Stockholm tar

Eamonn, All I can say is that you're either a glutton for punishment – or you wanted to prolong the enjoyment of the hunt!

Eamonn, I felt that I couldn't let that one go. As for the scrabbling around on the floor, well, I think we've all been there – I hope you enjoyed it! Of course the real joy (?) comes when you actually put your knee on the part in question, which usually means that it has a sharp corner to inflict even more pain.

Well, ok, if you insist.

Eamonn, Ahem, really? You do realise, of course, that this is a family website! Anyway, moving very swiftly on to the Ballahooligan, your doghouse is beginning to look a treat – even the dog would be pleased. The idea of an open sliding hatch would also show the top steps, and somehow invites you to come below – should you be 1/64th scale! Be interesting to see how this turns out.

Shihawk, I think the positions of the tackles would depend on what position the gun was in – whether run in, run out, or housed for bad weather. Many modellers like to show the side tackles in a tight coil, sometimes known as a cheese, beside the gun, but I think this was usually only done for inspection purposes, and at other times they would have been coiled as per normal. During action of course, they probably wouldn't have been coiled at all. I don't really know, but I would imagine the coils would only have been on the deck during action, and the above mentioned inspections, and at other times would have been hung from the gun. This would have kept them out of the way probably for two reasons: 1) the gun decks would have been washed too; 2) the deck was also used as living space, and tables were also hung between the guns for the men to eat at. You can see that in this situation they would have been a hazard. When the guns were secured for heavy weather, the gun was hauled up to the ship's side and the muzzle triced up to two ringbolts above the port. The side tackles were obviously hauled taught, and I believe the length of line was then hitched around the tackle itself just below the blocks, in a series of hitches, to use up the rope. Alternatively I have seen a drawing where the ends of the tackles are passed over the gun barrel to the opposite side, and tightly hitched to the opposite tackle. All ot this of course was to prevent the gun from moving, and I think wedges were also placed under the trucks. I have not heard or read of belaying pins being used below decks for the coils or attached to the ship's side, only cleats in the deckhead for the gun port lid tackles. I hope this helps – although I am not an expert on this!

Geoff, We aim to please.

Geoff, You make a good point. 'Decorative' as rope coils might look on the decks of a model, this wasn't normal ship practice. There was a good reason for this – it encouraged rot. Everything was done on board ship to minimise wear and tear (which after all means money spent) and this included the running rigging. Wherever possible rope coils were hung from the belaying pin they were associated with, or perhaps from a cleat if a large rope, so that no part of it touched the deck. Apart from gravity, this also allowed air to circulate around it and so dry it. Ropes left lying on deck would probably never dry out, being repeatedly wetted by either salt or fresh water. If you consider a deck (with rope coils laid on it) which has just been rained on, or a sea has come over the side, the deck itself might gradually dry out, but you can bet that that part of it under the coils will still remain wet or damp – an ideal situation for rot to set in. Apart from that a heavy sea coming aboard would also leave the coils in a hopeless tangle, so coils on deck are also a safety hazard. From experience, the only time you would normally see a large amount of rope on deck, is when the ship is either setting or furling sail, or engaged in some manouver such as tacking or wearing. At these times, you have to be very careful where you put your feet, and you should never stand on a rope in this situation if you can avoid it – in case it moved without warning. The last order normally given after such an operation was to 'tidy up the spaghetti' – ie, coil up, and hang the running rigging from its pin. I should mention that this practice is followed today, even though the rope concerned might perhaps be modern Polypropolene, which will probably also deteriorate eventually.

Testazyk, No, I don't think so – I believe it's an OSWT! (Old Sailors Wives Tale) If you look around the Victory, none of the ship's sides on the gun decks are painted red (as Kevin has said, they were white to reflect light) and that probably went for most ships. I think the only place where there is red 'paint' is on the orlop, where the cables are stowed, and I read that it was used there as it had certain waterproofing properties. I would imagine it wouldn't have made much of a difference to the men anyway. The gun crews on a warship which saw a lot of action were, I am sure, quite used to the sight of blood and other horrors – and it wouldn't have been limited to the ship's sides. I have an idea the ship's sides may have been red in earlier centuries, but I am not sure about that. If so, the later red around the gunports and inside of the lids, may perhaps be the remnants of it.

