Mark P

Hi Druxey; No, nor me either. It is purely a personal supposition. The one thing that I cannot make fit my theory is that one of Dafi's photos does seem to show a discharge hole in the cistern on the middle deck. As he asks, why would they want to raise water to here? Not for fire fighting, as it is not under pressure; nor for washing decks; for even if the lower decks were washed, something of which I have no knowledge (the upper deck was washed every morning) there are no scuppers fitted to the middle deck to allow water to disperse. Maybe Testazyk's proposition is correct: it was to allow water to be discharged at a higher level when the ship was heeling so much that the pump-dale outlets from the lower deck were under the water line. But if that is the reason, why was it not done on a 74, which would also heel over in strong winds, and had a deck above the pumps? A bit of a conundrum! Mark P

Hello everyone; This is an interesting topic; I have read the comments above, and looked at the pictures (I too have the Princess Royal book, which is very helpful) I think Druxey is totally correct in that the idea was to allow more men to work the pump, and not to try an raise water to the middle deck. Neither the main pump chain, though, nor any water it carried, can have risen to the middle deck, as the carlings are located in the centre of the trunking to the middle deck, and this would prevent the pump discs and washers passing through this space; but it would allow a chain to pass down each side of the carling, which could be connected to an additional, thinner and secondary sprocket on the lower deck adjacent to the lower deck sprocket over which the head of the main pump chain with its washers would pass. The width of the casing on the middle deck would seem to indicate that two chains were used, which were connected to a secondary sprocket on each side of the main sprocket on the lower deck. Alternatively, the pump reaching the middle deck was worked from the middle deck only, but discharged on the lower deck. However, see next paragraph for reasoning as to why this is unlikely. HMS Nelson, 1806, is perhaps the earliest vessel which has the arrangement with both pumps brought up to the middle deck, which Dafi says becomes the norm after this. This would seem to illustrate that the idea was to allow extra manpower to the pumps, as otherwise, if water cannot be raised to that height due to the position of the carlings, it would be simpler to just terminate the pumps on the lower deck. If the pump is simply worked from the upper deck, but discharges on the lower deck, there is no connection between the turning effort applied by men on the lower deck, and that from the men on the upper deck. There must have been an additional sprocket(s) fitted on the pump axle at the lower deck level, and a separate chain mechanism to link this to the pump handles cranked by the men on the middle deck. Regards, Mark P

Hi everybody; I agree with Siggi; having looked at the plan of the Sovereign in the external link, the cabins shown only come about 1/3rd of the distance to the centre line. This makes them large enough to accommodate a cot, but much shorter than a 36 or 42 pdr, which were around 11' in length (about 3m) The reduced size of the cabins then gives much more room for the tiller to swing. One other item of interest is that Goodwin, in his book 'The construction and fitting of the sailing man of war', and Lavery, in his 'Ship of the line' volume II, both describe/give examples of how the gunroom was screened off from the rest of the main deck by a thwartship canvas or timber bulkhead, forward of the mizzen mast. So the gunroom was reasonably private, and the cabins could be kept small, as they were probably used mostly for sleeping (They were likely too dark for much else, and the use of too many lanterns would not be encouraged due to risk of fire) Concerning the construction of the cabins, not sure about the gunroom, but prior to about 1780 in the wardroom, cabins were of straightforward hung canvas. After this date, they were of canvas stretched on a timber frame, with sometimes the master's and First Lieutenant's cabins made of timber, as they were too far aft to interfere with the guns. It is unlikely that the gunner and his mates, lower ranking warrant officers, would have been treated any better! Mark P

Hi everyone; Two points arise after reading the thread above: Reference the use of trunnels to fix deck planking, I have a copy of a wonderfully interesting and highly-detailed contract for the building of the 74-gun ship 'HMS Culloden'. The contract is hand-written, dated 1770, and amounts to over 80 A3 size pages, detailing virtually every timber and fastening in the ship. When describing the deck planking of the gun-deck, this states that each plank is to be fastened as follows: to each deck beam with a 5/8" bolt & a nail, and one treenail to every ledge. This obviously only describes naval practice, but dockyards generally aimed at producing the best workmanship, with cost slightly less important than the longevity of the finished result. For anyone interested in obtaining a copy of the Culloden contract, the NMM reference is ADT0166. Concerning the actual use of treenails on models, one very effective method, if it is not desired to add scale ones for strength or appearance, is to drill or prick a scale-sized hole, and fill it with a suitable filler, usually glue & sawdust, and a colouring agent. Mark P

I have several books on ships' figureheads and carvings, both naval and merchant vessels, and none of them mention the removal of the figurehead. 18th Century full-length figureheads were massive constructions, much larger than life-size, and would surely have been impossible to remove whilst at sea. If there ever was such a practice, it must have been limited to smaller figureheads. That said, though, the beast heads on the prows of Viking longships were apparently removed when approaching land, if they were coming in peace, in order not to frighten the local spirits. This might be the origin of a mistaken belief amongst some people that figureheads were routinely removed. Mark P

Hi Gary; Thanks for the thank you! It's a pleasure to be of help to someone carrying out such a carefully detailed and impressive project. I will start my build log soon, I think; although I am only at the drawing stage at the moment, this may be of interest to some, and I have built the lower deck cannons; just have to do the upper deck guns and the ships' boats; all of which I hope to get done during the drawing work stage. Mine will be at a scale of 1:60, though, as my wife (bless her!) has refused to put up with a larger model in the house. Kind regards, Mark P

It's all a matter of the viewpoint from which the photos are taken. The gallery rails are only parallel when viewed from perfectly square on.

