BANYAN

Very nice work Greg; she is looking great! cheers Pat

Thanks Greg, appreciate you looking in; and the many others for their likes. cheers Pat

Thanks Clare.

Hi folks, another update to the HMCSS Victoria - and yep - another question? We are progressing quite well as can be seen from the photos with the bulwarks now added and some decorations applied. We are using some experimental techniques with this build as it is a club project where we can all learn so what better subject. The photos show the deck (printed wood veneer), which turned out great. The bulwarks are fitted with all ports scribed (not opened) and these were son delicate we had to make a special jig to support them while they were fitted (and be reused if we open any of the ports). The jig has a base with two sliding outriggers which have the pattern (negative) of the roughtree timbers etc spaced as needed. The jig is screwed to the deck in places where the holes will later be covered and the outriggers extended to the edge of the hull to support the bulwarks etc. the photo shows the jig only partially inserted to provide a hinty of how it was fitted; I will post another when fully fitted when/if we do open any ports The yellow and black stuff is tape to stop the glue holding in these areas. Once the bulwark had been glued in place, the outriggers were slid inboard and the jig removed. At a scale of 1:72, the decorations were just too fine to carve. Our talented member hit on the idea of scribing the pattern into the wood, then applying appropriately sized thread that had been soaked in PVA, pushing it into the scribed pattern to form the decorative pattern. When the glue dried, it held the thread in place and stiffened it sufficiently to make it look presentable. With some cleaning up and some further hull furniture still to do, the whole lot will be painted black (Victoria did not have gilding or highlight colours according to the Contract and log book evidence). The Question: All the photos we have are of Victoria in harbour with the guns run out and poking through their ports. We are trying to determine whether the guns would have been run-in and the gun port lids closed when at sea? In support of having them run-in: 1. There was no threat of war or immediate action in this area/era 2. The ventilation skylight hatches were open (midships around the funnel) which only had iron gratings. Closing the ports would have reduced any shipped water. Against that though, a couple of watercolour lithographs based on etchings, show her with ports open. What do you think folks? cheers Pat

Hi all, a long overdue update. I have been busy with life (health issues), revamping my workshop and working on our club's build of HMCSS Victoria (see separate post) but have had time to progress. I have completed the 'rattlin' of the lower shrouds on the port side and working across the upper shrouds. I am using a template (see photo) which at scale provides 13" separation. Some of you may have noted my query re ratline sequence/pattern in a separate post/forum. In the end I followed James Lees description in his great reference " The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War1625-1860" which is essentially what the replica has done with some minor adaptions which I have also applied. His reference is based on contemporary models in the NMM and while there are difference between ships in this era, it is anyone's guess what pattern was actually used I have also started rigging the shroud cleats - what a pain in the xxxx I have tried various techniques and having had advice from Dan Vad and Greg Lester (thanks guys), still had problems holding these 'slippery little suckers' in place while securing them to a shroud. even CA would not hold. In the end I finally had some success using a tiny dab of CA on a half hitch around the base of each leg of the cleat (see photo), then half-hitching these and applying a dab of PVA to the hitch to temporarily hold them in place while I finish the hitches. The PVA them leeches into the completed hitch and 'et voila' cheers Pat (and my 1000th post )

Hi Byron, in all honesty I think a bit of both. Chuck is very open as to their purpose and I don't thing he intended them for this use, more for gun tackles etc where there is no force. that said, I have redone them with the plastic hooks and they have held; even with the additional stresses applied during 'rattlin' (see following post). If you are careful they should hold unless you are applying a lot of 'load' (strain). Thanks for looking in. cheers Pat

Welcome to the Endeavour builders club Cabbie and c.a. Plenty of useful info in the many Endeavour logs. cheers Pat

I think I will join Mark - very nice work Dan. There are many models that don't have the same quality at much larger scales (mine included ) cheers Pat

