As feuing to the east of Dunoon expanded in the 1840s, the convenience of a pier for this affluent extension of the village towards Kirn became a priority. The pier opened in 1846 and was built opposite the Kirn Inn that had been opened in 1837 and, after the accession of Queen Victoria, changed its name to the Queen’s Hotel, .

“Kirn Pier Opening Dinner. On Wednesday last, a most influential and highly respectable company of gentlemen met at dinner in the Wellington Hotel, Dunoon for the purpose of celebrating the completion and opening of the splendid and powerful new wharf at Kirn. The chair was ably filled by John Leadbetter, Esq., the vice-chair by Robert Knox, Esq., writer, Glasgow. To those unacquainted with this important locality, it may be necessary to state, that although the population has been rapidly increasing for years back, the only mode of embarking or disembarking from the steamers has been by clumsy row-boats, to the danger and discomfort of travellers, particularly in stormy weather, where either the surge of the sea, or the elements above, frequently deluged the passengers, and did otherwise much injury. It is, therefore, gratifying to know, that, by the spirited efforts of a few gentlemen whose properties beautify this fine part of the coast, they have succeeded in getting rid of the nuisance of so antiquated a kind, and also that they can now accommodate themselves and the public at one-half the charge, besides stepping at once with comfort on an excellent substantial pier. Indeed, we are informed, that many residing there, now step on board the steamers for Dunoon, and from Dunoon also to Kirn, as a sweet little sail from either pier, and as a more speedy transit than walking round the shore. Many excellent speeches were delivered on the occasion, by Messrs. Leadbetter, Knox, Eccles, Wallace, Ord, &c. &c., and the evening was spent with much intelligence and hilarity. The arrangements, the viands, &c., were furnished by Mr. Buchanan of the hotel, in a very superior manner; and a motion was made, that, for the purpose of doing public good to the Kirn and its neighbourhood, at least, a similar meeting of such gentlemen should take place annually.—Courier.”—Glasgow Herald, September 14, 1846

The pier was quickly added as a call by the important steamboats of the day, including the Castle Company. There had been a small jetty at Kirn, dating back over twenty years, but it was unsuitable for the steamboat traffic of the 1840s. It was used for gabbarts and other cargo boats and was adjacent to the new pier.

Kirn around 1870. The prominent building is the Queen’s Hotel. Note the break in the pier for the cattle ramp. 

There appears to have been some instability in the foundations of the pier and rocks were placed on the north side, presumably to break up currents.

Renfrewshire Gazette, November 22, 1859

One important piece of the Clyde Navigation rules was instituted when the steamer Gem got into difficulties off Kirn. The result was that no passengers were allowed on the paddle-boxes while the steamer was in motion.

“River steamer in a critical position.—The passenger trade.—On the afternoon of Saturday last, the passengers by the Gem steamer suffered, for a few minutes, all the agony which the prospect of immediate shipwreck can inflict. The steamer touched at Gourock in her ordinary course, and starting for the Kirn, on the opposite shore, encountered the strong easterly wind and heavy sea which rolled in the Frith. As the vessel approached the Kirn, the captain found that it would be dangerous, or at least inexpedient, considering the state of the weather, to touch at the pier; and he accordingly gave orders to alter the course of the Gem for Dunoon. As this was being done, her broadside became exposed to the full fury of the blast, and she heeled over to an extent which made the passengers very uneasy, but they became alarmed for their lives when it was found that the vessel did not recover herself, as is usually the case with a paddle steamer, which rises on the a next swell of the wave. A large number of bags of flour, which were being carried as a deck load, were thrown into the lee side, and still further increased the danger in which the vessel was placed. In this positions with her by cabin windows under water, and the sea washing upon the leeside of the deck, the Gem lay, or rather drifted, for some time, to the indescribable alarm of the passengers, who could not stand upright, from the slope which the deck had assumed, and who uttered screams in the terror of the vessel being capsized or going down altogether. As all the cabin lights were fortunately closed, there was no risk of the vessel filling by this means, nor was there possibly any real danger; for a gentleman who was on board, and who is a first-rate yachtsman, informs us that, in his opinion, the worst that could have happened, in the event of the steamer not righting, was that she might have drifted on shore. Here, however, there might have been loss of life in the endeavour of the passengers to reach the land; and at all events the position of the vessel was sufficiently alarming to the people who were on board, and who are usually accustomed only to the safe navigation of the Frith in good weather. While the Gemthus hung, almost on her beam-ends, as it were, she was regarded from the Kirn shore with the deepest anxiety, and one man afterwards stated that he turned away his head, as he could not bear the agony of seeing her sink, which he believed was immediately impending. By the action of the engines, however, the vessel was brought to answer her helm, which for a time she had only done imperfectly; and by shifting the bags and passengers onto the upper side, and bringing her head before the wind, she finally righted, and reached Dunoon with her passengers in safety, though sadly flustered by the occurrence which we have narrated. The captain, we are informed, behaved, under the of circumstances, with firmness and judgment—the only mistake being, perhaps, that he attempted to take the Kirn at all in the state of the sea and wind, instead of holding right on from Gourock for Dunoon.

“While on this subject, we may mention, though scarcely in the way of news, that there are two classes of river steamers on the Clyde—one “crank” and the other “stiff.” The former heel over of alarmingly whenever the helm is put about, although they may only have a deck load of 100 passengers, while the latter, under the same circumstances, stand as level and upright as the floor of a drawing room, although there may be 800 passengers on deck. Steamers are made crank either from being bungled in the building, or from being constructed in this way to attain a high degree of speed. We do not undervalue swiftness, but it is dearly purchased at the expense of comfort, not to speak of safety. Few accustomed to travel on the Clyde have escaped the horrors of one of those crank steamers when she heels over with her decks wedged with passengers, say at the season of Glasgow Fair. It may be said that there is no danger, for a paddle steamer cannot capsize. All we can say is, that happily none have capsized yet, although sometimes they have looked as they were very near. Passengers will patronise easy sailing vessels in preference to crank steamers wherever they can get them, irrespective of the superior speed to which some of the latter lay claim. If the owners of these uncomfortable boats would take them to some other station, we can only say it that summer travelling on the Clyde, usually so delightful, would be even more pleasant than it sometimes has been. The public will no doubt be highly gratified to learn that the River Trust is about to abolish the custom of allowing people to cluster or stand on the paddle-boxes. This is a custom at all times unseemly and dangerous, and usually indulged in only by reckless or forward people. The committee, of which Mr. Dreghorn is convener, has inserted a clause in the new river and harbour regulations which will put an end to this practice. The clause, which will no doubt be confirmed, along with others of a very laudable character, at the next meeting of the Trust, is as follows:—

“Masters, or other persons, in charge of any steamboat or to vessel, carrying or conveying passengers on the River or Frith of Clyde, are strictly prohibited from permitting any passenger to sit, stand, or be upon any of the paddle-boxes of any such steamer while it is under weigh, or sailing, in the said river or in the harbour of Glasgow, under a penalty not exceeding forty shillings; and if, after an order or request from the master, or the person in charge of such steam-vessel for the time being, any passengers or other persons shall refuse or delay to leave said paddle-box, such passengers, or other person, shall be liable, and subjected in a penalty not exceeding forty shillings for each offence.”

