The ferry across Loch Long at Ardentinny has been in existence long before steam boats gained access to the Clyde sea lochs. It formed part of an old drove road to bring cattle from the highlands to the Falkirk market. The crossing to Coulport, over to the Gareloch and thence by Glen Fruin to Balloch and the Endrick valley was a convenient track for the drovers from Lochfyneside. After the introduction of steam boats on the Clyde, the ferry also provided access for local residents and visitors who could sail from Glasgow on the steam boats bound for Lochgoilhead and Arrochar and land at the picturesque village on Loch Long.

The landowner, General Sir John Douglas of Glenfinart was one of the promoters of the Caledonian Railway’s Gourock Harbour and Quay Bill to provide a pier and terminus at Gourock. In his statement in April 1883 he indicated that he never could understand why there should not be a railway to Gourock and it would be a great advantage to himself personally and especially to his feuars and tenants. There had been considerable building on his estate. He was a strong advocate for the scheme to extend the railway three miles to Gourock and it would cut the time of the journey by ten minutes. He was questioned about a pier at Ardentinny and replied that there was no pier at Ardentinny. He had often been pressed to allow a pier, but he had refused, as did not wish to bring Glasgow excursionists to his house. (Glasgow Herald and Greenock Advertiser, April 12 1883.)

Glenfinart

Glasgow Herald July 17, 1885

However, within two or three years, Sir John had decided that a pier at Ardentinny would be a necessary step to develop the estate by feuing. Unfortunately, Sir John died on September 2, 1887.

“New Pier on Lochlong.—Mr. Chas. Douglas, proprietor of Glenfinart, Lochlong, has caused the ground above Ardentinny Point to be surveyed, with the view of erecting a pier for passengers at Ardentinny. Mr. Douglas also intends to feu the ground there. His father, the late General Sir John Douglas, had made arrangements to do so before his death, and Mr. Charles intends to carry out his father’s intensions.”—Glasgow Evening Post, January 24, 1888

At the same time there was some scurrilous accusations made against the family who ran the ferry by the columnist “Lorgnette” in the Glasgow Evening Post.

“During frequent voyages I have had to the head of Lochgoil, and into the upper reaches of Lochfyne, I have been struck with a peculiar habit which prevails in connection with the conveyance of pasengers in small-boats between small villages where there are no piers and the steamers. At such places, for instance, as Ardentinny, when the steamer lies to, and a small-boat with passengers puts off from the shore, the word is passed down to the steward, and his assistant brings on deck a glass of whisky for each of the ferrymen. I don’t know whether this glass of whisky—always such a generous beaker it is, too, of hard old  “sclim’-the-wa’ “—is the ferryman’s fee or not, but it is invariably forthcoming, and drunk right off with the utmost nonchalance by the rowers in the boat, to whom it is genteely handed down on a clean plate. To see them get round it is a sight worth a shilling.”— Glasgow Evening Post, June 4, 1888

The ferrymen were defended.

“Lochgoil ferrymen and their habits. Sir—“Lorgnette’s” notes in last night’s issue give publicity to a whisky-drinking habit which prevails in connection with the conveyance of passengers to and front the steamers in Lochgoil, and where no piers exist. I do not know what custom prevails further up Lochgoil, but I trust the general statement has more truth in it than exists regarding Ardentinny Ferry, which is cited as an example. I have been a summer resident there for the past three years, using the ferry-boat night and morning, and I have never seen a single instance of the kind stated. The ferrymen there are four brothers, named Muir, who can honestly claim to be life abstainers, and in taking them as a case in point a gratuitous untruth is being published regarding them and the village they so worthily serve.

“Indeed, one of the principal reasons fathers of families like myself have for going there, where the children are always on the shore, is the fact that the ferrymen have kindly hearts and heads, unclouded at all times by whisky drinking. l enclose my card, and am yours, A lover of the truth.”—Glasgow Evening Post, June 6, 1888

Lochgoil steamer Windsor Castle at Ardentinny

The ferry at Ardentinny from the Lochgoil steamer

North British steamer Redgauntlet at Ardentinny. Redgauntlet was not a regular on the Loch Long route. This may be a charter for a funeral as the flag is at half-staff

Going ashore at Ardentinny

Road to the Hotel, Ardentinny

Ardentinny

Ardentinny from the South

Ardentinny (Holmes)

Ardentinny Post Office

The Glenfinart Estate was put up for sale in November 1891 ensuring that the pier was never built. The ferry remained an advertised port of call until 1928 although occasional calls were made thereafter.

Transferring a nervous passenger from Iona to the Ardentinny Ferry in 1922

Ardentinny from Duchess of Rothesay in 1937—this is now identified as approaching Ormidale in Loch Ridden (see comments)

On the other side of Loch Long, the houses at Coulport were four miles distant from Cove Pier, and so the ferry call was important. A Mr Paul ran into a dispute with the Lochgoil and Lochlong Company when they withdrew their call in 1871.

