Regeneration of the Forth & Clyde and Union canals, Scotland · 2019. 2. 11. · REGENERATION OF THE FORTH & CLYDE AND UNION CANALS,SCOTLAND with the canal company £40 000 in debt

Roland Paxton

Proceedings of ICECivil Engineering 138 May 2000

Pages 61–72 Paper 12216

Keywordshistory; waterways & canals;

social impact

is an honorary professor at the civiland offshore engineering depart-ment of Heriot-Watt University,

chairman of the ICE panel for his-torical engineering works and a

member of the Royal Commissionon Ancient and Historical

Monuments of Scotland

Jim Stirling

is a director of British Waterways

George Fleming

is professor of water and environ-mental management at the

University of Strathclyde, managingdirector of EnviroCentre and cur-

rent president of the ICE

Birth of the Forth & Clyde Canal In 1726 Daniel Defoe, influenced by

earlier proposals and the LanguedocCanal,1 optimistically suggested that theForth and Clyde could be joined by a12·8 km canal with four sluices.2 But itwas not until the onset of the IndustrialRevolution that the concept began tomake real progress, with a canal surveyby Robert Mackell and James Murray.3

Although their proposal of 1762 wasnot progressed, it encouraged theTrustees for Fisheries, Manufacturesand Improvement in Scotland to com-mission a survey from Britain’s leadingcivil engineer, John Smeaton(1724–92).4

In 1764 Smeaton reported on twopossible lines for a 1·5 m deep canal(Fig. 1). One was from the Forth viaStirling and Loch Lomond to the Clyde,mainly using existing rivers and approxi-mately on the line of D&C Stevenson’slater ship canal proposal.5 The otherwas from the Forth at Carron-mouth(now Grangemouth) via Kirkintilloch toYoker on the Clyde.6 He preferred thelatter, shorter line estimated to cost£78 970.

The next development, in December1766, was a proposal by Glasgow inter-ests and Carron Ironworks for a ‘small’canal up to 0·9 m deep, modified soonafterwards to 1·2 m deep and 7·3 mwide, from Carron Shore near the iron-works to Glasgow. This proposal, mostlyon Mackell’s 1762 line, was surveyedand costed by Mackell and James Watt(1736–1819) at £50 000.7 The Trusteesresponded to this unwelcome initiativeby publishing Smeaton’s report.6 In May

1767 the parliamentary bill for the smallcanal was successfully opposed by Eastof Scotland interests, which petitionedfor a larger canal to take vessels of 61 t.

The matter evoked several tracts. Onewriter felt that Edinburgh as

‘the metropolis… the ren-dezvous of politeness, the abodeof taste… ought to have the leadupon all occasions. The fools ofthe west must wait for the WiseMen of the East’.8

In November 1767 Smeaton’s secondreport was published, proposing a 2·1 mdeep canal from Carron-mouth toDalmuir on the Clyde, estimated to cost£147 340.9 This report formed the basisfor the navigation’s founding Act.10

Smeaton and Mackell were thenappointed chief engineer and residentengineer respectively.

The first ever resident engineerThe project was unprecedented in

Scotland, at times employing under con-tracts more than 1000 men. Largelybecause of the inexperienced work-force, it took much longer to build thanplanned but it proved a valuable train-ing ground for developing skills thatmade a fundamental contribution to thenational construction industry.

The project’s most enduring contribu-tion to the development of engineeringpractice was Smeaton’s ‘plan’ for manag-ing the work11,12 and his use of standard-ized procedures in design. The planspecified the duties of a ‘resident engi-neer’, a term he created, and the other

The 56 km Forth & Clyde ship canal across Scotland set a newinternational standard for inland waterways when completed in1790. Linking Glasgow and the Irish Sea in the west to Falkirkand the North Sea in the east, it was joined in 1822 toEdinburgh by the 50 km Union Canal. But, as traffic moved torail and then road, the waterway fell into disuse and eventuallyclosed in the 1960s—though it soon became apparent thatreopening it for recreational use was vital to regenerating thisstrategic national corridor. With National Lottery funding, the£78 million Millennium Link scheme—including a spectacularrotating boat lift at Falkirk—is at last underway and set forcompletion in 2001. This paper reports on the historical,planning and environmental aspects of this landmarkregeneration project.

Regeneration of the Forth & Clydeand Union canals, ScotlandR. A. Paxton, MBE, MSc, PhD, CEng, FICE, FRSE, J. M. Stirling, BSc, MBA, CEng,MICE, MIStructE and G. Fleming, BSc, PhD, FICE, FREng, FRSE

61C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G

Downloaded by [ University of Edinburgh] on [22/01/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

PAXTON, STIRLING AND FLEMING

site staff he considered necessary for thesatisfactory conduct of the works.

Work gets underway in 1768In June 1768, the contractor John

Clegg, who with John Taylor dug mostof the canal to Glasgow, began work atGrangemouth and the canal was madein a westerly direction, becoming opera-tional to key points as shown in Table1.13,14 The Carron Ironworks was stilldissatisfied with the approved line,which was 6·4 km longer than their‘small’ canal proposal and meant theirboats had to negotiate the tortuousRiver Carron before entering the canal,a problem partly resolved by cutting offa bend and permanently reopening thetemporary connection with the canalwest of Grangemouth in 1782. The iron-works commissioned a report from lead-ing engineers James Brindley, ThomasYeoman and John Golborne,15 that wasroundly addressed by Smeaton.

‘As no difficulty is too greatfor Mr Brindley, I should be gladto see how he would stow a fireengine cylinder cast at Carron of61/2 ft diameter into one of his7 ft boats so as to prevent its

breaking the back of the boat oroversetting. If engineers are to beconstantly brought down toinspect and see how the potboils, if instead of making plans Iam to be employed in answeringpapers and queries, it will beimpossible for me to go on’.16

Work continued without further inter-ruption.

