Moving Away your Dust - building long lost London in Realtime 3D

HISTORICAL INVESTIGATION DOCUMENT by Robert Nutter

Click the arrows to drop down your desired reading section.

Video Links

Documentary tour: https://youtu.be/mhDulIimrdU

Immersive tour: https://youtu.be/baYmxR2rgWA

Environment Showcase: https://youtu.be/sWJH296r-2k

Featured Landmarks

From factories to parks and barges to long-lost villages, these points of interest seen in the video are not random choices; each represents a specific facet of London, Britain or life during this period using the canal as a conduit. Below are brief descriptions outlining each one.

Chelsea Waterworks

From when the Chelsea Waterworks Co. reinstated their headquarters to a site near the relatively new Grosvenor cut in 1825, the adjacent works (as depicted in the scene) underwent several major refits throughout the 19th century. The version showcased here is an imagining of how the original 1750 design may have looked in 1851, long before the reimagined pump structure still present today was built.

Grand Junction Waterworks

Sitting on a sewerage terminus next to the then-still-present Westbourne river, the Grand Junction works would not have had an imposing presence at this point; perhaps a single pump tower opposing the Chelsea , as depicted.

Lock House/Offices

Subject to several rebuilds throughout the period, this beautiful Georgia house is a slight reimagining of a later version as seen in1900s photography. The offices it obscures here would, with renovation, stand in this spot until 1960 with the house itself being lost at the turn of the century. Small pilot houses would've also stood here; flanking the canal on either side. By 1849, one would appear to have already been removed for unknown reasons.

Grosvenor Lock

Along with the South Basin, the Grosvenor Lock is the only part of the canal to still exist today and as such was a reasonably straightforward element to reimagine. The gates and their placement changed little between the 1900s photos and today, aside from a conversion from manual to clockwork control during the 1924 rebuild.

Spot the Phateon wagon! A popular type of road carriage during the period.

Turpentine Road/Neat

This residential road leading to Neat village and gardens, a semi-autonomous area of Westminster at the time; was completly lost to the later construction of Victoria Station. It can be glimpsed here as a backdrop to Chelsea Waterworks and Grosvenor Road.

South holding Basin

Barges awaiting departure or operations would be required to stay in this area as and when required by the companies they serve.

Grosvenor Park

Unfortunately, barely anything is known about this large area of the canal's eastern bank beyond some vague mentions in text. It appears on most maps as a triangular void between Neat to the south and Ebury bridge to the north, Grosvenor canal to the west and middle-class housing to the east. It would likely have been completly lost during construction of the Southern and South Eastern trainlines, though small hints of it do appear next to the canal in later photography; suggesting it wasn't until much later that this small area of it was also lost.

Drayton International Works Company

A semi-fictionalised supply depot, representitive of the many such companies to be found flourishing at this point in the British Empire's history. Such a company would've dealt in all manner of fabrication, trade and export.

Army Supplyhouses

It is known that the military kept a small presence in this part of the canal, likely for the storage of munitions or key components getting readied for factories further down the Thames. Woolwich Arsenal and Vickers, Crayford would likely have been such factories until the early 20th century.

Sawmill and Lumberworks

The most striking and perhaps surprising plot to be found on earlier maps is that of a large lumberworks of unknown heritage. This would've included a central mill, large stockhouses and trestles as well as a significant presence on the canal itself. It was likely cleared for housing during the 1924 rebuild. It is seen here represented as an older, more decrepit building than its surrounding Georgian and Victorian counterparts.

Tenement Buildings

Believed to have covered large areas of London during our period, tenements were the period's solution to mass housing. Inner city areas such as Westminster were beginning to think upwards in terms of space-saving solutions to house the poor. While terrace housing was more cost efficient to build, tenements provided increased accomodation volume on a smaller footprint. Most of London's tenements were demolished by the mid 20th century, though some examples live on in other previously industrial cities, such as Edinburgh and Birmingham.

Large Steelworks

Similar to the Sawmill, it is known that a significant steelworks was present on this plot for a long period and was later cleared to make way for residential housing.

Ebury depot

A significant export depot, established by Westminster Council at some point during the canals inception in the early 19th century. This was still in use throughout the first few decades of the 20th century, only being demolished with the construction of Victoria Coach Station and surrounding hotels.

Ebury Bridge

One of very few canal elements still in existence today, this bridge would've seen massive changes; not just to its own use and design, but in the use of the land around it as well. Originally built over the canal to link the existing Ebury road, it still fulfils this function over the trainlines feeding Victoria train station as part of the A3214, although heavy loads such as lorries and coaches are expected to detour via Victoria Street to the north to avoid damaging its ageing foundation.