“If the Trustees have power to make such a regulation, it would be highly expedient that passenger steamers should be confined to the trade which they are professedly engaged in. People hurry down to Greenock as fast as steam can carry them by river or rail, but after this their progress is often tedious and uncertain. The vessels are detained for periods varying from ten minutes to half an hour at Greenock, Gourock, Dunoon, Largs, &c., as the case may be, taking in or discharging boxes, bales, barrels, bags, materials for new houses, live stock, and cart-loads of furniture. This has been much to complained of; but we do not see how the annoyance can be lessened or avoided without the employment of a goods steamer, for which indeed there would be once a day ample remuneration and employment. We trust some such arrangement will at least enter into the thoughts of river steamboat owners. We do not, of course, intend the above remarks to apply to passengers’ personal luggage of moderate amount.”—Glasgow Herald, March 19, 1856

Kirn experienced some recognition with the erection of two churches in 1858. A chapel of ease of Dunoon Parish was built to counter the building of the free church.

The following years saw plenty of excitement with the steamers. The steamer Ruby ran down a lighter that was waiting to deliver its cargo of coal.

“Small Debt Court.—On Thursday (before Sheriff Logie), in this Court, an action Turner v. Henderson, was of some interest. The pursuer, who is coal merchant in Dunoon, and owner of the lighter Loch Sloy, sued the defender, Peter Lindsay Henderson, owner of the steamer Ruby, for £6, being loss and damage sustained through the culpable negligence and gross carelessness of Mr. Price, the master of the Ruby, in consequence of his having, on the 7th of August, near Kirn pier, allowed the steamer to come in contact with and destroy small boat belonging to the pursuer, which was at the time attached to the lighter. Several witnesses were examined; those for the pursuer stated that the lighter was lying at anchor, about 300 feet from Kirn pier, in the channel, waiting to be discharged of a cargo of coals she had on board, when the Ruby, leaving the quay, came in contact with the small boat, and smashed in it’s stern, although there was plenty of room to pass, seven or eight steamers having passed that morning without doing any harm. The witnesses for the defender stated that there was no room for the steamer to pass, owing the state of the tide, which was low, and as the boat was lying in the direct road of the steamers touching at the quay; that the person in charge of the lighter was remonstrated with for being there, and told go out of the way, as he might be run down; but he paid no attention to the remonstrance, and coolly told the messenger to go to the d—l out of that, and not bother him. The Sheriff held that the person in charge to blame for not going out of the way when told. He thought the captain was also blame for not backing the steamer a sufficient length, so as to get clear of the lighter, and ordered the defender to repair the small boat, the pursuer to pay half the cost of repairing it.”—Scottish Banner, September 22, 1860

Despite the shorter crossing from the Renfrewshire coast, Kirn pier did not rise in prominence over the more centrally located pier at Dunoon. There were comments in the press regarding lack of calls to both Kirn and Hunter’s Quay when the tourist season was at an end.

“The steamer Express—Hunter’s Pier station.—To the Editor of the Glasgow Herald., Sir,—A number of parties, who are at present residing at Hunter’s Pier and Kirn, would be wanting in courtesy if they allowed a liberal act of kindness done them on Saturday- night last, by Captain Campbell, of the steamer Express, to pass unacknowledged. The Railway Co. having discontinued running the five p.m. down train in connection with any of the Rothesay boats, a number of passengers were, therefore, much disappointed on reaching Greenock, and finding no boat for the Dunoon coast that night. They, therefore, went, on board of the Kilmun boat, and Captain Campbell seeing a number disappointed, kindly volunteered to run his boat either to Hunter’s Pier or Kirn; and, although the night soon got dark, he kindly left his regular course and landed the disappointed passengers safely at Kirn, refusing at the same time to accept anything in the way of compensation for his trouble. This is an act of courtesy which should not be overlooked as it is a well-known fact that a number of our river steamboat proprietors run their boats more for the purpose of getting the name of making quick passages than to convenience the public. It is a pity that the proprietors of the Kilmun boats could not come to an arrangement with the Railway Co. for one of their boats to call at Hunter’s Pier next season in connection with the morning and evening express trains; for, although the two-thirds of the passengers who go on board of the Rothesay boats at Kirn come from Hunter’s Pier, still those steamboat proprietors have such a love for chasing each other that they cannot think of sacrificing six minutes of their run to, convenience the passengers at this beautiful place. By favouring this with a place in your widely circulated paper, you will much oblige, Sir, your obedient servant, M.A., Glasgow, 8th Oct, 1861.”—Glasgow Herald, October 10, 1861.

However, once included in the roster of calls, Kirn did feature prominently in the Clyde steamer racing lore. Reaching Kirn first, generally also ensured success at the successive piers of Dunoon and Innellan. Collisions were frequent, leading to the inevitable court cases. The guilt of the offending party was generally in the eye of the beholder as one might gather from the following article.

“Sheriff Court, Glasgow.—Owners of the Pearl v. owners of the Vulcan.—This case relates to a collision at Kirn Quay, near Dunoon, between the Pearl steamer (recently seized from the Confederates by the Federals), and the Vulcan steamer.

“It is interesting illustration of the “glorious uncertainty,” for Sheriff Smith finds it clear that the Pearl was wholly in error; and, on the other hand, Sheriff Allison finds that the Vulcan was wholly wrong—both Sheriffs giving judgment on precisely the same evidence and the same pleas.

