CDR_Ret

This topic pertains to the proper securing of bower anchors in latter 19th-century merchant ships. I have several poor-quality photos of the foredeck of a brigantine merchant ship (the Galilee) taken sometime during 1905–1908, showing how her anchors were secured when underway. This is probably the best of the lot. Photo showing the brigantine Galilee being fitted out as a geomagnetic research vessel in 1905, probably somewhere in the vicinity of San Francisco Bay, California. The circled area is where the chains/lines securing the lower end of the anchor were tied off. (This and following photos Courtesy of the Carnegie Science Library.) Closeup of the area circled in the above photo. I am in the process of adding the remaining deck furniture and fittings to my digital model of Galilee. My questions pertain to the size, shape, and orientation of the cleats evidently used to secure the lower end of the anchors. What would be the size of the cleat? I've seen the rule of 1 inch of cleat length per 1/16 inch of line diameter. However, in many diagrams showing stowed anchors, it is small chain that was used for this purpose. So, what is the rule if chain is used? Galilee's anchors would have been a minimum of 600 lb. each, about half of which would have been borne by the anchor cleat. Would this have been a factor in selecting the cleat size? Determining the likely shape of the cleat is important for a historically-accurate model. I have found a source of so-called "antique" cleats here. The shapes are quite varied as one can see. Would the type most likely be just a basic cleat such as this one? I have read about—and also experienced—the proper orientation of lines taken to mooring cleats. Typically, the line secured to a cleat should run horizontally perpendicular (or tangentially) to the cleat. Cleats are weakest when the tension pulls upward. So would a cleat securing an anchor likely be bolted to side of a rail or to the deck adjacent to the rail? The latter configuration would result in a more upward tension. However, Figure 430 in Plate 94 of the USNA's Text-book of Seamanship (Luce, 1884) suggests this could have been the case. Diagram of the method for securing a bower anchor in a mid-19th-century warship from the cited USNA reference. The circled cleat appears to be fastened to the deck or a waterway. (The image is found in Plate 94 located between pages 246 and 247.) Any comment or directions to other sources to resolve these questions would be very much appreciated. Terry

Thanks @wefalck and @popeye2sea. I had already begun leaning toward blocks shackled to eyebolts on the deck under and inside of the fife rails. One belaying plan even showed the eyebolts. in that location. Most of the iron/steel rigging elements aloft were all but eliminated by the second survey cruise (1907) to reduce the vessel's magnetic constants to the smallest magnitude possible. However, some items simply couldn't be removed because they were irreplaceable. Terry

Thanks for these inputs, everyone. And thank you Alan for the files you sent today. I wasn't planning on getting into rigging at this point in the plans reconstruction process, but figuring out the fife rails sort of dragged me in. Even with this information, I'm afraid, as the good doctor said, it will be a coin toss as to what was actually the case. The DTM photos show a lot of lines belayed to the bulwark pin rails; fewer lines leading to the foremast fife rail. So I will try to do my best and find a logical place for every line of running rigging when the time comes. To make things even more difficult, this ship was originally rigged with wire standing rigging, and chains for a lot of the sheet and halyard pendants. All that was removed for the magnetic expeditions to reduce the magnetic constants of the ship. The crew even cobbled together some additional foremast back stays because the channels weren't positioned properly for rope stays. Terry

Actually, I think you were correct in the first place. Halyards lift spars and sails, while sheets are attached to the sails and booms to control the angle of the sails. I haven't rigged a ship model since I was a teenager when I built Revell's USF Constitution back in the 1960s. And I was briefly certified to sail boats loaned out by the Navy Rec Facilities over 30 years ago. And submarines don't have running or standing rigging! I have forgotten more sailing terminology than I remember these days. I've been so involved over the past six or seven years trying to simply sort out the structure of the Galilee that I haven't been too concerned about the ship's rig.. Terry

Alan, I really do appreciate your input. In fact, if those sources show an association between a particular line of running rigging and the fiferail sheaves, that could be useful information. My concern, which was also echoed by John, is that rigging evolved so quickly during the latter 1800s, that trying to make a comparison between ship rigs separated by even two or three decades would likely be a problem. What I need to know is, if fiferail sheaves were used, what parts of the rigging were involved, how did the lines run, and were these common on particular kinds/and or sizes of ships? Terry

