surprised myself by finding it on an architecture site (surprise) dating it as more than 100 years old old (honest, my guess came first), and providing some nice pics of the project too.
The exact dates turn out to be 1901 for what can be seen today, and 1852 for a weir and navigation lock that preceded it. Both intended to halt the tidal effect and prevent silting up further along the river.
I very much doubt that any coal was transported up the Clyde to Dalmarnock power station, there is no recorded use of barges on the river and there would be absolutely no need to use such to get coal to a location that was practically surrounded with railways, railways that were all connected to the nearby coalfields of Lanarkshire. Some of the pits that would have supplied Dalmarnock were literally a half hour journey away.
You may doubt it, but it's in the museum records regarding the station, and there are photographs of the jetty. It does specifically mention boats rather than barges, but that may not be significant, just generalisation. Or somebody's made... an assumption.
Today, there are three piers on the same spot, but these are modern, and must have been added as part of the Clyde Walkway construction, but there is no reference to them or their purpose in the book I have that describes the walkway. The books are pretty waffley, and worry more about where the walker walks, rather than any modern history - there's lots of stuff relating to the past of the area the walks go through, but not where the path actually runs.
They are just plain piers, and although each only separated by a few feet, are nonetheless separate, but with no obvious purpose, and, in keeping with modern "Health & Safety" requirements, are now equipped with a metal fence to deny general access to them by casual, non-climbing members of the public.
Unfortunately, although there are plenty of references to the Clyde Walkway to be found on the web, no-one has yet bothered to actually write anything of note on any of the pages such searches will take you to.
Are these the pier structures you saw ? this pic from Virtual Glasgow is circa. 1925
I'm not trying to rubbish the 'up the river' quote but as I have never came across any reference to shipping navigate as far up river as Dalmarnock I think it should be interpreted differently.As far as I know only the afore mentioned boatyard across on the Rutherglen bank - and its predecessor harbour ever used the river above the Saltmarket. The present tidal weir is the second at that point, the first was washed away in a flood.
I will get pics up later, but for now, everything is gone apart from the wall, and the bank between the bushes visible to the left, and to the right restored so that there was somewhere to put the path etc on. This is where the three modern piers have been added,
On the extreme right you vcan just make out the line of the steps leading down from the original path on the bank. The two squares like windows just above it are still there with that bit of wall. Two openings in the wall which can be seen behind the bank structures can still be seen, bricked up now.
The coal on the river story actually bears a bit of rubbishing, as the coal storage yard and conveyors feeding into the station are way over to the left.
This begs the question as to why a transfer station would be established at the point shown, and not adjacent to the coal storage yard, necessitating movement from the delivery point to storage. Could just be as simple as a conveyor belt, but it would be good if a record or pics confirming this were available, or evidence to the contrary
What we want to see is an O.S. map of the 1912/13/14'sh or 1936'sh editions. The NLS online map library only has 1897 and that was before the power station was built. If there had been a shipping channel up to Dalmarnock it would have been well recorded.
Observe railway alongside what was or almost the western boundary of the power station and out of the picture on the Rutherglen side of the water is a big marshalling yard, this line turned east and connected to Lanarkshire at Rutherglen junction.
"as the coal storage yard and conveyors feeding into the station are way over to the left." - Convenient to the rail line ........
Just had a look at the 1934 & 38 ones fox mentioned and the railway sidings ran in behind the building and terminated at Dalmarnock Road, in fact in the google image you can still see a general impression by way of a path through the scrub of where they were.
Thinking on a bit about the river, as we established the Glasgow weir at 1901 (after the gate/weir it replaced was lost) then we can assume with reasonable safety that nothing was arriving from overseas with 'cheap' coal and sailing it up the river to the station.
Dalmarnock was typical of the time c1915 and started of at less than 100 kW and ended up around 200 kW when development ceased - note the big pic from the Captain is pre-development, and minus the big chimney of the later years - so would have had a large, but not huge when compared to today's coal giants that literally needed to be built next to coal mines.
We know that the Uddingston/Blantyre area was riddles with coal mines back then, and some were right on the river, even though all evidence of them has now been erased by the eco-freaks, historical records do have use!
It doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that to ensure continuity of supply there would have been both rail and river routes for coal to the station, though it's probably safe also to assume that rail was the primary.
What I do wonder about now, having seen much of the river between Dalmarnock and the mines, is what it was like in those days, and what sort of craft would have been used for transport. Lots of small craft seems to be the most likely, for reasons of draught and maneuverability on some of the bends. The river is far from deep, and today there are small weirs and obstructions that would preclude such a route being used, though these may not have been present in the past.
I don't have any knowledge other than what can be seen today, so really am just speculating, and thinking out loud to see if anything makes sense.