“Now that the summer season is approaching, and the trips the coast will be beginning, owners and masters of passenger vessels may (if they can) learn useful lessons from reading the following judgments:—

“Glasgow, 20th June, 1862.—Having resumed consideration of this process, with the proof and productions, and having heard parties’ procurators thereon: Finds that on 17th May, 1860, the principal pursuer was the owner the steam vessel Pearl, and the defender was owner of the steam vessel Vulcan: Finds that on 17th May 1860, when these vessels were each approaching and near the pier at Kirn, the former coming from Dunoon and the latter from Gourock, they came into collision, and the Pearl sustained some injury: Finds that the pursuer has failed to prove that the collision was caused by any fault negligence of the master or others in charge of the Vulcan; but, on the other hand, the defender has proved that it was caused the culpable and reckless conduct of the master in charge of the Pearl. Therefore sustains the defence, and assoilzies the defenders: Finds the pursuer liable to the defender in expenses, allows an account thereof to be given in, and remits the same to the auditor of Court to tax and report, and decerns. (Signed) Archd. Smith.

“Note.—The evidence led shows clearly that the whole fault of the collision lay with those in charge of the Pearl. It is proved by nearly all the witnesses that the Vulcan had slowed, stopped, and had actually reversed her engines before the collision took place. On the other hand, the Pearl had great head way upon her at the time, and there can be little doubt that had that vessel resorted the same precaution that the Vulcan did there would have been no collision. In this case the vessel in fault appears to have been the sole sufferer. (Initd.) A.S.

“Glasgow, 16th March, 1863.—Having heard parties’ procurators under the pursuers’ appeal, upon the interlocutor appealed from, and made avizandum and considered the proof adduced, closed record and whole process: Finds that this is an action at the instance of the principal pursuer for loss sustained him, as owner of the steam vessel Pearl, on account of injury and damage done to his vessel by collision with the Vulcan steamer, of which the defender is owner, on 17th May, 1860, when both vessels were approaching to and near the Kirn Pier at Dunoon; Finds it admitted by the pursuer, who appeals against the judgment under review, that one or other of the vessels was to blame for the collision, and the only question is which it was: Finds that on the occasion in question the Pearl was proceeding eastward from Dunoon to Kirn Pier, both on the north-west side of the Frith, and the Vulcan was going across from Gourock, also to the Kirn Pier, and both vessels were thus making for Kirn Pier, though from opposite directions; Finds that, while thus proceeding, the two vessels came into collision near the quay at Kirn, and at the east end of the pier, in broad daylight on a summer evening: Finds that when the collision took place the paddles of the Pearl were abreast of the stair of the pier, so that she had reached her place before she was struck, and her crew on board were throwing the ropes on to the pier to fasten the vessel, and one of the ropes, the waist rope, had been thrown from near her paddle, and caught by a porter ashore, and coiled round the pin on the quay before the collision took place: Finds that the damages claimed for injury done to the Pearl are £26 13s 11d, and the defender judicially admits that was the cost of the repairs rendered necessary for the vessel: Finds that the pursuers found their demand for the loss on the allegation that the master and crew of the Vulcan culpably, recklessly, and negligently steered their vessel into the Pearl when that vessel was lying close to the Kirn Pier, without slowing their steam, and by taking a wrong direction: Finds that the defender alleges that he is not liable, in respect the Pearl came into collision with the Vulcan, in consequence of the master of the Pearlnot having observed the rules and regulations of the Clyde Trustees as to slowing his vessel and steering it to the proper quarter, and that he is habit and repute a reckless commander of a vessel, and has been often convicted in the River Bailie Court for improper steering: Finds it admitted on both sides that the rules and regulations of the River Clyde Trustees have been found, since this case came into Court, not to apply to vessels farther down the river than the Castle of Newark, near Port-Glasgow, and so are inapplicable to the present case: Finds it admitted on both sides that the captains of both vessels have been repeatedly convicted in the River Bailie Court for disobeying the rules and regulations of the Clyde Trustees, and reckless steering, though with this qualification, that the officials on the Clyde are somewhat eager to get shipmasters into trouble and fined: Finds that the Pearl was a longer and heavier vessel than the Vulcan: Finds it proved that, on the occasion in question, the Pearl was two-thirds of her length alongside Kirn Pier, when the Vulcan struck her on the starboard side, and did considerable damage to her: Finds it proved that the Vulcan was then coming into the quay, and was proceeding at full speed shortly before the collision, and in a wrong direction, and did not slow her engines till shortly before the collision: Finds that the Pearl was also moving, but not so fast as the Vulcan, and slowed too, though not so soon the Vulcan: Finds it proved that the Vulcan was out of her usual course when she neared the quay, as she was running down by the chord of the Arc, instead of the circumference, by not taking sweep to the northward round by the shore, which was her usual course, but making nearly straight for the pier: Finds that when the Pearlwas struck she was close to the quay, closer than ordinary occasions, but the crew on board were standing with the ropes to throw ashore: Finds that the captain of the Pearl was then standing on the paddlebox and the pier-master called out to back that vessel, and waved to the captain of the Vulcanthe same, but it was not done at least in time to prevent a collision: Finds that the Vulcanmade a sweep to the northward before the collision, but not so large a sweep as usual: Finds that both vessels were about 150 yards from Kirn Pier when it became likely that a collision would take place, and the people on the pier then began speculating which vessel would get in first, and it was evident both captains were striving to get in first at the quay: Finds proved that the bow the Pearl was 4 yards or thereby past the pierhead when she was struck by the Vulcan: Finds it proved that the Pearl was an unusually long boat, and on the occasion in question the wind and tide were with the movement of thePearl, and against that of the Vulcan: Finds it proved, that from the Vulcan taking a shorter sweep than usual, she was coming in such a direction that if the Pearl had not been there she would have run against and buried the bow in the wood work of the pier: Finds, that the Pearl began to slow at the usual place, and the waste rope the stern had been thrown on to the quay and caught by the porter ashore, before the Vulcan came up and struck the Pearl: Finds, that before the collision the “knocks,” or signal to slow, and also to back, had been given on board the Pearl; Finds, that the order to slow the engines of the Vulcan was given about 140 yards from the north end of the pier, which was done immediately, and the order to back was given soon after, and it too was obeyed about the vessel’s length from the pier, but it was too late to prevent the collision: Finds it proved that the captain and mate of the Vulcan called to those on board the Pearl to back as they approached the pier, and the Pearl was backing when she was struck, but was carried by the headway she had on her: Finds it admitted by the master of the Vulcan that when he gave the order to slow he apprehended no danger, and had no doubt he would be in at the quay first: Finds it proved that both vessels were blowing off steam when the collision took place, but the order to slow and back was given sooner on board the Vulcan than the Pearl: Finds it proved by the defenders’ own witness, that the pursuers’ plan (the glazed one) shows more correctly the position of the vessels the time of the collision than the defenders’ plan: Finds it proved that the usual practice at the season of the year when the collision occurred, is for the vessel going down the river, which is usually heavy laden with passengers and goods, to let the vessel coming up, and is at fixed times in connection with the railway, get into the quay first, if they are nearing it from opposite directions the same time, as the vessel coming up requires less time to be off from the quay and is more pressed for time than the one going down with a heavier cargo, and not requiring to catch a railway train: Finds, upon the whole, that though those in charge of the Pearl were not wholly blameless in the matter of slowing and backing, the great balance of blame was on the side of those in charge of the Vulcan, and that the defender is responsible for the loss occasioned by the collision; therefore alters the interlocutor complained of, repels the defences, and decerns against the defenders in terms of the conclusions of the summons: Finds the pursuers entitled to expenses, of which appoints an account to be given in, and remits to the auditor to tax the same and report, and decerns. (Signed) A. Alison. Agents for Pursuers (Pearl)—J. L. Lang. Agents for Defenders (Vulcan)—Macleod & Relston.”—Glasgow Herald, March 19, 1863

