Greenwich Power Station, industrial railways and stuff

Over the past week or so GIHS has had several enquiries from Greenwich University students who saythey are researching the background and architecture of Greenwich Power Station.

First of all I always ask ‘do you mean the one on Crowley’s Wharf’ which is still in use?? But –poor things – they are unlikely to know anything about Blackwall Point power station on the Peninsula  or the great series of power stations at Deptford – and to the first power station of allto which there is, scandalously, no memorial. Not to mention those in Woolwich – including – the still standing depot at White Hart Road.

Anyway – I refer them to Peter Guillery’s seminal article “Greenwich Generating Station” in London’sIndustrial Archaeology No.7. (and take pains to point out what an important architectural historian Peter is). I refer them to the GLIAS website http://www.glias.org.uk/ but I am aware that it doesn’t have a link for book sales – and I will get on to the editor myself and try and sort that out. I can, I suppose, provide a photocopy – and –as I actually edited that edition of the journal I might have a digital copy of it somewhere on an old CD.

Drawing of Greenwich Power Station taken
 from the booklet produced by LCC on its opening

The other question we need answered about Greenwich Power Station is “is it the oldest power station left fulfilling its original function?? It opened in 1906 to supply power for the London County Council tramways – and still performs the same function, albei tto the London Underground..


Anyway – this note is also to introduce items from another book which has recently come our way. “Industrial Railways and Locomotives of the County of London” (Industrial Railway Society 2008 compiled by Robin Waywell and Frank Jux)

This is an exhaustive list of all the industrial locomotives which ran at some time or other in London. I haven’t done any counting but it is my guess that Greenwich and Woolwich easily top the list of boroughs as far as numbers are concerned – and also as far as sites where locomotives ran. There is hardly a page where a Greenwich industrial site isn’t mentioned – and the two largest sites are ours (the Arsenal with 8 pages, and William Jones with 10 pages). It includes some remarkably obscure firms –and it is a gold mine for us and we should be able to feature many of the companies in the future.

Locos on the power station jetty

So – back to Greenwich Power Station – and, yes, it features as a site for an industrial railway. The book tells us that electric locos built on tramcar trucks were used to haul coal from the jetty but in the early 1920s a system of conveyor belts was used and the locos “relegated to spare”. You will have to look at the book itself for all the details of the locos and the gauges and stuff like that.

Mary

Eltham Road

Roads and their uses have always been a subject of interest to industrial historians - they all exist to fulfil a need of some sort and are of all ages from estate roads built in the past few weeks to serve a new development to ancient trackways whose origins can only be speculated on. We tend to take them all for granted.

In a recent edition of the Woolwich Antiquarians newsletter Richard Buchanan has looked at Eltham Road. He takes as his starting point an old Ordnance Survey map of Blackheath and comments that it which shows what we know as 'Hare& Billet Road' marked as "Eltham Road".

Of course, as he points out, what we know today as Eltham Road runs from the Old Tiger's Head Pub at Lee Green to Eltham Green and then up a road called Eltham Hill into Eltham itself. Thus he points that changes in modern road patterns have disguised the medieval direct route from the Dover Road at the top of Blackheath Hill to Eltham.

He says "Using present road names, the route diverges from the Dover Road at Dartmouth Hill then runs to Hare & Billet Road, Tranquil Vale, Blackheath Village, Lee Road, Eltham Road and Eltham Hill".
"The medieval Eltham Road is just under four miles long" and on its route had to cross the Kid Brook "which it did where the railway bridge in Blackheath Village is now" and it also had to cross the River Quaggy "which is bridged in Lee Road just before the Old Tiger's Head Pub".

The destination - Eltham Palace

Eltham Road begins at the point at which the road from Greenwich coming via Croom's Hill meets the Dover Road. He notes that "There were, ofcourse Royal Palaces at both Greenwich and Eltham and domestic supplies normally went by road between them and the Tower of London, as the Court progressed from one to another".

Royal necessities could have course come from London by river via Greenwich, or "possibly with smaller boats along the Ravensbourne &. Quaggy to Lee" and in all cases "needing the Eltham Road for the last stretch to Eltham" and "ordinary trade to London would have followed the same route." Post also used the Eltham Road since "postal services developed from Royal message carrying arrangements" and "the Eltham Road continued to be used in the 17th century as an early route for theRoyal Mail.

