Jump to content

Talk:Finnieston Crane

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Restaurant?

[edit]

Should we mention the proposal that a restaurant be built at the top of the crane? See [1] Camillus (talk) 11:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tank Loader

[edit]

A much-quoted story when I was in Glasgow, was that the crane was maintained in working order and protected from the depredations of developers by the Ministry of Defence. The whispered reason given was that it was the only crane capable of lifting a main battle tank on or off a ship, should this ever become necessary. Does anyone have any confirmation/refutation of this yarn? --Oscar Bravo 11:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds a nice urban legend to me - a Challenger II is about 60 tonnes, which is heavy but well within the capacity of a lot of harbour cranes. An obvious example would be the one at Devonport, which is also rather closer to the main tank bases. 81.105.51.96 (talk) 14:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Besides which, few modern ships would have tanks loaded by crane. Ro-ro (and tanks already on transporters) is far more likely. An MBT, heavy though it is as a vehicle, isn't an especially heavy load for modern shipping. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stobcross

[edit]

I was always led to believe that the name of the crane was the Stobcross Crane, and not the Finnieston Crane. Should this page not re-direct to the correct name, or am I mistaken.--Switchbackk (talk) 09:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The crane's primary purpose was to lift massive boilers and engines onto new ships"

[edit]

I believe this is incorrect, and derives from a misinterpretation of "steam engine": the crane was used to load railway locos for export, but some have taken it to mean ships' powerplants. That seems unlikely for a number of reasons: firstly, ships' engines were assembled in the hull of the ship, rather than being built externally and then loaded intact. Secondly, there was never, as far as I'm aware, a shipyard at that site: it was always a loading quay (the name's the giveaway). I've a map from 1929 identifing it as such, and the topography shown is not that of a shipway. It is eminently unlikely that the same basin was ever used for both shipbuilding and docks. The vast majority of reliable sources online indicate that its function was loading locomotives, though a few mention that it was occasionally used for boiler repair and fitting. I'm going to remove it in a week unless anyone can provide a source.FrFintonStack (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't even bother waiting a week. You look like a lot more an expert on the subject than I or anyone else willing to give a toss. Erath (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Name

[edit]

The crane is known locally as 'The Finny Monster' and my wife's grandfather, John Burton, was its driver for a time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:4E8:1:1:BD62:4A31:4615:C1E (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Section removed from article

[edit]

Other cantilever cranes

[edit]

The crane was one of only around 60 giant cantilever cranes ever built worldwide. Now less than 15 remain in existence. Remarkably, four out of six that were built on Clydeside remain (though none are operational):

Three of the remaining Clydeside cranes were built by the Glasgow firm of Sir William Arrol & Co. at their Dalmarnock Ironworks in Dunn Street and Parkhead Crane Works in Rigby Street. Arrol were the world leaders in building this type of crane. The Finnieston crane was built by Cowans Sheldon of Carlisle on foundations built by Arrol.

The other two cranes on Clydeside were the at William Beardmore and Company's Naval Construction Works in Dalmuir and at Fairfield's Shipyard in Govan.

The Dalmuir crane was the first one to be built - by the Glasgow Electric Crane & Hoist Company under licence from the German Company, Benrather. The Fairfield Crane was built by Arrol and was the largest crane in the world when erected at Govan in 1911. It was demolished in 2007 to make way for construction of the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers at the BAE Systems Surface Ships (ex Fairfield) yard.

The Dalmuir crane was the only true 'hammerhead' crane of the six on Clydeside although the others were often called hammerheads. It was used latterly by Babcock & Wilcox Ltd of Renfrew when they occupied part of the former Dalmuir shipyard in the 1960s. The Dalmuir crane was demolished in the 1970s. The Glasgow Electric Crane & Hoist Co was short lived and their works were taken over by Arrol in 1911. Arrol became part of the Tyneside based Clarke Chapman in the 1970s. The famous Dalmarnock Ironworks was closed and demolished in 1986 but at least seven of their Giant Cantilever Cranes are still in existence.

