Mark P

Hi Alan;

The Sergison and Rogers collection are the same thing.  It belonged to Charles Sergison's descendants before Colonel Rogers bought it,  from under the nose of R C Anderson,  who was really miffed that he had not been informed of the sale before it was completed.

The Pepys collection is a manuscript collection in Magdalen College,  Cambridge,  and contains no models.

Charles Sergison was Clerk of the Accounts at the Admiralty in the late 17th century,  and laid the basis for the collection before he died in 1719.  It remained in his family at Cuckfield Park,  until Rogers bought it.  Sergison inherited Pepys's models when the latter died. 

all the best,

Mark P

Congratulations Alexandru on a great model,  and all the clear photos.  It is all very inspirational. 

I wanted to add to the debate about the height of the beakhead deck which I have just been reading.  Maybe what I am going to say has already been said further on in this log,  but I am reading through it slowly and have not seen all of the posts yet.

Anyway,  I have studied many draughts of 2 decked warships from the second half of the 18th century,  and in every one it is quite clear that the upper deck is lower than the beakhead deck.  There is a little ladder,  of 2 or 3 steps,  stepping up to the higher deck.  This often is shown on the inboard profile.

However,  on several designers' draughts of 3-deckers,  visible online from the NMM collections,  for example the 'Duke' of 1777,  and the 'Royal George' of 1756 and of 1788,  the beakhead deck is a continuation of the upper deck,  and is at the same level,  with no steps.

It would seem,  therefore,  that maybe Fortres is correct,  and this is something that would bear further investigation;  that the beakhead deck on 3-deckers was different to that on 2-deckers.

Slade's design draught of the 'Victory' from 1765 is in the NMM collection,  but it is very badly damaged and difficult to make out the details in the online image.  However,  there is an image of it in a recent book on Nelson's Victory by Brian Lavery which I have,  and here it can be made out that this deck at the same level as the upper deck.

This does show her as built,  of course,  and by the time of Trafalgar this may have changed,  as she had been much re-built.

In all the three-deckers mentioned above,  the top of the main rail's central section is at the same level as the upper deck.  As this part of the main rail formed the sides of the grating deck,  the grating deck cannot have been any higher than the upper deck.

All the best,

Mark P

Hi Ian;

If you do source boxwood from any other countries,  one thing to bear in mind is that it should come from as cold a place as possible.  As far North or South as it can be,  or as high up.  This is because the colder the climate,  the slower the tree grows,  and the tighter together the rings.  It is the closeness of the rings that dictates the fineness of the grain.

All the best,

Mark P

Lovely work Alan;

Hope that I will still have the determination to admit mistakes when I make them,  and scrap the piece concerned.  Well done to you!

Rather sad though to hear about the poor devils locked up in such circumstances.  It seems that although the official age of criminal responsibility was 10,  if it could be proved that the child knew what he/she was doing was wrong,  the age was lowered to 7.

Hard times.

Mark P 

Thanks Mark;

I have looked at your build log,  and it makes clear a sensible way to have partners that not only lock into place,  but are also removable.  Thanks for the link.  Your work on your model is beautiful! 

I hope to start my own build log soon.

All the best,

Mark P

Thanks again,  JB,  for taking the trouble to look this up. 

I have a copy of 'Vade Mecum' downloaded from the Bodleian Library in Oxford,  which is a very good copy,  clear and with good margins (unlike the Google copy,  which trims some words off the edges)

I have checked this out,  and it describes the set up in quite a lot of detail for each deck.  I might have a slightly different edition,  because in mine it is on page 208-209.

So the conclusion has to be that even at the end of the 18th century,  longboats were still occasionally,  or perhaps more often,  still stowed on the upper deck,  rather than on the boat beams in the waist. 

This would explain how it was possible to fit a ship's boat complement onto the booms,  if the longboat was first stowed under them,  then they were replaced,  and the remaining boats stowed on top.  This was perhaps undertaken when sailing on long voyages away from land,  in order to keep the centre of gravity lower.

Again,  many thanks for all your help.

Hi Gary;

Thank you for your earlier suggestion,  I have checked through your build log again (such amazingly beautiful work,  sir!)  and had a good look at your capstans.  This is all a great help to understanding how such things were done.

Again,  many thanks for all your help also.