Richard finishes with an note about how changes in the functions of an area change the sort of routes we need. "Nowadays to go to Eltham from Blackheath Hill one would take theShooters Hill Road across the Heath before turning right, perhaps not until reaching the South Circular road from Woolwich" and concludes that "The Woolwich connection became the main one as industry developed" - and of course, although he does not say so, the demise of Eltham Palace as a place of Royal importance


A local gas works tar spraying vehicle on Blackheath at the junction of Eltham Road in the 1950s

(Woolwich and District Antiquarian Society. October 2011 Editor Richard Buchanan)

The Woolwich Ferry - views of GLIAS members

Over the past years GLIAS's Newsletter has contained several contributions about the Woolwich ferry.  As a London wide organisation concerned with industrial history clearly GLIAS members come from all over and are not usually local to Greenwich and Woolwich - having said that I do wish some of these contributors would get in touch with us -
GLIAS
anyway - the October newsletter has another article "WOOLWICH FREE FERRY - MEMORIES OF THE PADDLE BOATS"


The author begins by telling us his memories of the old paddle steamers which were replaced by the current boats in 1963.  He says that from 1958 he lived in Woolwich and worked in the Royal Docks "so had many free rides with or without bicycle on the ferry".

He describes the boats as doing the "300 metre river crossing in a strange semi-circular course during which the boat seemed to spend quite  bit of the time going sideways or backwards."(they still do that - don't they? I guess there is a good reason for it)

He then comments (something we all know!) that "compared to today the river was busy with commercial activity from all sorts of ships and from barges and lighters and the ferry's crossing would often be delayed awaiting the passage of a vessel going fast with a strong tide. So coupled with poor visibility from fog the crossing appeared, at times, fraught with danger".

He goes on: "The paddlers were coke-fired so perhaps the London County Council" who ran the ferry, were setting an example to their citizens on the importance of smokeless fuels if pea soupers were to be eliminated".   ...... and  ...."Normally, the ferries were berthed at the pontoons with the bow into the current, but when the tide changed the ferry had to be docked at the end of one crossing the other way round causing confusion on the vehicle deck as the cars had to leave the way they came aboard rather than being able to drive through. At busy times three paddlers were in use requiring a mid-stream dawdle until the berth cleared.

But - as he says  "for an observer with an engineering bent"  it was the engines which were the main attraction.   "The paddlers had two independent engines, single expansion I think, twin-cylinder arranged as an inverted 'V driving, big ends side by side, onto a single crank which was coupled to one of the paddles. This meant that in theory at least, the ship could rotate about a central vertical axis if equal power was applied in opposite directions. On most paddle steamers it suffices to have a single engine with the paddle wheels permanently coupled to opposite ends of the crankshaft but the ferry duties in Woolwich Reach demanded greater manoeuvrability.

And, interestingly, he says: "each engine required its own driver who took his instructions by way of the traditional chain-operated telegraph from the bridge. Every command was accompanied by a bell code and was displayed on a heavily built brass indicator with  last-forever vitreous enamel face on it. The order had to be acknowledged to the bridge by the driver (more bells') so there was always a certain theatrical excitement in the voyage.

And - of course "Added to this was the sort of smell only present in the engine rooms of steam ships, a pleasant warmth and an aroma of hot oil and damp steam  - the most relaxing feature was the lack of noise with only minor hissing and muffled thumping as the engines got to work pushing the boat against the strong tides.

A view of the old and new ferries together
(and is that the autostaker in the background???)


So far so good - however he then goes on, more politically  - "The future of the Woolwich Ferry is interesting to contemplate ....................with the demands of motor traffic now being what they are the ferry is an anachronism  ....pedestrians have the fool tunnel available (unpleasant as it is) and since the DLR was opened to the centre of Woolwich rapid and frequent access to the southern side of the now commercially silent Royal Docks ......................Further, this redundant and expensive to run mode is sponsored by the taxpayer .............and the main traffic that needs to use it are lorries .... Meanwhile the existing three, now elderly, ferries must continue to demand heavy repair bills as they rust away and wear out ...................there seems to be little justification for a ferry with its limited capacity especially as it is paid for by the taxpayer rather than the user.