I'm pretty sure that power stations - in those days anyway - used what was known as 'steaming' coal [different coals were used by different markets] and many of the local collieries would mined this type of coal [different seams were mined at different levels within in a coal pit, sometimes dozens of fathoms apart] the nearest to Dalmarnock being the Farme Colliery just down the road and Cambuslang, Carmyle, Kenmuir, Daldowie etc. etc. dozens of pits within 6 miles. It was a rail supplied facility, dual supply options were not on the agenda then, cost was everything from keeping the miners wages low to cost per ton cartage. I presume the two structures on the riverbank in the photo are water intake sluices or similar?
Interesting turn of phrase Captain. The word cartage rang a bell in my mind. I have been reading a book on the Clyde Lighthouses based on research into the minutes of the Cumbrae Lighthouse Trust. When the first coal lit lighthouse was built coal was brought from Cambuslang and payed for by the cartload rather than by weight. Presumably hence 'cartage'.
Interesting turn of phrase, Captain. I have been reading a book on the Clyde Lighthouses based on research into the minutes of the Cumbrae Lighthouse Trust. The first lighthouse was lit by a coal fire and the coal came from Cambuslang by the cart load. It was payed for in cartloads which must have been the standard practice presumably where the word 'cartage' comes from.
What on earth makes you say dual supplies were not on the agenda then? Remember I'm talking about fuel routes here, not fuel types.
This is my area, and there's no doubt that the designers would have made provision for alternate supplies if available, be that road, rail, or river. Now, how practical that may have been is another question, and they may have been plonkers and not realised that it maybe couldn't be done.
It's worth bearing in mind mind that power stations like Dalmarnock are tiny by today's standards.
Using today's numbers, where an average 500 MW station can consume 250 tons of coal per hour on load (Drax is 4 GW and consumes 36,000 tons per day), by the same rate, little Dalmarnock at 0.2 MW would consume 0.1 tons of coal per per hour. say the old design and small size was not as efficient, and multiply that by 10, and that's 1 ton per hour, or 24 tons per day.
In any event, this means that a couple of 10 ton truck or boat loads per day would keep the place going at full output every day, so it's worth bearing in mind that this (and all the other 'city' power stations of the time) didn't have the great snakes of rail trucks arriving at them on a non-stop basis, as we are used to seeing when the media shows us a modern power station of 500 MW, which is a whopping 2,500 bigger and greedier than Dalmarnock. So, shuffling that small amount from the pier to the yard - not difficult.
Now, in practical terms, I'm minded to quite like the Captain's reminder of reality, and the fact that we don't see anything that looks like cooling around the grounds of the Dalmarnock station, and the thought of the structures on the riverbank being related to cooling water inflow and outflow is something I find quite appealing, and it certainly would tie in with the two apertures in the wall I referred to above, still visible today, and visible along the top edge of the river bank structures in the big pic above too.
It would be nice if there were more detail visible, as there would have to be some sort of trap on the intake, as the Clyde is famous for things like bits of tree and other assorted rubbish that would have been carried downstream, and we can only imagine what sort of stuff other industry up river would have been throwing in there in the 'pre-environmental' days.
I suspect our 'free-thoughts' and ramblings are perhaps beginning to home in on the truth, and someone is going to have to done the 'Underpants of Power', and send RCAHMS a wee note about a possible error in their info
As a non-engineer type I bow [as always - and I'm not being sarcastic here readers as I know Apollo personally] to your technical knowledge but as ye know I'm someone who fancies themselves as a bit of a local historian, its my full time hobby and in my judgement coal could only have been delivered by rail, coal was king in the early part of the last century and so were the railways who moved it about, only a railway company could deliver coal at a competative price and, the lines running along the western side were already there before it was built [possibly a major factor - along with its river frontage for water supplies] and by your own claim of figures that you calculate whereby Dalmarnock would have only consumed 24 tons of coal per 24 hrs. begs the question of why bulk supplies would be required from river transport - and its attendant capital costs in building barges and ongoing substantial costs dredging and maintaning channels. With respect too the capacity of the power station rail sidings as shown on the 1938 map actually challenges your coal consumptions.
Built: 1915: first section of 100,000 kW capacity. 1921: second section of 40,000 kW capacity. c.1935: total capacity 200,000 kW.
The above are the correct figures from RCAHMS for the output of Dalmarnock Power Station, the ones I should have been using from the start - unfortunately the ones I picked up first had a slight problem with the decimal point, but came from one of the non-tech 'memory sites, Yes, I should have known better, but accepted what I got on the first one. I've checked others, and these numbers look right.
The bottom line is that if we take account of my X10 for the old small plant, and factor it out as the plant is in fact a decent size using the correct figures, the the actual coal consumption will be in the order of 100 times the estimate I made above. Simplify it by halving the 250 tons per hour of a modern 500 MW station, given that Dalmarnock was 200 MW.
That means it needed over 100 tons per hour when running at full output.