Hi J..... (no name name supplied ??) I am building the AL version of Endeavour but very early on in the build I tossed the AL parts including that transom piece. I am sure you are aware of it, but you have it upside down in the photo (the rounded bits are to the top). This is ALs version/interpretation of the transom decorations; there are many versions including those selected by the Replica builders based on Sydney Parkinson's drawings. These drawings while accurate for dimension and general detail, do not provide much more than a hint of what the decoration detail was like, so who is to say if their interpretation is actually right or wrong. However, my opinion (not professional) is that looking at those drawings with a closer inspection I now believe my initial interpretation is not as close to the drawing as I first thought and AL's versions seems even more distant. According to the Parkinson drawings (and he was the official artist and present on the trip) there was some detail/decoration on the transom etc; I just wished his drawings showed a little extra detail If you choose to use that part, it needs to be slightly inset with the edges forming the raised scroll surrounds just proud of the 'flats'. Also, the cap rail sits over this. Your interpretation is what counts cheers Pat

Interesting method Mark; I am assuming you laser cut this then cleaned the char and did a bit of relief carving - did I get that right? cheers Pat

Looking really good - great work on this build Greg, you are really moving with this one. As a matter of interest, the top part of the circular skylights shown in the B&W photo of Varyag (Forecastle?) with the capstan in the background, appear very much the same as those in my HMCSS Victoria (built 1855). Do you have any photos of the skylights you will fit? I am interested in how they come up and if Eduard do them in 1:72 will save me a lot of work cheers Pat

Simply superb work Alex cheers Pat

Very sharp Mark! the symmetry is spot on. cheers Pat

Hi Greg, just caught up with your latest effort - Impressed! Some great detail and a lovely model. I too am just in the final throes of a 10year Endeavour build, and lining up a 1:350 build of HMAS Vampire so you log has provided some great ideas. cheers Pat

Thanks Druxey, your input is most welcomed and appreciated. I had poked around the photos shown in Navy Board Models by Franklin and the predominant pattern is as you have suggested; but, as you indicated, there are some instances where the alternate options have been used also. I will have a good look through the NMM models next. I have also looked at some photos of the replica, and apart from the bottom 6 ratlines, the remainder span the full width of the shrouds - basically, as Lees has suggested for ships between 1733 and 1773. I think your suggestion, or the Lees suggested pattern, may be the way to go. Thanks all for looking in - any further evidence to support one way or the other will be much appreciated.

