BANYAN

She's looking great Glen, some lovely detail there. You never know when you need such materials, nor where you might scavenge them. I have stocks of all sorts of stuff squirreled away, to the point I have to start 'culling' the stockpile - But what to keep and what to throw away, that is the question. I think I need another bundy while I try to prioritise (well maybe 2) cheers Pat

Coming on nicely Rob, the hull shape is starting to emerge. From the last camera angle, she has a lot of 'fish body' shape to her, with her after ends tapering away to a narrow end. cheers Pat

She's really coming to life now John. Some really nicely executed rigging there. cheers Pat

Hi all, I have been following this discussion with great interest and learning a lot in the process. While not an American design, I offer (in the interest of further discussion) a design by one of the pre-eminent RN naval architects (for steam vessels - Master Shipwright HM Dockyard Pembroke) at the time, Oliver W Lang, in 1854. Lang designed the hull for HMCSS Victoria (1855) straight off the drawing board - No half hull model. Now the builder (Young, son and Magnay of Limehouse, London) may have built one later, but in the copious correspondence around the build of this vessel, a half hull is not mentioned at all, not even inferred. I am very confident about this as Lang, and the ship build superintendent, Commander Lockyer, RN, were in constant communication, and there is definitely no mention of a half model. In support of this, the design changed a couple of times (the vessel grew bigger) to accommodate all of the roles, and latest equipment, she was intended to perform for the Colony of Victoria. Unfortunately, I cannot post a copy of the plan here due to restrictions placed on me by the owner of the only surviving plan (Sheer Drawing) of the vessel. The design was based on, and is very similar to, the Gun Dispatch Vessel (Arrow and Vigilant Classes) of the time, but had completely different proportions, and encompassed a clipper like (Aberdeen) bow, much different to the other RN designs. She was also significantly different to RN vessels in being built on the diagonal planking system (Not the Sepping's diagonal bracing) which was generally not used in the RN (due to cost). The very few vessels that were built on this principle, were renowned for their quality and hull strength. A quick scan of my (stalled) build log will provide and idea of her design. She was built as an armed vessel using combined merchant and RN standards, but outfitted to Vice-Regal standards internally, and was minimum manned. The real point being, she was a 'paper' only deign. She proved to be a very sound and fast vessel, her hull being reported as sound as the day she was built when she was dismantled in the 1880s. Her top speed is reported as 13+ knots , and she is also reported to have been a very good sea keeper, and a relatively dry vessel (her bulwarks were only 2' 9" high). She held the trans-Tasman (Sydney to NZ) record for some time, and that crossing can be treacherous. Let the cannon balls fly cheers Pat

Progress is progress Dave, not matter how slow. She is coming on well. cheers Pat

All things considered, and in relative terms, this sounds like a good outcome for you Keith. Thoughts are with you on this journey mate. cheers Pat

That looks so good Glen; I think you should celebrate this one with a nip or two of SAKI (well Bundy will do too) cheers Pat

Not posting much here Rob, and Co. as I have nothing I could add to this interesting and thoughtful discussion. Following with much interest. cheers Pat

Hope all is well Keith, I have everything crossed and my best thoughts for a positive result. Not long now. cheers Pat

Wow, a lot of bling there Greg. This will be a very nicely and fine detailed version. cheers Pat

Those oars are looking great Richard, well worth the time invested. cheers Pat

Nice work on those guns Dave, they look nicely detailed without the banding created in filament printing. Not surprising she carried additional guns in the hold; they were probably intended for defence of the new colony once landed. Endeavour carried extra (in the hold) also for protection of the observation camp (Venus Transit) in Hawaii. cheers Pat

A belated Happy Easter Glen; looks like you have been busy. That is looking really good mate. cheers Pat

That's quite a change-up in detail on those funnels Greg; they look great. cheers Pat

Hi Rob, I am speaking with experience from a much later period (late 20th century). We also referred to 'naval hoods' as the metal hoods (covers) put over the top of the naval pipes once the cable was stowed/run out. Some ships had an angled entry/cover built-in as part of the pipe which simply required a cover plate put on. Other ships had a full hood that was partially inserted into the upper part of the pipe over the cable at the upper deck level. They were used to stop/minimise water entering the cable lockers through the naval pipes (metal trunks from deck through the deck(s) to the lockers). Perhaps an 'interpretation thing? cheers Pat

Great progress Dave, looks like a very sound support structure for your hull. cheers Pat