As the popularity of Kirn as a watering place increased, there were complaints about the visitors.

“Kirn. To the Editor of the Glasgow Herald.—Sir, I beg to call the attention of those who take an interest in the prosperity of Kirn to the growing nuisance of bathing beside the pier, where a bathing house has been placed, as if to disgust every one who lands at the pier. I have resided for several summers here, and cannot help regretting that such a nuisance should be allowed. If such a thing is to continue, the proprietors of the pier should cover this exhibition from the public by an awning.—Yours truly, Decency.”—Glasgow Herald, July 21, 1866

The piermaster at Kirn appeared to be over officious when it came to enforcing regulations concerning cattle disease and the movement of straw.

The piermaster at Kirn, Mr Frederick (or Fredrick) Brown, on the right and his assistants around 1900. At least one of his assistants was his son, second from the right. (Copyright and courtesy of Fiona H. C. McInnes) 

The piermaster Mr Brown and one of his assistants at Kirn. (Copyright and courtesy of Fiona H. C. McInnes) 

“The Rinderpest—Scene at Kirn.—Yesterday (Queen’s birth-day) a pic-nic of about twenty young ladies and gentlemen arrived at the Kirn by the steamer Hero, with the usual accompaniments—hampers, baskets, &c. The ladies in the best of spirits, and the gent, smiling their sweetest smiles, were just about to leave the pier, when “bobby,” ever watchful, and armed with the authority of the “Cattle Act” caused the whole packages, which unfortunately had been packed with straw, to be detained and opened up; while the worthy pier-master, Mr. Brown, had the straw confiscated as being infectious—not with the rinderpest, but with the savoury smell of the pies, tarts, fowls, &c., including Messrs. Bass, Allsop, & Co. This duty being gone through, the ladies were allowed to depart, while the gentlemen, unable to procure the services of a porter, had to trudge along the road with the contents exposed, much to the amusement of the residents and their own annoyance.”—Evening Citizen, May 25, 1866

“The Rinderpest—Packing with Straw.—(To the Editor of the Evening Citizen) Sir,—In to-day’s number I notice, under the heading “The Rinderpest —Scene at Kirn,” that a party of pleasure-seekers, on landing at this beautiful watering-place, were put to considerable inconvenience and much annoyance by the interference of a myrmidon of the law armed with a little brief authority, in the shape of the “Cattle Act,” who ordered them to unpack their hampers, containing what was absolutely necessary for the comfort of the “inner man,” and removed all the straw, which was duly confiscated, “according to law,” by Mr. Brown, pier-master.

“Now, sir, I do not question the authority of either the “bobby” or the pier-master, but one thing is certain, if these two worthies set up to the very letter and spirit of the “Cattle Act,” without using discretionary power on certain occasions, they will have quite enough to do, especially during the summer season, as there are a great many packages and parcels sent to our watering places packed with straw and forwarded by merchants who have no more connection with either diseased or healthy cattle than Kirn has with Australia; for instance, salmon is always packed with straw, and I would like to know what connection a fishmonger has with the “Cattle Plague.” I could enumerate a great many articles of merchandise that in reality could not be packed otherwise. I will not however encroach on your valuable space, but merely mention for the information of all those who happen to be armed with a little brief authority, that “the rigour of the law is very often the excess of injustice.”—I am, &c., Scotus, 28th May.”—Evening Citizen, May 28, 1866

Queen’s Hotel, Kirn, around 1900 when under the proprietorship of Borland.

A brief description of Kirn at this time makes some interesting points.

“Hotel—The Queen’s—Proprietor, Mrs. Urquhart. Bowling Green in connection with Hotel. Pier-master,Mr. Brown.  Charge at Pier, One Penny.  Luggage delivered at moderate charges by Pier Porters. All the Steamers coming to Dunoon call here.

“Kirn, as the part of Dunoon next in importance is called, is situated about a mile from Dunoon, and nearly midway between Dunoon and Hunter’s Quay. Kirn, within the last few years, has risen rapidly into favour with visitors coming to the Coast. It is not so crowded as Dunoon, and the houses are more of one class, which may account for the preference given to it by some people. There is an excellent Pier here, with commodious Waiting Rooms, and a large Hotel, at which good accommodation can be had.

“There are two Churches at Kirn, one in connection with the Established Church (Rev. James Hay), and one U. P. Church (Rev. R. W. Thomson).

“A Register of Lodgings and Furnished Houses is kept by Mr. Brown, Pier-Master, who will supply every information.  Sub Post Office at Mr. Mitchell’s, Baker, opposite Pier.

There are many fine villas near Kirn,—among which may be mentioned Daillingmore (Mrs. Thomson), Dailling House (Mr. Ross), Dailling Lodge (Mrs. Robertson), Ericht Bank (Mr.Burnley), Craigroy (Mr. Carswell), Oakbank (Mrs. Richardson), Ashgrove (Mr. A. Harvey), Dunmore (Mrs. Young), Broughallan (Mrs. Douglas),and many others, all laid out in excellent taste.

“Presiding over that part of the coast, between Kirn and Hunter’s Quay, is the large and elegant mansion house of DunClutha (Mrs. Graham), beautifully situated, as its name denotes, upon a dun or height, commanding a most extensive view of sea and shore.

Racing for the single berth at Kirn persisted and was a focus of the excitement in the summer.