Hi Michael; Many thanks for your reply. I think that I will construct my model with long pole topgallants on the fore and main masts, and have a royal yard lashed to the topgallant shrouds. I was not aware of an edition of Steel from 1790; I thought his earliest was 1795. Is this 'Elements of mast-making and rigging' or something else? If it is from 1790, then his comments will be relevant to my vessel. I shall be at the NMM on Tuesday, and I will check out their copy (the list of Steel's works is several pages long in the Library catalogue, and it is sometimes difficult to know if two entries are referring to two different books, or the same book under its sub-title) Kind regards, Mark P

Hi EG; Many thanks for your message. The information is helpful, especially as I have Gardiner's book. I will take a look at it again. I too have seen references to royal yards being lashed to the upper shrouds for storage, although I haven't yet seen it on any models. Such a method certainly seems sensible. Once again, many thanks. Mark P

Hello again; Again, you are probably aware of this, but just in case it might be new information, the NMM website catalogue note says against the 'as captured' draught that Licorne was docked at Portsmouth on 17th September 1778, and was undocked on 2nd November the same year. As this is only six weeks it is not enough for a major refit, but some changes must have occurred during this time. Kind regards, Mark P

Dear mtaylor; I notice that you are building a model of Licorne; maybe it is not the same vessel, and having regard to your experience you are probably already aware of it, but as part of my research, I have spent a long time looking at the NMMs collection of 'as built' draughts, and there is a drawing of 'Licorne' (1755) there, as captured in 1778. Kind regards, Mark P

Dear mtaylor; This was my thought also. I have seen enough draughts of French vessels to know that they were very different, and generally more lightly built than British equivalents. As I have never seen his publication, I just was not sure if Boudriot dealt exclusively with French ships, or if he also covered some British ones. I thank you for saving me the trouble of looking through the Museum's copy; I have a list of things to look at already, and little enough time to do it in. Many thanks, Mark P

Dear Cardely; Thanks for the information; I had forgotten about Boudriot. I will be visiting the Caird Library at the Maritime Museum next week, and I will take a look at their copy to see what it is like. Many thanks, Mark P

Hi Cardely, and many thanks for taking the time to reply. I think that I will follow my own instinct, and omit royals, just have flagpoles above the top gallants. Can you tell me what is the full title and publisher of the '74 gun ship' which you mention, as I am not familiar with this, and it sounds just like the sort of book I should add to my reference library. Once again, many thanks. Mark P

Thank you Druxey; Your reply chimes with my instinct. I have not noticed royals on any of the models I have looked at, and I feel that they belong in the same era as the flying jibboom and its sail. It was only when I noticed Lees' assertion that I considered the likelihood of them being fitted. As I would suspect that frigates would be amongst the first vessels to be fitted with royals, it is useful to know that even in 1805 they were not universal to such ships. Many thanks! On a different topic, I notice that your picture is of a ship's boat, and looks like a very neat piece of work. Can you tell me how you make the shell or framework, on which to build the planking. I know of several methods, and as I have yet to try any of them, I am interested in others' opinions and methods (Whilst I am researching and drawing my chosen vessel, I am making the cannon & ship's boats) Once again, many thanks for any advice. Mark P

Hi Dave; Brian Lavery, in 'The arming and fitting of English ships of war,' states, on pages 139 & 141, that ropes were as follows: Breechings were 4" for 9 & 6 pdrs in 1716. He does not give a later figure, but states that they tended to thicken through the century. For example, in 1716 5" rope was used for 12 & 18 pdrs. By the 1780s, these were using 5 1/2" rope (all sizes are circumference) In 1716, gun tackles used 2" rope for 9 & 6 pdrs, which was unchanged in the 1780s. Lavery does not give a figure for the size of the train tackle, attached to the rear axle of the carriage, but I have seen references in his work and elsewhere to the effect that 3 tackles were issued per gun, whereas previously only two tackles had bee authorised per gun. This seems to indicate that the train tackle was the same size as the gun tackles. Hope this helps. Mark P

Greetings Fellow Modellers! Does anyone out there have knowledge of the introduction of royal yards and sails in the Royal Navy? The 'Sovereign of the Seas' had them in 1637, but she was an early exception. James Lees, in his 'Masting & Rigging' says that they were introduced for the fore and main masts in 1779, then states that the general introduction of royals on all masts was in 1790. I am researching at the moment, prior to scratch-building a model of 'HMS Tremendous' a 74-gun ship launched in 1784. This falls between the two dates cited by Lees, so presumably she would have royals on the fore and main masts; the problem is that Lees is not specific in saying which classes of vessel had royals from 1779; maybe it was only first and second rates? If royals were fitted on the fore and main masts of all ships from 1779, why would they then need to be 'generally introduced' at a later date? They would only then need to be added to the mizzen mast if already present on the other masts. Can anyone point me to examples of usage or relevant texts in the period between these two dates. Steel is too late. Many thanks for any suggestions/pointers