Steam Maintenance

It is likely there was a structure at some point along the canal dedicated to the maintenance and repair of steam engines. The example seen here follows a design found in Bristol, of a likely common pattern for this type.

Transporter Bridge

While there is little evidence of a transporter lift being built over this point of the Grosvenor Canal, it is likely something of the type did exist in order to facilitate rapid transfer of materials and products. It's known that several of the depots along the canal did feature storage structures or grounds on the east bank.

Elizabeth bridge

Like Ebury, Elizabeth bridge exists to this day; albeit only in name. While the original was lost long ago, it's easy to speculate that it was likely an arched stone brick bridge with a single wide span; a common styling for bridges built in this era.

Bulk loading depot

These covered depots appear in several key references from the period, each with slight differences in appearance. Logic would place them at the neck of a basin, where it would be less important that the towpath is not restricted and allowing easier loading and holding access for barges without fast turnaround times or consumable loads.

Rhodesia/Africa import area

There's strong evidence to suggest the presence of a large import terminal, likely processing various goods but specifically consumables, from the African continent, at some point just past Ebury bridge.

Belgravia Yard

A large, semi-fictitious factory and yard following common designs of the era. This would likely have taken the form of a large workhouse on the Grosvenor, with significant canal access facilitating Thomas Cubitt's construction of Belgravia.

North basin

Serving a similar role to the southern basin, barges would remain here until required for loading or unloading.

Covered loading depot

It's unclear what the exact function of these depots was, despite their regular ocurance in research materials. One possible use would be as a receptacle for covered overhead feeders; hence my placement of it near the waste facility. That would certainly align with there usually being an escalator of some description attached.

Dust Feeders

This process would've been mechanised fairly early; perhaps as soon as the turn of the century. We can tell from photography that huge dumper-presses; not unlike today's dust carts; would've compacted the waste into the barge. However, in 1851 it was still very much a manual job with gravity chutes only useful for solid waste such as ash. Barges would line up, sometimes several abreast, and simply be filled from the ever-growing heap.

'Dirty' Dock

It is known from other contemporary examples that a small jetty would've likely been stationed ahead of the main dust complex, mostly to facilitate in navigation operations but also as an extension to the docking space.

Victoria Quay

Perhaps controversial to include given their existence is debated, but there's some evidence that a short-lived light industry complex was constructed during the late 1840s named Victoria Quay. This would've been soon demolished for Victoria Station. The example seen here is based on York's Woodsmill Quay and represents one of many possible designs.

Ebury Row

A small row of middle class town-housing is indicated on most period maps, following on from Ebury bridge to the east.

St.Paul's Cathedral

Making a cameo appearance in the project, St. Paul's would've dominated the skyline alongside smoke stacks and other places of worship. It seemed important to feature a landmark familiar to modern eyes in the project to more easily place the environment into context.

'Peabug'

This typical Thames Barge was created to represent an entire breed of river-going vessel and one important to our story. With several working examples still in existance as well as a club dedicated to their continued preservation, it would be fair to say that the type left a lasting cultural impression. Hundreds would once have filled the Thames, delivering goods inland from the large docks downstream as well as ferrying all manner of items between factorys and depots. This specific model is based off 'Kathleen'; a 1901 physical model kept in the Greenwich Maritime Archives, with slight alterations made based off earlier paintings and drawings, and 'Pudge'; an extant Thames Barge owned by the Thames Sailing Barge Trust. 'Peabugs' cargo is Kentish Ragstone, being delivered to the Belgravia Yard at Grosvenor's north basin. As mentioned elsewhere, it's unlikely rigged Thames Barges such as 'Peabug' regularly traversed the Grosvenor during this period, which suggests they likely unloaded at a depot along the Thames or at a floating dock.

Peabug has her own project page, here.

Research Challenges

All research undertaken for the purpose of creating an artistically complex CGI environment while attempting to remain as accurate as possible. It should be used only to understand why certain decisions have been made regarding this project. I am not a professional academic and these are my own conclusions. I would however like to thank Greenwich Maritime Archives, Thames Sailing Barge Trust, Nymans Book Archive, 'Pudge' and 'Centaur' and of course, Westminster Archives for all their assistance and input.

The main challenge: General appearance of this entire area of Westminster is virtually unknown in 2025. The area was almost completly redeveloped since 1851, with a few small exceptions such as Ebury bridge; making the project a very nuaced challenge. For the most part, the solution has been to draw reference from contemporary references from other areas of London or to extrapolate possible details from the available period references supplied by Westminster Archives and my own physical resources. Despite this, some significant challenges were experienced when attempting to re-imagine this area of London to a photo-real standard; some major, many minor. Below are the major ones and their solutions.