“Williamson v. Dewar. This was action of damages for a collision between the steamers Sultana and Marquis of Lorne at Kirn Pier on 22nd August last. The action was at the instance of Alexander Williamson, owner of the Sultana, and his account of the occurrence was that the Sultana, in the course of her usual passage from Glasgow to Rothesay approached Kirn Pier in the ordinary manner, and was lying alongside for the purpose of landing passengers and cargo, when the Marquis of Lorne struck and ran into the port bow of the Sultana. Duncan Dewar, on the other hand, owner of the Marquis of Lorne, who was in command the time, ascribed the accident to the negligence, or at all events the contributary negligence of those on board the Sultana, who, instead of approaching the pier at the proper curve so as lay the Sultana alongside it, brought that vessel to the pier nearly bow on, right across the bows of the Marquis of Lorne, rubbing her port side against the stern of that vessel in passing. The suggestion was that the Sultana regarded the Marquis of Lorne as an interloper in the trade, and on this occasion made a short cut in order take the pier from her.

“The Lord Ordinary (Ormidale) found that the collision was due to the fault of the Marquis of Lorne, and gave decree for £107 14s 5d, which was not disputed as the amount damage sustained by the Sultana. The evidence, as usual in such cases, was very contradictory; but his Lordship went chiefly the testimony of witnesses who were not on board either vessel, and might therefore be taken as impartial. The defender reclaimed. Mr Asher and the Hon. H. J. Moncrieff for him. Messrs Watson and Macintosh were not called on. The Court adhered, proceeding, like the Lord Ordinary, on the evidence of the witnesses on the pier. Pursuer’s Agent—Mitchell & Baxter, W.S. Defender’s Agents—D. Crawford and J. Y. Guthrie, Greenock Telegraph, June 6, 1874

As at Dunoon and other piers on the Firth, the Pier Company extracted a penny each time anyone used the pier. This was a cause of exasperation at Kirn as it was elsewhere.

“Quay pennies.—Sir,—This is a subject I wish to make a few remarks on, as your paper has a very large circulation, which must bring it before all those interested in the abolition of this nuisance. In the Herald of to-day there appears a letter referring to some correspondence which ensued last August on the subject. I can corroborate some of the particulars which then appeared—viz.: The Superior of Kirn owns the Dunoon and Hunter’s Quays, and part of the Kirn Pier. Kirn Pier returns about 20 per cent, to its owners, and as the Dunoon Quay pays much better than the Kirn one, there was very little likelihood of Mr Hunter selling them. I think it strange that the Dunoon authorities should make no attempt at getting rid of this impost, as their town would assuredly gain a great advantage by the influx of visitors, who are deterred from stopping at Dunoon or Kirn by having to pay 2d for going and coming. Dunoon has a greater population than Gourock and more boats call there than at Gourock, yet Gourock has a “free” quay. Looking at the position Dunoon occupies of being a pretty coasting place, I think the people are standing in their own light by not moving in this matter, for Dunoon would be able to compete with places like Rothesay, Largs, or Millport, if there was no penny impost. A suggestion was made that power should be got from Government to erect new pier if Mr Hunter persisted in refusing to abolish the “penny” system, and this the authorities of Dunoon should have done long ago; for unless the present quays should be sold, we will not derive any benefit this season on account of the time it would take to build a pier. I hope something will speedily be done to alter the impost, as a large number of Greenockians visit the coast annually, and are, therefore, subject to this annoyance.—I am. &c., 20th April, 1880. Alter.”—Greenock Telegraph, April 24, 1880

“A correspondent writes that on Wednesday night the 25-yeor-old Sultana, though fully 100 yards behind the crack Marchioness of Breadalbane at Gourock, passed the latter and took Kirn pier first, after stiff race. It was very exciting—but very improper.”—Glasgow Evening Post, May 22, 1891

“Last night the Marquis of Bute passed Gourock Pier three lengths ahead of the Meg Merilies. It was not expected that the Meg would make any ground against her rival, but, the great surprise of all on board, she gradually drew up to the Marquis, and took Kirn Pier fully three boat-lengths in front, thus showing excellent speed.”—Glasgow Evening Post, June 2, 1892

“The racing between the Clyde steamboats still continues. Yesterday the Lord of the Isles and the Columba tried conclusions, and to the advantage of the latter. The race commenced on the departure of the two boats from Gourock Pier, the Lord of the Isles getting away two or three lengths ahead. Her opponent, however, soon drew level, and was three lengths in front at Kirn Pier. The Lord of the Isles then changed her course, sailing on to Dunoon without stopping Kirn.”—Greenock Telegraph, July 2, 1891

Unloading cattle from Benmore around 1910

Leaving Kirn on Benmore in winter around 1910

“When the steamer Benmore called Dunoon Saturday forenoon three horses were embarked. On approaching Kirn Pier the captain blew the whistle, which startled the horses, and one after the other they jumped overboard and swam out for the centre the river. They then turned and made for the shore, where they were caught and put board again.”—Edinburgh Evening News, December 14, 1891

Kirn Pier and Jetty around 1900

Kirn from the jetty around 1890

It was in the 1890s that further developments took place in the town. These coincided with the increasing popularity of the Cowal coast and with the corresponding developments at Dunoon. Not the least of the developments was the formation of an esplanade along the East Bay of Dunoon linking with Kirn.

“The proposal of the Dunoon Commissioners to form an esplanade at Kirn would, if carried out, make Kirn one of the most fashionable places the coast, notwithstanding the penny at the pier; but the residents in the district have little faith in the Commissioners being able to carry the work through.”—Glasgow Evening Post, June 23, 1892

In 1895 there was a proposal to introduce a tram-line along the shore road between Dunoon and Sandbank along the proposed esplanade but it came to nought.

The pier at Kirn was also given a considerable renovation, and new pier buildings that featured towers with ornamental onion shaped orbs on the top were built in 1895.

“The new pier at Kirn is expected to be completed by the month of September, which will be in tine time for the opening of next year’s holiday season, don’t you know?”—Greenock Telegraph, April 15, 1893

Waverley at the renovated Kirn Pier

One of the consequences of racing for the pier was the smoke produced by the steamers when they tied up at the pier.

“A letter was received from Mr Nimmo, Ashgrove, Kirn, complaining of the dense volumes of black, filthy smoke emitted from the steamers on coming into Kirn piers. The matter was remitted to the Magistrates.”—Glasgow Herald, June 11, 1891

Marion and the “smoke nuisance” at Kirn

Mercury at Kirn

Talisman at Kirn

By the end of the decade, the pier and town were in good order though there were still complaints.