All the best,

Mark P

Thanks JB;

I appreciate your time in replying.  I will have a look for the book by Harland;  it sounds like one that I should have in my library,  although I have never heard of it nor seen it anywhere.  I'm sure that there are many more books out there like that,  though!

I think that this must be the same John Harland who wrote the book 'Seamanship.'

Thanks Gary;

I am grateful to know about the Steel plate;  I thought that I had seen most of his plates,  but it seems I have some few still to go! 

As for looking through your build log,  it will be a pleasure to look at such work again.  I will be sure to take a look at page 9.

Regarding the AOS Bellona,  I have had this for many years,  since it was published,  but I didn't remember anything about a lowering capstan.  I checked it out,  and you are quite right,  there sits the capstan room;  although Lavery describes it as used for bosun's stores.  Presumably,  however,  it could accommodate the capstan if it were necessary.

Many thanks to both of you,  gentlemen,  and happy modelling!

Mark P

Hi Druxey;

Thanks for the information.  I have recently joined the NRG,  and will be buying the back issues on disk. 

All the best,

Mark P

As I am researching the building of a 74-gun ship,  HMS Tremendous launched in 1784,  I have read many articles regarding boat stowage in the fighting ships of the Georgian era Royal Navy,  and there seems to be a lack of concrete information regarding how it was actually done. 

One alternative,  and well established custom,  was to have the longboat stored on deck in the waist,  which would seem rather to get in the way of working the guns and access to the hatches etc.

The assumption has always been that the advent of the beams across the waist meant that the boats were then stowed here,  as would certainly seem logical.  The beams started to appear from around the middle of the 18th century,  and gradually became permanent features of the waist.

How long old habits of stowage lasted would seem to fairly well settled;  boats in the latter half of the 18th century were stowed on the beams,  thereby replacing the older custom of sometimes using the deck in the waist.

However,  and very interestingly,  the contract for HMS Ganges,  dated 1778 (NMM ref. ADT0012) and others of a similar date,  describe removable capstans,  in order that the longboat can be stowed on deck;  and not really removable,  but actually lowered down!  So old habits died hard,  perhaps.

It seems that the entire spindle,  and both the capstan and trundle-head from each deck was lowered as a unit

I will quote the relevant paragraphs from the contract:

'Step for the Jeer Capstand'  (on the gun-deck)

'The step for the Jeer Capstand to be prepared to shift for the Capstand being lower'd down to stow on the Orlop out of the way of the Long boat,  as the Ships lately fitted in His Majesty's Yards, or as shall be described.'

'Partners for the Capstands'  (on the upper-deck)

'The Partners for the Jeer and Main Jeer Capstands  to be 7 ins thick and to be fitted as is done in the Kings Yards for Ships of her Class, that the Fore Jeer may be lowered down out of the Way of the Long boat.'

The capstan is then described,  and sounds perfectly recognisable and normal.  No further description is given as to how it may have been lowered down. 

'Capstands'

'To make & sett a Jeer Capstand afore, & a Main Jeer Capstand Abaft on the upper Deck of 1ft 11ins dia. in the Partners,  each fitted with 12 Ash Bars of 12ft 6ins long, with ribs & Hoops in the Partners, & Hoops sole & Bolts on the Step, Cranks for the Bars, Iron Pins & Chains, & four Iron Pauls on the Deck, & in every aspect to be completed as is done in his Majestys Yards.'

I would be very interested to know if anyone has any knowledge of how this lowering may have been achieved,  or of any models that show something similar. 

I have seen references to removable capstans from the 17th century,  but I was sure that such had died out by the later 1700s.  Obviously not,  though!

All the best to all those who read this.

Mark P

Hi Alan;

I too am building a 74-gun ship,  HMS Tremendous,  launched 1784.  I chose her because there is an 'as built' draught available,  beautifully drawn,  showing the details of the figurehead and stern carvings,  as well as much of the inboard works.

I am presently working up the drawing using Cad,  which takes some time.

Anyway,  I have not read all your build log yet,  as 21 pages is a bit too much unless I have lots of spare time,  a very rare event;  but I thought that you would like to know that the NMM have some of the original contracts for building of 74s in the 1770s & 80s,  and these are available as copies at a very reasonable price.  They are A3 sized,  run for quite a few pages,  and are crammed with detailed descriptions of virtually every timber in the vessel being built,  including scantlings,  as well as descriptions of many other parts and fittings of the ship,  such as capstans,  hatches,  bitts,  bulkheads, headrails,  eye-bolts,  ring-bolts,  bolts and much more.