Challenge: Whether barges could traverse Ebury bridge. This was a deceptively dangerous one to get wrong, since a lot of the project hinges on the possibility that rigged Thames Barges could enter most of the Grosvenor canal. It's logical; how else would the tall Thames barges, such as 'Peabug', be able to transit the Grosvenor canal under such a low structure? They certainly weren't de-masting (Thames Barges usually had hinged masts) everytime theyd need to transit the cut; I have it on good authority this would only occur as part of regular function either when loading or in an emergency situation. However, a drawbridge would seem impossible for several reasons; the first being that no mention is made in any plans of a bulky bridge existing prior to Ebury bridge, nor is there any trace of one in the photos. Given the carriage traffic and supposed age, such a bridge is unlikely to have been anything other than arched and iron construction were it mechanical, even if it did exist. Finally, the draught at this point of the canal is simply too shallow to allow for the lock to compensate for water height in such a way. Most barges had a draught of around 6 feet, increasing to nerer 8 feet for a rigged barge. Therefore, it's unlikely rigged barges regularly entered beyond this point.

Solution: Simply not including rigged barges on this part of the canal seemed the best way to illustrate this point. It's a shame that I was unable to feature the main 'Peabug' model as the 'player boat' as a result of this. But all my research suggests they simply wouldn't have been a common sight there.

Challenge: Chelsea Waterworks's 1851 placement and design widely differs in almost every available account, making it complicated to create a solid concept.

Solution: I eventually settled on a reimagined 'two-tower' design based on earlier drawings, with some possible modifications applied. This, alongside more common sense decisions such as featuring a large beam pump between them and a mine-pattern stack to better withstand probable weak clay foundations, seems to have created a convincing spectacle.

Challenge: Grand junction terminus/river cut also varies wildly across accounts.

Solution: A retrofitted variant of the later Kensington pump tower was created and placed in the most logical and likely location directly between the canal and river, with trees obscuring any lower structures which might've been present but lack any reference.

Challenge: Land use of the western banks, especially to the south of Ebury bridge, is contentious across references; with some showing large tenement estates, others sprawling gardens and some detailing a combination of depots, factories and scrub.

Solution: A compromise between several different references was reached; using the basic land use from 1920s canal drawings alongside earlier structure placements as seen in Chigwell's map and other painted resources. This comprises of a lock house and pilot shelter to the south, a lock depot, large international depot, Army supply warehouses, the Chelsea Headquarters, a significant sawmill and works, a large steelworks and finally, Ebury depot to the north.

Challenge: Purpose and type of structures on the western side of Grosvenor lock completly lack reference for this period.

Solution: While initially I was hoping to design this area largely from the much later 1920s photography, which depicts Victorian factories and offices, I eventually opted to introduce the Georgian-style lockhouse and smaller office complex of the older 1860s photography. The factory depots behind said structures should serve to ease any doubt over this placement, since they still feature a prominant access to the canal; a likely use of the land.

Challenge: Position of tenements, if any, around the canal.

Solution: The map I was tasked with replicating in 3D features a heavy concentration of Tenement residential buildings and large workhouses; almost swallowing the canal. However, I struggled to find reliable corroborating references to this elsewhere and so took the decision to almost completly omit them in favour of a large park and townhouses to the east, and the previously mentioned industrial sector to the west. This decision is largely based from an informed reading of Chigwell's map, as well as retro-imagining future maps such as the 1920s redesign drawings. Based upon this evidence, it seems highly unlikely the area was so saturated with residential buildings/large workhouses. The primary industry depicted in my scene is therefore quite contradictory to this resource. Given this, I've introduced a small tenement complex to the northern boundaries of the sawmill. This area has limited detail on most maps and so seemed a prime candidate to introduce a bit of architectural 'tokenism'!

Challenge: Aesthetic, placement and condition of Cubitts in 1851.

Solution: While an initially straightforward task: recreate the iconic but ill-fated Cubitts factory; it proved extremly difficult detailing this structure and its immediete surroundings. This alongside the fact most references debate its placement relative to modern-day boundaries, I instead of guesstimating opted to omit it entirely from the project and add a few other noteworthy industrial buildings and semi-fictionalised companies (such as 'Weaver's Cocoa Imports' and 'Drayton Int'l works') in its stead. It's important to note, however, that Belgravia Yard; an imagining of Cubitt's Belgravia construction depot; is included in the project.

Challenge: It's known that there was a fragmented collection of structures which formed a major works on the site now occupied by Victoria Train Station concourse. This mystery works was an early casualty to the aforementioned train station's construction, and while occupying a large and significant area of the basin, virtually no clues exist of how it might've looked. Some paintings point to it at least partially being the site of Cubitts building which seems unlikely, if other period maps and accounts of the Cubitts fire are to be believed.