I've no idea how much a railway coal truck hold/held at the time, so someone else will have to have a stab at the number of trucks that meant per day/week to Dalmarnock.
Takes a while, but the brain does start working after a while, especially when spurred on by a self-confesses non-engineer smelling a rat too
(Sorry, if you saw the earlier post that prededed this one, then you didn't imagine it, it was easier to scrap it rather than edit it.)
Good points on the rail, and don't forget I'm acting (if it hasn't become obvious over the last few posts now) as Devil's Advocate for the museum's postulation of coal delivery from up river - it's looking weaker all the time.
If we go back to the big pic above, and start to zoom in as best we can, then it becomes harder to see how the riverside structures seen could be used to offload barges or boats. Apart from an indistinct opening to the left of the image, the structures are largely featureless, and have no practical opening at the level of the river.
Why they might need to be so tall, and what their purpose may be is not yet clear or obvious, but the inflow/outflow option for cooling water seems the most likely for now.
Although I haven't come across anything with the height, the intake would need filters or screens to prevent blockages and the passage of contaminants along with the cooling water taken from the river, and the height could be accounted for by a degree of automation in their operation, to keep them clear and remove collected material for disposal.
----
Irritatingly, I found a sentence from a site that want a fee for more info, but it was interesting as it appears to note another 'First'...
and in 1915 was responsible for the design of Dalmarnock Power Station, Glasgow-first in the United Kingdom to be builtwholly of reinforced concrete
The station got a new boiler in 1955, which might be the reason for the switch from a chimney farm to single biggie in its later life. One commentator noted the the chimney did not co-operate when the place was being demolished, and it took days to get it down.
The capacity of the station increased to somewhere aeound 235,000 kW, so would have been gobbling up even more coal towards the end of its life.
Still trying to hunt down the structures on the bank, I came across video of a nearby demolition in 2007...
Your figures look more likely now and would be the reason there was so much wagon capacity in the sidings. I think the structures on the riverbank may have taken river water veertically, just a guess. It must have been a brute of a demolition it all being reinforced concrete.
Believe, me, it was only when I stopped thinking about the riverbank for a while that the 'Little Grey Cells" kicked into action, and I related the output to what it could do - 'Ah near fell oaf mah excercisur' when I ran the number in 'ma hied', instead of 'properly' on paper!
Lifting vertically, assuming that any pipes followed the line of the structures would be unlikely, I think there would be a number of problems associated with doing that which make it undesirable. I've never come across such an arrangement anywhere I've worked. The collection and discharge points are generally underwater and underground, avoiding any purely vertical sections. These mean a dead lift of the content, which gets tough and causes problems with gas or air inclusions.
Thinking on from your other info, you've often referred to the silt content of the river, and I wonder if we're looking at something involved in preventing silt from drawn if cooling water was being drawn from the river.
I spent a number of weeks working on the pump control system for the Ravenscraig steel plant, and this had a pumping station located on the banks of the Clyde, below the town. You can imagine the size of the pumps and motors involved in shunting water from the river up to the plant, and there were occasions where we asked the plant to turn them on (everything was remotely controlled from the plant control room) and hid behind a couple of brick walls as they faults made them sound as if they were going to explode. Normally, you can hit an emergency stop to kill everything, but we had to shout down the phone for the control room staff to 'Pull The Plug'!
I don't remember precisely what sort of filters they had there, but certainly nothing like what we're looking at beside Dalmarnock, and at that point in the river at least, was only concerned with big stuff like trees and branches, plus maybe dead animals, refuse, grass and the like. There didn't seem to by anything that would have dealt with finer material like silt.
As I recall, the river there seems to be much bigger, deeper, and faster than further along at the likes of Daldowie, Dalbeth, Belvidere, and Dalmarnock. Perhaps there's a reason, but I'm not that knowledgeable, or just plain wrong as to what the Ravenscraig station was like, due to fear of being blown up by an exploding pump control system!
Oh! Regarding the reinforced concrete, I think they built everything at Dalmarnock out of the stuff, including the walls along the riverbank, which is probably why they are still there today - they couldn't be bothered demolishing them too.
It's actually a bit worrying to walk along there for the first time, the wall has a definite bulge towards the river, and is of course, around 100 years old and original. However, once you have a look at it, you can see that at some point, parts of the surface have been surveyed, and the concrete has been excavated from the surface to reveal the steel reinforcing rods embedded within it, so it's not likely to be going anywhere in a hurry - unless it all falls into the Clyde at once one day
I'll take a chance and include this RCAHMS pic, and hope that acknowledging them helps avoiding a problem, since it really is needed for comparison with the Captain's much earlier version, his still has cranes visible for the early works.
My guess is that this one is after the station had its new boilers installed around 1955, as you will see only one chimney and a lot of new gear 'upstairs'.
Significantly, the riverside features appear to be unchanged.