Oh dear!!   What do we think about that then??!!

Notes on visit to Deptford Dockyard

Deptford Dockyard Excavations – Notes of site visit Saturday 8 Oct 2011

On 8 October 2011, I was able to join a site visit to see some of the archaeological excavations that Museum of London Archaeology have been undertaking since August at Convoys Wharf. I was accompanying Ann Coats, the Secretary of the Naval Dockyards Society. With a party of local people, we were conducted round by Duncan Hawkins of the consultant archaeologists CgMs. The site has been cleared of most standing buildings and there was a large mound of excavated soil which will be filled back into the excavations, and a not quite so large pile of crushed concrete from the ground slabs and modern building foundations that had overlain them. The excavations we saw open were very impressive.

At the southeast edge of the site, trenches had been dug at the inner end of the Great Dock, which was rebuilt at some time before 1808. One trench had extended right across the dock while some pits were more localised, but all had been filled in again. We learnt that the masonry walls in this part of the dry dock had been truncated for the foundations of a large cold store to a depth of 4 metres below ground. This is most disappointing, considering the almost intact masonry walls found in the 2010 evaluation trench at the river end of the dock. The intervening length, including the location of the gates that (unusually for such a date) divided this dock into two, is under a standing warehouse so may not be explored for some time.

North west of that, the site of the Storehouse, part Tudor and part early eighteenth century and scheduled as an Ancient Monument, had been almost completely laid bare, excavated down to natural soil (mostly gravel) beneath the basement floors, but leaving the structures upstanding. The result was an expanse of more than 1 1/2 acres of red brick walls, all truncated to about 1 metre below ground level in the mid 20th century. Some silt-filled depressions marked the sites of earlier small creeks.

Beyond there, near the riverside, two slipways rebuilt in the19th century had been excavated, revealing yellow stock brick walls and planked floors of reused ships' timbers. In No. 5 Slip, the walls had a brick facing backed by lime concrete, and brick counterforts projecting behind. The stumps of the posts for the wooden roof could be seen. The local researcher Chris Mazeika has found this slipway was rebuilt circa 1855. Following disuse as slipways, presumably after the Dockyard closed in 1869, level timber floors had been inserted for other use, for which the supporting timber piles remained.

A large trench had exposed a section of the wall of the Dockyard Basin, about midway along its eastern side. Its nineteenth-century rebuilding was revealed as a substantial stock-brick wall, as I had expected. Chris Mazeika has found that the engineer John Rennie was involved in this from 1814 onwards. The wall had been truncated about 2 metres below ground, at which level it was perhaps 1.2 metres thick. The depth of the Basin and its walls will be proved by further digging. Behind the 19th-century basin wall, the tie-back timbers of earlier basin walls had been found and taken away for dendro dating. Descriptions in earlier archaeological appraisals, based on very limited evaluation trenches, had suggested a 'lining', in poor condition, which is not borne out, but this excavation well demonstrated the considerable truncation of the remains, at a level that matched the underside of a reinforced-concrete foundation beam from a recent warehouse.

The area of the entrance to the Basin has yet to be excavated. We must await news shortly of whether walls survive to near ground level there, as at the entrance to the Great Dock, although I fear the destructive warehouse extended over the site of Rennie's caisson gate of 1814.

We visited the interior of the 'Olympia' building, the grade-2-listed 1840s shipbuilding shed where the evaluation in 2010 of Slipways 2 and 3 had found them largely intact (now backfilled).
We finished on the site of Sayes Court, where recent excavations (now backfilled) had revealed the foundations of the post-mediaeval manor house. The 'archaeological update' issued by the intending developer, Hutchison Whampoa, following the 2010 evaluation had implied they no longer existed.