In May 1771, acting on a suggestion ofMackell’s approved by Smeaton, an Act17

was obtained to alter the canal line tocome more directly toGlasgow viaStockingfield andthe ‘Glasgowbranch’ to HamiltonHill Basin. Thischange accepted thefuture requirementfor a major aque-duct crossing of theriver Kelvin toreach Dalmuir.

By 3 September1773, the canal wasnavigable from theForth toKirkintilloch. With

work on Luggie aqueduct started andGlasgow within reach, Smeaton wasallowed to resign. Mackell continued asresident engineer. They were both sobusy in 1773 that Smeaton brought inWilliam Jessop (1745–1814) to level andset out the 2·9 km feeder aqueductsouthwards from the canal just west ofLuggie aqueduct to Bothland Burn.18

The money runs out in 1777By November 1777 the Forth & Clyde

Canal had reached Hamilton Hill Basin,Glasgow, and work came to a standstill

62

Monkland Canal

0 km 10

Drymen

Port Glasgow

Glasgow

Hamilton HillStockingfieldStockingfield

MaryhillDumbarton

CadderBowling

Port Dundas

Coatbridge

Grangemouth

LinlithgowAvonaqueduct

Luggieaqueduct

Townheadreservoir

Tunnel

Lock16

Almondaqueduct

Slatefordaqueduct

Livingston

Edinburgh

Airdrie

Falkirk

Dalmuir

Kilsyth

Carron Shore

IronworksCamelon

Leith

Kirkintilloch

Yoker

Stirling

Dunfermline

Queensferry

Culross

Alloa

Firth of Forth

Firth of Clyde

Water of Leith

River Alm

ond

River Avon

Union Canal

Kelvinaqueduct

River Clyde

River Forth

River CarronBlane

Water

River Endrick

RiverLeven

LochLong

LochLomond

River Kelvin Water of Luggie

Lochs

DullaturBog

Forth and Clyde Canal

Smeaton 1764-7 (and as built line Cadder to Grangemouth)Mackell & Watt 1766-7 (and as built line Cadder to Camelon)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)

Note: The broken lines indicate unexecuted proposals

Fig. 1. Scotland’s Forth & Clyde and Union canals as planned and constructed

Year Revenue: £ Canal opened westwards from the Forth: km

1774 678 30 (to Kirkintilloch, 3 September 1773)1775 11481776 2051 42 (to Stockingfield, near Glasgow, 10 November 1775)1777 4092 1778 5102 45 (Glasgow Branch to Hamilton Hill, 10 November 1777)1786 57811789 69861781 12 336 56 (to River Clyde at Bowling, 28 July 1790)1792 14 122 46 (Glasgow Branch to Port Dundas, March 1791)

48 (Glasgow Branch to Monkland Canal, October 1791)1800 21 6071815 46 9741839 95 4751850 115 621 (amalgamated with the Monkland Canal 1846)

Table 1. Progress of the Forth & Clyde Navigation 1774–185013,14

C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G


REGENERATION OF THE FORTH & CLYDE ANDUNION CANALS, SCOTLAND

with the canal company £40 000 in debtand requiring an additional £60 000 forcompletion.19 On 8 September 1779Mackell died.20 Despite some manage-ment problems, Mackell had Smeaton’sfull confidence and deserves the greatestcredit for his engineering contribution.

Eventually, in 1784, a grant of£50 000 was obtained from theForfeited Estates Fund for completingthe canal. In 1785, after having failed torecruit either Watt or Smeaton, the com-pany appointed Robert Whitworth(1734–99), Brindley’s principal assis-tant, as chief engineer. In August 1785Whitworth’s report was published forcompleting the canal to Bowling, includ-ing the Kelvin aqueduct, at an estimatedcost of £56 436.21

Structures include Britain’sbiggest aqueduct

In their design of the Forth & ClydeCanal, Smeaton and Whitworth’s mainconsiderations were to achieve the mostpracticable engineering solutions com-mensurate with economy and operationalrequirements. Unlike today they werenot required to comply with environmen-tal planning, landfill tax, quality assur-ance or health and safety legislation.

The large scale of the canal by thestandards of its time—17·1 m wide and2·4 m deep with unlimited headroom for

tall-masted vessels pro-vided by means of 43aqueducts and 33 tim-ber draw-bridges13—required manysubstantial structures.

Kelvin aqueductThe 19-lock western

section of the canalfrom Maryhill toBowling included the135·6 m long by20·7 m wide Kelvinaqueduct, built during1787–178922 (Fig. 2).23

Until the Lune aque-duct (1794–96) on theLancaster Canal, thiswas the largest inBritain. It was built byGibb and Muir underWhitworth’s directionand cost £9058.24 Itsfour 15·2 m spans andhorizontal side archeswere strongly influ-enced by the design ofLuggie aqueduct.

Luggie aqueductLuggie aqueduct

(August 177225–1774),a major Smeaton struc-

ture, is overall about 33·5 m long, 15·2high ´ 27·4 m wide (Figs 3 and 4).26,27

It is of interest because of the following.

• The canal passes over it at its fullwidth of 17 m, providing the opera-tional benefit of uninterrupted two-way passage.

• Its waterway has horizontal masonryside arches for lateral stability.

• The 15·2 m span arch was built inthree stages by means of a timbercentering 9·1 m deep which movedon rollers.28 This novel practice ofFalkirk contractor William Gibb(1736–91), founder of the well-known engineering firm, and JohnMuir produced two joints that arescarcely discernable even today.

• It illustrates the considerable degreeof autonomy allowed by Smeaton to

63

Section B-BSection A-A

BA

A

B

Fig. 2. Elevation, part-sectioned plan and cross section of Kelvin aqueduct, the biggest in Britain atthe time.23 Side walls are curved in plan for extra lateral stability.