“Small Debt Court—Yesterday. (Before Sheriff Lawrie.) Paul v. Lochlong and Lochgoil Steamboat Co.—The pursuer Mr John Paul, writer, Glasgow, sued the defenders for £2, as the sum paid by him for cab hires, in travelling by cab from Coulport to Cove on 8 occasions, in consequence of the defender’s steamer, the Carrick Castle, having ceased calling at Coulport after 1st July, 1870, and while the pursuer was in possession of 8 tickets available by that steamer. Mr Robert M‘Farlane, writer, appeared for the pursuer, and Mr George Rennie, writer, for the defenders. It appeared that the pursuer, who resides at Coulport during the summer, had towards the end of May or beginning of June, 1870, purchased from the captain of the Carrick Castle “two dozen” tickets, available by that steamer, but that the steamer had been withdrawn from calling at Coulport on and after 1st July following, and the pursuer was in consequence obliged to travel to Cove on eight several occasions to catch another steamer there. Mr Rennie explained that when Mr Paul purchased the tickets he was informed that the steamer would be withdrawn at an early date, and it was on this understanding that the tickets were sold. Mr Rennie also stated a special defence to the effect that it was an implied condition in the sale of all such tickets that the purchaser would take the accommodation afforded by the company; and, further, that as the pursuer had had ample time to have used the tickets, they were not responsible. After hearing the agents the Sheriff sustained the special defence, and assoilzied the defenders, with costs.”—Glasgow Herald, December 29, 1871

“Paul v. Lochlong and Lochgoil Steamboat Company.—Glasgow, 29th December, 1871.- Sir,—In your publication of to-day there is a report of the small-debt case, Paul v. Lochlong and of Lochgoil Steamboat Company. I am not aware from what source you get the materials for the report, but it is very one-sided and inaccurate. It is there stated that Mr Rennie said, when Mr Paul purchased the tickets, “he was informed that the steamer would be withdrawn at an early date.” Mr Rennie made the statement but the Sheriff held he had failed to prove it. it is also reported that Mr Rennie stated a special defence, which is set forth in your report, and that the Sheriff sustained it. This is not the case. The Sheriff only sustained the latter part of the special defence.

“I now beg that you will be good enough to publish the enclosed report of the case, in respect it discloses the real grounds of the judgment, and which, if sound, is certainly a serious matter for the public. I am, &c., Robt. T. Macfarlan.”—Glasgow Herald, December 30, 1871.

“At the Small-Debt Court on Thursday last—Sherif Lawrie presiding—the Lochgoilhead Steam-boat Company was sued by Mr Paul, Glasgow, who has a summer residence at Coulport, on Lochlongside under the following circumstances:—The steamer Carrick Castle belonging to the above company, in the end of May or beginning of June, 1870, commenced to ply between Glasgow and Lochgoilhead and back daily. The defenders sold the pursuer 24 tickets in the following terms:—“Special ticket. Steamer Carrick Castle. Glasgow to or from Ardentinny or Coulport. Cabin.” When the tickets were bought the steamer was calling at Coulport, and continued to call there up till 1st July, when an advertisement appeared in the Herald stating that she would cease to call there from and after that date. She accordingly ceased to call, and the result was that eight of the tickets were left on the pursuer’s hands unused. The pursuer, under the circumstances, hired a machine on eight different occasions, representing the number of tickets on hand, to take him from Coulport to Cove, the nearest pier where another steamer could be got, and he sued the defenders for the hire of the machine. The pursuer had been examined on commission, and deponed to the foregoing circumstances.

“At the Court, Mr R. T. Macfarlan appeared for the pursuer, and Mr George Rennie for the defenders. The captain of the steamer was examined by Mr Rennie, and deponed to having sold the tickets but stated that when he did so he said to the pursuer that the steamer would be withdrawn at an early date, but no third party was present. The pursuer denied this statement, and the Sheriff held it not proved. The Sheriff at this stage stated that his mind was made up to decide against the pursuer on two grounds—(1) That, by the terms of the ticket, it was optional for the defenders to call at Ardentinny or Coulport; and (2) that the pursuer could have used the whole of the tickets issued within the month if he had travelled daily, or more frequently than he did.

“Mr Macfarlan thereupon recalled the captain, who deponed that, if the steamer was bound to  call at Coulport, or had called during the whole season, the pursuer was entitled to use the tickets at any time during the whole season he thought fit. Mr Macfarlan then contended that the first ground stated by the Sheriff-Substitute was erroneous; that the option of calling at Ardentinny or Coulport was with the passengers; and that by the terms of the ticket or contract the defenders were under an obligation to call either at Coulport or Ardentinny if so required by the holder of the ticket: Further when the tickets were bought, the steamer called at Coulport, and continued to do so for some time subsequently; and therefore the public were entitled to rely upon her continuing to do so, until they had exhausted their tickets. As to the second ground stated by the Sheriff-Substitute, Mr Macfarlan maintained that the point was not, whether the pursuer could have used the tickets before the time when the steamer ceased to call, but was, whether he was bound to do so. The pursuer’s practice was to travel weekly, and that practice he continued after the steamer ceased to call; and, besides it would have been a serious inconvenience to have done so. He further founded on the captain’s testimony, that the pursuer was not limited as to a time in using the tickets, but was entitled to use tham at any time during the season.

“The Sheriff intimated that he adhered to the two ground formerly stated by him.

“Mr Rennie stated that the pursuer was entitled to the price of the eight unused tickets, but Mr Macfarlan contended that, according to the Sheriff’s views of the law, the pursuer was not entitled to this in respect there was no contract between the pursuer and the defenders.

“The defenders were accordingly assoilzied, but Mr Macfarlan intimated an appeal to the Circuit Court.”—Glasgow Herald, December 30, 1871.

The landowner was the Duke of Argyll and he provided resources to construct a pier in 1880, so that the coast could be developed.

