Just before Christmas 1917 an advert appeared in the Scotsman requesting tenders for the demolition and removal of Portobello Pier.
The Galloway Saloon Steam Packet Company had got into difficulties, as so many enterprises did during the First World War, and could no longer afford to maintain it. Their problems were exacerbated by the refusal of the Ministry of Munitions to allow the use of wood to make urgent repairs to the decking, rendering the pier unsafe. It was closed throughout the 1917 summer season and, with no income coming in and increasing deterioration of the fabric, there was no option but to cut their losses and dispose of the pier.
A number of people protested that as the Pier had originally been authorised through an Act of Parliament, surely it could not be removed, demolished or otherwise ended without the permission of the Government. That was not the case.
A campaign was launched to persuade the City Authorities to buy it on behalf of the residents of Edinburgh, but to no avail.
It was slowly demolished during the spring of 1918 and on 14 June that year the remains were publicly sold.
If you were enterprising, you could pick up steel angles 4 in by 4 in about 12 tons; beams 20 in by 8 and half in two at 36 ft and two at 31 ft; cast iron columns large lot in 9 ft flange sections 9 in and 12 in diameter; timber etc. greenheart logs 50 from 30 to 36 ft long average 12 in by 12 in. All in prime condition.
- Board index
- Register
- Forum
- Information
- FAQ
- The team
- Who is online
- Tools
- Delete all board cookies
- Search
- Quick Search
- View unanswered posts
- View active topics
- Find More
- Advanced Search
- Links
- Login
On The Beach
by rathbone » 15 Oct 2006, 07:22
By 1921 the annual visitor number continued to build and the Magistrates and Council of the City of Edinburgh were prepared to provide Bathing Machines at Portobello beach.
In typical bureaucratic fashion, however, it was stipulated that there would not be more than 20 machines and they would only be provided if suitable offers were received from people willing to hire them. Those people were invited to state the rents they were willing to pay, the number of years for which they were prepared to hire the bathing machines and the charges proposed to be made for the use thereof by the public.
It does not appear that there were many takers.
In typical bureaucratic fashion, however, it was stipulated that there would not be more than 20 machines and they would only be provided if suitable offers were received from people willing to hire them. Those people were invited to state the rents they were willing to pay, the number of years for which they were prepared to hire the bathing machines and the charges proposed to be made for the use thereof by the public.
It does not appear that there were many takers.
I have nothing to say and I'm going to say it.
-
rathbone - Posts: 1989
- Joined: 18 Aug 2004, 18:45
- Location: somewhere else
by rathbone » 28 Oct 2006, 07:29
On 14 July 1926 the Lord Provost officially opened the western extension of the Promenade and the diversion of the Pipe Street outfall sewer.
As he pointed out in his speech, the amenity of the foreshore would be greatly enhanced by the diversion of the Pipe Street outfall sewer and the western extension of Portobello Promenade would link up the seashore walk from Leith docks with the old Promenade, giving a continuous walk along the sea front of three and three quarter miles.
The Councillors who were present during the proceedings received unmistakable proof of the popularity of the beach: Great crowds of visitors lay about on the shore in the brilliant sunshine enjoying the cooling breeze which came on from the sea, and there were hundreds of bathers and paddlers in the water.
In the past the Pipe Street sewer had poured forth volumes of foul matter on to the beach. The scheme to improve the drainage had been before the Town Council since the year 1905 and powers were obtained from Parliament in 1906 to construct a new sewer, but lay dormant until 1924, when the matter was taken up seriously by the Streets and Buildings Committee and a Government grant was obtained which allowed the work to proceed.
The original sewer was constructed in 1859 and was 20 inches in diameter and 250 yards long. The total length of the new sewer, was 2062 yards. Of this 369 yards at the Seafield end were of iron, 30 inches in diameter. 1360 yards was 6ft by 4ft wide egg shaped concrete and 333 yards of three feet diameter concrete tubes. The large 6 ft by 4 ft portion was to act as a tank in which the sewage would be held in suspension when the tide was in and would automatically empty as the tide receded into the deep waters of the Forth. The gradient of the new sewer was 1 in 600.