@AON and @Jim Lad, thank you for your responses. Alan, the references you cited are both several decades prior to the Galilee's construction and for ship types that probably don't apply to the smaller hyper-efficient/economic vessels late in the age of sailing merchants. (And I do not have any of the books in my library in any case.) Galilee herself was replaced by steam merchants on the San Francisco to Tahiti run before she was converted to a fishing vessel, so we are talking about the very last gasp of the age of sailing merchants. John, you bring up very good points regarding potential line handling options. Sadly, I have no photos and no plans showing how the halyards for the lower spars were rigged. If there are any diagrams available of latter 19th-century rigging practices, those would be particularly valuable. The ship had only 10 crew, 8 of which were ABS, so she would have been rigged for maximum efficiency. However, you have forced me to look more closely to the lines in the photo in my last post, and there is, indeed, a block attached to a port (right-side of photo) line that obviously is connected to another block/sheave below it. So perhaps we are making some headway here! Terry

This is a research question on the structure and arrangement of fife rails constructed in smaller American merchant ships of the late 19th century. This question specifically pertains to the 1891 American West Coast brigantine packet ship Galilee, which is the subject of my topic found here in the Model Ship World forum. I specifically wish to understand the basic structure of a "partial" fife rail. Galilee’s original forecastle was constructed just aft of the foremast and so close to it that the sides of the mast’s fife rail evidently were attached to the forward bulkhead and were spanned by a transverse rail forward of the mast. Two corner posts evidently supported the forward section of the rail. No details as to the number of belaying pins or other features of this structure were provided. The following image was taken from the plans of Galilee produced by G.C. Berger of the former Pacific Marine Research Society* in San Francisco sometime during the mid-1930s or later. The foremast fife rail in the brigantine Galilee from the plans of the ship produced by G.C. Berger some time after the mid-1930s. I obtained this plan through the National Park Service in San Francisco One feature often seen in online photos and illustrations of fife rails is the presence of sheaves in the corner pedestals. Were these sheaves associated with specific types of running rigging that would be applicable to the square-rigged foremast in a brigantine? Would they have even been required for a relatively small packet ship? Cropped photo of the mainmast fiferail sheaves in USS Constellation, Baltimore Harbor, April, 2012. (Photo by Joel Abroad via flickr. Some rights reserved.) The following is the best photo I have of Galilee showing the various halyards, etc., that were evidently secured at the unseen fife rail. Since I am not really conversant about the kinds of running rigging such a ship would have, I can’t tell what each of these lines would go to. Would any of these have required sheaves in fiferail pedestals? Lower foremast of the brigantine Galilee showing the few lines of running rigging leading to the fife rail at its base. Most of the upper running rigging lines ran down to the main pin rails through thimbles(?) attached to the shrouds. (Courtesy of the Carnegie Science Library, c. 1906) Any assistance finding illustrative examples of such a fife rail would be appreciated. I have already done due diligence in trying to find examples on the Web and within the MSW site using keyword and image searches, but there is very little information on this topic and virtually nothing showing the kind of fife rail I am looking for. Thanks. Terry *The "Pacific Marine Research Society" was formerly called the "Pacific Model Society," whose founding was "to encourage the preservation of Pacific Coast maritime lore." ( From the Senate committee record Maritime museum; Stones River National Battlefield; Western Historic Trails Center; and Pinelands National Reserve Visitors Center: hearing before the Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks, and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, One Hundredth Congress...Vol 4; GPO, 1988.) This is the only reference I could find to the organization itself on the Internet. Some records from the Society remain.—RTE

Hello Doug and welcome to MSW! After my commissioning into naval aviation in 1973, I was assigned to an A-7E squadron as a non-flying intelligence officer. Made several det deployments to Fallon for pre-deployment workups. Never made it into town, but according to my aviators, the main attractions were bars and houses of ill repute. Go figure. I imagine all that has changed, and for the better, I'm sure! In 1975, I got my heart right and switched to nuclear submarines....

