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.

It must have been a while since coal boats came that far up the river as it is above the weir or did they come down the river?

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.

When was the weir at Glasgow Green constructed ?

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'm sure I saw it in Scotland on Sunday at the time. I'll try and check later.

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.

Well found.   The navigation lock solves the mystery.

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.

SCRAN pic showing the station and river...



Bigger/better pics show the openings to the river just right of centre, and further to the left of centre.

Don't know if there's anything better to be found online.

Nice one!

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

Have you forgotten http://www.old-maps.co.uk  ?   They have a 1914 map which does not show the power station and two from the 1930s that do.  

They must be getting stroppy  again as when it loads it is black with the message 'preview not for resale' and it all disappears rather slowly.

Amazing how something interesting can spring up

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.

Thought for the day. If Dalmarnock bridge was Glasgow's first flat bridge does it not warrant a place in firsts?

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

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...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=716_1184311422

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!

Development = houses, factories, roads, cars, lorries, traffic, people, sewage, pollution...

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...

Plan to float villages on the Clyde

Quoted from Apollo

[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.

East end hoping to be 2014 winner

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.

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 ide