Fig. 4. Elevation of Luggie aqueduct 27

Fig. 3. Cross-section at Luggie aqueduct reveals the massive pro-portions required by providing a 2·4 m navigable depth over awidth of 7·3 m26


‘‘ ’’unlimited headroom for tall-masted vessels provided by means of 43 aqueductsand 33 timber draw-bridges



Mackell on the construction of aque-ducts, even when drawings existed. Thespan was made 15·2 m instead of 18·3 mand only the upper part adjoining thecanal instead of the full depth of thestructure was built curved in plan. Theexisting fine iron railings, not on Fig. 4,

may have been a Mackell or Whitworthaddition.

In addition to the Luggie aqueduct,engineering on the summit lengthincluded water supply from a new reser-voir at Townhead and the already-men-

tioned Bothland Burn feeder aqueduct atKirkintilloch fed from the Bishop,Woodend, Gartsherrie and JohnstonLochs.

Camelon aqueductAt Camelon, the underpass of the

Edinburgh to Stirling Great Road in1772 (Fig. 5),29 with a more decorativemasonry façade30 than the other aque-ducts, was replaced by a swing-bridge inthe 19th century.

LocksThe 39 locks are 6·1 m wide by 22·5

m long between the gates with a 2·4 mfall (Fig. 6).31 In soft ground a timberfloor and piling were used. FromGrangemouth the canal rises 38 m bymeans of 16 locks over 6·4 km (Fig.7),32 and a further four locks in the next9·6 km to the 29 km long summit-levelsection from Dullatur Bog to Maryhill.

At Camelon, Smeaton designed thelocks ‘singly’ so as to ‘treasure up’ a lock-full of water in 0·3 m depth of the chan-nel between each lock. The channel wasmade wide enough for two vessels, tooffer maximum flexibility in use.33

Draw bridgesThe original timber drawbridges,

which had either one or two leaves (Fig.8),34 were replaced early last century bycast iron and timber bascule bridges(Fig. 9).35

EmbankmentsParticular difficulties with embank-

ment construction were encountered bytaking the canal through, rather thanaround, Dullatur Bog

‘it frequently happened, thatwhen the banks were madeapparently perfectly, they havesunk down several feet in thecourse of a day and had to beagain renewed, so that it isbelieved about 55 ft. perpendicu-lar of earth and stones has, atdifferent times, been heapedupon them’.36

Salaries and rates of the dayRegarding costs, Smeaton and Mackell

received annual salaries of £500, includ-

64

Fig. 5. Longitudinal section of the Camelon aqueduct 29—the road underpass with its decorativefaçade30 was replaced in the 19th century with a swing bridge

Fig. 6. Longitudinal section of one the Forth & Clyde Canal’s 39 locks showing timber piling31




ing expenses, and £315 respectively,37

and Whitworth got £630 includingexpenses.38 Surveyors and foremen hadsalaries of £100 and £52 respectivelyand labourers were paid 4·2 p a day,39

around one thousandth of today’s rates.40

From 1768 to 1790 contract prices forexcavation and banking were more orless constant at generally 1·4–1·9 p/m3

41—today about 80 times more or 700times more if the spoil is taken off-site.40

Masonry contract prices, including ‘find-ing stone, hewing, building lime, sandand carriage’, varied from 37–82 p/m3.42

Completing the original projectBy December 1788 the Forth & Clyde

Canal had been deepened to 2·4 m bybank heightening and was opened fromsea to sea on 28 July 1790 at a total costof £305 000.43 Including the connectionto Port Dundas and the MonklandCanal, completed by 31 December 1791,it cost £394 545.44 This sum is today’sequivalent of over £100 million—notallowing for the additional costs whichwould be incurred now such as fordeveloped land, services diversion, envi-ronmental work and stronger bridges.45

But even at this high cost, with ahorse being able to draw 100 timesmore on a canal than on a road andwith the savings, in distance and ship-wrecks, of not having to circumnavigateScotland, the canal attracted consider-able traffic. It had an annual operatingprofit of the order of twice the annualexpenditure throughout most of the19th century.46 Some revenue figures aregiven in Table 1. In 1801 for examplethe navigation carried 1286 ‘through’and 1084 ‘return’ boat passagesbetween Grangemouth and Glasgow.47

Union Canal adds Edinburgh linkThe next major development was the

50 km Edinburgh & Glasgow UnionCanal, built during 1818–22 for about£461 760, chiefly to provide Edinburghwith coal.48 It joined the Forth & ClydeCanal at lock 16 near Falkirk.

For operational economy, the UnionCanal was skilfully engineered by HughBaird (1770–1827) to be on one level—from the top of the eleven-lock flightadjoining lock 16 via a 636 m tunnel andthree ‘magnificent’49 iron-lined aqueducts,

65

Fig. 9. Early 19th century replacement cast-iron and timber bascule bridge at Firrhill in Glasgow,c.1960 35

Fig. 8. Typical two-leaf drawbridge over the Forth & Clyde Canal.34 None of the 33 original timberbridges remain.

11 10 9 8 7 6Length (km)

Hei

ght (

m)

5 4 3 2 1 0

60

45

30

15

Smalltunnel

Turnpike roadCamelon

0

Syphontunnel

Bridgelock 16

DalgrainBridge

BainsfordBridge Tunnel

Forthsea lockBurn Burn BurnBurn Burn Burn

Fig. 7. Longitudinal profile of the east end of the Forth & Clyde Canal showing locks 1–16 requiredto rise about 38 m.32 All bridges were drawbridges to provide unlimited head room


‘‘ ’’the canal attracted considerable traffic. It had an annual operating profit of theorder of twice the annual expenditure throughout most of the 19th century



the largest of whichover the River Avonis 247 m long and26 m high.