And how it looked last week - the three modern piers built on the same spot.
Note the two 'doorways' in the wall, which would have lined up roughly with the midpoint of the riverside structures.
Nearly new and significant holes smashed through the decks.
When you mentioned "Piers" I thought you meant pillars. These are fishing platforms aren't they. There is another one or rather there was, further up river on the other side of Dalmarnock Bridge. They were put in when the walkway was constructed. Yea verily, the Fox does get about a bit!
No. There is only this group of three, all beside each other, adjacent to the west of the road bridge.
I walked along and past the sewage works to the west, and arrived at the road bridge from the east, so would have seen any others along there. Even guessed right, that they went in with the walkway
Can't see me missing something that size, especially as I was looking for anything interesting. Maybe the locals took the upriver one away and sold it for scrap!
Thinking back, there is another area, quite small and built out from the bank into the river, adjacent to the east/upriver side of the rail bridge. This contains seating, and a fence to stop folk falling off, but unlike the pier, is not barred with fencing along the walkway side, as the piers are now.
I didn't get too close to this for a look, as there was a very large 'gentleman' occupying the bench, looking very door, and looking intently into the river. Didn't move a muscle as I padded past. No cans in sight, but I always seem to pick an Alcy if I get social, so generally 'Run Silent' - doesn't work with Jehova's Witness, as two 'suits' tried to pick me up in the street last night, and get me to church.
The one I was thinking about was about here (:gma-point lat=55.8381689 lon=-4.2040730 . It may no longer be there as it is years since I was there.
Know what you mean usually, but not always a good idea to avoid people doing strange things, unless they happen to have a large bonfire on the beach that is!
A few years ago on a beautiful sunny summer day two ladies padded up the drive way and asked if I would like to live in Paradise. I gazed around at the trees, took in the bird song for a couple of seconds and said," I think I already do, thanks all the same". This answer clearly did not fall within the range of expected answers so they thanked me and toddled off. Never saw them again.
Almost definitely not anything there now, unless it's hidden by the trees and bushes.
I can be relatively sure because there is a single bench on the walkway path, just to the east of the point given, and was sitting there for quite a while as it was a particularly nice and quiet there, sunny, with a slight breeze, and river running quietly past - hard to believe I wasn't actually somewhere 'nice', if you know what I mean
As an aside, have a look at the are due wast of the point marked, across the river. You'll see an interesting rectangular area.
This is at the back of an industrial area/estate, but seems to be a residential development of some sort, perhaps even a traveller's or showman's site - I'm generalising because I don't know any better at the moment.
The reason I suggest it's interesting is that a zoom in suggests some rather desirable residences in what is an 'odd' location, and that while I was sitting on the other side of the river and watching the activity on the other side, it became apparent that the cars going along the road were distinctly upmarket, with a number of new Porsches (£80 k+) and similar appearing with some regularity as I watched.
Unfortunately I didn't twig to the road layout while I was on the ground, and didn't realise how easy it would have been to walk to the 'rectangle' for a nosey, so am none the wiser as to what/who's there.
I have always wondered why that area of land enclosed by the loop in the river was never developed. There must be some reason.
I have no idea what that is but it does look like a travellers' camp. It is not all that far away from the one we had a thread on before the crash entitled ' Abondonned Travellers Camp '. That is unless my geography has gone astray or my memory.
Now, at least, I think anyone trying to expand or develop into any of the areas bounding the river would be chased by any of the respective councils involved, plus, I believe from other discussions that many of the areas are also protected because of the flora and fauna they contain.
There's also the other aspect that it wouldn't take much of a swell in the river to engulf anything on the loops.
When the Captain and I wander down around Daldowie, it was evident that even now the river can be seen to be depositing things at surprising levels above where it 'normally' runs.
Here's another couple of pics. The location is easy to spot - it's the triangular corner immediately to the south west corner of the rectangular site marked by the point given above, or due west of the whiskey bond built on the loop to the east. There are few more of those old army-type trailers to the left and right, and some more trucks lying around too.
Closer in, and you can see the truck and flags flying at the door...
The figure standing to the left is not a real person, it's a statue, or dressed up dummy!
Now now Apollo that is just where you would be wrong. It seems that the area is to be developed into a country park so that the 2012 Athletes and visitors can have a wander. Just stick Cuningar into Google or whatever and it will throw up several pages. That name should ring bells as you commented on it in 2005 on Hidden Glasgow!
I'm just back from Cambuslang Ind Est, and that's now a massive industrial development making use of the existing categorisation of the land to add dozens of new buildings over brownfield land, almost up to the edge of the river, and probably beyond in the future. Most of the places are distribution centres for the big carriers, so there will eventually be fleets of artics rolling on and off the nearby M74 junction. They already use the streets there as a lorry park, and the drivers (sorry guys) dump their rubbish out onto the pavement, where it gets blown into the trees.