“The appearance of Kirn Pier from the river is marred by the old wooden erection called a waiting room.”—Greenock Telegraph, May 26, 1898

“Dunoon Commissioners have offered to buy Kirn Pier for £10,400. The company won’t sell unless they get double that amount.”—Greenock Telegraph, July 12, 1898

New signaling apparatus, intended to prevent racing for the piers and the consequent collisions, had been introduced in 1889. However, the practice of racing for the piers did not stop. There were accusations of negligence and partisanship by the Kirn piermaster and those entrusted with operating the pier signals.

Galatea and Minerva’s sister Glen Rosa off Kirn

“Steamboat captain fined.—racing for piers on the Clyde.—Duncan Bell, captain of the steamer Galatea, and residing Bishop Street, Rothesay, was, at the Marine Police Court, Glasgow, yesterday, before Bailie M‘Phun, charged with contravention of the bye-laws for the navigation the Firth Clyde by having, on 7th August, gone alongside Kirn pier without being signalled by the piermaster to do so, and failed stop at distance of 200 yards from the pier until the signal to approach was given. Respondent pleaded not guilty. Mr Brock appeared for Captain Bell, and the prosecution was conducted by Superintendent Sinclair.

“Frederick Brown, piermaster at Kirn, was the first witness. In reply to Superintendent Sinclair, he explained that signalling apparatus was erected at the pier in terms of the Act of Parliament, and that Archibald Macdonald, twenty-two years of was in his employment.

“By Mr Brock: Witness it his business to collect the dues at the pier. Within the last six months be might have attended to the signals ten times. Macdonald moved the signals without special directions from anyone. Macdonald also acted as assistant clerk. When steamers were 200 yards from the pier the signal should be given, and if Macdonald did not do so witness should that he was negligent in performing his duty.

“Archibald Macdonald, Dunoon, stated that it was his duty attend to the signals at Kirn pier. On the afternoon of the 7th he saw the Galatea and the Minerva from Gourock, approaching Kirn pier. He gave the signal to the Minerva when it was, as near as he could make out, 300 yards from the pier. The steamers appeared the same distance off, and he signalled the Minerva to proceed, as she was the in-shore boat. The Galatea, however, proceeded alongside the pier, and the captain attempted to land the passengers. He did not signal to the Galatea. The Minerva stopped to slow down after the signal was pulled. When the Galatea left the pier the Minerva came in and the passengers landed.

“Mr Brock asked witness if he had ever pulled the wrong signal. Bailie M‘Phun inquired what that had to with the case. Mr Brock said his case was that the signals the piers on the Clyde were placed under the management of men who did not attend them.

“Mr Brock asked if it was not the case that the witness had pulled the up signal instead of the down signal for the Galatea the other day.

“Witness at first refused to answer the question, but being pressed for an answer he admitted that on one occasion he had pulled the wrong signal, and that on certain occasions it was probable that he had left the signal open after the departure of a steamer from the pier. At the time the signal was drawn he did not know whether the Galatea was leading. He was not prepared to deny that she not, but was not satisfied that she was. The Minerva did not proceed, because Captain Bell did not allow her.

“Frederick Walter Brown, son of the piermaster, said the Minerva was entitled to the pier. She came on and struck the Galatea on the port side.

“Mr Brock: I suppose you were not sorry not to have given theGalatea the signal?—Had the Galatea been in the position the Minerva she would have got the signal. Witness did not know who conducted the jeering when the Galatea had to run past the pier. It was not taken part in by the pier hands. It was not the universal custom for steamers to proceed until the signal was given.

“By the Court: The passengers were alarmed.

“Mr Brock: The alarm was created by the Minerva coming up as she did.

“Witness: It was created by the Galatea going on.

“Duncan Wallace, joiner, Dunoon, gave corroborative evidence. When the signal was given the steamers were in the act of turning.

“Ex-Bailie Colquhoun, LL.D., Glasgow, examined Mr Brock, deponed that he was a passenger on the Galatea on the evening in question. The Galatea led all the way. The Minerva was close behind, and if the Galatea had stopped 300 yards off the pier the Minerva would have run into her. Everybody on board wondered why the signal was not given to the Galatea, and there was the impression that the people on the pier were favouring Minerva. He undoubtedly thought the Galateashould have got the signal. He had come to the conclusion during the last two months that for some reason or other there was distinct bias on the part of the people in charge of Kirn pier against the Caledonian steamers. When the Galatea came back, after having to go past the pier, the people who took the ropes jibed and jeered such an extent that he said to one of the crew, “Why don’t you blacken that man’s eyes?” (“Oh !”) The conduct of those on the pier was most offensive. If Captain Bell had stopped the Galatea when 200 yards from the pier he would have jeopardised the lives of his passengers. Captain Bell did not try to land his passengers.

“By the Procurator-Fiscal: When the signal was given the steamers were from 80 to 100 yards from the pier, and the time the Galatea was probably rather more than a boat length ahead. What proved to him that the Minerva did not expect to get the pier was that her engines were stopped. The moment the signal dropped Minerva put on full speed again. The Galatea went on without being signalled; but there was a higher law than the by-laws of the Clyde Navigation. Captain Bell could not have done otherwise. There appeared to him to be an arrangement to give the Minerva the character of an inshore boat. The Minerva struck the Galatea just as she was leaving, but if the Galatea had slowed sooner the Minerva would have done more damage. It was a foolhardy thing of the captain of the Minerva to keep up as he did. Witness had seen the Galatea go without any signal being given, and when the man in charge was expostulated with, it was found had given the signal on the other side of the pier. There was great deal of looseness about pier signalling.

“Archibald Henderson, captain of the steamer Minerva, said the Galatea was rather ahead, but further to the south for some time. As a rule the Galatea took Kirn pier from the south, but on the occasion in question she altered her course and bore down on the Minerva, and he had to port her helm to avoid collision. Minerva was the inshore boat, 300 yards from the pier. After getting the signal he proceeded, but when he saw the Galatea was not going to give way, he slowed and then stopped the Minerva.

“By Mr Brook: If he had gone on the steamers would have collided. Mr Daniel M‘Phun, Mr Dobbie, and Mr Bogle, of Glasgow, generally corroborated Dr Colquhoun’s evidence. Mr Brook, addressing the Court on behalf of the respondent, said that the evidence disclosed more forcibly than ever that the signals at the piers on the Clyde were miserably managed. Captain Bell had simply run into the pier to prevent collision. He held that both captains ought to have been indicted. The initial fault lay with the piermaster. The people at Kirn pier had a prejudice against the Caledonian steamers, and the Court should visit its censure on the piermaster by refusing to convict.

