BANYAN

Hi Richard. One way that has worked for me is to make a metal template with a sharp edge. I grind the required shape into a piece of wide hacksaw blade and put a relief on the underside of the leading edge. I have a bandsaw blade company nearby and they are happy to give me a few cut-offs of their industrial blades. After allowing a little on each end to act as a sort of parting tool (but not fully) I cut away a section on each end beyond the depth required for the largest dimeter in the handle. I also found doing this in short sections of stock almost eliminated any flex. The type of wood is also important and I found a tight-grained stock best. May be worth trying? cheers Pat

Couldn't settle on an appropriate emoticon to acknowledge your post Rob, so I have posted here. Wow a house full of grandkids, and hopefully a few budding ship modeller's among them? Good luck with it all in terms of preserving your models, tools household goods and especially your sanity. As much as I love my grandkids and love to be with them (the greatest joy in my life), a couple of months in the same house would drive me nuts I think Look forward to your future updates. cheers Pat

Very neat work as usual Richard. cheers Pat

Great work on your restoration John, she is looking more and more complete. Your 'sympathetic' approach is really maintaining her original look while the subtle improvements (a la the gratings) are making that visual difference. cheers Pat

Thanks again Eberhard and John. John, thanks for the visual evidence. I agree, seems only a couple of turns would suffice. cheers Pat

Thanks for all the feedback, much appreciated. Gregory, quite true, but this is some research I am doing for inclusion in a book (non-commercial). Dr. PR and Eberhard. Thanks again. I have to agree. I have continued looking through quite a few contemporary, or near contemporary, sources for the mid and late 19th century, and early 20th century, and I have not been able to find anything. I think it is quite correct then to conclude that there really is no 'standard' or even a rule-of-thumb. I think I will cite Mondfeld with the caveats highlighted by you both and point these out (citing you gentlemen - with your permission of course?). Eberhard, I quite agree with the functionality. If a turn is taken on a pin above the rail, then there would have to be a turn below as well, and therefore the pin also has to cater for the thickness of the rail. This then would govern the length of the pin overall. I have tried looking for the minimum number of turns required to secure a line on a pin with no joy. This info would also help determine the length. This leads me to the next issue then. The best guidance I have to date for pin rails/racks is that they were set-up abreast the respective mast. Analysis of many photos shows that the leading edge of these were generally aligned with the vertical axis of the mast, placing the first pin just abaft the trailing edge of the mast. My thoughts are that the first pin should generally align with the leading shroud, as often the first sail handling lines would often be led down that shroud? Most authors simply do not provide a length, which is appropriate as that would be governed by the number of pins required. others imply that most RN ships has a continuous rail, while merchants had separate rails. No guidance is given WRT to their thickness (that I have found so far). As to their height above deck the best I have established is from G. Campbell (CTC) who writes that where no topgallant rail is provided, the rails are inset into the faces of the bulwark stanchions. While written for modellers, Davis (1966), page 126, suggests that for a 16-gun Brig, pinrails would be just under 8′ in length, 9″ wide and 3″ thick. Again thanks for the feedback and info. If anyone can offer any additional info WRT the pinrails, that would also be most appreciated. cheers Pat

Thanks all. Eberhard that table from Middendorf would be very useful. I also agree that it would not be ideal, or perhaps even practical, to have pins all the same size. As you infer, and as stated in my initial post, I have seen discussion that the size of the pin is governed by the size of the rope. While it is practical to round out/group some of these to minimise the number of different sized pins required, larger ropes will have needed larger (well at least longer) pins. Dr PR, thanks for the feedback; at least that provides a good starting point - much appreciated. I am still trying to clarify what Mondfield is saying though Where do we get the value of 1 from? I note your comment: But how did you get the value 16? Am I correct in saying that if the rope diameter is 1" then the pin diameter is 1" also, and as that diameter is 1/16 of the length then the length is 16?

I would have to agree with your conclusion WRT the round lashing Richard; the common whipping looks a much better option for a model at least. cheers Pat

Hi folks. Apologies if this topic has already been covered previously, but I could not find any reference in multiple searches of these forums nor online generally. I am trying to find a rule-of-thumb for the dimensions of a belaying pin (19th century +) . I am aware earlier metal pins tapered either side of their middle and did not have a handle/grip. I am also aware the pin length and diameter is related to the max rope size to be belayed in the respective vessel - but found no other guidance. I have seen some dimensions by modern manufacturers but they do not explain how they arrived at the their dimensions/proportions. As best I can determine it appears that the stem/pin part is about 2/3 the overall length. Most sites simply refer to a length (L) overall, length of stem/pin and stem diameter, one site also referenced the handle/grip length and shoulder diameter - BUT all of these was to allow the viewer to select what they needed, it was not a rules based dimension. Any pointers or information would be most appreciated. cheers Pat

No holding you back now Rob, we can already see the graceful lines of this beauty. cheers Pat

An unusual building medium Eberhard. Is this for stability of the frames? I note the base is also acrylic so may be just to make life easier down the road a bit? cheers Pat

You're making great progress Glen. My experience has been to bring all the shrouds equally taut (alternating as suggested but I did the fore and after ones first then worked to the middle. The big trick/tip though, from my experience limited as it is, is to not tie off these permanently. Leave a tail so that you can readjust these towards the end of your rigging. After you work all the stays and other rigging, plus with changing humidity etc, you may find the shrouds may need a final tweak. cheers Pat

Tight squeeze Glen - a mm more here and there and you may have been in trouble - great planning and execution. cheers Pat

That's quite some progress John, she's looking great. cheers Pat

Hi Keith, WRT boiler water - standard ol' fresh water would not cut the mustard. The water has to be of a particular purity to prevent the build up of scale etc etc, so more likely she will have had a donkey boiler or evaporator of some type to produce this (for both boilers) - but she will still have had to have sufficient storage for it. Your project is coming along very nicely and I'm enjoying the journey. cheers Pat