Mark P

Hi Mark; Thanks for the explanation. I must make one of these. All the best, Mark P

Hi Mark; That looks like an ingenious steamer. I have the exact same wall-paper stripper, and you've just given me an idea of what to do with it that the Admiral will probably want to keel-haul me for! Can you enlighten me as to the purpose of the holes in the side of the tube? I also agree with Druxey: very neat and well formed clamping arrangements. All the best, Mark P

Hi Dave; The contemporary model of HMS Ajax in the Science Museum archive, which I have studied and photographed out of its case, has red bulwarks and black spirketting on its upper deck (the black spirketting is not as common as red, from what I have seen) This is then repeated on the lower deck, although it is much more difficult to see. The centre-line fittings on the lower deck are also painted red, as are the sides of all the deck beams to the upper deck and lower deck (and presumably their undersides, although none of my photographs show these) All the best, Mark P

Hi Ron; You got it exactly right. That's the marine walk. All the best, Mark P

Greetings Ron; The marine walk is a tapered grating which runs from the top of the beakhead bulkhead forward onto the bowsprit. It was presumably to give a good vantage point for a marine sentry when in port, or for several marines in battle. HMS Victory has a good example. Look for pictures of her bows, and you will easily spot this. All the best, Mark P

Hi Tim/Steven; Further to earlier posts, I am reading Lavery's book 'Nelsons's Navy, Ships, Men & Organization', and he says that the ship's carpenter and his mates were responsible for making the mess tables and benches for the crew, and the tables and chairs for the gunroom and wardroom. As this would have been done using government supplied timber, there would certainly have been an official listing of what they were allowed to make. All the best, Mark P

Hi Allan; My guess is that it is drawn this way to show the termination of the main rail clearly, as this is obscured by a normally drawn cat-head. Can't think of any other reason; and I've certainly never seen a cat-head this way on either a model or a draught. All the best, Mark P

Hi Allan; Thanks for the info. I will see if I can get a look at this once the plans archive is accessible again (it's shut at the moment while the storage area is re-built) Concerning beam arms, nothing I have been able to find is any earlier than your draught. Everything from the Restoration era neither mentions nor shows beam arms. All the best, Mark P

Hi Dafi & Druxey; Thank you for your thoughts. I was not aware that the ladders were changed when clearing for action. Was this a widespread thing, or limited to certain ladders on certain vessels? Druxey: I had to look up 'rubric'; that's a new one on me. I always thought it was something connected with religion! I've sent an email to the staff at 'Victory', asking about the means of access to the storerooms. I will pass on any reply I get. All the best, Mark P

Hi Allan; The draught you show looks like a good detailed one. Is this the Elizabeth, 1706, which you refer to? All the best. Mark P

Good evening Druxey, Wayne; Thank you for your thoughts on this. I think that this paragraph served as a general 'catch-all' specification, which would cover anything that might have been missed in the main part of the contract. Some of the things listed here have already been described in their due place. It could indeed refer to the railing around the companionway, as these were certainly features of the deck furniture, and they could be said to 'encase' the stair; although I don't think I've ever seen the ladders called anything except ladders. I that it could well also relate to the means of accessing the store rooms. Does anyone have any knowledge of what is fitted in the 'Victory' for this? I've been to see her, but the storage rooms are not part of the general tour. On the red drawings for inboard works, the ladders into the magazine and aft powder room are normally shown. However, nothing is shown to give access into the store-rooms, which, even if they were not as deep as the hold, would still have been pretty far below the orlop, especially when empty. And a set of staples in the bulkhead would not take up a lot of room. I think that I will send an email to the people at the Victory, and see if they can shed any light on this. Isn't it Peter Goodwin who is in charge nowadays? All the best, Mark P

Hi Mark; You raise an interesting point regarding hanging knees. The Berwick was ordered in 1768. The Culloden contract, dated 1770, makes no mention of iron knees for either the gun-deck or upper deck knees. However, the Fortitude contract of 1778 makes several mentions of iron knees for deck beams, near the stern, & to as many of the other beams as may be done. This would make it unlikely that the knees shown in the drawing are of iron, unless it is from a later re-fit. The NMM catalogue entry states that the drawing is not dated, unfortunately, and so could be later than the build date. Unless there is something on the drawing which would indicate a date, we probably cannot be sure if the knees are iron or timber. One final thing: the NMM have/had a contract for building a ship which was listed as being that for 'Berwick', and which mentions iron knees. However, as the contract is quite specifically dated to 1779, with Mr Perry at Blackwall (on the Thames) it is most unlikely to refer to a ship which was launched four years previously at Portsmouth. This anomaly has either been recently corrected, or is about to be so. All the best, Mark P