These large-scale excavations have revealed much more than the restricted evaluation trenches had previously done. They ought to dispel the impression given in the 2010 'archaeological update' that the archaeological remains were limited. There is some further info. on the MOLA website at http://www.museumoflondonarchaeology.org.uk/News/ConvoysWharf.htm

We may note that the Scheme of Archaeological Resource Management, which has been agreed between Hutchison Whampoa, English Heritage and the London Borough of Lewisham, contains sensible measures to protect the archaeology of this exceptional site – I have copied an extract from Section 7.0, entitled 'Preliminary advice on avoiding archaeological impacts through design' :-


7.1.1 It is proposed that the position and extent of the archaeological remains will be fixed through supplementary evaluation (following appropriate Scheduled Monument Consent), followed by mapping/surveying to both archaeological and engineering standards.
7.1.2 As the supplementary evaluation proceeds the significance of the archaeological remains encountered should be kept under review by the LBL, EH, consultant and clients representative.
7.1.3 Where significant archaeological remains have been identified on the preliminary evaluation or are identified in the supplementary evaluation, a design review will then be undertaken of the proposed development layout and design. Preservation in situ will be achieved by the reuse of modern foundations, or by utilising areas of partial archaeological absence (through truncation) for new foundation locations.
7.1.4 Where isolated (or highly fragmentary) and low value archaeological remains are identified there may be arguments for preserving such remains by record rather than in situ. Such preservation by record will be agreed in advance between the LBL, EH, consultant and clients representative.
7.1.5 Where archaeological remains are identified to be wholly absent, a review of the supplementary evaluation results will be implemented and the need for further archaeological mitigation or otherwise agreed between the LBL, EH, consultant and clients representative.
7.1.6 The objective will be to use historic assets to inform the design process and preserve in situ the archaeological remains.
7.1.7 At this stage a number of measures to avoid archaeological impacts can be identified.

The supplementary evaluation comprises the programme of excavations now in progress and others which will take place in the future. Undertaking these excavations is a significant investment on the part of the developer. The measures recommended to avoid archaeological impacts include the 'encapsulation' of remains underlying buildings wherever possible. 'The possibility should not be excluded that certain remains may be encountered that are of such quality and significance as to justify display within the context of the new development', but dependent on their suitability in terms of condition.
New basements and undercrofts should be wholly avoided except where archaeological remains are found to be absent. Other measures include the designing of pile positions to avoid remains, the raising of ground levels to provide space for services and footings and the use of existing service runs and areas of disturbed ground for the routing of services. The full recommendations are to be found at
http://www.convoyswharf.com/pdfs/Volume_2a_Technical_Appendices/2A-5-Archaeology/CW2-2A-2-5_Archaeology_Vol_II_SARM_Rev_5_Jan_2010.pdf


Malcolm Tucker
9 October 2011, rev. 26 Oct 2011


Appendix of Heritage Assests
(with thanks to Chris Mazeika

Heritage Assets of the former King’s Yard, the Royal Naval Dockyard 1513-1869, the Metropolitan Foreign Cattle Market 1871-1914, His Majesty’s Supply Reserve Depot 1914-1950 and Convoy’s Wharf 1922-2002

Officers’ Residence and Offices
Master Shipwright’s House
Dockyard Officers’ Offices
Office of the Timber Master
Office Clerk of the Survey
Offices for drawing
Model making rooms
Master Shipwright’s Repository
Master Shipwright’s office for drawing
Officers’ Gardens fountains/paths/parterres c.1774

Great Georgian Dry Dock
Stone built Head dock and timber gates c.1800
Capstan and penstock housings
Timber built Stern dock and timber gates c. 1780
Stone built entrance to dry docks c.1800
Saw pits

Storehouse Complex
Four light Tudor mullioned window with original iron work
Tudor Foundation stone and flame headed gothic arch 1513, bearing Henry VIII cypher
Undercroft Tudor Store House
Undercroft 1720 storehouse complex
Landing Place and Lookout stairs and Causeway c.1720

Slipways
Ariadne Slipway No.5 c1420-1855
Two further slipways No.4/No.1

Basin Complex
Basin Slipway Covers George Baker & Sons 1846 (Olympia Building)
Basin Slipways c.1845 Capt. Sir Willliam Denison R.E.
Basin c.1517-1814 John Rennie includes inverted stone arch, caisson gate groove, Basin entrance and river walls
Basin walls with coping stones removed
Basin gate c.1720
Capstan housings/penstocks/Saw Pits