“Pier for Coulport.—We understand that the Duke of Argyle has intimated his intention of constructing a pier at this pleasant watering place. It is as yet uncertain whether the structure will be commenced this year or not until 1881. While a pier at Coulport will be a very great boon to present residenters, its effect will undoubtedly be to give an impetus to farming in that pleasant and picturesque sea coast village.”—Evening Citizen, February 27, 1880

“New pier in Lochlong.—The erection of a pier at Coulport, about four miles above Cove, has been commenced, and will it is expected, be finished and ready for traffic in about six weeks. From the position of the pier it will be convenient for steamers calling at all conditions of the tide. The Duke of Argyll, who is erecting the pier, has feued several acres for building purposes, and it is expected that as the two bays near the pier are excellent for bathing, a large number of feus will soon be taken.”—Glasgow Evening Citizen, June 17, 1880

“Pier Coulport.— This new pier is now nearly completed, and will open for traffic early in the year.”—Greenock Advertiser, December 9, 1880

However, there were problems.

“Coulport Loch Long.—Glasgow, 30th June, 1881 Sir,—Coulport is one of the many charming spots on “beautiful Loch Long.” Possibly, too, its beauty is to some extent enhanced by the exclusion which it enjoys, but as in many other such places this feature may be overdone. However last year I noticed with pleasure that a neat iron pier was in course of erection, which promised, with a new read, also being made at that time, to give direct access to Coulport, and so assist in widening the circle or its admirers. His Grace the Duke of Argyll, who is always willing to set the example of a liberal proprietor by expending money in the improvement of his estates to the public advantage, has recently advanced the required capital to carry out a much-needed water scheme for Kilcreggan and Cove, and l understand that it is due solely to the liberality of his Grace that this pier at Coulport and the road to connect it with the existing parish road to Cove, &c., have been carried out. I was sorely disappointed on making inquiries recently regarding the pier and road, in view of the summer holidays, to find out that neither the pier nor the road is the least likely to fulfil their design as they stand. The pier has been tried by several steamboat owners, who are quite ready to assist in “bringing out” Coulport, but they all agree that it is too short, and that it is in consequence dangerous for their vessels, and that until the fault be remedied they will not call. The road, strangely enough, has the same defect—it is too short; it does lead from the pier, but it does not connect with the parish road, and leaves a gap of some hundred yards in an unfinished state, coming to a halt at the old ferry-house. Doubtless, the ferry-man will in some way appreciate the honour of having a pier and a road built so conveniently for him. I hope that someone will, in the interests of the Duke, draw attention to so clear a failure of his very handsome project, so that the required improvements so nearly within reach may soon be secure. His Grace and the other proprietors are willing to feu, and doubtless that would be largely done, as the salubrity of Coulport, its freedom from the east wind, and the undoubted beauty of its surroundings leave only to be desired a good pier and roads sufficient to make communications with Glasgow and other centres more comfortable.—I am &c., Loch Long.”—Glasgow Herald, July 4, 1881

The pier at Coulport was of iron, one of several of a similar design erected at the time, but during the construction, borings for the supports went into mud that was so foul-smelling that work was stopped for a while. The blame was pointed at the Clyde Trustees who used that part of Loch Long to deposit dredgings and sewage from Glasgow. The pier was also too short and the pier-head had to be extended before it would be suitable for steamers to approach safely. Indeed it was into the spring of 1882 before the pier was included in service calls by the Lochgoilhead and Arrochar steamers.

Greenock Telegraph, November 17, 1880

The approach road was also problematic and needed to be straightened. Apparently keeping navies on the job was difficult, possibly because the spot was quite isolated.

Coulport Pier

Although the pier was never a busy one, it was served by the regular Lochgoil and Arrochar steamers. It also was a popular call on special excursions and a favourite with Sunday School and Works parties. A innovation was instituted in 1886 by Captain Williamson of the Ivanhoe who organized an open-air concert on the braes of Coulport as a destination for an evening cruise that he and other ship-owners offered to the public from Greenock and a number of resorts.

Greenock Telegraph, June 25, 1886

“Ivanhoe evening cruise. Open-air concert on the Braes of Coulport.—Besides the glorious weather—almost tropical in its character for the past few days—and the holiday feeling abroad during our annual saturnalia, there were other attractions of a strong cast to make Friday evening’s cruise by the Ivanhoe both popular and successful. The projector the evening trips—Captain James Williamson—has, since their institution, made every effort possible render them pleasant end agreeable, and the large measure of support which has been extended to the steamer goes to show that they have the favour of the general public. The magnificent fireworks displays of past seasons will be within the recollection of most of our readers, and the enormous crowds which they attracted. Following in the groove of novelty, Captain Williamson hit upon a widely different scheme as the initiatory one for this season, and it cannot but be admitted that both in the selection of the entertainment and his choice of the spot to concentrate he displayed excellent judgment. The Braes of Coulport are admirably situated for musical demonstration, the surroundings lending a charm peculiarly their own; and the landscape being almost unmarked by the presence of habitations, the sense of feeling away “from the busy haunts of men” remains undisturbed, and without receiving any rude awakenings. As customary, besides Greenock and Helensburgh, the various coast towns had the opportunity given them of having an evening’s cruise and the brief hour ashore, and when the living freight of the six steamers had been discharged the scene was very imposing one. The steamers engaged were the Ivanhoe and Waverley from Greenock, Victoria, Adela, Marquis of Bute, and Meg Merrilees from Rothesay, Largs, &c., those taking a total number of at least from 5,000 to 6,000 passengers in the aggregate; and it is gratifying that no accident occurred to mar the evening’s enjoyment. The musical part on shore was sustained by the West of Scotland Choral Union, with H. A. Lambeth as conductor, while an orchestra under Mr W. H. Cole, filled in the accompaniments. The selections performed were all from the “Messiah,” and without making critical comment of the performance it will suffice to say that it was quite successful. In similar circumstances, however, in the future it would be necessary to strengthen considerably the treble and tenor parts. Miss Stewart and Mr Walter Bruce were the soloists. A verse of the National Anthem, joined in by the assembly, closed the proceedings. Captain Williamson is to be congratulated on the successful issue of his venture, and we trust that next week, when a similar event is promised, the fates will be kind and give good weather. A programme of Scotch music—more appropriate in the circumstances—is promised.”—Greenock Telegraph, July 6 1886