Hi Michael; Jim Lad is right. Many ropes for the running rigging lead through blocks under the top, then down the inside of the shrouds, often passing through a 'shroud truck', (I think it is called) which is a wooden tube lashed to the shrouds to contain the rope and give a fair lead to the belaying point. For top & topgallant sails, some of the ropes belay to a cleat which is lashed to the inside of a topmast shroud. All the best, Mark P

Hi everyone; I have looked at the plan of the orlop for 'Tremendous', a 74 launched in 1784, and the scuttles are close to the bulkheads, which would allow access to a ladder fixed to the bulkhead. Bearing in mind that the depth in hold is 20 feet, they would certainly have needed a means of climbing down. The inboard works does not show any ladders here, so maybe the 'Iron Stair Case' does refer to a means of getting down into the storage rooms in the hold. All the best, Mark P

Hi everyone; Gary: thank you for the info regarding Berwick. I have found the drawing you refer to in the NMM collections, ref no is J2633, or ZAZ7846. This is a remarkable drawing: lots of lovely information! I will have to get a copy. Click on it and it comes up a bit larger, and clearer. The planks of the wale are not symmetrical. The contracts I mentioned above all ask for hook and butt planking for the spirketting and other locations. It's very interesting to see this draught showing it so clearly though. Again, thank you, Gary. All the best, Mark P

Hi Mark; The backwards hook is on one of the two photos you posted here a few days ago. On the bow view, between the 2nd & 3rd gunports from the bow, on the 3rd strake down. The hook is backwards/upside down, and the remainder of the plank next to it is actually parallel sided, or close to it. You might be right about the apprentice. It is also possible that the individual planks within a strake were of slightly varying lengths. As long as the butts were kept well apart in adjacent strakes, it would not seem sensible to cut off a few feet of perfectly serviceable timber just to create a uniform length. But I might be wrong. I hope Gary can find the number for his picture. If it shows the whole wale, that would be most interesting. Below is an extract from the contract specification for the 'Fortitude' a 74 of 1778. This was also used for the 'Bombay Castle' of 1779, the 'Culloden' of 1770, and the 'Bellerophon' of 1782. MAIN WALES: The Main Wales to be in breadth from upper edge to lower edge 4ft 4ins, and in thickness 8 ½ ins. To have one fair Seam in the Middle & the two lower & two upper Strakes to be lock’d into each other with Hook & Butt wrought of such lengths and the butts properly disposed so as to give the strongest Shift to the Ports & to each other. All the best, Mark P

Hi Mark; I think you are right about the angle of the hooks: it is not perpendicular to the angled line as I have drawn it. One important point is that the widest part of the plank is normally at the mid-point of the plank. I have looked in Goodwin to see what he says, and he does not illustrate or describe this technique, unfortunately, but I am sure that in the examples I have seen it is based on the 'anchor stock' style, where planks are symmetrical. Having said that, it does appear that some on the model are not symmetrical. That might be because of the approach to the bow, though. It might be worth a little checking before you cut any wood, though. I have looked at my pictures of models, and unfortunately, they all appear to have wales which are made from a single plank the width of the wale; so no help there. By the way, an interesting thing: the modeller of the NMM Bellona has made a mistake in his wale, and has made one of the hooks the wrong way round: it would pull apart with no trouble, not lock together against a pull. All the best, Mark

Hi Mark; Just one thing that you might not have noticed: the wales on the model are not planked with anchor stock, or top and butt, but with 'hook & butt'. I have attached a sketch of this. All the best, Mark P Bellona wale drawing.pdf

One further thought: Could this refer to large iron staples set horizontally into the bulkheads of the storage rooms in the hold, adjacent to the scuttles, to allow men to climb down into the store. I'm thinking of the Bread Room, Fish Room, Steward's Room, & Spiritous Liquors Room (and please, don't anyone suggest it might be the magazine ) Similar to the steps set into manholes to allow men to climb down inside them. I will look at some deck plans to see if this might work. All the best, Mark P

Hi Druxey; Handwritten it is; but completely clear, see below. I have also just noticed that the contract for 'Bombay Castle', dated 1779 (the contract for 'Ganges/Culloden' above is dated 1778) contains exactly the same wording. Interestingly, the one for 'Ganges/Culloden' is in 3 different hands, whereas the one for 'Bombay Castle' is all in one hand. It also occurs in the contracts for 'Culloden' of 1770, and 'Bellerophon' of 1782. Ganges Bombay Castle Culloden, contract 1770 Bellerophon, contract 1782 It might be a standard insertion, but it must have an origin somewhere. All the best, Mark P