Hi all. Another rigging question for the more knowledgeable - this one has me in a real quandary. I think I have identified their purpose but not how they were rigged. The Rigging Warrant, under Necessary Ropes, lists ‘gaff tackle falls’ and ‘gaff tackles’ - these are separate/distinct from any specific mast; and, storm sails are not listed but were provided as they were reported in two separate stores survey reports.. The latter are probably the tackles mentioned by Burney (The Boy's Manual of Seamanship and Gunnery Second Edition, 1871, page 112) where he advises that luff tackles are used as sheets for storm trysails. The Rigging Warrant lists the gaff tackle falls as 180′ of 3″ hemp rope, associated with six 12″ double blocks, four 12″ single blocks and eight hooks. This will have permitted two sets of falls, assumed to be for the storm sail gaffs on the fore and main masts. I am also assuming these replaced the peak halliards when the loose footed storm trysails were set. These were lashed at their head to a shorter gaff (than used with the fore-and-aft sails) as advised by Burney (1871), page 109: Fore and main storm-trysails, which are set on the fore and main trysail-masts, but on shorter gaffs than are used for the large trysails, and a mizen trysail, but in a similar way to the main and fore trysails. If these falls replaced the peak halliards when the storm sails were bent on, it would make sense. With a greater force being applied to these sails in a blow, the greater strength from having more parts to the falls, and the greater mechanical advantage using double blocks, would be advantageous. However, I am stumped as to how these were rigged. The peak halliards utilsed single blocks only, and the running part/fall was worked with a purchase. Three were shackled to through-bolted or hooped eyes abaft the lower masthead ('n' in the attached image), and two slightly smaller single blocks shackled to iron hoops (spiderbands) fitted on the gaff. As there are six double blocks (3 per mast) I have assumed these will have replaced the three single blocks abaft the lower masthead. The two single blocks would therefore have been shackled to the gaff. The lower masthead of a steamer in 1855 looked similar to, if not the same as advised by Rudimentary Treatise On Masting and Mast Making, R. Kipping , 854, page15 Noting the running part was probably let fall to, and worked from, the deck (as no whip/purchase is listed with them - however the gaff tackles earlier may have been used, but no makes no difference to the falls rigging) I cannot come up with any pattern for reeving these blocks that utilised all sheaves if rigged/set-up as I have assumed. Q1. Can anybody propose the correct way to reeve these falls? Q2. Is anyone aware of any discussion or imagery showing the rigging of a storm trysail gaff falls (assumed to be replacements for the peak halliards)? Q3. Have I got this totally wrong and there was another purpose for these falls? Any comments, suggestions or pointers most welcomed. cheers Pat

In addition to your excellent work, it is a testament to your dedication in this restoration that you are considering such corrections John, most would simply leave it as is. cheers Pat

Really looking good Keith. Agree with Eric re the 'wooding' of the view forward - still looks ()no pun intended) great though. cheers Pat

Been there mate, the doc says I'm two one-eyed cheers Pat

Nice job on those davits Glen. I had to take a double look to check it was your model or the real deal (the blocks give it away ). cheers Pat

We used to finish off the tails of the tackle this way when I was in the grey funnel line; a few half hitches around all parts of the falls then simply wrap the remainder. As also suggested, another way was to seize the working part back onto the other parts as shown in this photo I took of the stays in SS Great Britain. cheers Pat

Thanks John, I agree - robands and not laced. WRT to these lines I am starting to believe these were entry errors (misnamed) as no leech lines were listed in the Rigging Warrant, but they are clearly evident in most of the lithography (which has proven remarkably accurate). The names start with a 'L" which is no real indicator These lines are listed immediately after the bunt lines (and whips) and before the slab lines, I am seriously starting to think that these will have been the leech lines. cheers Pat

Hi all, I am seeking information on some of the sail control lines listed against the fore main course in the Rigging Warrant for HMCSS Victoria (1855) - Barque Rigged. Along with the usual Bunt (+ bunt whips), leech lines and slab lines, there is a listing for 'Lace Lines' (fore course) - 17 fathoms of 1.75" hemp rope with 4 x 5" blocks (assumed to be two per each side of the sail), and 'Lead Lines' (main course) - 19 fathoms of 2" hemp rope with 4 x 5" blocks (assumed to be two per each side of the sail). As these are listed with the other sail control lines I am assuming they are also control lines. I am also assuming that the lines could be called one or the other (i.e. the same line but with different names). I have looked high and low in all the usual rigging books (Lees, Harland, Kipping, Fincham, Nares, Luce etc) with no joy. One thought was that perhaps these were spilling lines but the presence of the blocks sort of precludes this option? Can an anyone shed any light on the purpose and rigging of these lines? Many thanks Pat

At that scale everything so far is very well done; very crisp and a; lot of detail. cheers Pat