Keith S

Hi, Hake. I read your comment about adding a ladder for access to the bridge/plank/whatever it's called. Here is a photo I took of the same structure on the FRAM in Öslo. Hope it helps. It's not the greatest picture, but you can see the ladder going up to the bridge.

Hi Keith, Sorry I haven't checked in for a while: not surprised you've decided to tackle a sister-ship. I had the same thought meself when I saw they'd done an "Erebus" but need to finish Terror first, obviously. You've done a good job with the hull. The shape of mine has always bothered me. Not so much the inaccurate transom as the little bulge at the stern. I knew right away something was wrong but at the time lacked the knowledge to do anything about it. Overall it doesn't really affect how my model looks because the eye is drawn to the topsides on a model like this, but it's well that you fixed it and I wish I had done so too. Good luck with this one. Still planning on finishing mine in the next hear or so. Keith

Hi Daniel. I have popped by to see how you and "other Keith" are making out on your models. I'm very impressed. I was going to recommend that you try something with your boats on their davits. The little wooden ones are not heavy enough to hang from the falls properly, and I did spend some time thinking about it on my own model. I was going to either load some heavy items into the boats so that they stretch out the lines, or I was going to temporarily weigh them down and wick some thin CA or varnish or something into the lines so they stay straight. Either way, they would look much better if it appeared as though the boats were heavy. Other than that though, you've done some excellent stuff with your model. I wasn't going to include the iron davits, but I was going to include the mounting hardware and as you know I did add that rail-fender thing, which is, in my opinion, either some kind of catwalk or a bumper for the boats. There's always something new to wonder about.

That's the one. They look astonishingly realistic. I'm just pondering at what stage they should be installed. Once all the shrouds are on, it might be a bit tricky.

My intention is to depict the ship rigged for steam, as she might have looked if an open lead had just opened and provided them a chance to proceed under power. Therefore I am making silkspan sails which will be loosely or perhaps even incompletely furled with a minimum of gaskets. The upper yards will be lowered, which I don't see in a lot of display models. And possibly I might leave one or two staysails completely unfurled. Haven't decided. I want her to look as though she is in transition from sail to steam, as though the engineer had only just reported the engine ready to go. I'm planning on using silkspan stretched on a frame with a light coat of acrylic paint. They will be cut out once dry, and I am hoping that they can be misted with a light spritz of water and hung on the model while damp, which will make them flake down realistically. I haven't tested this yet but will probably happen over the winter.

Well, the current excitement surrounding the release of Dr. Betts' long-awaited book about HMS Terror has impelled me to get old "Mini Terror" out of her protective box in the basement and start collecting myself to begin the next burst of activity. With "The Book" being available, the model takes on a different status. I don't mean my model specifically: I mean the commercially-available OCRRE model. When I purchased the kit, it was during the period of time that Dr. Betts himself was doing all the research to make an accurate model of the ship. While he is a respected and accomplished archaeologist, he is also, like us, a model-ship builder. His research began as a journey to make an accurate model of a mysterious and long-lost ship. THE BOOK contains everything a serious model-maker needs to build an authentic and highly accurate model of this heroic little bomb-ship. This does not mean that the "Terrors" on this forum have it easy from now on. There are some things I now know I need to do. I need to make a steam safety-valve uptake that penetrates the deck. We still don't know whether the locomotive lurking under the orlop-deck is a Stevenson "Planet" or another similar but different engine. Perhaps divers will clear this up for us. THE BOOK tells us, however, that the wreck does have a copper pipe protruding from the site of a former illuminator, which corresponds roughly with the location on the boiler of the "Croydon" type of locomotive. The aft companionway/ladderway is positioned directly over the locomotive, so any uptake would have to be built with a bend in it, which makes it plausible that the pipe on the wreck is in fact the safety-valve uptake. That's good enough for me, and I will be building it. The divers expressed surprised at the diameter of the pipe, because it is wider than they believe a "steam pipe" ought to be. However, my feeling on the subject is that a safety-valve vent or uptake is more-or-less simp,ply a flue, and would hold no pressure. Therefore the wider the better, as its only function would be to carry the moisture, noise, and heat of a safety-valve release clear of the interior spaces. The canvas-enclosed "iron-maiden"-like lookout station on the foremast will make an interesting feature, and we now know that Captain Crozier removed the iron davits from the waist, which explains why boats were piled up like turtles all over the rest of the ship. This is a relief because building davits is a time-consuming project, and I shall simply omit the waist ones. During conversations with the Group of Keiths, and friends, (particularly Craig) we have discovered that there was a post-like compass mount protruding from the small table forward of the mizzen, and THE BOOK indicates that there may also have been binnacles on either side of the helm. However they were likely removed when the ship reached high latitudes that rendered the magnetic compasses useless. There are still many mysteries to solve.