Jason, You're doing a really good job on the Snake, very neat. Regarding the lines coming off the pins, I do it more or less as they would on the real ship: Following the figure of eight turns, the line then comes off the top of the pin (as you have it) and I leave a 'tail' (a little shorter than you have them in the photos). Make your coil (so that it hangs off the deck of course) pass the end of the tail through it, and secure it to the turns (at rail height) with a spot of glue and leave to dry (making sure the coil is hanging vertically). Then bring the tail up over the coil, pass it around the pin, and bring it down over the front of the coil again and secure with a spot of glue. Cut the end off close and tuck it under the coil, using another dab of glue if neccessary. That seems to work well, and looks good.

Druxey, Thanks. I have called it a project, but I think it'll turn out to be more of a challenge, which is good – I think. I'm looking on this as my first foray into scratch building, even if is only half the ship! Thus I intend to use half frames (I am thinking of birch ply) fixed to a backboard, and planked in the normal way. I may even double plank it. I realise this is not the normal way it was done, although I am sure there are examples, and that most were either solid hull, or constructed on the bread and butter system. However she is quite long, and I also want to keep the weight down since the backboard that I have in mind is reasonably heavy (I'll say more about that in my next post.) Anyway, onward and upward – and there are still those jobs to do! Btw, I was somewhat glad not to be on the return trip to Norway with the girl's choir, as i imagine it might have been rather noisy.

Mike, You've gone into this kit, and its failings, in great detail. I don't know either kit, but if everything points to the Lyme as being the vessel to go for then I say – do what your heart, and head, tell you. Your log, and the way you have overcome the many problems (and found new ones), is an inspiration. It's great reading already – so I think it can only get more interesting with the change to the new ship! You have great support in Ian too – even to him buying a set of Lyme plans as well! Btw, I believe the lateen yard was retained for some while after the sail forward of the mast disappeared, as it could be used as a square sail yard, should one get shot away or severly damaged in battle. I believe the Victory retained hers until around the mid 1790's.

This will be my summer project, as I believe I mentioned in my Sherbourne log. Rather a change from the cutter I have been working on, I’m sure you will agree – well, for a start, there aren’t any guns! But why this particular ship, and why a half-hull, you may well ask? Well, read on, but first a bit of history… The ’Statsraad Lehmkuhl’ was built as a steel barque for the German Schoolship Association and launched at Bremerhaven-Geestemunde in January 1914. She was originally named ’Grossherzog Friedrich August’, after the then Duke of Oldenburg, and used to train merchant navy cadets. Taken as reparations by the British after the First World War, she was then sold to Norway in 1921 and renamed ’Statsraad Lehmkuhl’, after the minister Kristoffer Lehmkuhl (Statsraad meaning cabinet minister), who had worked in the interests of sail training. She was put into service in 1923 as a sail training ship for Bergens Skoleskib and used as such until the Second World War, when was taken over by Nazi Germany and given the name ’Westwärts’. Following hostilities she reverted to her previous ownership and name, and was put back into service following renovation. She continued to sail until 1966, when she was laid up due to financial difficulties, until in 1978 she was bought by shipowner Hilmar Reksten, who donated her to the Statsraad Lehmkuhl Foundation. She is based in Bergen. (She will be referred to as SL hereafter.) Today the organisation welcomes ’trainees’ of all ages and nationalities to sail on board, and she is also used by schools, and employees in corporate business. In 2000 German naval cadets trained on board whilst the ’Gorch Foch’ was being refitted, and since 2002 she has been officially used for training cadets of the Royal Norwegian Navy. Her voyages have taken her across the Atlantic to America several times, and she is a frequent participant in the Tall Ships Races. Under sail she has frequently reached a speed of 17 knots and, on at least one occasion, 18 knots was recorded. Her website contains further details, both about her and her training programme. Although I have referred, colloquially, to SL as a ’ship’ she is of course, and always has been, rigged as a barque – square rigged on the fore and main masts, fore-and-aft rigged on the mizzen. By convention, the barque as originally conceived had three masts and reference to their number was not normally made. There are four main reasons for my building this half model: 1) I had spent three weeks aboard the barque in the June/July of 1988, sailing from Bergen, Norway (where she is based) to South Shields in the UK, back to Bergen and thence to Leith, Scotland. I had originally booked for two weeks on board and had intended to return to the UK from Bergen by ferry. However, following my cruise, the SL was due to sail to Leith to pick up a Norwegian girl’s choir that had been appearing at the Edinburgh Festival. Thus, courtesy of the captain, I was able to spend another week aboard the ship – at no extra charge. 2/ On board I met the Swedish girl who was later to become my wife. Therefore the model is largely being made for her. 3/ This year, 2014, marks SL’s centenary. The late Harold Underhill thought her to be perhaps being the most beautiful of the barques of that time, and I tend to agree. Even at 100 years old, I think she is still better looking (from any angle) than some later vessels. 4) Half-hulls are interesting in themselves historically for, although they are now largely used for decorative purposes, they were originally used as part of the building process of an actual ship. Approximate Dimensions: The ship: Hull length, 277.’ (84.60 metres); Sparred length, 321’ (98 meters); Beam - 41’ (12.60 metres); Draught -17’ (5.20 metres); Gross tonnage - 1516 tonnes; Height mainmast: 157.48' (48 metres); Sails: 22; Sail area: 2062 m2. The model: Hull length - 36” (91.44 cm) Sparred length - 40” (101.6 cm); ’Half-beam’ - 2 ¾” (6.98 cm); Draught – 2” (5.08 cm); Gross tonnage – 0! The model will be built using plans drawn up for the ’Grossherzogin Friedrich August’, by the late Harold Underhill – the Lines and Profile, drawn to a scale of 1/8th” to 1’ – which will make the model of a good size to admit of some detail. Even though the plans are for the ship under her original name, the deck layout and other details have not been altered a great deal and any changes that have been made appear to be minimal – such as the positioning of boats, alteration to the figurehead, etc. How much detail I will include, I have not yet decided, but there will of course only be stump masts. As mentioned this will be a summer project (for the approximately four months we are here at our cottage) and I intend to store her here over the winter, suitably protected of course, and continue working on her next year – and probably the year after that! At a suitable stage she will be moved to the flat in town, where a spot has already been designated for her, atop a long bookcase. Unfortunately, there are plenty of other jobs to take me away from the project, but I hope to be able work on her whenever I can – so watch this space! In the meantime here is a link to one or two photos of her: https://www.google.se/search?q=statsraad+lehmkuhl+%2B+photos&client=firefox-a&hs=rRS&rls=org.mozilla:sv-SE:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=sCbEU5T3Goe9ygO-8YDYDA&ved=0CCIQsAQ&biw=1065&bih=509#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=uMfSHUqYE4cyxM%253A%3B9Ix4jWbc9xIczM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Feuroclippers.typepad.fr%252Fphotos%252Funcategorized%252F2008%252F11%252F10%252Fstatsraad_lehmkuhl_mudie_1.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Feuroclippers.typepad.fr%252Fuk%252F2008%252F11%252Ffinancial-cri-1.html%3B500%3B768