That is part of the reason I sold my 40-year-old 10-inch Delta contractor table saw and got me a SawStop cabinet saw two years ago. I'm getting older and was concerned my strength and situational awareness was probably not what it used to be. Shortly after, I was ripping some planks for my son's deck and my thumb contacted the blade. (Never had happened in the four decades of regular use with the other saw.) Long story short, received a tiny <1/8 inch nick on my thumb, but had to replace both the safety cartridge and the blade. Totally worth the cost. Terry

Welcome to MSW by a former career US nuclear submariner, Rico! If you are into using computer graphics to validate a set of plans before building, I suggest you try the free DELFTship software. A number of modelers have tried the program. Terry

And to minimize grades, the project would have had to excavate even more earth and rock than they did to use the locks and canal

Welcome to MSW, Blair, from a fellow Coloradoan (Colorado Springs). I think I found the perfect intersection of model railroading and shipbuilding! Back in 2016, my thread on the brigantine Galilee attracted a comment from Thomas Rubarth, who resides in Omaha, Nebraska—also a model railroading fan. In collaboration with a ship modeler friend of his, Jim Turner, they built a huge model of the train ferry Solano, which operated between Benicia and Port Costa in California from 1879 to 1930. The model was built to HO scale and included HO rolling stock. Here are several photos Thomas shared with me during our correspondence: This is the model builder, Jim Turner holding the hull. Note the asymmetrical positioning of the paddle wheels. MSW is a wonderful organization of knowledgeable, friendly, and helpful individuals. I am sure you will find success in your endeavors here. Enjoy! Terry

Roger, the CO of my first submarine described the nuclear propulsion plant as "just a sophisticated way of boiling water." 🙄

Mustafa, Thinking that you might not be able to run DELFTship, I created the nine stations you would need to hand draft the plywood planks in my 2D program. This is what I came up with: A couple of issues are evident. The main problem is that the body plan is not consistent with the profile and plan views. So you will be able to use that view only for general reference. I think you can get all the important details from the other views. Also, the image is slightly tilted (less than half a degree), but that can be enough to throw off some dimensions. I corrected the tilt in this image. Even with a lower-resolution background image, you should be able to adjust the the chines to create fair edges for your plywood planks. If you view the surfaces using the Developable tool——you should be able to adjust the crease edges to create a completely fair surface. What you are looking for is a solid green color indicating the surface curves in only one direction or is perfectly flat. This means you can cut the plank out of a flat piece of plywood stock. Usually the program will show red shading near the edges, especially if the edges themselves curve in more than one direction. This is how my brigantine's cylindrical transom looks because of this effect: As far as sizing the background images and other considerations for starting a DELFTship project, see my tutorial available at this page here in this forum. Again, contact me if you need some assistance getting started. Cheers! Terry

Mustafa, I think DELFTship is a Windows-only platform, sadly. But like Roger said, you can create stations along the length of the hull in both profile and top views. Then pick off heights and breadths of the "chine" lines at each station and plot them in the body plan view. When you connect the dots with with straight lines at each station, you have your third view. The harder part will be generating the true shapes of the plywood planks. I think this can be done by drawing diagonals in the body plan view for each plank, then picking off the distances from the associated diagonal of the top and bottom edges (chines) at each station. This sounds more complicated than it actually is. [Edit: If there is a twist to the plank, I'm not sure this will actually work.] Terry

Hello Mustafa, I think it may be doable. The interrupted lines in the plan and profile views represent edges of developable sheets of plywood. The body plan view can provide the true widths of the sheets at the dead flat point. So your software should be able to create the necessary pieces in 3D. Does your software "unwrap" surfaces to create the plywood templates? If not, I recommend DELFTship Free. This program also allows you to create truly developable parts using visual cues such as solid colors. Let me know if I can be of further help. Terry

I need longer fingernails...

