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.
Home
Calendar
Search
Register
Login
Dalmarnock Power Station
Print Thread
Report to Moderator
Logged
Private message
).
Sad, isn;t it.
