BANYAN

Thanks, I had seen this technique before and promptly had forgotten it. cheers Pat

Thanks Tony, yep the 'purchases' or halliards as they were correctly termed are a separate problem. The listed blocks (4 x 10" and 2 x 9") are 'single' so the only arrangement can be for them to be made up as 'gun tackles' with a a runner (whip). As they are listed with 'travellers' (long strops attached to the fly block) which ran up-and-down the topmast backstay, they had to be set-up with the standing blocks in the channels. This meant they were not 'up-and down' tackles but oblique to the direction of effort - very unusual arrangement? I really would like to find another example of this arrangement described by a contemporary (Kipping, Nares, Luce etc) or more modern author (such as Underhill, Harland etc) - unfortunately they all describe permutations of the more common single 'pendant with purchase'; or double purchase (one as a luff, the other a gun tackle). cheers Pat

Hi guys, a small bit of progress - see below a piccy of the PE for the tops - the fold line will enable me to create the angle-iron trestrees and the after ends of the rim for the 'D" fore rims. I will need to attach the rest of the rim front, and drill out for the various eyebolts (start holes already etched). I am also back to the Tyes and Purchases/Halliards again. Having progressed to other things, I revisited this and realised I had got it all wrong and need to sort out the topsail tyes again. Here is the predicament - the Specification called for the fitting of Purchase winches for the topsail yard. The correspondence from the ship build superintendent (that I have been able to access so far) is silent on them. As this person was very detailed and informative in his very regular reports, it is unlikely he will have neglected to inform if these had been omitted. The Rigging Warrant does not mention them but does offer a very complex arrangement that does not align with the arrangements described by any of the contemporary or more modern authors consulted. The Rigging Warrant lists the tye for the fore topsail as 68’ of 9/16” chain with “Gin on Yard and 2 Hanging Gins Iron”. It also lists a halliard associated with the fore topsail tye, made up from 27 fathoms of 2½” hemp rope, associated with four 10”, and two 9” single blocks, and two travellers under the ‘Thimbles’ column. The only way such a list of items could be configured (as far as I can determine) is for the gins to set up as shown in the following image (I drew up in CAD). The tails of the chain have long links for the associated halliards. As two traveller thimbles + 4 by singles blocks suggests two separate halliards. Halliards were normally a pendant set-up to the port channel (for the foremast) and the purchase to starboard. The only arrangement I can determine here is that two separate up-and-down halliards with a runner (whip) was used? Any other ideas guys? cheers Pat

Couldn't agree more Tony, makes my build feel slower than snail pace; but Steven also maintains quality. cheers Pat

A great method for making these Keith. They look great. cheers Pat

Great diorama Greg, love the 'dhoby' (laundry items) Some seriously nice work in this one. cheers Pat

Welcome Mark; look forward to seeing this build. As a 'starter' a cross-section that includes planking, at least one gun, a mast etc will help you develop the necessary skills. There are many fine examples of these in the forums. cheers Pat

Thanks for the offer Clipper, the photo is fine for my needs. I have to agree, keeping up with that pair is difficult cheers Pat

Clipper, those are some truly nice drawings you are producing and will add to the collective understanding of the ship. Great photo also, I store that one away, is it one of yours? Rob, the model is coming on very nicely; you're adding some really nice detail. cheers Pat

Classy work mate; looks good! cheers Pat

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