The pollution of Lochlong and Lochgoil caught the attention of Mr Charles Bradlaugh M.P. for Northampton who was a visitor to the area and asked some pointed questions in the House of Commons. The response from the public was split between those who were concerned by the pollution and those who favoured the stance of the Clyde Trustees.

“Sir,—Mr Bradlaugh’s statement in the House of Commons is misleading, one-sided, and quite contrary to facts, which I can prove. I have been over 12 years going to Loch Long and stopping there overnight two and three times every week. Last year we caught more fish than we did for some years previous, and this year is as good up till now. If the deposit is so injurious to fish, how is it that the fishermen run their lines across the part of Loch Long where the barges discharge the river dredgings? It is a proof that the fish come there to feed, and that the fishermen catch more fish there than in any other part of the loch. There is something wrong about the statement that the men working at a new pier in Loch Long, could not stand the smell from filth discharge from Clyde dredgings. I may state that you will not find a healthier of men in Great Britain than the men employed about the Clyde Trustees dredging plant, working and sleeping there continually from Monday to Saturday. There are over 500 men employed about the River Clyde, most of them about the dredgings taken from the bottom of the river. I never heard one complain that it affected his health, so the public will be able to judge which is the correct statement.—I am &c., One that knows.”—GH August 15, 1887

“The Clyde and the Lochs.—Arrochar, August 15, 1887.—Sir,—The “One that Knows,” whose letter appears in today’s Herald, either does not know, or is deliberately making statements “misleading, one-sided, and quite contrary to facts.” Mr Bradlaugh has lately spent several summers at Portincaple, where he must have had excellent opportunities of seeing the condition of the loch, and of conversing with the fishermen, and he ought, therefore, to know what he is talking about. The fishermen here are unanimous in declaring that this is the very worst season they can remember, and every visitor to the neighbourhood knows by experience that this is literally and absolutely true. Even up here (47 miles, I think, from Glasgow) the whole loch was discoloured on Saturday and yesterday. I suppose your correspondent will assert that it is healthy to bathe in water that leaves on you a coating of greasy mud and sewage. Another incontestable fact is that the whole shore where the dredgers discharge their filth is perfectly horrible, being nothing but greasy slime, and the Coulport shore is being fast reduced to a similar condition. “One who knows” would have been wise to make sure that he did know before writing. Let him go and live at the upper end of Blairmore for a year or two and he may perhaps learn something.—I am, &c., Veritas.—GH August 17, 1887.

The matter of pollution dragged on with a variety of lengthy reports fueling the disagreement about the effects on the shoreline and water quality.