“Bailie M‘Phun said he was sorry to see Captain Bell again before the Court. Although he was convicted of a similar offence a short time ago, he was perfectly satisfied that he was an efficient officer. The bye-laws for the navigation of the Clyde, however, were enacted for the guidance and safety of steamers approaching piers, and he thought it was quite clear that Captain Bell did not stop at the proper time. If he had stopped 300 yards from the pier, the danger which he believed Captain Bell tried to avoid, would have been avoided. He was sorry to think that there had been a muddle all round. He did not believe the signals here were well managed, and something would have to be done. He believed that steps were about to taken in the matter, and he thought it would be a good thing if signalmen were put through an examination. He thought the captain of the Minerva was as much to blame as Captain Bell, and should have preferred that both had been there to receive sentence. These races should not be encouraged, and he thought the Court had no option but to fine the party brought before it first. He hoped, however, that something would be done to those who, he believed, had been quite as much in the fault Captain Bell. He trusted that in other cases all the parties involved would be brought before the Court .He imposed the modified penalty of £1 1s The fine was paid.”—GT September 8, 1894

The case resulted in a conference to air the frustrations and look for some solution. No doubt, with cooler heads the system would work as it should.

“Signalling at Clyde piers.— A conference of passenger steamboat owners and captains and pier proprietors and piermasters was held yesterday in Glasgow to consider the present system of signalling at Clyde piers. Mr Nathaniel Dunlop, who presided, explained that the Clyde Pilot Board had convened the meeting, as they were desirous of learning whether any improvement on the system could be suggested in view of recent criticism.

“Captain James Williamson, superintendent of the Caledonian Steam Company, thought independent signallers should appointed Kirn and Dunoon—retired coastguardsmen perhaps—and suggested that piermasters be fined when found guilty of careless or irregular signaling. Captain Alex. Williamson, of the Glasgow and South-Western Railway Company’s steamers, considered it would be an improvement if an alteration were made on the line of the three disks in the signalling apparatus—say that the centre one be raised eighteen inches higher than those at the side. This, he thought, would improve the working of the signals at night.

“Mr Brown, Kirn piermaster, said it was impossible for one man to attend signals from six in the morning till eleven at night. He knew that the steamers would rush for the pier independent of the signals.

“Captain James Williamson said they did not complain of partiality on the part of piermasters, but they complained of their carelessness. If piermasters were under a penalty for improper signalling, he thought complaints would be obviated. The Chairman said that the placing distance buoys as suggested would create a point where there would be a risk of collision. Captain Williamson said he did not think so. If the buoys were placed 200 or 300 yards from a pier a collision would be quite impossible.

“Mr William Maiton, Dunoon, thought a buoy would be useful if it were placed in the river 300 yards from Dunoon Pier. The Chairman: If two steamers were approaching that buoy, and were so close as to be rivals to get the signal, was there not a danger of collision at that point? Mr Maiton: Yes. The Chairman: A very serious danger. Mr Maiton added that steamers coming from Gourock or Princes Pier never tried to take the pier in a proper manner. The Chairman: But we have bye-laws to make them do so. Mr Maiton—But they never did it. In answer to the Chairman, Mr Maiton further said he had a man to attend regularly to the signals. There was sometimes a difficulty at 200 yards in seeing which boat was first, and it sometimes happened that the boat against which the black signal was displayed came on in spite of that. He had every reason to believe in the man’s impartiality. Mr Smith thought it would be a mistake to have a buoy placed outside, and asked whether it would not be better to be placed between the shore and the steamer. Mr Maiton said that might prevent a mistake; but is a signal was placed outside there would be a danger of boats racing towards that point.

“Mr M‘Allister, Kilcreggan, suggested that there should be a distance buoy placed so that all steamers should compelled to go to the east. His difficulty was in the summer time, when the Caledonian and South-Western boats came both on towards the pier, the Gourock one coming direct on and the South-Western coming parallel to it. He had given the signal against the Gourock boat, because he considered that each steamer ought to take a sweep parallel to the pier. While the buoy would be good enough during the day it would require to be lighted at night. The Chairman: That would be both expensive and dangerous. Mr M‘Kellar, Innellan, said if the bye-laws were observed he did not think there would be any complaint.

“Captain Downie, of the Lord of the Isles, and Captain Campbell, of the Columba, said the signaling system was complete. The latter suggested that an additional signal might be made that could be seen at a distance. This would be specially useful when vessels were coming from opposite directions. Captain Macnaughton, of the steamer Caledonia, said he found that the present system worked very well. He complained that a piermaster on the Largs and Millport route sometimes left the signal open when he went away. He though buoys would be a mistake.

“Captain Bell remarked that when two boats were approaching, piermasters, being unable to decide the distance, left the signaling to the last moment. He was in favour of an indicator. He complained that boys were allowed to work the signals. These boys knew as much about the boats as a cart knew about its wheels. Mr M‘Allister, Kilcreggan, thought Captain Bell ought to make a specific charge. He objected as a piermaster to Captain Bell’s statement. Captain Ball: It is true. Mr M‘Allister: Well, bring a specific charge before the Pilot Board, and let them deal with individuals.

“The Chairman remarked that the Board would try to deal with Captain Bell’s complaint. Captain James Williamson thought indicators were indispensable. It was a downright insult to captains of steamers to be tried in the way they were when charged with contravening the bye-laws. They were place side by side with “drunks,” and the charge was tried by a man who really did not understand the cases.

