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

The pumps were definitely hard work. CS Forester, author of the 'Hornblower' books, who was born at a time when the Napoleonic wars were still just about in living memory, and certainly seems to know his stuff about the era, makes reference to seamen being given a turn at the pumps as a punishment for minor infringements of discipline.

I have to admit that my thoughts were that any ship which was heeled to such an extent that the lower deck gunports were nearly under water would already be in such dire straits that the pumps probably wouldn't help much, so I was never a strong fan of the possibility. I find my earlier thoughts more convincing; but then why would they wish for outlets on the middle deck. The location of the carlings in Dafi's photograph from the Princess Royal makes it difficult for me to believe that water could be raised past them, which if true, means one is back to the idea that it is just to give extra men the ability to work the pumps. The strongest argument against this is the outlet in the upper cistern, which seems to be quite clearly shown in Dafi's monochrome picture of the inner works. Then again, maybe it is not an outlet; yet, what else could it be?

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