Just got THIS in the post... I'm feeling a bit group-hug-y at the minute....

Funny, I just finished watching a video of the Coronation Scot crossing that viaduct. It must have been an old video, because that locomotive is now in the Museum with its streamlined casing. But in the video a chap was explaining that the bridge has been limited to a single track and that soon, people might be walking across it to change trains due to structural weakening. I wonder if they ever repaired it.

Yes, they had bl**dy well better go down in the engine-room on one of those dives, or I'm going down there myself! Notwithstanding the modifications the engines had to enable them to function as ship powerplants, those will be the most intact and original "Planet" type engines in existence! Much the way Terror herself is the most intact and original Royal Navy sailing ship in existence. It is ridiculous that they haven't penetrated Erebus' orlop deck/engine room yet. (or maybe they have, and are just being sneaky and secretive as always) It is the FIRST place I would have checked out. Terror's engine room may contain clues as to how she got to Terror Bay in the first place!

Well, I will tell you what I was thinking of doing. Right in front of the wheel, there's the flat-topped skylight over the Captain's cabin. I was toying with the idea that a binnacle (the old-fashioned "box with a lamp in it" kind) may have been lashed to the top of it. In the paragraph that Keith Black showed us, Dr. Betts reveals that there may have been a binnacle on either side of the helm. Also in John Ross' account of his voyage on the Alexander he writes about a binnacle on either side of the helm. This seems like good intel, but I am wondering, what did a "binnacle" look like in 1845?

Keith, I am even more proud of how we solved this problem by ourselves. Of course, by "ourselves" I mean "Craig from Australia" but you know what I mean. This little journey through the archives has been really exciting, and I hope the "Terror" has more mysteries for us before we're finished. I am going to propose that we make Craig an honourary "Keith" with all the privileges that implies.

Craig, not condescending in the slightest! You should be proud of your "Terror" detective work. That picture from "Starling" is all the proof I require. I was searching for an example. Now, we have one. Well done, old bean. This is a breakthrough equal to some of our other ones, like the curved davits or the little biffies on the stern. When Keith and I started on our models, nobody knew about the little W/Cs on the stern quarters, or the ten-spoked wheels, or the curved davits, or many of our hard-won "discoveries" that have since been proven correct by Dr. Betts, or research, or wreck photos. You've solved another one of our big mysteries!

