Regeneration of the Forth & Clyde and Union Canals, Scotland
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Regeneration of the Forth & Clyde Proceedings of ICE Civil Engineering 138 May 2000 and Union canals, Scotland Pages 61–72 Paper 12216 R. A. Paxton, MBE, MSc, PhD, CEng, FICE, FRSE, J. M. Stirling, BSc, MBA, CEng, Keywords MICE, MIStructE and G. Fleming, BSc, PhD, FICE, FREng, FRSE history; waterways & canals; social impact The 56 km Forth & Clyde ship canal across Scotland set a new international standard for inland waterways when completed in 1790. Linking Glasgow and the Irish Sea in the west to Falkirk and the North Sea in the east, it was joined in 1822 to Edinburgh by the 50 km Union Canal. But, as traffic moved to rail and then road, the waterway fell into disuse and eventually closed in the 1960s—though it soon became apparent that reopening it for recreational use was vital to regenerating this Roland Paxton strategic national corridor. With National Lottery funding, the £78 million Millennium Link scheme—including a spectacular is an honorary professor at the civil and offshore engineering depart- rotating boat lift at Falkirk—is at last underway and set for ment of Heriot-Watt University, completion in 2001. This paper reports on the historical, chairman of the ICE panel for his- planning and environmental aspects of this landmark torical engineering works and a regeneration project. member of the Royal Commission on Ancient and Historical Birth of the Forth & Clyde Canal 1767 the parliamentary bill for the small Monuments of Scotland In 1726 Daniel Defoe, influenced by canal was successfully opposed by East earlier proposals and the Languedoc of Scotland interests, which petitioned Canal,1 optimistically suggested that the for a larger canal to take vessels of 61 t. Forth and Clyde could be joined by a The matter evoked several tracts. One 12·8 km canal with four sluices.2 But it writer felt that Edinburgh as was not until the onset of the Industrial Revolution that the concept began to ‘the metropolis… the ren- make real progress, with a canal survey dezvous of politeness, the abode Jim Stirling by Robert Mackell and James Murray.3 of taste… ought to have the lead is a director of British Waterways Although their proposal of 1762 was upon all occasions. The fools of not progressed, it encouraged the the west must wait for the Wise Trustees for Fisheries, Manufactures Men of the East’.8 and Improvement in Scotland to com- mission a survey from Britain’s leading In November 1767 Smeaton’s second civil engineer, John Smeaton report was published, proposing a 2·1 m (1724–92).4 deep canal from Carron-mouth to In 1764 Smeaton reported on two Dalmuir on the Clyde, estimated to cost possible lines for a 1·5 m deep canal £147 340.9 This report formed the basis 10 George Fleming (Fig. 1). One was from the Forth via for the navigation’s founding Act. Stirling and Loch Lomond to the Clyde, Smeaton and Mackell were then is professor of water and environ- mainly using existing rivers and approxi- appointed chief engineer and resident mental management at the University of Strathclyde, managing mately on the line of D&C Stevenson’s engineer respectively. 5 director of EnviroCentre and cur- later ship canal proposal. The other rent president of the ICE was from the Forth at Carron-mouth The first ever resident engineer (now Grangemouth) via Kirkintilloch to The project was unprecedented in Yoker on the Clyde.6 He preferred the Scotland, at times employing under con- latter, shorter line estimated to cost tracts more than 1000 men. Largely £78 970. because of the inexperienced work- The next development, in December force, it took much longer to build than 1766, was a proposal by Glasgow inter- planned but it proved a valuable train- ests and Carron Ironworks for a ‘small’ ing ground for developing skills that canal up to 0·9 m deep, modified soon made a fundamental contribution to the afterwards to 1·2 m deep and 7·3 m national construction industry. wide, from Carron Shore near the iron- The project’s most enduring contribu- works to Glasgow. This proposal, mostly tion to the development of engineering on Mackell’s 1762 line, was surveyed practice was Smeaton’s ‘plan’ for manag- and costed by Mackell and James Watt ing the work11,12 and his use of standard- (1736–1819) at £50 000.7 The Trustees ized procedures in design. The plan responded to this unwelcome initiative specified the duties of a ‘resident engi- by publishing Smeaton’s report.6 In May neer’, a term he created, and the other CIVIL ENGINEERING 61 Downloaded by [ University of Edinburgh] on [22/01/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved. PAXTON, STIRLING AND FLEMING Smeaton 1764-7 (and as built line Cadder to Grangemouth) Note: The broken lines indicate Mackell & Watt 1766-7 (and as built line Cadder to Camelon) unexecuted proposals Smeaton as built 1768-77 (Grangemouth to Hamilton Hill) Whitworth, as built 1786-91 (Stockingfield to Bowling and Monkland Canal connection) D&C Stevenson 1889-1914 (Level ship canal Grangemouth to Loch Lomond and connection with Loch Long) Loch Forth Lomond River Stirling Loch Long Alloa Drymen Dunfermline R Culross iver Carron Shore En Rive dr B r Carron ic l k a n Ironworks Grangemouth e th of Forth W Camelon Fir a Townhead Dullatur River te Bog r reservoir Lock Falkirk Leven anal n Can Leith Kilsyth de C 16 Unio al Cly Tunnel Queensferry Kirkintilloch h and Firth of Clyde Dumbarton Maryhill Fort Linlithgow River Kelvin W Avon Edinburgh at River A Bowling er o von aqueduct f Lug gie Port Glasgow Cadder Luggie Slateford Dalmuir StocStockingfieldkingfield aqueduct Almond ond aqueduct aqueduct Hamilton Hill Lochs lm A h Yo ke r Monkl anal Coatbridge r it and C e Livingston Le Kelvin iv of aqueduct R er Port Dundas Airdrie at Glasgow Riv W er C 0km10 ly de Fig. 1. Scotland’s Forth & Clyde and Union canals as planned and constructed site staff he considered necessary for the breaking the back of the boat or work on Luggie aqueduct started and satisfactory conduct of the works. oversetting. If engineers are to be Glasgow within reach, Smeaton was constantly brought down to allowed to resign. Mackell continued as Work gets underway in 1768 inspect and see how the pot resident engineer. They were both so In June 1768, the contractor John boils, if instead of making plans I busy in 1773 that Smeaton brought in Clegg, who with John Taylor dug most am to be employed in answering William Jessop (1745–1814) to level and of the canal to Glasgow, began work at papers and queries, it will be set out the 2·9 km feeder aqueduct Grangemouth and the canal was made impossible for me to go on’.16 southwards from the canal just west of in a westerly direction, becoming opera- Luggie aqueduct to Bothland Burn.18 tional to key points as shown in Table Work continued without further inter- 1.13,14 The Carron Ironworks was still ruption. The money runs out in 1777 dissatisfied with the approved line, In May 1771, acting on a suggestion of By November 1777 the Forth & Clyde which was 6·4 km longer than their Mackell’s approved by Smeaton, an Act17 Canal had reached Hamilton Hill Basin, ‘small’ canal proposal and meant their was obtained to alter the canal line to Glasgow, and work came to a standstill boats had to negotiate the tortuous come more directly to River Carron before entering the canal, Glasgow via a problem partly resolved by cutting off Stockingfield and Table 1. Progress of the Forth & Clyde Navigation 1774–185013,14 a bend and permanently reopening the the ‘Glasgow Year Revenue: £ Canal opened westwards from the Forth: km temporary connection with the canal branch’ to Hamilton west of Grangemouth in 1782. The iron- Hill Basin. This 1774 678 30 (to Kirkintilloch, 3 September 1773) works commissioned a report from lead- change accepted the 1775 1148 1776 2051 42 (to Stockingfield, near Glasgow, 10 November 1775) ing engineers James Brindley, Thomas future requirement 1777 4092 Yeoman and John Golborne,15 that was for a major aque- 1778 5102 45 (Glasgow Branch to Hamilton Hill, 10 November 1777) roundly addressed by Smeaton. duct crossing of the 1786 5781 river Kelvin to 1789 6986 1781 12 336 56 (to River Clyde at Bowling, 28 July 1790) ‘As no difficulty is too great reach Dalmuir. 1792 14 122 46 (Glasgow Branch to Port Dundas, March 1791) for Mr Brindley, I should be glad By 3 September 48 (Glasgow Branch to Monkland Canal, October 1791) to see how he would stow a fire 1773, the canal was 1800 21 607 engine cylinder cast at Carron of navigable from the 1815 46 974 1839 95 475 61/2 ft diameter into one of his Forth to 1850 115 621 (amalgamated with the Monkland Canal 1846) 7 ft boats so as to prevent its Kirkintilloch. With 62 CIVIL ENGINEERING Downloaded by [ University of Edinburgh] on [22/01/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved. REGENERATION OF THE FORTH & CLYDE AND UNION CANALS, SCOTLAND unlimited headroom for tall-masted vessels provided by means of 43 aqueducts ‘‘and 33 timber draw-bridges ture, is overall about 33·5 m long, 15·2 A 26,27 B high ´ 27·4 m wide (Figs 3 and 4). A It is of inter’’est because of the following. • The canal passes over it at its full width of 17 m, providing the opera- tional benefit of uninterrupted two- B way passage.