Morgan

Looking at my photo archive of the UK’s 3 surviving historic ships, Victory, Trincomalee and Unicorn columns or stanchions in the Hold and Orlop are straight sided. The mess or berth deck on the 2 frigates could be either turned or straight (i.e. not turned). However, columns on the gun decks are always finished and turned in the centre section. I don’t believe there was a standard or pattern for this, other than being ‘custom and practice’, and down to the individual dock yard / constructor. The Trincomalee has the Wadia (Bombay constructor) barley twist columns, she also has the more classic turned columns which are probably a later addition. I’ve attached a photo below, I’ve got a scratch Trincomalee in hand and have no idea as to how I will reproduce those! The other 2 photos are from the Unicorn for comparison, one of the mess deck, the columns are crude in comparison to others, the second is of columns in the hold. So in summary, for Victory I would venture straight for the hold and orlop, and turned on the gun decks. Gary

Hi Rick, Elm Tree Pumps, also known as the common or brake pump were multifunctional. In a ship with chain pumps the Elm Tree Pump served to bring fresh seawater up for washing the decks and feeding the condenser on the stove. They could provide water for fire fighting on deck but they were only a lift pump and not a pressurised pump so couldn’t be directed at a fire as there was no head of water (ships had separate fire engines / pumps that could generate pressure and be directed at sails etc.) Initially the pump casing was open directly to the sea through the ships bottom, but in the late 18th Century they were brought inboard and a system of indirect pipe work via valves and stop cocks could let sea water in to the cistern around the mainmast and the foot of the pump was now inside the ship within the cistern to lift the water. In smaller ships without chain pumps the elm tree pump was the primary means of clearing water from the hold. They are called Elm Tree Pumps as it was the bored trunk of an elm tree that was used for the pump casing. Gary

Hi Allan, Steel’s plate 8 - X-Section of a 74 gun ship put things nicely into context, the following table aligns with the colour code, obviously this is for the whole ship. Your dimensions from Steel can be used to extend this. ZAZ0122 Colour Type No of Riders Red Top Rider 24 Red & Blue Long Middle Rider 2 Blue Middle Rider 20 Blue & Orange Long Breadth Rider 2 Orange Breadth Rider 22 Green First & Third Futtock Rider 32 Purple Second Futtock Rider 16 Rectangular yellow box below Green Riders[1] Floor Rider 8 Totals 126 Gary

Very nice Gabe. 12 & 24 pounders next please 😜 Gary

Hi Tom, The attached may help, it is the Victory’s Riders from 1788 around the Main Mast, each colour just denotes different levels. You can also see the knees which are not coloured. You can obtain the dimensions from Steel, if you don’t have a copy you can buy the tables from the NRG or I can dig them out for you. Gary

Hi Tom, You are fortunate in that the area around the Main Mast did not change significantly in the three phases I mentioned, there are no distinguishing features that would differentiate it from one time to another, so in many respects it is readily adaptable. This is excepting for the upper decks Riders, you have made a nice job of the lower riders, so having got these in place already this sets a date of no earlier than 1788. If you include Upper Deck Riders you can go for an authentic Trafalgar timescale, but in reality it could be anywhere from 1788 - 1814, so covering the French Revolutionary, and Napoleonic Wars. If you don’t add Upper Deck Riders then the model, with the addition of Iron Knees, which is where you started this thread, can be anywhere from 1816 up to the present day. All these periods of Victory’s long life are equally valid, although many of us, me included in particular get fixated with the Trafalgar period. Gary

Hi Allan, I will do, I might just tease a few findings and features as well. Gary

I wasn’t thinking of going down that route, it would be nice to recoup some costs 😏 but that isn’t where or why I started. So it will be made available here first and free. There are copyright considerations as I rely on some third party images, it’s a work of personal research and not for commercial purposes, but if it’s copied around, cited, or relied upon then usual attribution caveats will apply. I will need to give thought to how to release, whether in parts, as part of a build log (from a copyright perspective this seems right), or all in one go, but not quite there yet. It will be in PDF format. Gary