Commercially, theventure was in debtfrom the outset.Despite a valianteffort with ‘swift’boats carrying nearly200 000 passengersin 1836 and a traveltime between

Glasgow and Edinburgh of less than 7hours, the canal was unable to competewith the development of railways. It wastaken over by the Edinburgh & GlasgowRailway in 1849.50

Decline leads to closure in the1960s

Unusually for canals and a testamentto Smeaton’s vision, the Forth & ClydeNavigation continued to make animportant contribution to the Scottisheconomy despite the arrival of rail-

66

Fig.12. Glasgow Road bridge, one of four constructed as part of theGlasgow Canal project in 1990 to provide adequate navigational headroom

Erskine Ferry. Opening bridgeDalmuir. New lockKilbowie Road, Sylvania Way, Argyll Road. New bridgesDuntreath Avenue. Reconstructed lock 36, build bridgeBlairdardie Road. Reconstruct locks and basin, new bridge, realign Blairdardie RoadCleveden Road. New bridgeBalmuildy Road. New bridgeCadder. Raise bridgeTownhead. New bridgeHillhead. Opening bridgeAuchendavie water main. Relocate under canalTwechar. Opening bridgeAuchinstarry. New bridgeWyndford Bridge. New bridgeA80. New bridge

1.2.3.4.5.

6.7.8.9.

10.11.12.13.14.15.

16.17.18.

19.20.

21.22.23.24.25.26.

27.

Castlecary Bridge. New bridgeBonnybridge. Opening bridgeFalkirk interchange. Extend canal, build locks, tunnel, aqueduct and boat liftUnion Road Lock 16. New bridgeCamelon Road, Merer's Bridge, Bainsford. New bridges and locks. Abbott's Road. Stop up roadGrangemouth. Extend canal to connect with River ForthA801 Lathallan Road. Divert canal, build bridgeVellore Road. New bridgeGreendykes Road. New bridgeM8. Divert canal build bridgeWester Hailes. Reform canal 1.7 km, build 8 bridges. Kinsknowe Road. New bridgeLeamington Lift Bridge. Raised and fixed

0 km 10

1

34 5

6

2 78

910

1112

13

EdinburghEdinburgh

Glasgow

Alexandria

Dumbarton

Grangemouth

M8M8

M74

M9

A80

A8

A8A737

A82

A71

Falkirk14 15 16 17

1819

2021

2223

24

2526

27

Firth of Forth

LochLomond

River Clyde

Fig.11. Plan of the £78 million Millennium Link canal regeneration project

Fig.10. Aerial view of Wester Hailes, Edinburgh showing the disusedcanal severed in a large housing estate




ways. In 1868 over 3 Mt of goods werecarried and even by 1906 traffic wasstill a significant 1 Mt and 0·7 Mt in1913.

However, Grangemouth Docks wereclosed to merchant shipping throughoutthe first world war, effectively killingmajor traffic.51 In 1933 the connectingflight of locks with the Union Canal atFalkirk were infilled and both canalswere eventually closed to navigation inthe 1960s.

Following closure, the canals weresevered or blocked in over 30 locations.In the simplest cases, opening bridgesbecame fixed. In other cases roads werebuilt at grade across new culverts.Lengths totalling 7 km were infilled, themost damaging being over 2 km atGrangemouth and 1·7 km through alarge peripheral housing estate at WesterHailes in Edinburgh (Fig. 10).

Locks fell into disrepair and a multi-tude of public utility services was placed

across the canals.

Millennium Link—a mechanismfor change

The £78 million Millennium Link pro-ject was conceived as a mechanism bywhich the restoration of 110 km of theForth & Clyde and Union canals wouldbecome the focus for a much broadertransformation (Fig. 11). The project isthe culmination of over 25 years of cam-paigning by canal-side communities—major losers from economic restructuring.The regeneration of the waterways isintended to act as a stimulus for widercommunity and environmental renewal.

Local pressure contributed to closure,but attitudes changed with new localpressure to improve the amenity and safe-ty of the canals. As early as 1976, lessthan 14 years following closure, the valueof the Forth & Clyde Canal for recreation-al purposes was recognized to be ofregional significance. This change in atti-

tude led through a series of stages to theformal adoption in November 1988 of theForth & Clyde Canal local plan. Thisstatutory plan is unusual in that it is linearand crosses local authority boundaries.52

The will for restoration was growing,but not the means. Some piecemealimprovements were implemented duringthe late 1980s and early 1990s, whenfour culverted crossings were replaced byfixed bridges giving navigable headroom(Fig. 12). A long-term project of lockgate renewal was also begun at that time.

National Lottery enablescomplete regeneration

With the onset of the National Lotteryin 1994 it became realistic to considerfull restoration from Grangemouth onthe Forth to Bowling on the Clyde andbetween Glasgow and Edinburgh. BritishWaterways accepted the lead role as pro-ject promoter and project manager.

The civil engineering to restore both

67

Fig.13. Aerial view of Camelon Road at Falkirk—site of the original Camelon aqueduct—showing the canal blocked by culverts


‘‘ ’’In 1933 the connecting flight of locks with the Union Canal at Falkirk were infilledand both canals were eventually closed to navigation in the 1960s



canals is challenging and complex (Fig.13). Apparently simple new bridge cross-ings involve difficult road geometry, com-plicated service diversions and importantlocal planning issues. The tight budgetarycontrol, programming and procurementissues are also familiar. It is important notto diminish the significance of these chal-lenges nor the hard work and dedicationrequired to achieve engineering success.

However, the construction industry isused to such challenges with experi-enced people and organizations beingavailable with established skills.Arguably Smeaton would recognizethese challenges and skills while beingamazed at the sheer volume of legisla-tion and procedures to be followed.

