BANYAN

The end can't come quick enough sometimes can it Up to your usual very high standards Ed; you can't be too far off with your next volume now also? cheers Pat

Many thanks for all the feedback folks and I am ever so glad to hear that this rig is not just making me a little 'squirrely' (or squarky or quary or Scuaqey" etc I do know the RN adopted this rig for the Beacon class (1867) and as suggested this type of rig appears unique to steam screw sloops/vessels. I am very surprised though that I cannot find mention of it by any author of that time, or since, nor can I find any reference of it in the NMM or Rigsarkivit museum holdings. I think it may have been Lees or Fincham that stated that most post-1850 rigs were fully described with dimensions etc as part of their records; so I am very surprised there is nothing listed in the NMM etc. I will have a good look through the Dutch museum (online) also as that may turn something up - thanks Amateur. As to 'light courses', my reading of related correspondence between Oliver W. Lang (Designer) and Capt. Lockyer RN (ship's build superintendent) suggests this meant smaller courses (and possibly yards) than a normal 'ship/barque) fit, that is, not as deep, as the main course for example had to clear the funnel etc, and more often than not, (for Victoria at least) was not even 'loosed' when sailing was assisted with steam power. The reasoning for the ample sail, in Victoria's case at least, was the cost of the coal (referenced as 'black diamonds' more than once). There is some correspondence from the ship's Captain (Commander Norman) to suggest that steam power was there to enable passage/salley to predefined points in the harbour (even if wind did not allow) to defend the port of Melbourne (Port Phillip) to allow a coordinated defence with the coastal batteries to ensure any/every entry course could be covered, and also to assist in manoeuvring for saving lives from a shipwrecks etc; most of the time the ship would try to use sail power only. One letter during the ship's sea trial even states steam power to assist the ship departing the river and then revert to sail power as soon as possible. I will continue search for a description of this rig as it will help determine many aspects of the masting, yards and sails, especially the mast fittings. Kipping and other provide very good details and illustrations for a 'steamer', "schooner' etc but not such a combined rig. So in the interests of getting a start, I will take the many useful comments into consideration but as all 'known' instances of this rig seems to have been on steam screw vessels, i will use the mastherad configuration (lower mast) provided by Kipping, but modify some of the fittings/furniture to better support a schooner rig. there will be a single doubling, using Kippings tables for the heeling of a standard topmast, but modify the tables to try and get a reasonable list of diameters for a combined topmast, topgallant and roal mast (as a pole), and see how that eventuates. Does anyone know if James Lees is still active in this field (rigging etc) as a correspondence with him may elicit some further information? cheers Pat

Hi folks, in an attempt to try and find detailed information I first need to isolate what this rig would have been called; then I can search for info on it. I cannot find anything by any author etc nor in the NMM (so far). Please also see: Please note: The ship was deigned as a three masted schooner (masting etc) but rigged as a Barque + Shcooner rig (some elements). The masts have a lower mast with single extension as a pole (combined topmast, topgallant and royal) - only the single doubling. She is not a pure Barue Rig, nor a pure Three-masted Schooner or Topsail schooner. She is a combo of these I think? She definitely had a single (not double) topsail on the fore and main masts. She only had one set of tops (really trestletrees rather than tops - zoom in to see) at the doubling and appear to be the same construction that would be found for the topmast trestle trees rather than main top. The lithograph aligns with the photo of the ship almost exactly but shows the rigging much more clearly She also had light course on the lower yards (not full as for ship rig) - ascertained from letters by the ship's designer. Although not shown in the following lithograph, I have seen two examples (wood engravings) of her flying royals. Ths same rig was adopted by the RN in the Beacon Class (1867) Victoria was built in 1855 along mercantile lines but to the quality required by service ships The closest I have found is a Barquentine but that is only rigged this way to the Fore mast. No other rig description seems to fit? The lithograph shows her running as a topsail schooner but other images shows the full Barque rig as shown following. HELP much appreciated Pease cheers Pat

Those sails look very good UV; great job with the staining. cheers Pat

Beautiful work Keith; and very useful as an added detail for my build. While my shape/detail may be different I appreciate you sharing the technique. cheers Pat

I am late to the party again Greg, hope there is some room left Nice choice of subject for your next build. cheers Pat

Some very nice progress there UV; she is looking mighty fine. That stain product looks very interesting; being water based I am assuming it is PH neutral and therefore safe for fabric. cheers Pat

Vossie, the rigging detail is very neat and trim; looks good. For what it is worth (note for future builds), there may not have been a ring on the eyebolt as the block's tail hook would just as easily engage with the eye of the eyebolt itself - gain a couple of mm by removing the ring? Also (too late now of course) but the eyebolts may have been set back a bit further also? cheers

catches a lot of 'visitors' out those distances involved. Nice job on the planking Keith, the run is very 'pleasing' as Eberhard says, it is obvious your fairing efforts are paying dividends now as planking is very symmetrical. cheers Pat

Glad to hear it may work out; main thing is to satisfy yourself that it looks right cheers Pat

I'm with Wefalck's interpretation in that they appear to be loose hanging sails of some sort - my reasoning - there is a hard line for the outer (lower) edge of the sails but none towards the gaff and there appears to be diminishing strips/bands of shading to represent loose folds as you go from outer to inward - even on the main mast one if zoomed right in. If these are flags would there would be an inner hard edge also? But, then again, all his other sails show the inner bolt rope -- so perhaps .... Confusing! cheers Pat

Ah its all relative see PM cheers Pat

You're doing a nice job on those repairs Steven; and quite rapid progress cheers Pat