“Pollution of Loch Long by the Clyde Trustees.—Clevedon, Cove, February 4, 1890. Sir,—As you have published Dr Frankland’s report and reply to Mr Fletcher’s report on the pollution of Loch Long by the Clyde Trustees, will you permit me, as a proprietor deeply interested in this subject, to offer a few observations on these documents? Dr Frankland was, I believe, employed and paid by the Clyde Trustees, and his statements, therefore, can only be regarded as those of a skilled witness called by the Trustees; on the other hand Mr Fletcher, H.M. Chief Inspector of Nuisances, was appointed to report on the condition of the loch by Her Majesty’s Government, and his statements and conclusions may therefore be considered unbiased. Dr Frankland’s report is to my view full of inaccuracies. He says:— (1) “I find from my own observations and analyses that these lochs or their shores were suffering no injury from the operation of the Clyde Trust in depositing their dredgings therein, either physical or sanitary.” (2) “The mud is quite inodorous when brought to the surface, but soon becomes putrid in warm weather when kept in jars.” Our contention is that it does so also when carried on to the shores of the loch. (3) He further states—“The Clyde dredgings when brought to the surface again within a day or two had only a faint putresceut odour, but after it had been at the bottom for a week it became perfectly inodorous.” Can Dr Frankland with perfect accuracy state that he secured and examined dredgings that had been submerged for the exact periods mentioned? His report states that the shores of the loch, when not exposed to riparian pollution influences, are clean and inodorous, but in his reply to Mr Fletcher this is modified to the statement, “nearly free from organic matter.” He admits that it is true that sewage matters are brought into the loch by the barges, and further, that they do not remain at the spot where first deposited. Then it may be asked, what becomes of them? According to Mr Fletcher, and the testimony of the residents, they are carried by the current and deposited on the shores in the quiet places and upper reaches of the loch. Had Dr Frankland been present when the evidence of the fishermen and residents of the lochs was taken under instruction of her Majesty’s Government by Dr Littlejohn he would not have been able to say that the shores, where not polluted by riparian polluting influences, were clean and inodorous, and that no trace of organic matter could be found. I give two instances from the evidence taken. When making the foundations of Coulport Pier the mud was found to be most offensive, almost to the extent of preventing the work being gone on with for a time. One of the oldest fishermen stated he could recall the time when at a point where there was no riparian pollution either than or now he could scoop from the shore in his two hands bright clean salt, deposited by evaporation, but now anyone performing the same operation could only get foul and dirty mud. The next statement of Dr Frankland is most remarkable. “Except perhaps actually on the depositing ground the solum of Loch Long and Loch Goil seems to be everywhere well adapted for sustaining fish-life, abounding as it does with living organisms, constituting the chief food of fish. This shows that on the depositing ground no fish can live. Later in his report, however, Dr Frankland contradicts this statement and says—“I found the mud dredged from the depositing ground to be full of living organisms, visible to the naked eye, and they certainly contribute largely to the nutrition of fish”—which of the two is correct? He further asserts that the discharge of barge loads of dredgings in rapid succession does not interfere with the brightness or transparency of the water; but the tests made by Mr Hannay of Cove Castle ful!y proved that it was not so. Dr Frankland admits that fine mud at the bottom was no doubt for some time in suspension, but states that it does not interfere with the clearness of the water. He can give no explanation of the non-shoaling of the water on the depositing ground, but is convinced that there has been no drifting of the dredgings up and down the loch by the action of the tides. This is a remarkable statement surely. In his very contradictory reply Dr Frankland, after an examination lasting only eight days, tries to upset the fuller examinations and reports of Mr Fletcher and Dr Littlejohn, as well as the experience of the fishermen and residents who have been for many years on the lochs, and endeavours to make out that the operations of the Clyde Trustees in depositing the sewage in front of our doors does not create a nuisance, either in the water or on the land; and he adds that short of conveying the dredgings out to sea no other equally satisfactory method for the disposal of them could be devised. I am at a loss to know what his report has to do with the disposal of the dredgings. The only question he had to deal with was whether they were a nuisance or otherwise. Others may and do differ with him on this point, and it might be shown that the Clyde Trustees could deposit their dredgings to better advantage. However, the Government reports fully establish the nuisance which this report tries to refute, and the Government have agreed to place at the disposal of the residents powers to stop this nuisance, destroying as it does one of our most beautiful health resorts. I hope therefore all interested will help the residents with their subscriptions, as the Clyde Trustees are acting without authority, and have no moral or legal right to make these deposits in our lochs, irrespective of whether they create a nuisance or not.—I am, &c., C. W. Cayzer.”—Glasgow Herald, February 5, 1890

“Lochlong Pollution.— Glasgow, February 6, 1890. Sir,—I observe in your issue of to-day a letter from “S.,” in which he gives prominence to what he considers to be a mistake of Mr Cayzer, when in writing you he stated that mud was encountered in the construction of Coulport Pier of a most offensive kind, and almost to the extent of stopping the work. The fact is that before the formation of that pier the sub-soil was bored in order to enable the engineer in charge of the work to determine at what point, and to what extent, piles should be driven into the sub-soil. The borer in his operations encountered sub-strata of a kind which he could not understand, and finding it of a most offensive nature, be wired to his employers for instructions before proceeding further. The engineer accordingly visited the spot, and on examination found that the bore was penetrating a stratum of river dredgings about two feet in thickness, the borings giving off a most offensive odour. There was thereafter encountered in boring a mixture of sand, gravel, and dredgings. “S.” will thus see that Mr Cayzer’s statement is not merely rhetorical but actual fact, and surely “S.,” who says he “knows something of the history of this pier,” might have been cognisant of this fact. It ought not to be “news” to him at this late hour. I enclose my card in order that he may be able to satisfy himself of these facts. If “S” inquires at the fishermen at Portincaple he will be convinced that there is ample evidence of pollution. I follow his example by assuming the letter next in alphabetical order, and, wish much respect, am, &c., T

“21 Renfrew Strest, Glasgow, February 5, 1890. Sir.—I have read the reports on this subject from Mr Fletcher and Dr Frankland and their correspondence thereanent, and also Mr Cayzar’s letter in to-day’s Herald; and, so far as I can judge, there is no need now for calling upon the public to subscribe to a fund to attack the Clyde Trustees. Doing so by the Glasgow public would be equivalent to buying a rope to hang themselves. The public of Glasgow are not going to be benefitted by anything that will cripple the commerce of Glasgow. Mr Fletcher’s report has already done its real work, when it stopped the pollution of Loch Long by chemical refuse. The Clyde trust dredgings are doing no harm to the loch. It has been suggested that these dredgings are carried up by the tides, but there is no proof of this. The loch is too deep for that (180 feet). It rather appears to me that the wind in blowing the sea up the loch causes a strong under-current which takes the sand out of the loch. This action of the water is simply that going on every day where there are hot water circulating pipes, and would be no more wonderful than—if so much as—the Gulf Stream. The depositing of the Clyde dredgings in mid-stream a mile or so from the houses does no harm to speak of it in comparison with the sewage pipes and stuff discharged and laid down at the shores a few yards from the houses. In this case distance lends enlargement to the view. Supposing the deposit of these dredgings was stopped to-morrow, no appreciable benefit to the loch would result; while some of those resident on the shores of the lochs do not thank the agitators for giving the water or shores of the loch a bad name. The amount of the sludge of the Glasgow sewage is only about one-tenth of the amount of the dredgings deposited. The greater part of these are clean sand and stones. The amount deposited last year would be nearly one million of tons; so that only a small part of that could come from the Glasgow sewage.—I am, &c., Pro Bono Publico.”—Glasgow Herald, February 7, 1890

Dumping in Loch Long was finally ended in December 1897. However, by that time the woes of the pier had come to a head.