You mean something like the attached (sample only)? c.400 pages, several hundred images, tables, etc. 9 years to research taking in the NMRN, TNA, RMG / NMM, British Library, etc. Call it Pt.1 of my Victory build log - Pt. 2 will be the actual build. I guess finished by Xmas, presently on with a late change, just looking at Victory’s bow shape which seems to have changed after 1788, trying to discern whether it was in 1803 and the pre-Trafalgar refit or whether it was the 1814 / 16 refit and I’m seeing remnants of the Round Bow, awaiting further hi-res plans from NMM. Gary Nelsons Victory Revealed Proof Sample.pdf

Tom, The fundamental choice in this debate is to what time period are you modelling your cross section. Longridge and McKay both show the ship in her post 1920’s restoration, this is not the same as her Trafalgar appearance, nor her 18th Century guise, or her 1816 - 1922 configuration. For post 1928 go with Longridge & McKay. For 1816 - 1922 go with the Boyne, as Allan sets out. For 1788 through to 1814, including Trafalgar, forget iron knees and go with Riders. Gary

Iron knees and straps only went into the Victory in the 1814 / 16 refit, up until this time she was fitted with an extensive suite of timber Riders across all decks. In the aforementioned refit all Riders above the Orlop deck were removed and replaced with iron knees and straps. RMG Drawing ZAZ0122 shows these for the 1788 refit of Victory. A memo from Lt. Layman to Nelson confirms the retention of these fittings and enumerates them, they broadly tie-up with the drawing indicating continuity and retention of the Riders configuration. Gary

And so you can associate what Allan and Gregory have posted with Victory below is an end-on view of a section of Victory’s Foremast at Trafalgar. You can make out the built-up structure. Gary

My view is the same, it started as a model for the new class of 98-Gun Second Rate ships ordered by St. Vincent, to the lines of the Victory. The profiles for the Union and Boyne have this information written upon them. This explains the different gunport disposition. At some point the model of the Boyne / Union was changed to commemorate the Victory and Trafalgar. New models for altered ships are rare, although not unknown, although this is usually to demonstrate some novel feature, Victory had none of these in her 1801/03 refit, so why a new model for a run of the mill refit? A lot of the apparent affection for Victory was to come later, and contrary to myth Nelson did not request her nor did he guide her refit, she was destined for the Channel Fleet under Cornwallis unless Cornwallis were to allow Nelson to keep her. In spring 1803 Nelson had to leave Victory and proceed to the Mediterranean without her pending Cornwallis’s approval. Two of the main features different between the model and Victory are the rearmost lower gunport missing on the model and the stern, which Allan has posted above. Both Goodwin and Lavery have said that the closing-in of the gunport and stern were future developments planned for Victory which had to be cut short to rush her out for service. This nice explanation tidies things up, but is wrong. Victory was not being rushed into service, in 1802 and early 1803 the Chatham Officers were asking if she was to be readied for sea or placed into Ordinary, there was no urgency to get her commissioned. The team refitting her were saying we are nearly done here, what would you like for us to do with her! I have copies of letters from TNA that were exchanged. And why, if the ship was being rushed for service, would you plan for the stern shown above, but because of time constraints you instead short-cut it and produce the stern we all know, which was in place at Trafalgar (we have strictly contemporary sketches from Turner and Livesay to support this). It makes no sense, especially as we know the ship wasn’t being rushed. Another anomaly, the figurehead, which is that of the Victory, it is in a starkly contrasting colour, it looks like a latter addition, as do some of the clunky stern decorations. LG Carr Laughton, who researched the Victory for her 1920 restoration actually dates the model to 1803, and not 1805 as stated by the NMM. But, in either case, how did the model get its Nelsonic paint scheme? When re-launched in 1803 she didn’t have the Nelson chequer, the painter Constable tells us this, she had fewer broader stripes. This, in my view adds to the thought of the model being altered to commemorate the Victory, but it started out as a model for the new Second Rate class. As for the name on the counter, Victory didn’t have this at Trafalgar, again this is evident from the Turner and Livesay sketches, the name on the counter is to tell the observer which ship the model is and is not an actual recording of ship’s appearance. And the NMM just paid north of £500k for this model! Gary