Hi Mark; Thank you for the reply. The contract is indeed of a pretty standard format, but I've never seen this before. All the best, Mark P

Greetings everyone; I am transcribing the contract for HMS Ganges, a 74 gun ship, dated from 1780 (it might be for HMS Culloden, 1782) and I have come across a puzzling entry: Under the heading 'Ladders & Gratings', it says: 'To make all Ladders, Gratings, Hatches, Gangways, Iron Stair Cases, & to fix all necessary Rowls, Stantions, Blocks, Ranges & Kevels as shall be necessary.' Does anyone have any idea where an iron stair case would be fitted in a 74? I have never seen mention of any such thing in any book or document. An iron stair case would be much more expensive to make than would a wooden one, so if this entry is correct, it must have been an important function which it filled, and would not be used where a wooden one could be fitted. Any thoughts on this would be welcome, as I'm completely stumped. All the best, Mark P

Hi Mark; Will she sail away for a year and a day, if you can find an owl?

Hi Mark; They are all available as photocopies. Some are hand-written, and some are printed, with the dimensions filled in by hand. They follow a fairly standard formula, but vary slightly in the amount of detail they include. The majority of them were written for ships built in merchant builders' yards, to ensure that they built to the same standards as the Royal Dockyards; but at least one, Culloden 1770, was for a Royal Dockyard. I do not believe that any of these are available online. They are all A3 size sheets. The printed ones are around 24 pages. At least one of the handwritten ones runs to 80 pages (although it includes not much any different; it is just written in a large script; although that makes it easy to read!) They should show up under a search on the collections website under the keyword 'contracts', or 'specifications', filtered to the 18th century. To purchase, send an email to pictures@rmg.co.uk , quoting the ADT number I have given. When I purchased mine, they were bought from the plan store, but the system is different now. They might be available now as a digital download; I do not know. A further item of interest, and apparently a very rare survivor, is ADT0253, a rigging warrant for HMS Monarch, 1765. This lists every conceivable piece of rope for the whole ship: its diameter, length, and associated block type and size. It was used for the issue of rigging stores from the dockyard, when the rigging of the ship was set up after launching. I don't remember ever seeing this referred to in any book, rather strangely, as it is very important for anyone rigging a 74. If you intend to set up rigging, this is invaluable. There were a lot of changes to ships' rigging in the 1770s, but as this warrant is earlier, it would apply to Bellona. All the best, Mark

Good evening Mark; Concerning your query for the siting of the wing transom knee, I think that the important word is in the contract reference where it says that the knee is scarphed 'upon the spirketting'. I would interpret this to mean that the spirketting is fixed first, and the knee afterwards, on the spirketting. As you mention above, the spirketting adds to the strength of the ship, and I cannot believe that it would be terminated at the beginning of the knee. Especially as the knee is 16' long, much shorter than a strake of planking would be. It cannot mean upon as in the sense of 'on top of', as the wing transom is not higher than the spirketting. Ed: I have some information from the NMM on the contracts that they hold, and for 74s they have the following: (there may be others I was not told of, though) Saturn, January 1782 (contract dates given here) ADT0102 Elephant, February 1782. ADT0030 Bellerophon, January 1782. ADT0011 Bombay Castle, September 1779. ADT0009 Berwick & Ganges, May 1778. ADT0012 Culloden, Thunderer Class, May 1770. ADT0166 (note that this Culloden is an earlier vessel than her namesake listed below) The contract for Ganges, ADT0012, I have recently suggest to the NMM was actually Fortitude (1778) which has now been agreed by the Museum, and will be re-catalogued as set out in their email below: Dear Mark, I have taken a look at the above contract and my conclusions are as follows: The black dimensions (i.e. the ones the contract was originally written for) – Fortitude (1780), as the only one from the Albion class to be built by Randall in that period. The red ink dimensions (written above the black ink) – This matches the Ganges class of 1779. If we were to assume the Randall builder was relevant to this amendment then the two ships they built from this class are Ganges (1780) and Culloden (1782). The green in dimensions (written below the black ink) – This matches the revived Elizabeth class of 1760. Again, if we assume the builder is relevant to this amendment then the ship here is Defiance (1783). The old catalogue mentions Berwick of the same class, but she was built at Portsmouth. I will make the amendments to the catalogue. I hope that this is of interest. Yours sincerely,