Establishing the value ofregeneration

The real challenges lay in establishingthe value of the project and in puttingtogether the required funding (Table 2).The improvement of canals in Englandand elsewhere had been shown to leadto wider regeneration,53 with somenotable successes such as inBirmingham. The main drivers were thecreation of colourful activity on thewater and an improved environmentalong the canals. Activity could bequickly generated through the extensivenetwork of canals across England.

The canals in Scotland are different.They are discrete and not integrated intoa network. A significant level of activityon the water required at least thereopening of the canals betweenGlasgow and Edinburgh. By alsoreopening between the North Sea andthe Atlantic, the west of Scotland sailingwaters could be made accessible to anadditional 500 000 craft in northernEurope.54 Unlikely to risk the long openvoyage to the more northerly and muchlarger Caledonian Canal, these coast-hopping smaller craft would provide atarget market for the much more acces-sible Forth & Clyde Canal (Table 3).

Social exclusion may be a currentbuzz phrase, but the underlying valuesare real. The canals pass through manyareas of deprivation. Real sustainabledevelopment is now recognized as thecombination of environmental, economicand social exclusion considerations.55,56

68

Navigation parameter Forth & Union CaledonianClyde Canal CanalCanal

Limiting dimensions—craftLength: m 20·12 21·34 45·72Breadth: m 5.79 3.65 10·67Draught: m 1.63 0.90 4·11Air draught: m 2.95 2.70 27·4

Canal channelClear water depth over 6 m wide channel: m 1·83 1·07Towpath width: m 2·50 1·80

New bridgesHeight from water to canal bridge soffit: m 3·00 2·74Height from towpath to bridge soffit: m 2·60 2·45Clear water width: m 6·35 3·85Clear water depth: m 1·83 1·07Towpath width under fixed bridges: m 3·00 2·50

Table 3. Navigation parameters

Contract Value: Site Scope Contract formref. £ million

1 3 A801 Lathallan Road Fixed bridge ICE design and constructVellore Road Fixed bridgeGreendykes Road Fixed bridgeM8 Broxburn Fixed bridge and

realigned canal2 2 Townhead Fixed bridge NEC/ECC, option C—

target contract with activityschedule, design and construct

Cadder Raise bridgeBalmuildy Fixed bridge

3 4·5 Cleveden Road Fixed bridge ICE design and constructCloberhill pipes Fixed bridgeDuntreath Avenue Fixed bridge

4a 2·5 Wester Hailes—Phase 1 Canal and bridges NEC/ECC, option A—priced contract with activityschedule, design and construct

4b 7 Wester Hailes—Phase 2 Canal and bridges NEC/ECC, option A—etc6 17·5 Falkirk Interchange Canal, tunnel, aqueduct NEC/ECC, option A—etc

and wheel7 5 Lock 16 Fixed bridge NEC/ECC, option A— etc

Lock 11 Camelon Road Fixed bridge and new lockMerer’s bridge Fixed bridge and new lockBainsford Fixed bridge and new lock

8 4·5 Grangemouth Link Canal and 2 locks NEC/ECC, option A—etc9 5 Dalmuir pipes Fixed bridge and droplock NEC/ECC, option A— etc

Kilbowie Road Fixed bridgeArgyll Road Fixed bridge

10a 1·5 Twechar bridge Opening bridge NEC/ECC, option A—etcrecommissioned

Hillhead bridge Opening bridge recommissioned

Erskine Ferry bridge Opening bridge recommissioned

10b 1·75 Bonnybridge New opening bridge NEC/ECC, option A—etcSylvania Way Twin footbridges

10c Leamington Lift bridge Fix bridge in open position TBD11 2·5 A80 Fixed bridge NEC/ECC, option A—etc

Castlecary bridge Fixed bridge12 1·75 Wyndford Fixed bridge NEC/ECC, option A—etc

Auchinstarry Fixed bridge

Note: In addition to the major contracts the Millennium Link project includes repairs to masonry bridges, aqueducts,weirs and culverts, installation of timber lock gates, dredging and landscaping.

Table 2. Major contracts


‘‘ ’’The real challenges lay in establishing the value of the project and in puttingtogether the required funding



This project,which on the face ofit is about civil engi-neering, is in factthe key first stage ofan exemplar for sus-tainable develop-ment. It brings civilengineering into themainstream. Civilengineers must beable to understandthe real why of whatthey do.

Building thefundingpartnership

The capital invest-ment for restorationhad to be justifiedbut, unlike inSmeaton’s day, notnecessarily with adirect commercialpayback. Theinvestors have theirown objectives,including social, economic and environ-mental aspects. Although broader in con-cept these are often interpreted from anarrow organizational viewpoint.

The revenue costs of the reopenedcanals also had to be justified. Stepincome had to match or exceed step coststo allow British Waterways to continue inthe role of owner and manager.

The lead role and the financial risk lieswith British Waterways. The over-archingdocument is the contract between BritishWaterways and the Millennium

Commission. This sets a completion dateof September 2001 and defines projectpurpose as the restoration of navigationcoast to coast and between Edinburghand Glasgow. British Waterways has simi-lar legal agreements with ScottishEnterprise and with the local authorities.

All responsibility and risk for deliveryof the £78 million canal restoration,including any cost overrun, lies withBritish Waterways, which is also therecipient of a European RegionalDevelopment (ERDF) grant. This willing-ness by one party to take a strong leadand accept clear responsibility was instru-mental in the success in securing the part-nership and the funding package (Table4). Each funding partner has clarity ofresponsibility and contribution. A partner-ship steering committee chaired by a localauthority councillor monitors progress.