If only it were so straight forward! On the lower and middle deck the bridle ports are not routinely armed, and on the middle deck there is the issue of whether an entry port is fitted! Carronades were not counted as guns in the RN until after the Napoleonic Wars, but ports are provided for them. Carronades were normally additional to the long gun count, but could also replace them, but this reduction or substitution in long guns would not affect the rating! Confused? That’s why after Napoleon was ‘put to bed’ the system was simplified and all ordnance counted towards a ships rating. The hull forms meant that First and Second Rates were essentially interchangeable and many 98-gun Second Rates would later be re-rated as First Rates. Whilst notionally the scantlings separated a First and Second Rate as the classes grew the boundaries blurred between the 98 and 100 gunner with ships moving up and down the ratings from time to time. During the Napoleonic Wars Second Rates normally had only 14 32-Pounders on the Lower Gundeck, as opposed to the 15 (and later 16 of larger) First Rates, discounting the bridle port the model and plans referred to above agree on this. On the Middle Gundeck a Second Rate carried 18 Pounders as opposed to the 24 Pounders of a First Rate. Victory was reduced to a Second Rate in 1808 and had 18’s in lieu of 24’s, and lost a 32 Pounder. The balance of long guns were made up of 12 Pounders, usually 30 long 12’s on the Upper Deck, and 2 long 12’s on the Forecastle (later the Forecastle 12’s became medium length 12’s), and the balance on the Quarterdeck which had enough ports to accommodate the balancing number, these were usually short 12’s. So the difference between a First and Second Rate came down to the ordnance establishments - number and weight, and not the hull form. Gary

Daniel, The only one with any provenance is the 1805 model. The present day ship is a chimera of designs and times (or designs out of time!), and the Longridge example - whatever it is, is appears to be no better. Like you I think the 1805 Model is Boyne / Union, a 98-Gun half sister to Victory, but that is irrelevant to your query, the rigging points are applicable whether a frigate or first rate, si I would follow what the model offers. Gary

Hi Tom, Here is another angle on the photo I posted above. You can clearly see the random pig ballast, very similar to what Allan posted above, but also of smaller or half size pieces. They are actually sat on a whole stacked set of cast ballast if you look close enough. Gary

The Victory’s primary ballast by 1805, assuming you are modelling the Trafalgar Victory, consisted of ‘Pigs’ of iron. These large ingots were overlain with gravel or shingle, although this added to the ballast weight it’s primary use was to provide a stable bed for the lower tier of casks and stop them rolling around. I don’t think stones would be accurate. Gary

Hi Allan, It is the 1810 Boyne, they were actually produced in 1801, St. Vincent ordered them as he thought Victory’s size made for an ideal Second Rate with First Rates now being of c.110 guns. Gary

At post #10 Allan has given you a link to the Boyne, this is a half sister ship to the Victory (although rated as a 98 - ships had grown since Victory was launched), and her plans were lifted from the Victory’s refit design in 1801, you can’t get nearer than using them as a basis. Gary