Look on the website under ADT009,  and you will find the contract for the actual 'Bellerophon' herself.  ADT0011,  ADT0012 are for the 'Bombay Castle' & 'Ganges',  and ADT0030 is for 'Elephant',  all from the similar period. 

There are more,  and they follow a set format in the order that timbers etc are described.  Some are hand-written,  and some are printed;  but they are all fascinating and original documents,  well worth the cost of purchasing (£20 each plus postage)

Each begins with several pages of overall or general dimensions,  and it is these which would have been used by the draughtsman in the mould loft to help set out his full size frames,  or by any subsequent draughtsman setting out a draught in the method outlined by Steel in his 'Naval Architecture' wherein he describes the drawing of a draught line by line;  this is impossible without access to the measurements given in the contract,  or by obtaining them elsewhere,  or inventing them.

Happy modelling!

Mark P

It is most possible that it is a toilet.  At this period the roundhouses for petty officers,  as later fitted to the beakhead bulkhead,  were not yet built;  and I have read of similar things being fitted to the sides of ships,  accessible from the gun-deck,  for the use of the middle ranking members of the crew.

Mark P

Companionway it certainly is!

Mark P

Interesting discussion gentlemen!

Jay's comments about the thingumajig being on the outworks of the ship is correct,  certainly.  Inboard items were shown in red.

As a point of interest,  and although I have not yet seen one on a model,  the very detailed (84 pages) contract for the building of 'HMS Culloden'  a 74 gun ship launched in 1776,  contract dated 1770,  states that there is to be 'a hoop and swivel on the quarter,  for the driver boom.'  I interpret this comment as meaning a boom crutch.  This is specifically located on the quarter,  not amidships.

It may also refer to a horse,  the metal bar on which the sheet block was allowed to travel,  but these were located amidships.

On the cutter model,  the reason for stowing the boom off-centre may be that the tiller was more accessible;  but I am not sure how often a cutter would sail with her mainsail furled.  Alternatively,  is there a hatchway or similar that would be easier to access when in port,  with the boom not above it?

Mark P

Hi Tadeusz,  thanks for the pictures.

Would I be correct in supposing that the run of the breeching rope is normal for Dutch ships at the time.  It looks rather unusual,  both in running below the front axle ends,  and in not passing around the breech of the gun barrel.

Also,  again on the breeching,  does it pass through the cheeks (sides) of the carriage,  to be left lying in a loop at the rear of the gun when the gun is run out?  This would also explain why the quoin (elevating wedge) is put in at the side of the barrel,  rather than beneath the breech on the stool. 

Shame they did not load any balls,  it would be nice to see how far it would recoil.

Thanks,

Mark P

I think that you will find that Hardy was knighted after Trafalgar. 

Hi Tadeusz, 

Thanks for posting the pictures.  I too have both these books,  and have read the pump sections again,  and attentively,  in recent days.  Although full of information concerning pumps,  unfortunately they do not have any specific information about their use in 3-deckers.

Hi Dafi;

The sketch of 'Indus',  although dated 1837,  shows something similar to the inboard profile draughts that were discussed a few posts back.  The red dotted lines show the pumps 'as usually fitted'  which seems to imply that in Indus' case they were not covered over,  but left open for some reason;  which,  judging by the context,  seems to be to save space.  If so,  this must have been important for some reason,  for the amount of space actually gained is not large in the overall volume of the ship.

By the way,  the beautifully engraved picture of the chain pump,  with all its parts,  was printed by the Navy Board,  for distribution to ships' carpenters,  to help them with maintaining and repairing the new pumps.  There is certainly a copy in the NMM archives.

Mark P

Hi Druxey;

I have been pondering all the points discussed,  and reading up on chain pumps as much as I could.  Unfortunately none of my reference works give any details,  actual or surmised,  about chain pumps on three-deckers.  I can only believe in 'tall' chain pumps if the motive force is not applied at all on the lower deck,  but solely on the upper.  For this to be so,  there would be no need to fit cranks on the lower deck for the 'tall' pump,  as turning them would do nothing.  Therefore any cranks on the lower deck must have been solely to work the pumps on the lower deck;  and the cranks shown on the model of 'Princess Royal's' lower deck,  passing into the cistern of those pumps which have trunking rising to the middle deck,  were simply passing through the cistern so that men could stand fore and aft and work the pumps on the lower deck. 