Local authorities were mostly interest-ed in the local social and environmentalbenefits of the particular section of theproject through their area. The supportof canal-side communities was as crucialas any projected benefits produced byprofessional analysis.

The Millennium Commission, having

been convinced of the community sup-port, appointed consulting engineers tocarry out a detailed appraisal of technicaland financial aspects, including the likelyachievement of the multitude of statutoryapprovals required. Scottish Enterpriseevaluated a broad range of economic andenvironmental benefits.

Obtaining EDRF support required afull socio-economic cost–benefit analysisin accordance with rules laid down by theEuropean Commission. The analysisrequired the full cost to be justifiedregardless of the level of grant.

The environmental aspects had to beapproved by Scottish Natural Heritage toallow that body to validate the project tothe satisfaction of the EDRF. Throughoutthis process, which ran from the summerof 1994 until the funding package wasfinally secured in March 1998, the leadwas taken by civil engineers.

Falkirk Wheel—a symbolHistorically, the two canals met near

Falkirk, with a traditional flight of elevenlocks overcoming the 33·5 m level differ-ence. A new route and a new method ofconnecting the canals have been devised,

69

Funder Amount: £ million

Millennium Commission 32·20Scottish Enterprise Network 18·70Strathclyde European Partnership (ERDF) 4·75Eastern Scotland Eur. Partnership (ERDF) 3·84British Waterways 9·30City of Edinburgh Council 1·70West Lothian Council 0·55Falkirk Council 0·55North Lanarkshire Council 1·28East Dunbartonshire Council 0·44Glasgow City Council 2·35West Dunbartonshire Council 0·33Private and voluntary sector 2·40

Table 4. Project funders

Fig.14. Plan of the proposed Falkirk interchange between the Forth & Clyde and Union canals




intended as a landmark for modern engi-neering.

Innovatively combining proven tech-nologies, a striking rotating boat lift willtransport leisure craft and visitors (Fig15). Its sheer scale and uniquenessshould be a magnet for visitors and it isexpected to become an internationaltourism attraction in its own right.

The wheel is symbolic of the purpose ofthe Millennium Link as a catalyst for sus-tainable change. On the site of formeropencast mining and an old tar works,adjacent to the Antonine Wall whichmarks the northernmost boundary of theRoman Empire, the Wheel is more thansimply a device for moving boats betweentwo canals. Its presence should stimulatedevelopment and create opportunities forlocal people, groups and businesses.

Environmental legislationgoverning the project

Public awareness on environmental andsustainability issues only really started inthe 1960s. The Millennium Link repre-sents both environmental and sustainabili-ty awareness and the need to sustaininfrastructure which has both social and

environmental benefits. An earlier exam-ple of a project where socio-environmen-tal benefits outweighed economic benefitswas the 1967 Strathclyde Park scheme.57

This involved formation of the StrathclydeLoch between Motherwell and Hamiltonwith the aim of regenerating the area toprovide benefits to the local communityfor recreation and sport. The MillenniumLink project fits exactly into that kind offramework, where the benefits will be tothe communities along the length of thecanal in terms of sport, recreation andenvironmental regeneration.

With increased public awareness of theenvironment and sustainability it is notsurprising that there has been a plethoraof environmental legislation since around1967. The legislation is also reflected inthe membership of the European Union.By 1992, over 200 legislative acts, direc-tives and regulations had been promul-gated by the European Union and aremandatory on all member states. This isin addition to the considerable legislationthat is also passed through the UK parlia-ment on environmental issues. Table 558

shows some of the legislation affectingthe construction industry and specifically

the Millennium Link.The combined Forth & Clyde and

Union canals have become a scheduledancient monument under HistoricScotland and a listed building under theplanning regulations. This requires ahigher standard of reconstruction and amore rigorous case for planning.

The canal passes through several local

70

Sector Legislation

Water Control of Pollution ActDrinking Water DirectiveUrban Wastewater DirectiveBathing Water DirectiveProtection of Groundwater DirectiveFramework for Water Policy Directive (tobe enacted)

Air Air Pollution Directive

Land Environment BillLandfill Tax BillAggregate Tax (to be enacted)The Landfill Directive

General Environmental Impact Assessment DirectiveConservation of Birds DirectiveWaste Management Directive

Table 5. Legislation affecting the civil engi-neering of the Millennium Link58

Fig.15. Artist’s impression of the spectacular Falkirk Wheel, centrepiece of the project




authority areas and is thus subject to anumber of different planning authorities.Each civil engineering project associatedwith the canal requires planning permis-sion. This in turn requires the full rigour ofenvironmental legislation to be applied, inparticular the environmental impact assess-ment required to plan and design the oper-ation and maintenance of the system.

BWB’s environmental codeBritish Waterways Board has estab-

lished an environmental code of practicethat includes the preparation and publica-tion of an environmental policy. Everymajor maintenance project—includingdredging and alterations to the towpath—requires an environmental appraisal.

For example, an environmentalappraisal for dredging operations requiresenvironmental consideration of the oper-ations themselves as well as proposals toreduce any detrimental impact. Certainsections of the canals contain contaminat-ed silt, which may exclude disposal ofspoil to adjacent land due to high levelsof heavy metals. In compliance with theenvironment bill, such spoil needs to betransported to commercial landfill sitesand subject to landfill tax.

The impact of dredging operationsrequires a number of surveys to beundertaken to ensure that the ecology ofthe canal is not adversely affected and toprotect rare species. These thereforeinclude plant species surveys, breedingbird surveys and others in order to designoperations and ensure that environmentalquality standards are satisfied. Table 659

shows a typical example of a plantspecies survey carried out in the canal.