Lots of waffle about the Cuningar Loop, but no action, even with the 2014 Shames, and it's supposed to be kicking off around now, so we'll see.
While I was looking for updates, I came across this, maybe you did too, but it's interesting (if a little mad perhaps - which is not to rubbish it) given what I hinted at above regarding flooding etc on that particular piece of land...
[1] There's also the other aspect that it wouldn't take much of a swell in the river to engulf anything on the loops.
[2] When the Captain and I wander down around Daldowie, it was evident that even now the river can be seen to be depositing things at surprising levels above where it 'normally' runs.
[1] With respect Apollo I don't think thats the actuality [modern meaningless word I know!] of the physical levels of the riverbanks in that area as your picture of the house with Star Spangled banners and Union Jacks verify, the house must be at least 20 feet above the water, and 20' floods are probably a one hundred and fifty year event [OK thats a guess]. You should remember the that present riverbank heights in the loops of the Clyde in this area are sometimes a result of chrome dumping and other industrial waste disposal practises of the 19th. and 20th. century industrial operations in nearby Bridgeton, Gorbals, etc. which flasely raised the embankments.
[2] This much is certainly true - and as you rightly say we have witnessed such, of course there was no local industry with waste disposal issues to influence the riverbanks, only Mother Nature and her destructive force has left an impression. Impressive too in places.
A fair point on the flagged house, but I was thinking of development on the (as yet, but possibly doomed by the 2014 Shames) untouched area of greenery on the loop to the north east, which is the area the council want/will take by compulsory purchase from the owners for their athletes' park.
Thinking of Mother Nature, unless I'm mistaken, the route of the river should be pretty stable - I don't think anyone's tried to reroute it. One thing I have learned is that such attempts on even a small river are doomed to failure as the river will always claim its route back, unless someone pays out £££'s forever after to keep the new route in place.
On an unrelated search, I came across the following article from last year, which it will be illustrative to preserve and use for comparison by anyone that make it to 2014 and beyond. It promises all sorts of wonderful benefits for currently deserted Dalmanock, as if holding this event there will have some sort of magical benefits afterwards. If the place was dead before they parachuted a load of visitors in, then it will be dead afterwards if they don't create anything there to keep the place stably populated.
We've had an example with the 1988 Garden Festival, which produced a dead site piled with promises of non-existent housing and population development together with businesses, and which is only seeing its dereliction partially made up almost twenty years later.
Walking around Dalmarnock today is like wandering through a desert - even the edges are now populated by decaying an derelict Victorian tenements (being demolished) and even new buildings from the 60s or 70s are empty and shuttered.
Cllr George Redmond is quoted: The east end used to be a vibrant place, full of life. I remember loads of tenements and shops. There was a huge engineering plant and a printing works and power station.
Well, if they don't put something similar in to replace those, there still won't be any life. Velodromes and stadia do not a community make - they're just places outsiders visit occasionally, if they're not afraid to enter the area because of its past reputation.
Here is a couple of aerial pix that might be of interest.
Is that a slipway? I have to wonder why there are boats tied up alogside the quay. Where do these boats go? Do they go anywhere? Can they navigate the tidal weir? I recall there is a sign on the tidal weir overbridge facing downriver which warns "No Navigation" - meaning no craft allowed upriver of that point, I wonder if there is one facing upriver prohibiting craft coming down.
On the matter of the athletics meeting and projected development on Cunningar Loop I wouldn't be at all surprised if it didn't cost us a right few quid to shift the rather substantial 'traveller's camp' situated at the neck of it. And what about the environmental damage that will be caused when the earth moving kit moves in to rip up what is a dense forest and the wild life ?
Captain, have you tried looking at this area using Flashearth? The various providers have quite different pictures particularly where the high flats used to be. On ask.com the tenements are still there and the area inside the powerstation is clear of what I assume is dumped rubbish.
The 2 sidings in your aerial pic disappear completely on most but there is only 1 siding on ask.com.
The changes to Virtual Earth - Live Local - maps.live etc etc were announced in here some time ago.
If you read the Blog and the announcements you have a fair chance of getting these toys to play with before most others
The imagery is supplied by GetMapping, and Multimapping and Virtual Earth basically got together and use the GetMaping imagery for the UK now, as it is UK generated and consequently better than anything from America (BUT, having said that, certain American mappers have photo vans out taking the same pics at ground level, and these images knock lumps out the aerial stuff, so there is much more to come) with the alternate content still available from the American side of the site.
If you use Multimap rather than the American Live Local, then you get the advantage of being able to flit about on an OS Ordnance Survey map to find location, and if you activate the Bird's Eye option, then as you mouse over the map, it pops up pointers showing where the Bird's Eye views are available. I don't know if Live Local does similar since I hardly ever go there now, not since Multimap offers so much more usability.