The work had been of a very difficult and trying nature, owing to the tidal waters and had been carried out by the firm of Messrs Bain and Brown, at a cost of between £50,000 and £60,000.
The surface, which was initially only of ashes for the moment, would, after consolidation, be laid with something of a permanent nature. There was now a continuous walk along the sea front from Leith docks to Magdalene Bridge, a distance of three and three quarter miles. It was a great asset to the city.
As he pointed out in his speech, the amenity of the foreshore would be greatly enhanced by the diversion of the Pipe Street outfall sewer and the western extension of Portobello Promenade would link up the seashore walk from Leith docks with the old Promenade, giving a continuous walk along the sea front of three and three quarter miles.
The Councillors who were present during the proceedings received unmistakable proof of the popularity of the beach: Great crowds of visitors lay about on the shore in the brilliant sunshine enjoying the cooling breeze which came on from the sea, and there were hundreds of bathers and paddlers in the water.
In the past the Pipe Street sewer had poured forth volumes of foul matter on to the beach. The scheme to improve the drainage had been before the Town Council since the year 1905 and powers were obtained from Parliament in 1906 to construct a new sewer, but lay dormant until 1924, when the matter was taken up seriously by the Streets and Buildings Committee and a Government grant was obtained which allowed the work to proceed.
The original sewer was constructed in 1859 and was 20 inches in diameter and 250 yards long. The total length of the new sewer, was 2062 yards. Of this 369 yards at the Seafield end were of iron, 30 inches in diameter. 1360 yards was 6ft by 4ft wide egg shaped concrete and 333 yards of three feet diameter concrete tubes. The large 6 ft by 4 ft portion was to act as a tank in which the sewage would be held in suspension when the tide was in and would automatically empty as the tide receded into the deep waters of the Forth. The gradient of the new sewer was 1 in 600.
The work had been of a very difficult and trying nature, owing to the tidal waters and had been carried out by the firm of Messrs Bain and Brown, at a cost of between £50,000 and £60,000.
The surface, which was initially only of ashes for the moment, would, after consolidation, be laid with something of a permanent nature. There was now a continuous walk along the sea front from Leith docks to Magdalene Bridge, a distance of three and three quarter miles. It was a great asset to the city.
I have nothing to say and I'm going to say it.
-
rathbone - Posts: 1989
- Joined: 18 Aug 2004, 18:45
- Location: somewhere else
by rathbone » 30 Oct 2006, 10:36
1927 saw another attempt to rebuild the pier.
This time it was a project in conjunction with the Portobello Electricity Generating station.
The Power Station required a series of pipes to be laid out into the sea at a point about 500 yards north eastwards from the retaining wall of the Promenade opposite the east side of Rosebank Lane. The idea was to contain these within the structure of the new pier, to be constructed out of ferro-concrete.
It was proposed that the pier gangway should be 1500 feet long and 25 feet wide and that the pier head should be 120 feet long by 75 feet wide. The pier head would be large enough to take steamers of the ordinary passenger type. There would be room on the pier head for a hall or other offices should these be required. On the pier itself it was intended to construct and maintain pavilions, saloons, concert rooms, shops, kiosks, shelters and swimming baths.
The cost was estimated at £50,000. 75 % of that would be borne by the Electricity Company and the remainder (about £20,000) by the rates.
However, by January 1928 the estimate had risen to £90,000 and the scheme was scrapped.
This time it was a project in conjunction with the Portobello Electricity Generating station.
The Power Station required a series of pipes to be laid out into the sea at a point about 500 yards north eastwards from the retaining wall of the Promenade opposite the east side of Rosebank Lane. The idea was to contain these within the structure of the new pier, to be constructed out of ferro-concrete.
It was proposed that the pier gangway should be 1500 feet long and 25 feet wide and that the pier head should be 120 feet long by 75 feet wide. The pier head would be large enough to take steamers of the ordinary passenger type. There would be room on the pier head for a hall or other offices should these be required. On the pier itself it was intended to construct and maintain pavilions, saloons, concert rooms, shops, kiosks, shelters and swimming baths.