“Coulport Grievances—Coulport, Loch Long, July 15, 1897. Sir,—This is an age of travelling facilities and tourists take it badly when these are curtailed. On Monday I found that I could not get landed by steamer at Coulport because the pier is out of repair, and the titled proprietor declines to put it in proper condition, without assigning any reason. If it does not pay him at the old rates of pontage, why does he not increase them? The proprietor has undertaken to serve his feuars and the public, and got permission to erect his pier on the foreshore, which belongs to the nation, and he should be called on to fulfil his obligation, and not cripple the public service. Another piece of oppression is the suppression odf the ferry—existing time out of mind—between Coulport and Ardentinny. What are our County and Parish Councils doing—their duty? It cost me 4s to get from Cove to Coulport!—I am, &c., Visitor.

“P.S.—I am glad to note that the Garelochhead Pier is to be repaired and opened to the public.”—Glasgow Herald, July 20, 1897

Greenock Telegraph, June 27, 1898

Nevertheless, calls continued for a few years with the permission of the Argyll Estate, and the tradition of musical concerts remained popular.

“Shopkeepers’ musical evening cruise to Coulport.—The seventh musical evening cruise arranged under the auspices of Greenock Shopkeepers’ Half-holiday Committee was carried out last night in beautiful weather. The N. B. steamer Lady Rowena took very large complement of passengers on board at Greenock, and the number was augmented considerably at other piers. The vessel was latterly filled with those who had gone out to enjoy the cruise. After a pleasant sail up Loch Long, the party was landed at Coulport, permission having been granted by the Marquis of Lorne to hold concert in nicely-situated piece of ground a short distance from the pier. Here an enjoyable entertainment was given. The main attraction was Mr Clavering Power, the well-known actor and vocalist, whose songs, three in number, were rendered with fine skill. The other artistes— Miss D. M. Duthie (soprano), Madame Brighton (contralto), Mr James Macintyre (tenor), and Mr Alex. M‘Gregor (elocutionist) —performed well, and gave good deal of pleasure to their hearers. Mr Thomas Baxter (Glasgow) acted efficiently as accompanist. Coulport was left at 9.25, and Princes Pier was reached after ten o’clock. The band the Boys’ Brigade played selections on board the steamer.”—Greenock Telegraph, August 18, 1898

Greenock Telegraph, May 30, 1900

“Musical cruise to Coulport.—With commendable enterprise, the Scottish Orpheus Choir—one of Greenock moat popular musical combinations—recently arranged for two evening cruises to Coulport, where it was intended a varied programme would be gone through. The first took place last night, and in every respect proved a great success. It had been originally arranged that the Ivanhoe would convey the passengers up Loch Long, but so popular was the excursion that three steamers were packed from stem to stern. There were large complements from Greenock, Gourock, and Helensburgh, as well as from towns on the upper reaches. The weather, though dull, was favourable, and the sail to Coulport proved most enjoyable. The company was kept in good spirits by the orchestral selections played by the Murchie Family. On arrival at the pier the passengers, numbering nearly 3,000, betook themselves to every point of vantage rising above the natural amphitheatre, where a large platform had been erected for the choir. Under the leadership of A. U. Mackinnon (the talented conductor) several part-songs were given, including “Scotland Yet!”, “Fairy Moonlight,” and “On the March.” Songs were also sung Master P. Holland, Mr W. Hannah, and Mr J. M. Aitken. The last-named sang Mr Mackinnon’s new piece, entitled “Our Soldiers and Tars,” which was received with warm appreciation. Variety was given to the concert by Mr A. J. Gamble, the well-known comedian. The piano accompaniments were played Miss M. Nicholson. The entertainment concluded with the National Anthem, in which the company heartily joined. The return journey to the respective towns was made under the same pleasant conditions as were experienced on the sail to Coulport.”—Greenock Telegraph, May31, 1900

“The scenes at Princes Pier during the embarkation of the musical “cruisers” to Coulport on Wednesday night were not unlike those associated with the Glasgow Fair holidays. So alarming was the rushing and crushing at the gangways that many ticket-holders, refusing to take the risk, remained on shore.”—Greenock Telegraph, June 4, 1900

Greenock Telegraph, June 12, 1900

“Scottish Orpheus Choir evening cruise.—The second evening cruise to Coulport, Loch Long, organised the Scottish Orpheus Male Voice Choir, took place last night. The steamer Ivanhoe was chartered for the occasion, starting from Helensburgh at 6.40. At Princes Pier the vessel was boarded large company, which was augmented to such an extent at Gourock by passengers from Port Glasgow that an extra steamer, the Meg Merrilees had to be requisitioned. The weather was dull, but the rain kept off, and the cruise to Coulport was enjoyable. On landing, the choir mounted the platform which had been erected a short distance from the pier. Under their conductor (Mr A. U. Mackinnon) the choir opened the programme with splendid rendering of Scotland Yet.” For this, as well for their subsequent contributions, the choir were heartily applauded. Solos were sung by Master W. Peddie, Messrs J. M. Aitken and J. D. Hart, while Mr A. J. Gamble contributed several humorous songs. The piano accompaniments were played Miss M. Nicolson. At the conclusion of the programme a move was made for the steamers, and the return journey was accomplished in good time, Greenock being reached shortly after ten o’clock. Orchestral selections were played at intervals on board the Murchie Family.”—Greenock Telegraph, June 14, 1900

It was 1918 before the structure was demolished and removed.