One proof of this would be that when the pumps were all raised to the middle deck,  there would be no cranks at all on the lower deck.

I think that the position of the cranks was far enough apart that both could be worked together if the men stood outside them,  not inside;  but I believe it was probably not common for both to be worked at the same time,  as,  if the ship was heeling over more than a little,  only the lee-side pumps would have been very effective,  as the water in the well would be mostly on the lee side;  although the connection between the cisterns,  or a single wide cistern as often fitted,  would mean that in extreme conditions,  both pumps could be worked,  and discharge from only one side of the vessel;  a very necessary requirement when the ship was heeled over so far that the weather-side pump dale was running uphill. 

A point of interest,  but which does not advance the final resolution at all,  is that during the trials of the Coles-Bentinck chain pump in the 1770s,  one of the reasons given by the investigating committee to recommend the adoption of the new pump was that it was easier to work and left the men less fatigued;  so perhaps in the last decades of the 18th century,  there was not a need to be able to add extra hands on a second deck to help work the pumps.

A note for modellers intending to show full details below the orlop is that the lower part of the return tube on the new pumps was actually left open on one side for a good part of its height,  to facilitate repair and renewal of the chain links and washers.  Although this part will,  of course,  still be largely hidden within the ship's well.

Actually,  a final thought has just struck me,  which is that in the event of one pump (say the aft one) being worked from the lower deck,  and one pump on the middle deck (say the fore one) a line of men could stretch out fore and aft of the cisterns on both decks,  each line working one of the two pumps;  whereas if the two pumps being worked were on the same deck and the same crank,  only half the quantity of men could be employed to work them.  Therefore raising one pump to the middle deck does allow for a greatly increased number of men to be working them;  which may have been the way you had always visualised it.

There is then no requirement for a secondary chain;  but why would all the pumps later be raised to the middle deck?

Mark P

The Queen model certainly implies a connection between the middle deck and the lower deck;  I cannot see anything that would enable us to be more specific than that,  though. 

If there is one long chain,  I find it difficult to visualise any reliable way in which the turning effort of the men on the lower deck would be applied to a chain that merely passed by in a vertical line,  and did not pass around any wheel.  The links and washers of the chain pumps were not of a shape which would be easy to grip when just moving in a straight line past the perimeter of a revolving object.

This of course is not to say that it was not done,  just that it is impossible,  without further evidence,  to be certain either way.

Mark P

Hi Dafi;

I like your picture of the bicycle,  that is exactly the kind of linked mechanism that I visualise. 

Thanks for the interesting discussion,  and happy modelling!

All the best,

Mark P

Hi Dafi;

Thanks for adding the pictures of the draughts I mentioned;  I don't know how to do it yet (must work it out!) I think that you are right about the octagonal bits on the middle deck of the 'Queen' mid-section.  They are not the elm-tree pumps,  as these are quite visible in other parts of the picture,  and completely separate to the bits you have outlined in red,  which,  most importantly,  do not continue below the deck planking,  and have no direct physical connection with the cistern below it.  Again,  and most importantly,  they are situated directly above the pump cistern,  so I am sure that these are what is represented by the four small marks each side of the carlings in the deck plan of 'Duke' (which was launched in 1777) shown in ZAZ2016,  which are directly above the pump cisterns shown in ZAZ2015,  the lower deck of 'Duke'. 

I think that as the mid-section of 'Queen' quite clearly shows that the octagonal trunking on the middle deck stops at the deck level,  which matches the details shown on several inboard profile drawings,  these were not intended to raise water,  but were guides for either the pump chains,  or a secondary chain,  rising from the lower deck,  and then turned by the sprocket and shaft quite clearly shown on the same inboard profile drawings.  This sprocket and chain is not shown on the 'Queen' mid-section,  unfortunately,  but I think that the octagonal trunking could not be anything else.

(The sprocket and chain is not shown on her lower deck,  either,  so the absence of the mechanism on the middle deck does not show that it did not exist) 

The only question left to solve,  I think,  is did the pump chains rise in one loop to the middle deck,  in which case why would crank handles be fitted on the lower deck,  as these cannot have been linked very well to the chain if it just passed through vertically;  or was a secondary chain fitted,  which would give a second set of men on the middle deck the ability to assist with the pumping. 

