BANYAN

Looks great Rob, a really nice job. WRT the the colour on the bottom, this was more to hide the build up of grime etc (from swabin' the decks etc) rather than hide an woodwork etc. As such they tended to be a darker colour to achieve this. cheers Pat

It's great to have you back Keith; missed your regular updates. As Eberhard has said, your mastery of these technically challenging pieces is a delight to follow. She is looking great! cheers Pat

Sandra, the first of the items is (in English) called a 'Traversing Board'. They were used as a form of 'dead reckoning' navigation by recording the direction and speed run during a period of time, or at time of course alteration. The usual practice (as far as I have determined) was to record the course and speed (by log or estimation) each turn of the glass (about a half hour). This would allow a 'dead reckoned position to be determined from the last fix. Can't help with the second. cheers Pat

Looks good Steven; a much better recipe for better fitting frames cheers Pat

You're a sucker for punishment' - is that what your are saying Steven? That bending seems to have worked OK, you could also soak and bend on a form with a heat gun/hair dryer if you riun into problems. Coming along very nicely, and I too like to see the results of your research and speculation. cheers Pat

Very nice work Rob, that looks great. You're making some good progress with her now. cheers Pat

Great news Michael, best wishes for a full recovery. No rush to get back into the workshop. cheers Pat

I agree, at that scale you have done a remarkably nice job Greg. cheers Pat

Thanks Mark, Tony and John, appreciate the assistance. cheers Pat

Hi Steve, I have found it is not so much the blackening solution, but the chemicals used for cleaning the assembled parts that will create problems. I always solder my PE that has to be blackened, but it may be possible to glue them if you do not use acetone etc for cleaning. Using a stiff bristle brush (scratch/fibre pencil) or brass/soft rotary brush etc may clean them enough depending on how delicate they are. BUT the part has to be very clean and no finger oils etc for blackening to work properly. As Richard points out, any excess glue must first be removed. If you try to blacken the individual parts first you might get away with it but you must get the blackening process right. Too many instances of blackening I have seen left a residue/thin coating of black which will come away very easily if glued - very weak joint. Using a slow blackening process by diluting (I use 50/50 or weaker) solution, then buffing the item such that you get a polished iron grey/charcoal grey finish that still appears metallic may work with CA. cheers Pat

Hi Steven, I am certainly not that knowledgeable on vessels of this period so take the following with a grain of salt WRT to what is shown on your posted images. I think Mark has identified a 'clamp' of some sort to support the lowest deck. The beams may also have been supported with nails/bolts through the frame where they penetrate the planking (assuming the beams lined up with the frames?). The next two decks appear to use the top of the knees as a sort of clamp to support the beam. So in your sketch of a single deck Nef, I would include a small clamp piece to support the deck with knee above providing additional support (as well as the frames if the beams are nailed to them) cheers Pat

Hi Tony, all yours but the don't hold your breath - the claim is under 'disputation' in the Prize Claims Court Pat

Hi Tony, agree this is light lashing; hence my thoughts on a sort of preventer/retainer if the lift / lift tackle are parted due to weather/battle. Being lifts, there would not be too many times they are not in use I would think? More to the point though, the tackle was an integral part of the lift with the running block of the tackle spliced into the running/tail end of the lift. So in this instance, if to be secured, the whole tackle would have to be lifted which would not be practical I think. Thanks for the suggestion and thoughts on this Tony, it made me go back to the original document to recheck my transcription was correct - it was BUT... It seems that in this case, it is possibly just some careless/sloppy entry of the information (being a fair copy of the original). The copy does not have ledger lines or the like to line things up, and whereas the text was aligned well for the foremast, in this instance it is not so. It appears the clerk put the correct data into the correct area but the alignment of the associated items is at odds, but it is all there if re-interpreted. If I separate all of the items I can rearrange them to include exactly the same items (with slightly different cordage sizes) as required for the fore topsail lifts. So I now have have a lift that is fitted exactly the same as the fore topsail lift, and a tackle arrangement that is the same BUT with the addition of a lanyard fitted to the standing block. This makes sense due to additional height of the main mast. The smaller cordage is used as the runner for the tackle working fall. As there are no 'cells' or such, if I align the smaller the cordage with the tackle, this works (in the fore lift, it was entered under the tackle) - by separating everything from the lift itself, the rest falls into place even if not aligned properly. So, the main is the same are the fore, but with an additional lanyard - case solved Thanks again Pat

Nicely done on removing the shell without damage Steven, as Druxey attests that is a process fraught with danger. Looks great! cheers Pat

Your are quite correct John, my thoughts were more of a temporary nature. The lift and tackle were an integrated rigging, so the lanyard would simply be to pull it back further from the heat if needed; but released when working the lift. In hindsight however, I do not think that was even necessary as the lift went outboard to the main channels anyway - so back to option 2? Nares, in his 'Seamanship' of 1863, talks of a lizard attached to the running block on the forward lifts (not listed directly with the lift in Victoria's Rigging Warrant). The fore topsail lift did not go the the fore channels but was more up-and-down, belaying to the fore sheet bitt crosspiece pinrail. Perhaps the additional rope was to act in the same role but as it could not run on a shroud due to the ratlines, perhaps acted more like a 'painter' to catch the running block? All conjecture I understand; but the only thing that comes to mind. cheers Pat