“Coulport Pier.—This pier, which is an iron structure erected by the Duke of Argyll nearly 40 years ago, is now being demolished and sold for scrap iron. The pier which was never a financial success, has been completely out of use for many years. About 30 years ago, Coulport was one of the most popular resorts for Glasgow Sunday School and other excursions. During the early summer months thousands of trippers were landed here every week, the children spending happy hours roaming over hillside and shore.”—Helensburgh and Gareloch Times, July 10, 1918

“Coulport Pier, Dumbartonshire.—This pier to be cleared away entirely. Offers wanted for the iron and other material. Particulars and condisions from Wm. Rankine, Portkil, Kilcreggan, who will be glad to receive offers.”—Scotsman, April 10, 1918

An attempt to revive the ferry was introduced in the 1930s.

“Loch Long crossing—Avoiding Rest and Be Thankful—Car ferry scheme—A scheme for a new Loch Long motor car ferry service was revealed last night by Mr Tom Cassells, M.P. for Dumbartonshire. It is suggested that the present passenger ferry service from Coulport to Ardentinny, extending for over a mile, should be replaced by a proper and adequate motor ferry service. Mr Cassells told a reporter that he believed the venture, in which he was interested, and which he was sure would quickly materialise, would to a very great extent develop the Roseneath and Kilcreggan peninsula. The necessary permission had already been received for the inauguration of the scheme, which would necessitate the building of at least two piers for the purpose of accommodating steamers. Mr Cassells said that negotiations would be immediately opened with the Special Areas Commissioner and the Ministry of Transport in the hope that 100 per cent grant would be secured. He had considered the venture in the light of his special knowledge of the counties of Dumbarton and Argyll. For example, in his view the Rest and Be Thankful hill cut out thousands of tourists who travelled by road annually from Cowal to the North. The proposed service would shorten the route from Glasgow to Dunoon by 42 miles, and to Rothesay by 35 miles. The scheme, in addition, would give employment for many people. It was intended that the charge per motor vehicle carried by ferry, including not only touring motors but light commercial motors, would be 2s 6d each.”—Scotsman, September 24, 1937

“Proposed Loch Long ferry.— Mr Cassels ( Soc., Dumbartonshire) asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he had considered the proposal to inaugurate a ferry with State aid, for passengers and vehicles between Coulport and Ardentinny, across Loch Long, for the purpose of opening up to tourist traffic the entire Cowal shore and Roseneath peninsula; and if he had any statement to make. The Secretary of State for Scotland ( Mr Elliot ) writes—The hon. member has informed me of a proposal for a ferry across Loch Long which has been communicated to him by a correspondent. I have looked into the question, but it does not appear that I have any power to give financial aid in carrying out the proposal. It is open however, to the County Councils concerned to consider whether there is a case for the exercise of their powers under the Harbours, Piers, and Ferries Act recently passed. November 18, 1937

“Linking Clyde resorts by ferry.—The long-promised ferries on the Clyde coast, for which motorists have been yearning for years, seem likely to materialise. Glasgow to Dunoon or Rothesay will just be an afternoon trip in the car! The proposed ferry between Gourock and Dunoon is, it seems, almost an established fact. The L.M.S. and Dunoon Town Council have met, and, after an inspection of the proposed site for a landing-stage, have reached a satisfactory understanding. The new stage will involve the Council in an expenditure of over £7,000. The L.M.S. undertake to provide a similar stage at Gourock and a steamer capable of carrying 27 cars and 400 passengers.

“This will be very nice for Dunoon and the West Highlands, but it will not assist Rothesay unless plans go through for the new motor ferry service between Colintraive, in Argyllshire, and Rudhabodach, in Bute. Fortunately there is likely to be little difficulty about this. Dunoon linked with the Loch Fyne Otter Ferry will, of course, make an open road to Kintyre and Campbeltown—a boon to the latter if they are to be deprived of their present steamer.

“The Sunday Post also learns there are plans afoot for yet another motor ferry which would link Dumbarton and Argyll across Loch Long. This, it is proposed, would run between Coulport and Ardentinny. Local M.P.s support the scheme, but nothing can be settled until the respective counties reach an agreement. If the scheme goes through it would be possible for Glasgow tourists to Loch Lomond to make a complete circular tour, crossing Loch Long at Coulport, and rounding Holy Loch for home by the Dunoon ferry. There is a proposition that a private company will be formed, which, once the piers are guaranteed, would be prepared to purchase two Diesel-engined ferry vessels, each capable of carrying cars. With these plans it looks as if next summer the Clyde and the West Highlands will be the motorists’ Mecca.”—Sunday Post, August 6, 1939

“Coulport-Ardentinny ferry.—Some difficulty is reported regarding the running of the Coulport-Ardentinny ferry which has received notice at various times in these columns. The Glasgow District Office is taking the matter up with the ferry-master and detailed suggestions for the improvement of the service would be welcomed.”—Daily Record, August 4, 1939

“Where west Scotland lags behind east, by J. D. Leslie.—Before the war there was, I think, general agreement that the West Coast and Highlands of Scotland were greatly lacking in adequate modern ferry services. Many long, and costly detours by road would be avoided if such facilities were available. I recollect some years ago public discussion of a plan for a car ferry between Gourock and Dunoon, linking up by new road through Glendaruel with ferries further north and west (to which the L.M.S. Coy. was favourable so recently as 1938); another connecting Bute with Argyll; and others in different parts of the West Country. I have just had the benefit of an interesting communication from Mr Archibald Taylor, Kirkcudbright, who envisages a perfect net-work of such ferries, you will see from the list he suggests: 1—Loch Lomond (from Inversnaid). 2—Loch Long (from Coulport). 3—Clyde (Gourock-Dunoon). 4—Bute to Colintraive. 5—Loch Fyne (Otter to Campbeltown). 6—Sound of Mull. 7—Sound of Islay. 8—Inverness (Kessack to Black Isle). 9—Stranraer to Larne. 10—Gareloch (Rosneath to Rhu).