Our maps links on the Main Site pages acknowledge that, and there was a Blog entry some time back as well.
It's not actually a good idea to clip out parts of the images like that, all the images are copyright, and we could get into trouble .
Better to use the share option towards the top right of the view, copy and paste the link, then there's no comeback.
As with your observation, we noted the pics to be in the order of a year old - but then again that's not really too much of a surprise, since that's when they flew the last pic sorties
The boat yard is ancient, and has been there in some form or another since the beginning of time
I must admit to having been a little surprised to see the boats in water too, and wondered how they got there.
With the weir at downriver, and various potential obstructions upriver, there's not much scope for a day out on the river, certainly not in the order that on the Thames around Richmond.
I couldn't see a name on the boatyard, so couldn't track in down to find out what sort of services they offer, and had guessed that they might just have the boats in the river to store them - they don't seem to have a lot of space - or to carry out tests if they have been working on the hulls.
The boats aren't that big, so they could arrive by road - everything goes by road after all, even rolling stock for the railways!
I thought I'd better add a bit about the map links, just in case I confuse anyone.
You can only post a link to a normal Multimap (or Live Search) map, NOT the Bird's Eye view.
I don't know of this will always be the case, but I have been playing with these for a while, and the option just doesn't seem to be available in any of the tricks I've tried so far, so the rule seem to be a normal link only, with a mention that the Bird's Eye option will be available if you need to emphasise the fact.
As you know, and is fairly obvious, the embedded mapping code on the Main Site uses Google maps - and they have their own version of Bird's Eye views, at street level, although there aren't all that many released in the UK yet.
I did rewrite some of the Google code to use Virtual Earth instead, but eventually decided against it - there were/are too many issues with having more than one map type embedded, the Google code is already written, proven, and working, and there is the ping-pong aspect: basically every so often one of them will have something that the other doesn't, so it's fairly pointless chopping and changing. Especially since we can have them all just by making all the links available on one of our Main Site pages already, and you can choose the one you want, plus a lot more too.
Great pic of the quay, its 20 years since I saw it last. In ancient times the Burgh of Rutherglen had royal charters to operate this port [assuming its never moved] - to the disadvantage of Glasgow.
Looks like a boat on the stocks, maybe they get launched into the river & then winched out by a hired mobile telescopic crane?
Never thought of that (but I'm not a boat person ).
Sliding off, and later craning on does seem to make sense though.
I was just looking at some nearby pics of someone who launched successfully, but then had to go get help from a 4x4 as they couldn't later get the boat and trailer back up the slip, the driven wheels at the front had insufficient weight for traction once the weighted trailed was on the tail!
I am a bit puzzled by the yachts moored at the yard as they are hardly suitable for river use. I don't think the launching and crane recovery is a very likely scenario. I think the yachts must be able to cross the weir at high tide to escape to the sea or is there a connection to the Forth Clyde canal which would allow an escape at Bowling? I am not aware of one.
It must be a very good boatyard for yachties to go to all that bother!
As an son-sailor, the launch and crane suggestion seemed feasible to me, simply because I've seen it done for years at the various boatyard around Bute - it's not the only means, but is used for boats that are too big for the slipways.
There's a easy tide predictor that generates simple tide tables and graphs around the country, and for the area concerned does Bowling, Rothesay Dock, and Glasgow - unfortunately I just have to assume Glasgow means somewhere down river of the weir, but it doesn't give a reference location.
or just jump to [urlhttp://easytide.ukho.gov.uk/EASYTIDE/EasyTide/ShowPrediction.aspx?PortID=0407&PredictionLength=7]Glasgow[/url] for today's weekly chart.
This shows a range of 0.4 m to 4.8 m above chart datum.
I don't know what this means in real life, but suggests there is a general variation of around 12 ft from low to high tide on the river, but without knowing where in that range the height of the weir lands with respect to chart datum, it's impossible to say how much, if any, of that makes it over the weir.
I'm pretty sure the yard didn't have a sign facing the street when I was there, since I did take a look over there and remember being disappointed that there was nothing to go get some more info from, but there's also (as can be seen from online views) a lot of development going on around there, so the signage may have been temporarily lost as a result.
It does seem a bit of a nonsense to launch into the river and then lift out - why not just lift the craft from the quayside and put on a truck, but to follow that, why build a boat next to a river at all if its going to a custome elsewhere? Maybe because the boat builder wants to see it floating and perform some essential trials before delivering to the customer, maybe its a requirement under nautical regulations.
Seems that the present one is the first and that it stops the incoming tide, its described as an underflow tidal sluice and both those points mean it cannot be lowered on the surface - therefore no boat can pass over it.
However there is another page which mentions the lock
Been digging around the NLS maps ans found that Rutherglen Quay was a bit further down river in 1857 - right on the bend opposite the sewage works and the ship building yard was next door.
