BANYAN

Hi again all, going back through my research materials I found an interesting (possible) link with the Arrow Class vessels (1854). These were a very slightly smaller version of the same type of vessel, as can be seen by comparing the specifications: HMCSS Victoria specifications: · Length: 166 feet (between perpendiculars). · Beam: 27 feet. · Depth of Hold: 16 feet. · Tonnage: 580 tons (burthen) - 880 tons by displacement. HMS Arrow specifications: · Length: 160 feet (between perpendiculars). · Beam: 25.4 feet. · Depth of Hold: 13.3 feet. · Tonnage: 476 tons (burthen). One of the items a researcher turned up for me was a 'Ship Survey Reports' book (my naming as there is none given) for HMS Arrow - the contents include. Note the following extracts for the three masts, which all refer to a pole style mast above the lower mast, so this confirms this masting convention was used in steam screw sloops at least. This description though better fits what Marquardt describes as a lower mast with tall pole. What I would like to determine from the listed parameters/dimensions is what is meant by: 'to stops' in column for length (first set of dimensions) of Fore and Main mast for the topgallant - there would have been two stops? Why different lengths between two dates very close together - probably as a result of first sea trials but looking for alternate possibilities? slightly different description in second set of dimensions Many thanks Pat

For some new information please see my other thread on masting at: cheers Pat

I am sure you can cope mate Looks a nice set of PE though. cheers Pat

Hi Pete, according to the 'Nautical Dictionary' by A. Young - 1863 (pdf copies of this dictionary are available online) A heel-rope is applied through the heel of anything, particularly that which is rove through a sheave at the heel of the jib-boom, or of the bowsprit, for the purpose of hauling it out. The ropes which are used at the heels of topmasts and topgallant masts are termed mast-ropes. I hope this clears it up? cheers Pat

Hi Ilhan, where you may require risers (for bulwarks) it may have been the same construction technique as for my build. HMCSS Victoria did not have rising timbers which were extensions of the frames etc like other ships built with the normal practice of construction. Rather, rising timbers (roughtree timbers as they were called) were added as 'stout' timbers to the hull at the appropriate places - these looked similar to, but were smaller, than the usual timbers; in Victoria's case the maximum size was 8 x 6 inches for major timbers, and 6 x 6 inches for minor roughtree timbers. As Eberhard points out though, you may not need many. cheers Pat

Nice reconstruction Steven. That scalpel foil does the job nicely; I will have to file that away for the future. Unfortunately, no joy finding that other article yet, but I have not given up just yet. cheers Pat

That's looking very ship-shape Keith; I think the yard's master-shipwright would have considerable difficulty finding fault with that effort. The run of the planks looks spot-on so your planning and adjusting have served you well. cheers Pat

That looks pretty good Vossie. cheers Pat

Thanks Rob and John. Nondescript rig for a Steamer it will be then. John, that sort of explains why they keep referencing it as Barque Rig, but in this instance, she was initially planned (and masted) as a three-masted schooner. The initial plan was to revert to that rig after delivery, but I think the sailing qualities of the Barque-styled rig were too good to lose, and she retained it for most of her career. I think she finally reverted back to the three-masted schooner rig when permanently assigned to "The Survey" in late 1878. Now to just find that masting configuration somewhere cheers Pat

Hello again all. With the hope of trying to get a better definition of this sail plan, I have investigated further (again) and find this rig was quite common in the mercantile ships (especially steam assisted clippers etc) of the 1850s. See line drawing of City of Glasgow below (from Wikipedia). It appears yet again that even back then there was no name convention for the sail plan as it is most commonly referred to as "Barque Rig" while not accounting for the differences. It also further confirms the usage/configuration is associated with steam screw vessels. This is exactly the same sail plan (cannot confirm mast configuration) as for "Victoria" Just to be sure i am not going the wrong rabbit hole, does a barque rig include the fore/aft (gaff) sails? So in the absence of correct terminology I think I would have to find the belaying plan of a ship that had this rig/sail plan. In the absence of such, I think I will run with Barque sail plan and rigging, and modify it to accommodate the gaffs etc. Highly unusual that such a common rig (as it is proving to be) has not been covered with any detail or even named - perhaps we show simply run with Kipping and called it a "Steamers" rig? cheers Pat

Hi again all, following some ideas elicited from the above comments, I relooked at some plans in the NMM and came across the sail plan for the Alert Class Gun Despatch Vessels (one of the designs that heavily influenced Victoria's design - assumption) and found her sail plan (ZAZ6663 - Boxx 66 7418A). This plan (sail wise) is exactly the same and as she was a steam screw sloop; I think it is now safe to assume that this particular sail plan was designed for these type of vessels. There are no details on the mast construction, but I think I can now lean a little more on Kippings drawings and text for the masthead and fixtures as fitted for a "steamer" - now to try and find a name for that rig Also, I would greatly appreciate any pointers/ideas towards that combined pole mast used in this plan (combined topmast, topgallant and royal masts) cheers Pat

Nice progress there Steven even with the tribulations along the way - and what better excuse to add the Lion's head - cool it is cheers Pat

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