Pepys Era Mast Pond
Mast Pond c.1650 and mast pond gates to river


Greater Mast Pond
Mast Pond c.1756
Mast Pond Canal By George Ledwell Taylor
Penstocks
Infrastructure for two swing bridges

River Wall
River wall demonstrates the final series of openings into the dockyard which are known to have been commenced as early as 1420. The openings to the dry dock, slipways, basin and mast ponds are extant. There is evidence on the foreshore of timber slipways and stone causeway.

Sayes Court House and Garden Complex
Remains of Sayes Court House
Remains of Sayes Court Alms Houses and Emigration Depot
Sayes Court Garden c.1600-1890


ps - pictures attached to Malcolm's article are on their way when I get the technology sorted out.
Mary

Maltings in Stockwell Street

A member visited the Stockwell Street dig and writes as follows


Yesterday evening residents living in close proximity to the site of the new architecture school and campus library for the University of Greenwich on land to the south of the railway line bounded to the east by the rear gardens of properties in King William Walk, to the south by Nevada Street and to the west by Stockwell Street, were given a talk by Duncan Hawkins of CgMs Consuilting on the archaeological dig which took place during the summer.

No great discoveries were made perhaps understandably for a site which has undergone a whole sequence of urban development and which had been subject to a V2 rocket in early 1945. This landed in the northern part of the site close to the railway and in time new development took place.

Development also continued on parts of the site not affected by bomb damage, the most recent being the construction of John Humphries House for Greenwich Council in the 1960s.The earliest finds were medieval - a 14th century boundary trench - then later finds up to the mid 1800s - stoneware bottles, clay pipes, discarded domestic pottery etc, even the part skeleton of a horse from rubbish pits dotted around the site.

The most interesting aspect of the excavation, which at its deepest went down to close on 3 metres, was the evidence of buildings dating back to the mid 1800s associated with the maltings which were in the centre of the site.

One of these original buildings, in its position and two-storey form, remains on the site but it has, over the years, been given new floors and roof. The three malt kilns which had been part of the maltings operations on the site were also excavated, as were the outlines of more buildings associated with the maltings, including wells. The maltings were established by Frederick John Corder and Alfred Conyers Haycraft towards the end of the 1800s. The partnership was dissolved in 1900 with Haycraft continuing the business until selling out to Hugh Baird and Sons in 1906 or 1907.

Demolition will now proceed and the first part of the new development proposals will be the excavation for, and construction of, a basement which will occupy virtually the whole of the site.

More achievements by Merryweather of Greenwich

Neil Bennett has sent us the following:

Did you know that a Rotary Internal Combustion Engine was conceived and developed in Greenwich High Road, in 1895, thirty-four years before the famous German, Felix Wankel, secured his first patent?

James Compton Merryweather, and his equally eminent engineer, Christopher Jakeman, diverted their energies from fire-fighting equipment to this intriguing project at the zenith of late-Victorian mechanical engineering enterprise.

A drawing of the Merryweather rotary engine is attached, but there isn't space here to try to explain how it works. I doubt very much whether the engine ever worked for more than a few revolutions, even assuming a prototype was actually built, because the builders did not have access to spark-plugs as we know them today, and instead proposed 'hot tube ignition' which must have been far less effective.

Interestingly, itwas not the world's first patent for a rotary internal combustion engine: three earlier ones were taken out in America alone. I have yet to discover an earlier patent for such a thing in Britain - so there's a challenge to all you googlers and researchers.

Ihe mid-late 1960s the London Fire Brigade were seeking new premises to replace their old fire station in Cannon Street. In 1956 the hovercraft had been invented, and ten or so years later, firechiefs were ambitiously contemplating a high-speed fire and rescue hovercraft for the Thames. It was even proposed that a gently sloping ramp would lead from the fire station building into the water, the vessel could be rapidly launched like an R.N.L.I. lifeboat, and would hover her way back up the ramp after each mission for servicing.