I've saved images of that AND the lock on the weir from the same survey. How do I post without offending the NLS trustees ?
In general terms, provided we avoid presenting reference materials as if they are our own, and credit the source so it can be referred to, and we clearly aren't making any sort of commercial use, then we are probably able to claim what is referred to as Fair Use.
This applies more to publicly published reference material (ie museum and library type records, rather than other people's personal gallery images), so isn't a licence to sweep up other folks pics off the web.
Under fair use rules, it may be possible to use quotations or excerpts, where the work has been made available to the public, (i.e. published). Provided that:
* The use is deemed acceptable under the terms of fair dealing. * That the quoted material is justified, and no more than is necessary is included. * That the source of the quoted material is mentioned, along with the name of the author.
On the one hand there is the need to protect those who have copyright, but Fair Use should allow material to be used in way that allows stimulation and research to proceed.
It's interesting to note that the above quote from their site generates a warning no to copy any content from the site!
Despite the alignment of copyright laws, it would seem that Fair Use in America is much 'freer' than the UK, where a much stricter regime appears to be enforced, with little latitude allowed - but I should add that this still relates to offenders who attempt to use material in bulk, not cases of an excerpt or two.
Craneing in and out are the two most dodgy times in the life of a sailor. Boats are designed to float and to stand on their keels ( with props where needed ) but not really to be suspended by 2 strops. Believe you me it is quite nervewracking and not something you would want to do more than necessary.
Not sure if this ever got answered but I believe the structures which you noticed were cooling water intakes for the power station. Coal would have been brought in by train, if you’d brought it in by boat you would need handling facilities like cranes or grabs which you can’t see any evidence of in the photos. Power stations are a pet interest of mine especially the ones in Glasgow, I’m currently trying to write up a brief history of them but here is an extract of the info I’ve collated so far for Dalmarnock info, you’ll see the info from the RCAHMS site regarding the size of the station size and dates is wrong, I’ve confirmed this from a variety of other sources. If anyone’s interested I’ve also posted some stuff on other stations over on Hidden Glasgow website. http://www.hiddenglasgow.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=7356
Dalmarnock
The Corporation was authorised to supply electricity in 1890. By 1910 it needed to expand its generating capacity and purchased 11 acres of land next to the river in Dalmarnock for the construction of a new station. Work started in 1914 but was suspended after a year in 1915 because of WW1 but was started again before the end of the war. Dalmarnock Power Station was eventually commissioned in two stages, in 1920 and 1926, with various extensions in later years. It too became a victim of the bulldozers and the site now lies vacant
Total station size in Opened in Sept 1920 half the station was complete. 1st 18.75Mw set commissioned on 02/09/20 with two others shortly after. D Eve describes 4x15Mw turbine sets 3 by Metropolitain Vickers 1 by Fraser & Chalmers plus a 500kw auxiliary set. 1921 drawing shows 7 planned sets of which 2 different type sets seem to be installed also shows 3 boiler houses presumable 1 house of 8 boilers in operation. D Eve says that in1926 3rd boiler house completed with 8 boilers and 3 more generating sets to give a total of 7. In 1935 the station was completed with a 4th boiler house and the installation of 2x50Mw turbo-alternator sets. This was officially opened in 1937 bringing the station total to 237.5Mw
1920 18.75MW 1921 37.5MW 2x18.75MW 1922 75MW 4x18.75MW 1923 93.75MW 5x18.75MW 1st half complete Picture of 18.75MW set in MV book, 1st use of Baumann multi exhaust
1st 2 ordered were British Westinghouse (became Metropolitan Vickers) 2nd 2 ordered were Fraser Chalmers Orders were original described as 15MW machines and there is mention of 15MW machines in service but it is believed there may have been changes in the orders (suppliers and size) as most of the references to in service machines refer to 18.75MW and 1st stage is described as 93.75MW ie 5x18.75MW
No 1 Fraser & Chalmers Nos 2+3 Metropolitan Vickers Nos 4+5 English Electric
Probably partially removed and demolished 1952-1956 to make way for new hp section 2x18.75kw CA Parsons still in place in 1965-1971 powered by 4x75+4x65klb/hr B&W Boilers
It was thought that one of the two later machines was a 25Mw unit but this is now discounted. They are described as a pair, 2x25, 2x21 & 2x18.75 (operating) in the Corp accounts between 1924-27 and in 1928 & 1929 there are references to" installed capacity of 137.5MW being an increase of 6.25MW (ie 18.75 to 25MW) over the last year by reason of replacement of No5 plant by a larger unit now operating on the government standard frequency." " one of the 18.75MW units was dismantled for conversion and the opportunity was taken to bring it up to date and increase the capacity to 25MW". There is also evidence that when earlier plant was scrapped 2x18.74MW CAP machines were left which indicates they were a pair.
Therefore it is thought that the No 6&7 were 18.75MW machines and No 5 was rebuilt as a 25MW machine.