The model of 'Princess Royal' shows cranks on both decks (although there are no pictures of the middle-deck pumps the plan at the beginning of the middle-deck chapter shows them quite clearly) so they were clearly intended for men to turn from there.  I think that the vertical trunking shown on this model,  running up from the lower-deck pumps,  is purely trunking to help guide the chains and prevent accidents to those working the cranks on the lower deck.  As it is quite clear from the previously mentioned inboard profiles and the 'Queen' mid-section that the trunking did not always extend down to the cisterns below,  I think we can be absolutely certain that the mechanism on the middle deck was not for getting water to that deck.

Mark P

Hi Dafi;

Your picture of the NMM inboard profile,  immediately below the picture from 'Princess Royal',  shows the characteristic which I saw in some of those other draughts I mentioned:  this is that the upper deck pump detail shows a sprocket and much narrower trunking,  much smaller than the cisterns below on the gundeck. 

However,  some of your other attached copies of sections from draughts show the same size of cistern on both decks (cue head-scratching) 

Concerning the elm-tree pumps,  these delivered water under pressure,  although maybe not particularly high,  and so may have been intended for fire-fighting,  so it would be logical to have them on each deck.

I must get to the NMM,  and have a look!

Mark P

Okay,  here goes:

I have spent an hour or so looking through some of the plans from the NMM collection via their website,  and there are some rather interesting details on some. 

The inboard profile of 'Sandwich' 1759,  90 guns,  and that of 'Princess Royal' 1773,  both seem to show a sprocket on the middle deck in line with the cistern of the pump below on the gundeck. There seems to be a horizontal shaft drawn through it,  extending from aft bitt pin to fore bitt pin,  and a much narrower vertical trunking running down from it to the deck.

The details are not completely clear,  as the plan does not come up to a large enough scale to be completely doubt-free,  but I think I am right in saying that this is what I am seeing on the draught.

Even more interestingly,  the deck plans of 'Duke' 1777,  show the pumps on the gundeck,  and then immediately above on the middle deck,  in line with where the pump tubes are on the gundeck,  no pump cistern or similar is shown;  but there is something else:  two pairs of small holes (not sure if they are circular or square) either side of a longitudinal pair of lines each side which seem to represent carlings.  This could well be holes for a mechanical link to join a sprocket on the middle deck with the actual cisterns on the lower deck.

The inboard profile of 'Duke' though,  is clear: it definitely shows a sprocket and shaft on the middle deck,  with a narrow trunking running down to the deck planking.  However,  and intriguingly,  there does not seem to be a continuation of this trunking running down from the middle deck to the cisterns on the gundeck below.

On my next visit to the NMM,  which has a large-scale plan viewing screen in the Caird Library,  I will look at these plans and see what is shown,  then report back.

Thanks,  Dafi,  for introducing such an interesting and novel topic!

Mark P

There are deck plans of the Victory in the NMM,  believed to date from around 1788,  showing her after a large repair at Portsmouth.  These can be accessed on the internet at a large enough scale to distinguish the layouts.  The plan of the lower deck shows the four pumps around the mainmast,  with the two after pumps discharging into a single long cistern athwartships,  and the two fore pumps not joined.

The plan of the middle deck quite clearly shows the two fore pumps continuing up to this deck,  where each has again a separate cistern,  not joined together.

So obviously at this point in her history she had pumps on both decks. They may indeed have been there from her first build,  in the 1760s,  which is around the time when Dafi's research indicates that they were coming into vogue.

I will look at some earlier plans of three-deckers,  and see if they show pumps on both decks.

Mark P

Hi there;

This won't help much with your current build,  but in 'Shipwright' 2012 there is an article on the building of the 'Minerva' a 38 gun frigate of 1780.  In this the author describes how he found a self-adhesive copper sheet/foil,  the correct thickness and width for copper plating,  and how he made a roller to make nail impressions in the strips and then fixed them to the hull.

The copper strip is sold by stained-glass suppliers,  as it is glued around the edges of some pieces to enable them to be soldered to others.

He left a sample strip fixed to a piece of wood,  in the window of his workshop for 6 years,  and the glue was still tight after this time.

Mark P

Hi Snowmans;

Thanks for taking the time to post a clear explanation of how it was done.  Very simple but very effective.  Just what I need to make!

All the best

Mark P