All planning applications require con-sultation with the various statutoryauthorities in Scotland, including theScottish Environment Protection Agency,

Scottish Natural Heritage and the RoyalSociety for the Protection of Birds. Intaking forward an environmental policyand having an environmental code ofpractice, the British Waterways Board hasdemonstrated to the various environmen-tal regulatory bodies and conservationgroups that the Millennium Link projectwill be of environmental benefit to thearea and can be undertaken withoutsevere environmental impact on the ecol-ogy of the system. In this way environ-mental legislation such as theConservation of Birds Directive, theWaste Management Directive,Environmental Impact AssessmentRegulations, the Control of Pollution Actand the Environment Bill are satisfiedand the construction process is not seenas a detrimental problem.

It is the opinion of the authors thatfuture civil engineering projects requirethe framework for an environmental codeof practice in order to ensure smootherprogress to the approval of projects andtheir future management within anation’s environmental infrastructure.

Socio-environmental benefits ofthe project

The canal project will reopen a water-way capable of transporting vessels 20 mlong by 4 m wide between the North Seaand Irish Sea. In places the canal runsparallel to the Antonine Wall, significant-ly improving access to what was the mostnortherly line of Roman occupation. Itwill promote cycling as a recreationalsport by reopening towpaths with specialprovision for cyclists and pedestrians.

The canal will enable increased interestin ecology by encouraging schools as partof their curriculum and volunteer groupsto access the canal towpaths to enjoy thebiodiversity that already exists there, both

in flora and fauna. The redevelopmentwill be signposted to identify plants, ani-mals and birds in their canal habitats.

The canal will also give engineers andlay people alike a much greater apprecia-tion of the civil engineering excellencegenerated in the 18th and 19th centuriesby Smeaton and others. The AmericanSociety of Civil Engineers and theInstitution of Civil Engineers panel forhistorical engineering works (PHEW)have designated the site of particularimportance and plan to register it as aninternational heritage site.

The reopening of the Forth & ClydeCanal and the Union Canal, together withthe other Scottish and English canal sys-tems, will enable the resurgence of boat-ing activities which use canals and willenable them to link to other internationalcanal projects through the internationalcanal network.

The Millennium Link also passesthrough depressed socio-economic areasand by regenerating a canal these areaswill benefit in the form of improved recre-ation and benefits in small business start-ups associated with the canal project.

A question of sustainabilityThe original Forth & Clyde Canal cost

£394 545 to build, which to build nowon the same line, for modern traffic, andcomplying with current codes of practiceand regulations, would represent aninvestment probably in the order of £400million. The £78 million investment inregenerating it and the Union Canaltherefore represents only a small fractionof the cost of creating this facility now.

The project’s sustainability, however,must be within a socio-environmentalframework. The canal in itself must gen-erate sufficient revenue income throughcharges to boat users, wayleaves andwater charges to sustain the navigablewaterway to the environmental qualitystandards of today and of the future.Only then will the ‘enviro-capital invest-ment’ be justified.

AcknowledgementsThe authors are grateful to the Royal

Society for their permission to publishFigs 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and to BritishWaterways for permission to publish Figs10, 12, 13 and 15.

71

Species Common Name GB F&C Notes

Ceratophyllum demersum Hornwort 3 13 Notable Scottish speciesMyriophyllum spicatum Spiked water millfoil 3 4 Limited to shallowsPotamogeton friesii Flat-stalked pondweed 2 12 Notable Scottish speciesPotamogen obtusifolius Blunt-leaved pondweed 1 6 Notable Scottish speciesPotamogen x bennettii Bennett’s pondweed 4 5 Endemic to canal

Notes1. GB, Glasgow Branch.2. F&C, Forth & Clyde Canal3. Notable Scottish species include those which are scarce in Scotland (found in <100 10 x 10 km squares in Scotland) and/or have localizeddistribution in Scotland.

Table 6. Example of a plant species survey59


‘‘ ’’The canal in itself must generate sufficient revenue income through charges toboat users, wayleaves and water charges to sustain the navigable waterway to theenvironmental quality standards of today and of the future



72

References1. TELFORD T. Navigation inland. Edinburgh

Encyclopaedia. Edinburgh, 1830, XV,223–224. First published in 1821.

2. DEFOE D. Tour Thro’ the Whole Island ofGreat Britain. 1727 (1726), III, p. 101(Scotland).

3. HOPKIRK J. Account of the Forth and ClydeCanal Navigation. Glasgow, 1816, p. 7.

4. Smeaton described himself as a ‘CivilEngineer’ as early as 1754 in a report of21 September 1754 on the drainage ofLochar Moss, near Dumfries. Dr W.Singer, General View of the Agriculture… ofDumfriesshire. Edinburgh, 1812, p. 491.

5. LESLIE J. and PAXTON R. Bright Lights—TheStevenson Engineers, 1752–1971. 1999, p.120.

6. SMEATON J. The Report of John Smeaton,Engineer and FRS, Concerning thePracticability and Expense of Joining theRivers Forth & Clyde by a NavigableCanal…, Edinburgh, 1767.

7. MACKELL R. and WATT J.An Account of theNavigable Canal, Proposed to be Cut from theRiver Clyde to the River Carron.1767, p. 16.

8. LINDSAY J. The Canals of Scotland. NewtonAbbot, 1968, p. 18.

9. SMEATON J. The second report of…Edinburgh, 1767. Partnership,Dunfermline, 1998.

10. Act. 8. Geo. III, c.63. (8 March 1768).11. SMEATON J. Reports of the late John

Smeaton, FRS Made on Various Occasions inthe Course of his Employment as a CivilEngineer. 1812, II, pp.122-124.

12. Dr Martin Barnes in the 1999 ICESmeaton Lecture. NCE, 5/12 August,1999, p. 20.

13. Compiled by the author from Hopkirk,op. cit. 75 and National Archives ofScotland, BR/FCN/1/37, 211–214.

14. Imperial Gazetteer of Scotland. Fullarton,c.1856, I, 687.

15. BRINDLEY J., YEOMAN T. and GOLBORNE J.Reports by… Relative to a NavigableCommunication Betwixt the Friths of Forthand Clyde. Edinburgh, 1768, p. 13.