Thanks John, I am glad it is not just me puzzling over this. The only ideas I have (pure speculation) are: 1. the lifts being natural cordage, the tail/other rope may have been used as some form of lanyard/lizard attached to the running block to allow the lifts to be secured under the top/pulled towards the mast when steam was got up (and therefore the funnel raised)? - but then why is other rigging not treated similarly? 2. the fore top yard was the only one fitted with a battle sling (chain) - perhaps these were used to prevent the running blocks falling if the lifts were parted - but then again why not other rigging? More guesses than knowledge! 🤫 🥴 cheers Pat

Thanks Tony, I am being a little 'thick' on this as I still can't visualise it - need to find a piccy I think Lees, page 160 shows then cross seized individually. I have been looking through Kipping and finding some interesting points he makes. I have yet to find anything a little more definitive, but in the interim this information (page 62 of Kipping cited above) at least provides some guidance. cheers Pat

Hi Eberhard and Tony, thanks for the feedback, and very much appreciate the link. Tony, the sail was made from No.1 or 2 canvas, so will have had some strength especially if reinforced along the luff as suggested by Eberhard. Even so I fear a 5' spacing is still a little much and would not have held the shape of the sail. The larger number of hoops does correspond with Kipping's comments - thanks for that - I will go with the larger numbers. Eberhard, thanks - quite agree re the mast wedge collar. I realised that not long after posting, so back to working out how to neatly do the upper part at this scale. WRT the the overlapping hoops being sewn together, I am not quite following. All the imagery shows these spaces with no hint of 'sewing/lacing' between them. Seems I need to do a bit more research there. Edit: Tony based on your cited text, the interesting point here is that they are used from the 'upper reef only' - There were 3 reefing bands in these sails with the upper reef about half way up the sail. The head of the sail was laced to the gaff. This begs the questions of how was the lower half attached ? cheers Pat

That's an interesting after coach/upperdeck structure set-up Rob. Coming together quite nicely. cheers Pat

Some absolutely wonderful detail Brian, a very nice example of a well detailed model. cheers Pat

Anyone? Please..... cheers Pat

Hi folks, a question (or two) and hoping for some answers or pointers. I am still sorting the rigging of the vessel based on the imagery and the Rigging Warrant. I have also raised a question in the 'Masting, Rigging ...' area : Also, I am trying to determine which of the imagery re traversing mast hoops is correct (the hoops that slide up and down the mast). The photographs (where I can make it out) shows that the foremast had 7, the mainmast 8 and the mizen had 6 hoops, whereas the lithographs both show the foremast with 13 hoops, the mainmast 14, and the mizen 6. Normally I would accept the photograph as the better evidence, however, in very rough terms, the number of hoops would result in a 60 inches (5') between each hoop when the fore-and-aft sail was fully hoisted. The same calculations result in about a 32" spacing using the higher numbers in the lithographs. To my mind the 60" spacing would be too far apart placing too much pressure on the luff at those few points? Can anyone please advise of a reference/pointer that might provide some guidance? I would appreciate it also if anyone can help with the linked question, but would greatly appreciate that each question is responded to separately in the appropriate topic area to prevent any confusion and duplication. cheers Pat regards

You are making some good progress Rob; looking good. cheers Pat

Hi all, as most of you will be aware I am trying to sort the rigging for HMCSS Victoria (1855). I have the Rigging Warrant, but I am finding there are many differences to the accepted practices for rigging sail/steam vessels due to the wide uuse of wire rope and chain , with iron fittings, throughout the rigging. I am finding the the general practices mostly conform with the rigging advised by Commander G. Nares (1863) in his book 'Seamanship'. However, there are deviations to this so I have also used less contemporary authors such as Lees, Underhill and Harland. One area providing me some difficulty is the rigging of the topsail lifts. I have managed to sort out the fore topsail lifts which accord with Lees, page 85, for ships post 1805. However, I have not been able to find a configuration that conforms with the listed items in the Rigging Warrant, specifically: "15½ fathoms (93’) of 3¼” hemp rope associated with 6 fathoms (36’) of 1½” hemp rope. These are associated with four 6” singe blocks, two clip hooks and two thimbles. There is also a lift tackle and lanyard listed. The fore topsail lift is "Single" an d does not have the additional cordage listed with it. The fore topsail lift is similar but does not include the additional length of rope with the lift PLUS there is a running whip used with the tackle working end (but not on the main). The lift was made-up such that the outer end is clip hooked to the upper lug of the yardarm spiderband, rove through a sister block seized between the topmast shroud legs (leading pair), then led towards the deck along the middle shroud leg. The lower end is spliced to the running block of the tackle, with the standing block hooked on in the main channels. 1. What I cannot work out is what the second length of cordage is for. It is much too short to be a double (second) lift being only 3 fathoms (18') long. 2. Also, I am trying to determine why a running whip is used with the working end of the fore lift tackle, but none is provided for the main topmast lift tackle? I would appreciate any suggestions pointers as to what purpose this may have served and how it was rigged? Many thanks. Pat

Hi all, I think that perhaps the make-up of the pendants had begun to change in this era. Certainly the Rigging Warrant for HMCSS Victoria (1855) listed wire mast pendants with thimbles in lieu of blocks. Druxey, sorry, I am not trying to be contentious; I agree blocks had been the usual practice, but I think in the era of chain and wire this may have started to change? cheers Pat