What seems to have been overlooked, however, is that when the fire-fighting water jets from the water cannons (monitors) on the vessel were at full throttle, the whole hovercraft would shoot off in the opposite direction, by Newton's Law. That is unless a huge amount of energy was expended in fuel powering highly-tuned aviation propellors, just to maintain the hovercraft on station and remain manoeuverable while it fought a fire. This was not the answer.

The firm Hovermarine had what is known as a 'sidewall' available -a vessel with the hovercraft's virtues of an air-cushion giving high travelling speed, but able to rest in the water, having a ship's rudder and ordinary diesel engines. The sidewall design of hovercraft,as opposed to the better-known amphibious type, cannot leave thewater.

In May 1967, Hovermarine and Merryweather together announced their fire-fighting and rescue vessel and there was a serious intention to build at least two of them. They would have been over 50 feet long, with Merryweather pumps and fire fighting equipment...but it never happened.

Financial issues and a fire at the Hovermarine works contributed tothe vessel never seeing the light of day. The Cannon Street firestation was replaced by Dowgate Fire Station, in the huge Mondial House building in Upper Thames Street, which is close to the river,but in its final form does not have access to the Thames bank. By about 1980, Hovermarine had indeed built four similar high-speed Fireboats for the Port of Rotterdam, but sadly by this time Merryweather and Sons had been left out of the contract and were in the throes of their move out of Greenwich.

Here is an artist's impression from 'Fire' magazine, June 1967, of what the Hovermarine/Merryweather vessel might have looked like... and what's more, I seem to remember having a clockwork toy boat looking exactlythe same - has anyone got one?

Merryweather and Sons has made the progression from a large heavy-metal manufacturing company employing hundreds of men (and a few women) between the banks of Deptford Creek and the Ashburnham Triangle, to a compact and profitable business in rural Kent. Britain's manufacturing prowess, with Merryweather on its meridian in Greenwich, has given way to the Service sector, as seems to befi tmodern times. The company's increasing range of services to corporate and municipal clients remains wedded to fire protection, as follows:-

- Servicing of fire extinguishers

- Service inspection and repairs to dry fire rising mains

- Service inspection and repairs to wet fire rising mains

- Installation of fire alarm systems

- Installation of emergency lighting systems

- Carrying out of fire risk assessments

- Carrying out of structural and passive fire protection work

- Fire training

Structural steelworks on the Greenwich Peninsula

Universal column being fabricated at Redpath Brown's East Greenwich Works for Babcock & Wilcox

"Redpath's", as it was known locally, was the Greenwich steelworks which stood south of the Pilot Inn - but the firm was actually part of the Teeside firm of Dorman Long.

At a quick visit recently to the Dorman Museum in Middlesborough there was a warm reception and a little surprise at a request for any information about the firm's branch in South London. They have now been kind enough to send two extracts from the Dorman Long company magazine - dated 1947 and 1960 - which include some pictures of Redpath's work.

As the accompanying text says:

"Founded in Edinburgh in 1802, Redpath Brown today is the largest single steel construction unit in the industry. Associated with Dorman Long since 1929, Redpath Brown continues to operate as a separate entity while enjoying the advantages of close association with an important producer of its chief raw material. At home and overseas Redpath Brown steel structures provide the framework of many notable public, commercial and industrial buildings. Among numerous contracts now on hand are:

Aircraft assembly hall for the Bristol Aeroplane Company requiring fabrication and erection of 7,000 tons of' steelwork. The structure has a floor area of 7.5 acres. The building comprises three bays, each consisting of a 331 foot arch span.

Nearly completed by Redpath Brown is the structural steelwork for the new House of Commons. Work on the 1,300 ton steel framework will be finished within the contract period of nine months.

British Nylon Spinners Factory, Pontypool. The first section, 1,000 feet long by 350 feet wide, rising in parts to a height of 100 feet, and involving the supply, fabrication and erection of 13,000 tons of structural steel, is well advanced.

Kingston Power Station, the first section of which is shown, embodies 2,200 tons of steel in the framework and bunkers. The second section of equal size is now under construction.

Robinson and Sawdon, Hull - cambered universal roof beams.

and - the Cleansing Department, Corporation of London.