“I Think Mr. Taylor has got something here, and so, I hope, will the Secretary of State, the Minister of War Transport, the Paymaster-General (as Reconstruction Minister), and Members of Parliament who are in touch with him. And certainly Mr. Taylor speaks from experience and with practical knowledge. He pioneered with the Loch Long ferry service, running a small passenger ferry from Coulport. If there are any who question the need of what he advocates, I wonder if they are aware that not a single car ferry exists further west in Scotland than Erskine on the Clyde! Over 1700 miles of salt water laps the shores of Argyll, yet that county has no car ferry. The East Coast, on the other hand, has had car ferries—on the Forth between North and South Queensferry, and on the Tay between Dundee and Newport—for the greater part of half a century.

“A car ferry on Loch Long from Coulport to Ardentinny would save a detour of 41 miles from Glasgow to Dunoon by avoiding Rest-and-be-ThankfuL One from Inversnaid across Loch Lomond to Luss would link the Trossachs direct with Argyll and get rid of the long detour by Loch Katrine and Crianlarich. And these, with the other car ferries suggested by Mr. Taylor, would provide key-points in a great system of new and wider roads that would open up Scotland to traffic of all kinds as never before. Of all these keys, the Loch Long ferry would be the master key, opening the door to a great circle of speedy, convenient waterways and roadways from south to north and east to west.

“Now is the time, surely, to plan these ferry schemes and impress their advantages on the proper quarter. I think I am correct in saying that, before the war, ferry schemes proposed in their areas had the approval of the County Councils of Dumbarton, Argyll and Bute. In any case, these and all the other local government bodies concerned might do worse than consider such schemes now and place details before the Government Departments concerned and also Mr. Johnston’s recently formed Scottish Advisory Council. The necessary powers are already provided by the Ferries Act of 1937.”—Daily Record, August 4, 1942

“By J. D. Leslie—A Remark by the Secretary of State for Scotland gives me a good reason for returning to the subject of car ferries. Replying to a question in the House of Commons the other day concerning the Forth and Clyde Canal scheme, Mr. Johnston said: “As the Minister responsible for post-war planning in Scotland. I shall maintain the closest contact with the Minister War Transport on all proposals for transport development in Scotland.” Well, the provision of adequate modem car ferries is acknowledged by most competent authorities to be one of the primary essentials in any such development scheme. And it is here that Mr. Johnston, I suggest, will have to try to convert the Ministry of Transport to his own point of view.

“Behind the scenes there is going on a good deal of activity by some of those who regard the provision of car ferries as an urgent matter. I have had the opportunity of looking over correspondence which confirms this. For example, Mr. Archibald Taylor, one of the chief advocates of car ferries, has been informed by Major M‘Callum, M.P., of a memorandum which the Member for Argyll recently sent to the Secretary for Scotland on the subject of car ferries at Coulport and at several other points in that county. Acknowledging receipt of the memorandum, Mr. Johnston told Major M‘Callum that he had read it with great interest and taken note of the suggestions, and most certainly will see that they are considered along with other proposals for the improvement of transport in the Highlands after the war.”

“That may not commit the Secretary for Scotland to supporting the car ferries scheme, but it does suggest that he is not antagonistic to it. But the Ministry of Transport seems to be anything but favourable. In the latest reply to Mr. Taylor on the subject, the Ministry say that the project of a car ferry between Ardentinny and Coulport was considered by the County Councils of Argyll and Dumbarton some time ago, and it was decided that the needs of traffic were adequately secured by the steamer services between Glasgow. Gourock, Dunoon and Rothesay.” Also, reasonable facilities for motor traffic between Glasgow and Dunoon are available in the classified roads around the head of Long Long, which has recently been improved.” The proposed Inversnaid ferry across Loch Lomond, the Ministry decides, would not be justified.” What do motorists and road haulage interests think of these opinions?

“It would help Mr. Johnston to convert the Minister of Transport were the County Councils of Argyll and Dumbarton to review their previous decision in the light not so much their own requirements and views as of the development of Scotland generally. These proposed Loch Long and Loch Lomond car ferries, linked up with Gourock-Dunoon and Argyll-Bute ferries, would provide a great circular route for modem traffic. They would not be competitive but complementary; they would serve not only local and sectional interests but those of the whole country. It only needs the County Councils to see the advantages and make application to the Minister of Transport, who has the power to build the piers out of the Road Fund. Mr. Johnston is a man of many jobs; but if he and his Advisory Council will use their good influences with the County Councils and Lord Leathers, there is nothing to prevent these car ferries being put in hand after the war.”—Daily Record. September 22, 1942

After the war, a beach-loading landing craft was tried on the route but the experiment was never a success and was short-lived. In part the militarization of the area in the immediate post-war years limited the traffic and ensured its demise.