“The Chairman hoped that in future there would be no necessity to have anyone brought before the Court. In his closing remarks, the Chairman stated that all that had been said would be carefully considered, and the decision of the Board conveyed to them if there was any change ordered. Captain James Williamson moved a vote of thanks to the chairman and to the gentlemen who had kindly come there that day. The motion having been passed, the conference was brought to a close.”—GT Nov 13 1894

“Signalling at Clyde piers.—Since the introduction ten years ago of Mr Allan’s system of signalling at Clyde piers, the steamboat traffic, it is generally admitted, has been conducted under much more pleasant and less risky conditions than formerly, when every skipper was a law unto himself. It has never been claimed for the system now in vogue that it is beyond improvement, but satisfaction with its results has been so universal amongst those immediately concerned that the perfecting of the present apparatus has not pressed for consideration. The possibility of there being something lacking in the scope of the signalling mechanism will be conceded without dispute, and it has fallen to Captain R. G. Taitt, Greenock harbourmaster, to discover the method by which .he believes the want may be supplied. Mr Allan solved, simply enough, but effectively, the problem of signalling, without the chance of mistake, as between two or three steamers making for a pier from the one direction. In these days there is no danger of serious mishap on the score of misunderstanding in such a circumstance. It has occurred to Captain Taitt, as it may have occurred to others who take an intimate interest in the subject, that it would be a distinct step in advance could the apparatus be so constructed as to exhibit simultaneous signals to steamers approaching a pier from opposite directions. Not unfrequently in the course of the summer season in a contingency of that nature masters have gone on in the blind hope of securing the berth, and have not found their mistake until close on the pierhead, when all the trouble and annoyance of having to back into the firth have ensued. The alteration proposed in order to effect the object of signalling to steamers so approaching is the reverse of complicated, and, indeed, can be easily undertaken without interference with the working of the present apparatus, and when completed involves one additional labour, the one movement, in point of fact, producing the double signal as quickly as it now does the single. The new signal consists in the exhibition to the master of the steamer to be stopped of a right or starboard arm, red-painted, on the top of the signal-box, the while the white disc to approach is being displayed to the steamer on the opposite side of the pier. In darkness the projection of this arm brings a red light to view, which serves the purpose of warning steamers off. Captain Taitt has constructed a model to illustrate his method of working the signals, and, this he has shown to Captain James Williamson. Caledonian Steam Packet Company; Captain Alexander Williamson, Glasgow and South-Western Steam Packet Company; Captain Campbell, of the Iona; the piermasters of Dunoon ard Kirn, and most of the captains of river steamers, all of whom, it is said, have been favourably impressed by the practicability and utility of the arrangement. We are not aware whether the members of the Clyde Pilot Board have formally had the matter brought before their notice, but there can be little doubt that these gentlemen will readily be induced to inquire into; the claims of the improved apparatus.”—Glasgow Herald, March 22, 1898

The new century saw the completion and opening, in 1905, of the Alexandra Esplanade between Dunoon and Kirn Pier.

1905 also saw the construction of a new Queen’s Hotel while the older building was renovated and remained as an annex. A year or so later, a new Parish Church was built at the corner of Kirn Brae and the Marine Parade.

The new Queen’s Hotel (Davidson)

Alexandra Esplanade looking to Dunoon from Kirn pier

Main Street Kirn and Queen’s Hotel

Main Street Kirn at the pierhead (Davidson)

Kirn Promenade with the new Parish Church (Davidson)

Between Kirn and Hunter’s Quay on the beach can be found an unusual erratic boulder that resembles a crow. Named “Jim Crow”—a name with unfortunate racial connotations—it has been painted over the years to resemble a bird.

The beach between Kirn and Hunter’s Quay

Jim Crow rock on kirn shore

After World War I, Kirn was popular and more fashionable than its near neighbour Dunoon. As the years progressed, however, the lure of resorts with more amenities and better weather took its toll.

Main Street Kirn and Queen’s Hotel in the 1920s

Kirn pierhead around 1920

Mercury leaving Kirn in 1924 (Lillywhite)

Puffer at the jetty in 1920s

Kylemore at Kirn around 1930 (Lilywhite)

Duchess of Rothesay at Kirn in 1935 (Salmon)

Kirn Gardens in the 1930s

Kirn Brae in the 1930s with the spire of the Parish Church. The tenements at the bottom of the brae contrast with the usual villas and bungalows of the resort and must have reminded Glaswegian holidymakers of home.

A brief casualty of foggy weather was the steamer Duchess of Fife. She was later pulled off by the tug,

Duchess of Fife on the rocks with Marmion leaving Kirn Pier (Dunoon Observer)

“On the rocks.—Another mishap in the Firth of Clyde involved the pleasure steamer Duchess of Fife, which ran on the rocks 100 yards south of Kirn Pier. So dense was the fog that visibility was less than 20 yards, and approaching Kirn Pier the captain found that he had to back little to avoid colliding with another vessel, the Marmion. When the Duchess of Fife was reversing the stern of the boat touched the rocks and held fast. The passengers were taken ashore in the ship’s lifeboats.”—August 28, 1936

After World War II, the writing was on the wall. As the Clyde steamer fleet faced austerity and consolidation in the face of more efficient motor transport, so did the number of piers that were required.

Duchess of Argyll at the pier in 1949 with a puffer at the jetty that dated from 1823 (Valentine)

Clyde steamer captains still found themselves occasionally in court though instances of racing had all but disappeared.

“Clyde Captain Fined.—When the Clyde paddle steamer, Jupiter, left Kirn, near Dunoon, on June 1 it emitted a large volume of smoke, which blew over the town, it was stated at Dunoon yesterday, when Captain Thomas D. Roxburgh was fined £1. The captain admitted that “at or near Kirn Pier, when in command of the vessel he caused, or permitted to be used, the furnace or fire so that smoke issued therefrom contrary to the Burgh- Police (Scotland) Act.” A defending solicitor stated that while the captain was responsible for the running of the ship he was not responsible for the type of coal supplied. When the offence took place an experiment was being made with a new mixture of two types of coal.”—Scotsman June 13 1950

Kirn Pier was threatened with closure.

“Clyde Coast Link Broken—Decisions affecting the future of several small Clyde piers which British Railways’ steamers operate were made known in Edinburgh to-day Mr Neil Beaton, chairman of the Transport Users’ Consultative Committee for Scotland. He confirmed that piers at Kirn, Strone and Kilmun were to be closed, but that a “reprieve” has been granted to Innellan Pier and that emergency steamer calls would be made to Hunter’s Quay.”—December 14 1951

“New hope for Clyde piers.—Hopes are rising on the Cowal coast that two more of the doomed Clyde piers Kirn and Kilmun will eventually be saved and that British Railways will agree to adjustment on other Clyde services to suit local people. That is the impression that many of the delegates of yesterday’s conference with Mr Thomas Johnston and Mr T. F. Cameron, British Railways chief in Scotland, carried home with them. The reduced steamer services eliminating calls at Hunter’s Quay, Kirn, Strone, and Kilmun will start on Monday. On the same day. a subcommittee, composed mainly of provosts of Clyde coast burghs and county councillors, will meet in Glasgow to put specific suggestions for alterations to these services to British Railways officials.”—January 4 1952

In fact the pier remained open until December 1963 when the final call by a steamer was made.