I've noticed that browsing presence is often absent, too, in the mobile version of the site (Android phone using Chrome). Terry

B.E.'s solution works and that's a plus. However, the fact that the image folder's name is an active link was totally unknown to me and, obviously, to other members. I still think it would be more useful and intuitive if the scroll arrows were active as soon as you enlarge a gallery image. Why not move this feature up one layer so the casual viewer can scroll through all the images that are in the Gallery ribbon? Alternatively, include some kind of label or tool tip that alerts (new) users that you can scroll a particular album. Or do both. Reserve the large, really high-resolution images for the folder view. Terry

Heh. Now if I could actually get to building the model, that would be an accomplishment! Looking forward to seeing how this comes together, Mike. Terry

It would be a convenience to have right- and left-scroll buttons added to the individual photos in the Gallery at the top of the MSW forum page. This way, one doesn't have to exit the photo currently being viewed to look at the next one in the series. Terry

Hi, anaxamander49. I have attempted creating ship plans in Sketchup, Blender, Fusion 360, and DELFTship Free. All of these are open source, have free licenses for hobbyists, or are offered as a free version of the professional software. Sketchup creates surfaces in polygons and there is no utility for creating useful hull plans that provides the information a ship model builder needs (e.g., stations, waterlines, and buttock lines). Also, if you attempt to scale down a full-sized digital model to model size, you risk losing precision in fine details due to the way Sketchup works (points, lines, and polygons simply disappear!). Blender and Fusion 360 have (very) steep learning curves and, again, they don't really lend themselves to creating 2D building plans useful to ship modelers without a lot of fiddling around. While Blender is an amazing program, its developers are continually revising the features and interface, so a casual user never gets up to speed in the program. DELFTship Free, in my opinion, is your best bet for creating useful working ship model plans. The program's 2D plan output shows the hull and expected details in standard profile, body, and plan/halfbreadth views. These views can also be customized to show specific objects and omit others, if desired. The program can export 2D DXF images in polyline format that can be imported into 2D vector graphics software for editing and formatting. In addition, the model surface is a true subsurface object that can be precisely shaped with a customizable control net to match existing 2D plans, if required. Like you, I used the program to reconcile incompatibilities among the three views of an existing set of hull drawings that I have come to believe was an unknown mixture of conjecture and actual measurements. The result was a fair hull that seems to reflect contemporary photos of the ship. If you haven't already, I recommend reading through the many topics within this CAD and 3D Modelling/Drafting Plans with Software forum pertaining to the various 3D software others have attempted to use when creating ship plans, and then draw your own conclusions. If you are having difficulties getting started with DELFTship (the manual isn't very good on work flow or process, just feature capabilities), please contact me or the other members who have used the program. Having a guide can help you past many of the frustrating aspects of this program. Best regards. Terry

My two cents, which basically corroborates what has been stated previously ... The following information is abstracted from pages 316 and 317 of The American-built Packets and Freighters of the 1850s: An Illustrated Study of Their Characteristics and Construction by William L. Crothers. In the mid-19th century, the spacing of ladder rungs and stair treads was dictated by the natural step of the average 5-foot, 8-inch man (according to Crothers—a value he never provided!). Vertical ladders for accessing deckhouse roofs had equally-spaced rungs. The distance between the upper rung and the roof surface was the same as between the lower rungs, to avoid creating a surprise and misstep when accessing the roof. The lowest rung was at a variable distance above the deck, but could be a larger step than the space between the other rungs. Stringers were at least 4 inches deep to provide toe room at each rung. If the upper end of a ladder ended at a coaming, the upper rung (or tread) was at the same height as the deck outside the coaming, again to avoid tripping or other surprises due to height differences. Inclined ladders (stairs) had treads that were closer together than vertical ladders. However, all treads were equally spaced—from each other, from the lower deck, and from the upper threshold. This is so the user experienced the same drop and rise whether descending or ascending. The number of treads was determined by the height between decks and the inclination of the stair. As the stair angle from the horizontal decreased (became less steep), the vertical distance between treads decreased, and the width of the treads increased. Again, the reference for these dimensions is the length of an average person’s step or pace, but no absolute value was given. Stairs and ladders were made for the specific location where they served and were not interchangeable. Often the lower ends of the stringers of inclined ladders/stairs were cut plumb with the deck (“dubbed off”) below the lowest tread to eliminate a tripping hazard. While the era Crothers discusses is several centuries after the OP’s interest, I imagine these principles were more or less followed from the earliest times simply due to their practicality. Terry