Thanks Eberhard and Rob; much appreciate your time in looking into this. Eberhard; you are quite correct in the tables being available and some 'deduction' may allow me to approximate something I can live with. That is the main issue you have identified; all the books (including those about clippers) all talk about the more usual mast configuration and do not discuss this type even though common to three-masted schooners of this era. Rob; a good 'eye' can't be beaten and some form of intuition supported by some guidance, will probably allow a reasonable/acceptable approximation to be made. I was just hoping to be able to offer the 'correct' tables in the associated data (spreadsheet and book) I am collating - not for publishing though; they will be made freely available. I am hoping in that presenting my reasoning in making the decisions on fit form and function of the fittings, furniture, equipment etc of this ship, that others may value add in the future allowing a more complete picture of this ship to be generated. cheers Pat

Man you do like a challenge Patrick; look forward to the build log. cheers Pat

Magical - simply stunning work Doris. cheers Pat

She looking great Rob, even viewing from closeish distance you would never know these were paper sails. Also have you seen my post at: Do you have anything in your reference material? cheers Pat

Very pleasing finish indeed Keith; looks great. cheers Pat

Vossie, I can understand you are wanting to recreate the actual becket, hook etc but at this scale, and as suggested above, a small 'cheat' may be called for. With your fly tying skills see what the following might look like: I am not sure of the era or whether iron bound blocks may have been available? If not iron bound, predrill one end of the block to the size wire you are making the hooks from. Then pass a 'wrap' (strop) of cordage around the block with no becket either end. Before tightening the strop, put a length of 'seizing' (fly tying thread) between the strop and heel of the block at the undrilled end, tighten and glue the ends of the simulated strop to the block (or use a single hitch and glue) to secure it. On the other end of the block (drilled) glue in the end of a hook (made with no eye) with sufficient 'shank' extending to wrap a few turns of the seizing/fly thread. The other end (with the fly thread dangling) is used to tie the block to the eyebolt on the carriage. If two hooks are required repeat the hook 'cheat' both ends. At this scale it would still look like a stropped block unless closely inspected - the wrapped thread around the bit of hook shank simulating the becket. This may save a fair bit of 'length' on both blocks and maybe give you enough room? Worth a try even if not authentic? cheers Pat

Ditto Michael's comments - the circles is a neat technique (tucked away for future reference ) cheers Pat

Hi Alan, I used heavy brown (wrapping) paper with "Dullcote' lacquer to simulate the leather - looked pretty close to weathered leather, but I think Druxey's method would be closer to the actual colours. I only mentioned this as a means to close the 'unintentional' gap for you - as Druxey hinted, a lot of modeller's don't bother. I'll have a look around later to see if I have any images (but I don't think i do). cheers Pat

For me it's not what materials you use but the end result (realistic and accurate) that counts for me. I have plenty of brass and aluminium stock, so happy to use that technique rather than learn yet another skill (I still haven't mastered the ones I am trying to apply ) such as sculpting or evening 'moulding' - whatever floats your boat / best suits your needs I reckon. cheers Pat

Hi folks. I am just getting to the point of having to draw up and plan the spars and rigging for my HMCSS Victoria build (1855). I was getting, and remain somewhat, very confused while reading the Contract specifications, looking at the lithographs and Photograph of the ship, and the descriptions and tables in contemporary books by Fincham, Kipping and other authoritative authors such as Lees, Marquardt and Underhill. Of note: during this period there was a move towards 'combined' masts (poles); and, Victoria was built to merchant standards but rigged to meet RN quality. The core of the issue: Victoria was designed and built as a three-masted schooner, but Barque rigged/sail configuration. I initially got hung up on "Barque" and all the authors discuss this rig and the usual mast configuration for this period as 'lower mast, topmast and combined top-gallant mast + royal mast (as a pole) providing excellent tables etc to allow the taper/diminishing of the masts to be calculated from the specification values. HOWEVER, looking at the imagery it is obvious 'Victoria' was configured with a 'lower mast, and combined topmast, top-gallant mast and royal mast as a single pole (confirmed in the Rigging Warrant also). Now for the delima that I hope someone may assist me with. None of the authors offer a table, or formula that I can understand to calculate the taper/steps of the combined 3 masts to allow a realistic end size (Royal mast head), nor to calculate the step (at the stops for each mast). The Contract provides the start diameter (at the cap) for the topmast, and the lengths of each mast (so I know where the stops are) but not how much to reduce the mast (step inwards I assume as the imagery seems to show a 'funnel' - iron and copper combo - rather than 8-sided) at these points. This combination appears to be typical of three-masted schooners (merchant types at least) for this period and was introduced into the RN for later gun boats (eg Beacon class - HMS Beacon 1867) - did Victoria set a standard ? HMS Beacon moored in Malta - from Wikipedia (commons) QUESTION Can anyone provide me with a reference/pointer to a table or formula to calculate these? I have tried using the individual tables for topmast + table for combined top-gallant and royal (from Kipping and Fincham - close but not the same) using the head size of the topmast as the starting (given) size for the pole but the result does not seem realistic (too narrow) at the head of the royal. Also, this method does not tell me how much to step/reduce the diameter of the pole at these junctures to fit the funnels (noticeable in all the imagery). Any info or guidance would be most welcome cheers Pat p.s. I have also not been able to locate a single drawing/illustration of this type of pole with associated fittings.

Hi Steven, a bit late for you now but one technique I have used to work out the positions of holes was either: 1. if confident I can place pins accurately into the tenons, or the flat bottom piece, place accurately on the deck in-situ, apply a 'little pressure' - just enough to see where the pins land; then drill holes to size. This may still work for you? 2. add some pencil/graphite or ink (be quick before ink dries) and place onto a bit of thicker paper or thin card and apply light pressure to get a mark. Drill holes into card/paper to make a template. Cut paper/card to shape to fit area and/or register with known marks/parts on the deck. cheers Pat

That awning structure looks terrific Steven. cheers Pat