Hi Richard, It is difficult to know what to make of the accuracy of this watercolour, there are some good and bad points. For instance the gunports seem vertically elongated, more to starboard than port, then the sloped hances seem out of place, they are usually squared off at this time (1799). But there are nice details concerning the sauve tete netting. The guns should be 9-Pounders, and they are low in the port, is this accurate or just poor draughtsmanship? The guns being centre to the ports I picked up from Peter Goodwin, a former Keeper and Curator of HMS Victory, who recorded in an interview for ‘Shipwright 2011’ at page 13 that: “When the work was undertaken to restore the ship in 1922, the only gun carriages available at the time would have been those that were from land-based installations. So most of the gun carriages that were put on the ship, and then copied, were 1845 land-battened carriages. I realised that although to the generals eye it’s a gun carriage, the guns did not fit square and central to the ports. So having done some calculations based on those carriages and then looking at the calculations from Muller’s Treatise on Artillery of 1782 we redesigned the gun carriages as sea service carriages, which are different”. He repeats this observation in some of his later publications pointing to low guns. But there is another reason. Centring the gun to the port both horizontally and vertically ensures that the chance of the gun hitting the port on recoil, when it can jump or kick, is minimised. Then there is the point that when housed within a gunport that requires the gun to remain inboard, then the method of housing is to haul the gun up against the upper sill of the gunport, with the quoins removed so that the breech rested on the stool. The whole design of the ensemble of gun, carriage, port opening size, and height of upper sill eyebolts are such that this enables them to come together with maximum points of contact and facilitate a secure housing. A gun that does not fit centrally to the port will see it not meet all these points of contact and thereby produce a weak and unsafe housing of the gun. A low gun will fail to place the muzzle alongside the upper sill eyebolts and produce a weak muzzle lashing, a high gun will see that the breech does not rest on the stool bed meaning the breech securing is weakened. Of course not all guns were housed inboard, on the quarterdeck they could be housed run-out, and within the Captains apartments they could be fitted with sashes that closed around the gun leaving it run out. This would explain the absence in the watercolour of sill eyebolts, sashes and half ports didn’t need these, but, they were still usually centred to the port. I think the draughtsman's perspective is suspect. Gary

This bracket has also been found on gun carriages recovered from the wreck of the St George, wrecked in 1811. She was equipped with Blomefield pattern guns showing a continuity of this fitting. Gary

Allan, I think this fits what you are seeing. The inner pin locks the bottom two pieces together - I imagine there is some metalwork to accomplish this represented by the broken lines, and the slide pivots on the outer pin. RMG Ref: SLR2918. I think the metal bracket underneath is part of the locking mechanism, if that is removed the Carronade can be swung inboard and stowed along the ships side. The bottom baulk would be permanently fixed to the ships frames. Gary

Hi Keith, I agree, these are what I’m used to seeing around historic fortifications in the UK. It is Goodwin who terms them Garrison carriages, I’ll dig out the reference, but he basically says this was the pattern they had and copied as they didn’t have surviving examples of sea service carriages. He doesn’t say they were reused carriages. It could be that in using them as a pattern they knew the iron trucks were wrong and came up with their own version, or copies of a later version of composite trucks they had access to, perhaps off something like Warrior which I imagine needed a heavier truck for 68-Pounders. What Goodwin doesn’t do in saying this is when the carriages were made, it had to be no later than Edwardian based on photographic evidence. So possibly something of a chimera. You can certainly see that the carriage above from 2006 simply doesn’t fit the port, so something was wrong. Goodwin also mentions that during his tenure they were progressively retrofitting the carriages to make them more akin to sea carriages, which I can see when I look back at photos from different visits. Gary

I can answer my own question, photo below from 2017 showing 24-Pounders with single piece trucks. There was only 6 Cwt. Weight difference between a 24 and a 32-Pounder, so it seems the size of ordnance isn’t the driver for composite trucks and it comes down to them being land or sea going carriages, certainly in the early 19th century. Gary

I did wonder about that, and I also thought perhaps it relates to size of gun, but then I looked back at some photos I took in 2006 of the Upper Deck and some of the 12-Pounder garrison carriages, they also had composite trucks back then. You can see how low the gun is sat! I get the impression that the composite trucks are being swapped out gradually. I could do with some middle and lower deck pictures to see if this applies to the larger pieces. Gary