The remaining six machines were rewound between 1929-33 with no increase in size
1926 131.25MW 7x18.5 last 2 commissioned in April & June 1926 1928 131.25MW 7x18.75MW 1929 137.5MW 6x18.5, 1x25MW 1933 137.5MW 6x18.5, 1x25MW 1938 237.5MW 6x18.75, 1x25, 2x50MW 1952 237.5MW 6x18.75, 1x25, 2x50MW EUW 1957 257.5MW 2x18.75, 2x50, 2x60MW 1965 257.5MW 2x18.75, 2x50, 2x60MW ESB 1967 246MW 2x18.75, 2x50, 2x60MW ESB inconsistency in total 1971 244MW 2x18.75, 2x50, 2x60MW ESB inconsistency in total 1974 209MW 2x50, 2x60MW ESB inconsistency in total
Oh dear, RCAHMS slips up again - we will be popular
Just to explain, we have some ongoing debates with them regarding a number of their reports and the information contained, and we're usually right!
That's not to criticise RCAHMS, so much as to reflect the fact that while we, as a amateurs, can afford to poke and prod something for ages, officialdom has a budget and time-scale.
Sad, isn;t it.
Oh, great info on the station...
Any reason for those water inlet and outlets to be so taaaaaaaaaall?
Thanks for the encouragement, I’ve tons of other stuff on power stations all over Scotland which may be of interest to others let me know if you have any particular enquires and I’ll try to help out.
With regards the height of these structures my guess would be the pumps are submerged and driven via vertical shafts by motors mounted above, if this was the case the motors would have to be high enough not to be affected during periods of high water. They may also have housed screens to ensure no large debris was sucked through the pumps, these would have to be raised and cleaned on a regular basis so this might also account for the height.
Shame on ye right enough Apollo although I suspect it wasn't a Glasgow Corporation Electricity Department one like in Cell's pic on the Glasgow site but a Clyde Valley one - that being the electricity company that supplied Lanarkshire.
On a wet note - and going back to the lock on the Clyde at the Green I quote the following from the book "Rutherglen Lore" by W.Ross Shearer; published 1922.
chap. IV pp 50
"Since Mr. Seath's passing, a new weir has been erected with much engineering skill. The floodgates rise and fall automatically, and boats built at Tommy Seath's still pass through at the call of a whistle."
Whether this refers to the lock or the new weir still in situ I can't be quite sure.
The book is in the Glasgow Room at the Mitchell and I had a quick browse through it this morning. It has a lot of info regarding the ship building and river traffic up to Rutherglen.
I used to work in Dalmarnock till I moved down south in 2005 . spent many a lunch hour sitting by the old power station on the platforms as I worked across the road
Thanks Andy and welcome to the forum. We try to keep on track but we never know where a thread will travel although this one has had two constants - electricity and water - even though they don't mix well physically.
I had a wander down past Dalmarnock Bridge a few weeks ago, and found that a little shelter had been built on one of the better piers - the centre one to be exact - and was made of scaffolding, supporting the now standard issue blue tarpaulin, and contained some seats and other items of hardware.
It had crossed my mind that it just might have been something official - having been on various bits of the Clyde Walkway, it could have been a shelter for some pour soul to sit for days and hours on end, counting the number of walkers and cyclists that used the path. I doubt they'd have been counting boats on the water - there's not a lot. Numbers of users on the path could possibly have been used to prove it was a little used feature, not worth maintaining, and could be scrapped or absorbed into something more useful/profitable for the forthcoming Commonwealth Shames.
But. of course, it's not...
It's a cosy little drinking den for the locals, somewhere they can stay cosy and dry if it rains, and throw the odd fishing line into the Clyde and maybe get a free meal to go with their wine.
As can be seen in the detail of the original pics, Buckie (Buckfast) bottle on the table, and Buckie bottle on the floor, under the seat on the left.
By the way, talking of power stations. I have a book on the history of the electricity industry around Manchester. This has a picture of the concrete "bomb-protection blocks" placed over the turbines during WWII, to protect them from bomb damage. They had been taken outside and were being used postwar as workshop and canteen. Presumably other power stations would have had similar protection.
As I sat out in the back garden Patio(Or Green as we Greenockians call it) sipping another brand of Wine in the freezing cold(said to be more upmarket but probably cheaper by ABV in comparison to the Monks Vintnery concoction) it struck me that the Dalmarnico scene was no different from a street scene in say Naples or perhaps Valencia where the locals pass the time of day with some fruit of the vine and a few pals beside the riverbank...perhaps the tourist people should be in on this.Strategically placed shelters along the walkway with full Buckie I should say bar service nearby...
Home
Calendar
Search
Register
Login
Dalmarnock Power Station
Print Thread
Report to Moderator
Logged
Private message
.
Sad, isn;t it.
Site