Solution: An oblong-shaped plot hugging the very north of the canal, I opted to add large iron and stone workhouses here, reflecting the likelihood that a heavy works requiring a lot of bulk transport would occupy this piece of prime canal real estate. There's also evidence to suggest in some sources that there was a new structure built here as late as 1845, hence it being presented as a high Victorian red-brick design in the scene. Masonry and iron products can be viewed on the canalside, along with a small gauge railway.

Challenge: The large eastern area once occupied by the independent Neat village and Neat gardens, as well as a large park, is completly swallowed up by Westminster today, with very little evidence it even existed in both drawings and maps. This posed a significant challenge since it effectively meant that this side of the southern canal couldn't be properly re-created.

Solution: There are corroborating accounts in writings that both Neat and the park existed, and had for a while. I've tried to hint at this existence by honouring a 'Turpentine Road' running adjacent to the canal's southern basin, seemingly serving middle-class housing which was, in 1851, likely still considered a part of Neat. This is adjoined to the north by the also long gone 'Grosvenor' Park; a huge rectangular green space (or scrub), which disappeared with the construction of the trainlines feeding Victoria station.

Challenge: Ebury and Elizabeth bridge hump height from road is unclear. Due to local topology, it would seem that the arched height from waterline necessary to allow passing of barges (today's railway lines are several meters below water level), would have necessitated a marked drop to the adjoining roadways. This wouldn't be present today, given how much higher the surrounding land now is.

Solution: Making the assumption that the underpinning of Ebury bridge is now mostly submerged under modern foundations, it seems reasonable to assume there was a significant drop from the bridge to the adjoining roadways. This has been reflected in the scene with a slightly larger bridge foundation and lower nearby building foundations.

Challenge: Exact position of waste works in the northern basin is unclear in almost every resource, which is a shame since this is of course the project focus and essential for conveying the story we're trying to tell.

Solution: There is a strong hint in some maps that the eastern section of the north basin housed a 'multi-use' or 'council' site. To translate Victorian parlance, this likely means either scrubland or a 'utility'; such as a refuse depot. With this assumption and the fact no other part of the canal meets the requirements so well (ie, easy access to several barges at once, stacked access for barges, storage area and simultaneous significant canalside space), I saw fit to position it here. It's also a narrative boon having it so far from Grosvenor Road in the south, since it allows us to 'tour' the length of the canal before eventually coming to rest on our main focal point.

Challenge: Canal depth and flora. One thing which is surprisingly possible to ascertain would be canal depth...albeit in the 20th Century. We have extensive photography from its the 1924 rebuild showing high, 12-15 foot walls from clay to topper. However, it's extremly likely the canal was dredged and possibly deepened during this rebuild, although there's no explicit mention of this in writing. The main reason would be that Barges gained deeper draughts as they made the transition from wood to iron construction in the late 19th and early 20th century, necessitating deeper navigable waterways to allow for silt build-up. So it's entirely likely the original depth would be far shallower; possibly by as much as half. Add to this the question of water flora, such as duckweed, and correct waterlines on the brick sidings; and suddenly water depth becomes a question which needs an answer.

Solution: Using a depth around 30% lesser than the projected 1924 dimensions, allows a typical low tide draught of around 4m for a deep loaded wooden barge. It would certainly need to be shallower than the Thames at the south basin, in order to avoid whirlpool effect. With this in mind, duckweed and other water flora are more likely to form due to slower currents which means the Grosvenor was likely a very dirty, stinking canal during the summer months. They have, however, been ommited in this project due to technical constraints in the interaction between them and the water movement.

Research resources

Digital resources

Westminster Archives image database inc. 1900s, 1924 and 1960s era photography and plans.

Cruchley's New Plan of London (1849)

Cruchley's New Plan of London w/East and West India Docks (1832)

Cruchley's New Plan of London (1828)

1945/1960 aerial photography, Google Earth

Physical resources

'Kathleen' Thames Barge model, Greenwich Maritime Archives

'Pudge', Restored Thames Barge

Cruchley's New Plan of London Improved (1851)

London: Evolution of a Great City by Michael Leapman

Shepherd's London by JFC Philips

The Image of London 1550-1920 by Malcolm Warner

Victorian and Edwardian Canals by DD Gladwin

Georgian London by John Summerson

---

This project was created for the Westminster City Council and Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund.

We would like to thank Westminster Archives, Royal Museums Greenwich and the Thames Barge Society for all their help in sourcing and using archival materials.

---