I am also unsure what to do. Our Australian friend Craig makes a great, logical case for the raised pillar. Matthew Betts seems to believe the compass was in a box bolted to the table. We are all looking at the same five or six ancient shipyard drawings. Because it's fun (and no Keith I finally got home last night) I will make a list of pros and cons for the "pillar mount" idea, as I see it. In favour: 1) the 1939 side-view depicts a relatively ornate vertical post in that location, sitting in a shoe-like deck receptacle or fitting. 2) none of the top-views depict a third skid-beam in that location 3) the most recent of the top-views does depict something square on the table. 4) John Ross, in his account of trying to devise a method to determine the accuracy of his steering-compasses, writes of having an azimuth compass sitting "on a plank seven feet above deck height, just forward of the mizzen" 5) Erebus wreck survey seems to depict something square standing on deck where the table used to be: could this be the mounting "shoe" for the hypothetical post? Not in favour: 1) Not mentioned in "The Book" by Dr. Betts 2) So far, not been able to find any pictures of a similar thing on other ships (this doesn't mean much if anything to me) 3) If we're wrong about it, our models will look weird with a post through the table for no reason 4) why wouldn't it just be up on the flying bridge? So, here's the thing: The old diagrams could have omitted a third boat-support beam. But if they did, why is the pillar in the side-view so much more ornate/detailed than the other ones? The only theory that has evidence that can be found in both the side and the top views is the "compass pillar" one. The "boat support" theory only has evidence in the side-view. In other words, if you believe there was a post there, there are TWO drawings that supports that theory. If you believe the post in the side-view is one of a pair that supported a middle skid-beam, there is only ONE drawing that supports that theory. If you believe there was NOTHING there, there is only ONE drawing that supports that theory, but two that directly contradict it. Therefore, in my mind, the balance of probability lies with there being a post there for some reason. Maybe someday, information from surveys of the wrecks will show us what we want to know. I have an idea: maybe a good compromise would be to put a mounting "shoe" on the deck under the table. Then, put a flat square on the table. Let the square represent a cover over the square hole that may or may not be there. The mount on the deck won't be too visible. In the future, if someone asks "what is that square"? You can say "Oh that's where the azimuth compass goes". Either way, you're not lying. If instead, someone in the future says "how come you didn't include the post for the azimuth compass"? You can say "Oh that post was removable when not in use. Look! There is the deck mount and there is the cover over the hole in the table". You win either way! That is (probably) what I am going to do.

I can hardly wait to get my copy!! OK Keith, I see what you mean now. I didn't realize you were talking about "Erebus". I see it! It looks like...looks...(sharp intake of breath).. like a FITTING of some kind! Here's yet another thing about "Terror" that is mysterious: the cannon. Daniel has included the cannons on his model. You and I have not, although I have put the eye-rings in the bulwark for breech lines and outhaul tackle. The mystery is the cannon being where it is in the first place. I would have imagined when the cannon were not in use, they would have been stowed below. So clearly when she sank, a cannon was on deck. Why? Is there a carriage there too, under the silt? Did they have it set up in the vain hope it could be used to signal a passing vessel or search party? Were the Inuit somewhat less peaceable than they would have us believe? I wonder the same thing about the boat sitting by the port quarter. Did she fall from the davits, or was she tied to the ship when both were afloat? Based on the location, I'm guessing davits. When most of the boats were used on sledges for the attempt to walk out, does this mean this one was rowed back out to the ship for boarding? Or did they just leave her behind? Why is the rudder lashed to the side? Is the spare one still in its place in the engine-room? The little hatch abaft the main fife-rail is in just the right place for the spare rudder to drop down into its spot in the engine-room. So, if it's still there, then the one lashed to the side must be the main rudder, which means the ship was at least partially rigged for winter quarters. Maybe the flying-bridge would have been dismantled and stowed, or scavenged, by this time. At least part of the problem is Parks Canada. They are slow to release information, and when they do it's always dumbed-down for public sound-bites and consists mostly of scenes of people roaring around in rubber boats, talking to each other, and examining fronds of seaweed. The Canadians are down there right now, but not a peep in the media! They are driving me nuts!

Sorry Keith I'm not sure what you mean by a "square in a square".. could you copy the picture and circle the item? I did see the binnacle post. I am still thinking about it: Matthew Betts' book I believe has some info on compass placements, (you can already find bits of the book in a google search) but since I haven't received my copy yet I want to think about what he means in that paragraph, and see if he included any diagrams to explain it. I don't think the classic "binnacle" had been invented yet in 1845: on older ships you see the wooden box with a lantern inside, ...yeah you know, I have no idea what to think. I have trouble picturing one of those nice pillar-mounted ones on Terror. She seems just a bit primitive for that. In the book describing the compasses carried by Ross on the "Alexander", it seems like he was using the azimuth compass almost in a pelorus-like capacity and the ship was steered at high latitudes maintaining constant bearing off the sun, with the helmsman watching the shadow cast by the azimuth compass' bearing sights. I feel like I need to think more about it. Can you go through Matthew's book and find the paragraph where he talks about compasses? I tried using "Google" again but since I'm finally no longer trapped in an airport I can't seem to remember what online rabbit-hole I ran down to find it the first time. There might be a clue there. P.S. Just got a notice that my copy of THE BOOK is on its way.