See also

[edit]

Straw loco dates

[edit]

Several sources describe the straw loco sculpture as dating from 1987. The garden festival (very reliably) dates to 1988. Can anyone clarify? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite sure it was 1987. The old revision said 1988, but didn't source it, and I only corrected it today, so a number of sites that scrape or copy from here will say 1988. What is the references that says '88? Jamesx12345 21:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is that it now says "1987 Garden Festival", which is just wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good spot. I've removed the reference to the Garden Festival, which must be a hazy recollection from a previous editor. Jamesx12345 22:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would expect the crane, and sculpture, to have been a part of the Festival. Maybe it was a deliberate precursor to it? Maybe it appeared in '87 and lasted through the festival (do we know definitely when it was destroyed?) I wouldn't be too quick to discount a link entirely. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've found this, a highly reliable source, says 1988, but lots of other books say 1987. The large number of books saying 1987, including several on art, suggest that is more likely to be correct. This, from a website connected with him and very likely to be correct, says it was burned in 1987. Jamesx12345 20:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This link suggests it was in fact the Mayfest. Jamesx12345 20:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That makes more sense. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Finnieston Crane/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 19:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First reading

[edit]
  • There should be no need of citations in the lead section because all information there should be in the body of the text where it will be cited. This includes both the city heritage and the BBC.
  • "It is one of four such cranes on the Clyde, after the fifth was demolished in 2007," - It would be better to say, "a fifth one having been demolished in 2007."
  • "The original Finnieston Crane, located 450 metres (1,480 ft) upriver from the current one," - This is a bit vague, could you state more precisely where it is located.
It says in the lead that the crane is in the centre of Glasgow and in the History section it says that it is now located 450 metres east of the original one but this is meaningless if we don't know where either of these places is. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but it was demolished to make way for a bridge proposal that never materialised." - Perhaps this could be changed to "a proposed bridge that was never built."
  • I think the Public artwork section should not be part of the History section but should be a separate section at the end.
I made the changes suggested, and also added some other details. Jamesx12345 20:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other matters

[edit]
  • "Checking the images I see that the crane is described in one of them as the Anderston Crane. Is that what it was called before it was relocated? In any event, the name should be included in the article.
  • "The docks serviced by the crane were closed in 1969, and have since been filled in and developed." - I think you mean redeveloped.
    • Fixed.
  • In #17 there is some archaeological information that you could use to flesh out the article a little by describing what Stobcross Dock was previously like. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've tried to do this, but there is a lot of conflicting information (3 basins or 2?) in that source. I think the later one, from R Paxton, is more likely to be correct and probably refers to the dock at its peak. Jamesx12345 20:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More conflicting information. I can't meaningfully access your #2 or page 94 of #3 but "500 feet downstream" is stated for the position of the new crane in Historic Scotland. It also states that the total cost was $69,000, which seems a very odd figure considering Scotland uses £sterling like the rest of the UK. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The $ is probably just a typo, given that it is the same as ref 3, but the distance is more complex. This source suggests the bridge was proposed in November 1925, and would have carried a tram along Finnieston Street. To have interfered with the workings of the crane, 450 feet actually looks like a more plausible figure. Jamesx12345 11:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While doing some research, I found these two image [2] [3] which show it lifting locomotives, both of which are visually appealing and quite instructive if the correct license can be found. Jamesx12345 11:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This source discusses the bridge proposal, and makes it quite clear that it would have roughly followed the path of the present Clyde Ark. Jamesx12345 12:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the edit you made removing the specific distance between the two cranes is sufficient. The images you mention are good but not necessary for the GA. There are sufficient images in the article for GA now and you can always replace them or add others in the future if the new ones are appropriately licensed. I will have another look through the article now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Criteria

[edit]
  • 1a The article is sufficiently well written to meet the GA criteria.
  • 1b The article conforms with the MOS guidelines as to lead, layout etc.
  • 2a&b The article is well referenced and has inline citations for all contentious statements. In fact the article was completely unreferenced before the nominator started expanding it.
  • 2c There is no original research as far as I can see.
  • 3a&b The coverage is broad enough considering that there is only a limited amount of information available on the crane and the industrial area of Glasgow in which it is located.
  • 4 The article is neutral.
  • 5 The article has been expanded since March 26th by the nominator and is stable.
  • 6 The images are appropriately licensed.
  • 7 The images are relevant to the topic and have suitable captions.
  • Overall assessment - Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Finnieston Crane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Finnieston Crane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Finnieston_Crane&oldid=1206739370"