Thanks for the feedback Mike; I have still a ways to go for research, but if you read the following you can see that it is confusing and I don't think there is really a wrong solution? The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of 1625-1860 by James Lees Page 42 - A Swifter was not always rigged and usually refers instead to the after shroud; where there was an odd number of shrouds, the after one was called a swifter. There was nothing unusual in this shroud except that the upper end was fitted at the masthead by means of a eye-splice, the lower being secured exactly the same as other shrouds. Page 43 - Ratlines were spaced 13 to 15 inches apart and had an eye spliced in one end through which they were seized to the fore shroud. The other end was clove-hitched around each shroud in turn and had an eye spliced in the end which was seized to the second shroud from aft, counting the swifter as a shroud. About every sixth ratline was taken to the swifter or aftermost shroud on some ships. On some ships between 1733 and 1773 the first six ratlines started from the second shroud from forward, the rest of the ratlines being rigged as before. After 1773 the first six ratlines and the upper six ratlines started from the second shroud from forward, and finished at the second shroud from after; the remainder covered all shrouds. The Young Sea Officer’s Sheet Anchor by Darcy Lever Page 25 - The ratlines are made fast to the shrouds, in the following manner. An eye is spliced in one end, which is seized to the foremost shroud: the remaining part is made fast round the shrouds, with clove-hitches; and an eye spliced in the other end, it is seized as before to the shroud. 18th Century Rigs and Rigging by Karl Heinz Marquardt Page 61 – A single shroud was usually named a 'swifter', and on English warships it was set up after the shroud pairs, with an eye-splice over the masthead. On French men of war, and on English merchantman, it was the foremost shroud, combined with the smaller mast tackle pendant. Falconer referred to a swifter as that providing additional support to the mast, and suggested that they were not confined by catharpins, otherwise they were set up exactly like shrouds. Roding suggested that a swifter were used as a preventer shroud. Page 63- Ratlines running across the shrouds like the rungs on a ladder, began 13 inches below the futtock staves and were set a distance of 14 inches apart. They were fastened to each shroud with a clove-hitch, except that the ends, where an eye was spliced in, and seized to the shroud. The measurements quoted for the distance between ratlines varied greatly from one author to another. Steel noted 13 inches, Lever 12, Anderson 15 to 16, and Boudroit 13 to 14 inches. In view of the extra effort required from a sailor in running up ratlines which were widely spaced, a distance greater than Steel’s 13 inches seems unlikely. Ratlines did not always run across all shrouds. Illustrations of French ships show the foremost and aftermost shrouds omitted, or only every sixth ratline (that is, ratline’s 2 m apart) running across all shrouds. Boudroit noted that the foremost shroud (and sometimes also the second) was not rattled, but his drawings indicated that ratline is normally ran to the aft most shrouds. On Continental and English ships it can be seen that the foremost shrouds were normally rattled, but the aftermost shrouds were reached only by every sixth ratline. After 1730 the last six ratlines on English vessels tended to omit the foremost shroud, and in the last quarter of the 18th century in the lower North the upper six ratline’s extended to the foremost or the aft most shroud. All other parts of the shrouds were fully rattled. Falconer noted in 1769 that all shrouds were rattled down without exception, and Lever confirm this. Captain Cook’s Endeavour Revised Edition by Karl Heinz Marquardt Page 95 - Illustration H1 The illustration shows the foremast and mainmast shrouds rigged with ratlines starting at the foremost or leading shroud, and only every sixth ratline extending to the aftermost shroud. The mizzen shrouds are rattled all the way across. Falconer’s New Universal Dictionary of the Marine 1815 edition Page 386 - Ratlines or rattling, are small lines, which traverse the shrouds of a ship horizontally, at regular distances from the deck upwards, and forming a variety of ladders, whereby to climb or to descend from any of the mastheads. To rattle down the shrouds, is to fix the ratlines to them, in order to prevent them from slipping down by the weight of the sailors: they are firmly attached by a knot called a clove-hitch, to all the shrouds except the foremost or aft most; where one of the ends being fitted with an eye-splice, is previously fastened with twine packthread. H.M. Bark Endeavour by Ray Parkin Page 36 - Illustration An illustration depicting the standing rigging in which only the lower six ratlines are shown foreshortened. The lower six ratlines for the foremast and mainmast are drawn with the ratlines starting at the foremost shroud and terminating at the second from last shroud. All the remaining ratlines, including the mizzen mast, are rattled all the way across. So which interpretation is correct? Some of these descriptions even contradict each other. Wayne: I could not find any further reference in Steel (the version I have anyway) or other than what I have cited for Lever - if anyone can add to these it would be greatly appreciated. cheers Pat

Hi Mike looking really good mate, well and truly on the homeward stretch now! What ratline sequence/pattern did you use? The various rigging books/authorities are not clear on this for our period and Karl M does not validate his depiction. Could you have a look at my post in the Masting and Rigging forum if you have time please: http://modelshipworld.com/index.php/topic/11339-ratline-sequence/#entry346203 Cheers Pat

Thanks Wayne, I'll take a look at Falconer also, and hopefully Robin will look in cheers Pat

Hi folks, I am just starting the 'rattlin down' of my HMB Endeavour (Scale 1:60) and am a little confused with the various authorities in how these should be rigged. The following depicts several possible options of interpreting what Lees, Steele, Lever and others have described but not illustrated. Which would be the correct sequence noting it is a English ship, rigged Naval style (even though a collier) for the year circa 1768. I am reasonably sure (but stand to be corrected) that Endeavour did not carry Swifters, so I am assuming Option 2 is incorrect? Any guidance or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. cheers Pat

Good luck with the Op Dave; all going well you will be back with greater flexibility and producing even nicer stuff cheers Pat

Nice progress Dave cheers Pat

Sometimes the modelling gods have a mischievous sense of humour Dan; glad you found it in time. cheers Pat

Rather than lifting or manipulating, could these have been for attaching emergency steering ropes? Pat

Quite an accomplishment Danny; a model to be very proud of. cheers Pat