16. SMEATON J. A Review of Several MattersRelative to the Forth and Clyde Navigation,as Now settled by Act of Parliament: withSome Observations on the Reports of Mess.Brindley, Yeoman and Golborne. Edinburgh,1768.

17. Act. 11. Geo. III, c.62.18. National Archives of Scotland,

BR/FCN/1/5 365–378.19. LINDSAY. Op. cit. 26.20. National Archives of Scotland,

BR/FCN/1/11, 140.21. WHITWORTH R. Report of… to the

Company of Proprietors of the Forth andClyde Navigation. Relative to the Tract of the

Intended Canal, from Stockingfield West-ward,and Different Places of Entry into the RiverClyde.With Estimates… and Pointing outWhere Several Additional Supplies of Watermay be Got… August 2. 1785. (n.p., 1785).To be read in conjunction with ref. 32.

22. National Archives of Scotland,BR/FCN/1/37, 211–214.

23. TELFORD. Op. cit. pl. (414)24. HOPKIRK. Op. cit. 30.25. National Archives of Scotland,

BR/FCN/1/5, 75.26. The Smeaton drawings at the Royal

Society, London,V, f. 27.27. The Smeaton drawings at the Royal

Society, London,V, f. 26v.28. HOPKIRK. Op. cit. 25.29. The Smeaton drawings at the Royal



Society, London,V, f. 11.32. Part of ‘A Plan of the Great Canal from

Forth to Clyde by Robt. WhitworthEsqr and Mr John Laurie’. Drawn andengraved by John Ainslie, 1785. Anotheredition was published in 1790.

33. Forth Ports Authority. Copy letter J.Smeaton to A. Hart,Agent to theNavigation, 29 Nov. 1769.

34. The Smeaton drawings at the RoyalSociety, London, V, f. 9v.

35. Author’s photograph ex dono the lateJohn G. James.

36. HOPKIRK. Op. cit. 2537. National Archives of Scotland,

BR/FCN/1/1, 69. Minutes of meeting of15 April 1768.

38. National Archives of Scotland,BR/FCN/1/12; FPA. Whitworth letter 29April 1788.

39. National Archives of Scotland,BR/FCN/1/1. Lindsay. Op. cit. 20, 26.

40. Based on a discussion about present-dayrates with A. Robertson of Barr Ltd, Ayr.

41. National Archives of Scotland,BR/FCN/1/1, 91. Minutes of 7 June 1768.BR/FCN/1/7, 209. BR/FCN/1/5.Smeaton’s report to Edin. Meeting 2August 1773.

42. National Archives of Scotland,BR/FCN/1/8. Report to committee 13November 1786. The rates varied from£6.15s to £15 per rood; that is 36 sq.yds superficial at a notional 2 ft thickreduced from the measured area andthickness or 24 cu. yds.

43. HADFIELD C. Rivers and canals. JohnSmeaton, FRS (Skempton A.W. (ed.)).Thomas Telford, London, 1981, p. 123.

44. According to Patrick Colquhoun whowas Superintendent of the Navigationuntil 1792.

45. Using the factor of 280 from Paxton R.A. Conservation of Laigh Milton Viaduct,Ayrshire. Proceedings of the Institution ofCivil Engineers, Civil Engineering, 1998,126, May, 74, which is probably conserv-ative in this case.

46. LINDSAY J. Op. cit. 220–221.47. LINDSAY J. Op. cit. 217–218.48. LINDSAY J. Op.cit. 65, 210.49. TELFORD. Op. cit. 311.50. LINDSAY J. Op. cit. 83.51. LINDSAY J. Op. cit, 49.52. Forth and Clyde Canal Local Plan.

Strathclyde Regional Council, Glasgow,1988.

53. Canals—A Catalyst for Regeneration.Conference Proceedings, BritishWaterways, Glasgow, 1995.

54. Ash Consultants and Coopers andLybrand. Tourism Study for BritishWaterways and Scottish Tourist Board.British Waterways, Glasgow, 1995.

55. Consultative Report—The SustainableDevelopment Project. Eastern ScotlandEuropean Partnership, Dunfermline, 1998.

56. Down To Earth—A Scottish Perspective onSustainable Development. The ScottishOffice, Edinburgh, 1999.

57. FLEMING G., FRAZER W.and ALLEN J.H.Sediment Movement in the Clyde In TheSection of Hamilton Low Parks. Report toBinnie & Partners,HO-67-13,Departmentof Civil Engineering,University ofStrathclyde.November 1967.

58. KRÄMER L. Focus on EuropeanEnvironmental Law, Sweet & Maxwell,1992, p. 86.

59. The Millennium Link—Dredging Operationsand Environmental Considerations andMitigations for Spot Dredging betweenSpeirs Wharf and Stockingfield Junction inSpring/Summer 1999. British Waterwaysreport, May 1999.

Note: (Smeaton, J.) A catalogue of the civiland mechanical engineering designs1741–1792 of John Smeaton, FRS, preserved inthe library of the Royal Society. NewcomenSociety, 1950, includes details of 40 Forth &Clyde Canal plans from Smeaton’s own col-lection (1768-92).

DiscussionIf you would like to contribute to

the discussion please post/fax/e-mail

your comments (500 words maximum)

to the editor by

31 August 2000.



Documents

Regeneration of the Forth & Clyde and Union canals, Scotland · 2019. 2. 11. · REGENERATION OF THE FORTH & CLYDE AND UNION CANALS,SCOTLAND with the canal company £40 000 in debt