Thanks David. I think everything has been said that can be said. I appreciate everyone's contribution from multiple points of view and I learned a lot, personally. Terry

"Once again into the breach" (Henry V-Shakespeare) Because of the persistent view that a constant-camber deck couldn't produce a fair deck, but one with unfair areas in its surface, and because my last attempt to demonstrate that this was not the case was apparently derived from a non-standard approach to ship design and construction, I decided to experiment and see what the outboard-sheer-line-in approach would produce. I had no preconceived notions on this approach, but it seemed that if the outboard sheer line was fair, then it makes geometrical sense that using constant cambers in attached deck beams would also be fair, since corresponding points on the adjacent beams would fall into a curve parallel to the outboard sheer. Many mentions have been made how constant-cambered decks weren't the case in 16th, 17th, and early-to-mid 18th century ships, and I can understand how that is likely due to the relatively low length-to-beam ratios and quite pronounced sheer lines in those eras. But ships became stretched out in the latter 1700s and through the 19th century, so there was less imperative to hand-tool the deck camber, I would think. So, here goes. Using Sketchup again, I created a generic, non-circular curve in three-space and attached it to a vertical plane that corresponds to the centerline of a fictitious hull. The curve represents the outboard deck sheer of the vessel. Outboard sheer line in perspective. Plan view of the outboard sheer line. Profile view of the outboard sheer line with the centerline plane behind (looking to port). As before, I created a deck camber edge from a segment of a large circle, then placed its center point on the centerline plane. I also added horizontal and vertical guidelines to ensure each camber template was correctly placed longitudinally and on center. These identify deck beam "stations." Cambered deck beam template and positioning guides. Next, I dragged the camber template down until its edge intersected the outboard deck edge. This was repeated using duplicate copies of camber templates at each beam station line. Duplicating camber templates and positioning them at the outboard deck sheer line. Completed deck skeleton. As in the previous example in Post #32 of this topic, I "connected the dots" to create the faces forming the cambered surface. (I deleted the curves on the far side of the plane so I didn't have to create 2 million facets, only 1 million...) Cambered surface created from the camber templates. You may see where this is leading. Again, to create the deck surface as confined by the outboard sheer line, I created a "cookie cutter" from the outboard sheer line to intersect with the cambered surface. Sketchup allows you to create cutouts of 3D objects using other objects that intersect the one of interest. The cookie cutter's surface is parallel to the z-or vertical-axis of the model. Outboard sheer line turned into a cookie cutter. After creating the intersection with the cambered surface, I deleted everything but the surface of interest. Intersection that represents the outboard sheer line in the cambered surface. Deleting the surface outside the outboard sheer line, duplicating the half-surface, mirroring it, and rejoining the two half-surfaces yields a fair, cambered deck. All cambers are the same. Completed cambered deck surface. Finally, taking a look at the orthogonal profile view of the deck, we can see that, while the centerline sheer is smooth, there is a distinct flattening there in the middle, which probably would not be considered "fair" overall. The longitudinal lines in the deck that could represent deck plank edges are no longer parallel to the centerline sheer. This doesn't indicate a problem in form or function, however. Profile view of a constant-camber deck created by referencing the outboard deck sheer line. So, while this method of constructing a deck might introduce some unfairness in a deck, it doesn't seem to be a significant problem. Recall that the camber round up was exaggerated in this example. With a camber of only 6 or 8 inches, viewing the flattening evident in the above diagram over a length of several hundred feet would be indiscernible, I think. Snide comments about resorting to digital programs to support one's point aside, I don't see any other way to easily and economically illustrate the concepts we are discussing without otherwise resorting to actual plans of actual ships that were built in a particular way. Then what does that prove, except that it worked in that instance? I can't speak about cambers in the forward areas of a ship departing from a fair sheer because I haven't researched those. If anything, those exceptions probably prove the rule. If someone could present an example of such a case, I would appreciate it so I can visualize that situation. I can't conceive of shipwrights having to create numerous deck beams, all with different cambers in order to provide a fair deck in "ye olde days," but perhaps that was the case. It certainly doesn't make geometrical sense to me. Terry