The cost was estimated at £50,000. 75 % of that would be borne by the Electricity Company and the remainder (about £20,000) by the rates.
However, by January 1928 the estimate had risen to £90,000 and the scheme was scrapped.
I have nothing to say and I'm going to say it.
-
rathbone - Posts: 1989
- Joined: 18 Aug 2004, 18:45
- Location: somewhere else
by rathbone » 03 Nov 2006, 13:09
The work on the Promenade also re-opened the debate about removing the boulders from Seafield.
Professor Jehu from University of Edinburgh, said it was quite impossile to foretell what would happen if the boulders were removed to any large extent. From the point of view of the amenities, there would be a great improvement in the foreshore provided the boulders were replaced by an accumulation of sand brought in from below low water mark and not from the adjoining portions of the beach.
He suggested that as an experiment the removal of the boulders should be carried out on the portion of the foreshore between the slipway at Kings Road and the slipway west of the Marine Gardens dance hall. If this were done it should be carried out under the careful supervision of the burgh engineer, who could put a stop to the work if there were any signs of impoverishment of the beach at that place or anywhere else within the area. After such removal the work should be stopped for a considerable time so that observations could be made as to whether or not an adequate supply of sand was being brought in from below low water mark to promote a healthy condition of the beach.
It was recommended that a wall of boulders should be formed from the promenade to low water mark in the form of a groin, to gather the travelling sand and retain it. This should also be useful as a slipway for bathing, boating etc.
On 5 July The Lord Provost’s Committee recommended that as an experiment an arrangement should be made for the removal by unemployed men of the boulders from the portion of the foreshore extending from Kings Road slipway at Portobello beach to the slipway west of the ballroom and the construction by those men of a groyne from the promenade to low water mark.
The Distress Committee intimated that they would be prepared, in the first instance, to make good any deficit on the work up to the figure of, say, £1000 and it was understood that the Parish Council would pay a sum equal to the relief that would have paid to the men engaged on the work.
By August, the work was well underway and Archibald Campbell, the clerk to the Distress Committee was advertising excellent quality road bottoming for sale.
Professor Jehu from University of Edinburgh, said it was quite impossile to foretell what would happen if the boulders were removed to any large extent. From the point of view of the amenities, there would be a great improvement in the foreshore provided the boulders were replaced by an accumulation of sand brought in from below low water mark and not from the adjoining portions of the beach.
He suggested that as an experiment the removal of the boulders should be carried out on the portion of the foreshore between the slipway at Kings Road and the slipway west of the Marine Gardens dance hall. If this were done it should be carried out under the careful supervision of the burgh engineer, who could put a stop to the work if there were any signs of impoverishment of the beach at that place or anywhere else within the area. After such removal the work should be stopped for a considerable time so that observations could be made as to whether or not an adequate supply of sand was being brought in from below low water mark to promote a healthy condition of the beach.
It was recommended that a wall of boulders should be formed from the promenade to low water mark in the form of a groin, to gather the travelling sand and retain it. This should also be useful as a slipway for bathing, boating etc.
On 5 July The Lord Provost’s Committee recommended that as an experiment an arrangement should be made for the removal by unemployed men of the boulders from the portion of the foreshore extending from Kings Road slipway at Portobello beach to the slipway west of the ballroom and the construction by those men of a groyne from the promenade to low water mark.
The Distress Committee intimated that they would be prepared, in the first instance, to make good any deficit on the work up to the figure of, say, £1000 and it was understood that the Parish Council would pay a sum equal to the relief that would have paid to the men engaged on the work.
By August, the work was well underway and Archibald Campbell, the clerk to the Distress Committee was advertising excellent quality road bottoming for sale.
I have nothing to say and I'm going to say it.
-
rathbone - Posts: 1989
- Joined: 18 Aug 2004, 18:45
- Location: somewhere else
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Facebook [Link] and 1 guest
•