Gregor, She's looking very good, I must say! Your mentioned the topsail bowlines earlier, and whether Sherbourne would have had them – I would say yes and, further, Goodwin shows them (starboard side only) on page 115, of the AOTS Alert. The single blocks for them are connected to strops, fitted around the bowsprit just aft of the cranse iron. That's another two pins you'll need (and probably me as well) somewhere near the bow! Aaagh! Actually, what surprises me more is that the topgallant, which is a far bigger sail, doesn't have them. However, this would obviously be furled in heavy weather. Petersson may not be wrong in showing them without the sail itself. They are pretty long lengths of rope, and I would see no need to unreave them, unless for an extended period. Models without sails are often shown with them bent to the yard, at the position the sails would normally occupy when furled. Jay, I don't have Petersson with me just now but I seem to think his cutter was about 1780, judging from the rigging details, so its seems his thinking is a bit at odds with Lyon, re. the Expedition. Another point is that his drawing postdates the method of hoisting the yards, which the Alert of 1777 has (four) and, I surmise, the Sherbourne of 1763. This method seems to have been superceded in the 1780's by the more modern one. .

Mike, Unfortunately it is not clear on the drawing, at least to me, which are the companionways and which the hatches. Generally though, the drawings would have made sense to those who drew them up, and they are obviously genuine. Warships were pretty cramped – certainly ones of the size of Lyme and Unicorn – and what might look awkward and confined to us, to the seamen of the day were considered as normal. There were also most likely rules and regulations as to what parts of the ship could be used during a particular operation. Thus when the anchor was being weighed or let go, it may perhaps have been the rule (known to all on board) not to use the forward companionway. As to the stanchions and railings, these would have been quite easily removable when the cable was being worked, and then replaced – but there was probably also a means of closing the hatch to prevent accidents, very likely a grating. You suggest a hatch cover but I would have thought a grating much more likely, since one of the prime considerations would have been to circulate air below decks. As to the companion forward of the main mast, I can't see that stepping on the grating if you had to, would present a particular problem. The holes in it would probably not be big enough for a man to easily get his foot stuck – and I think they would have been strong enough to bear the weight of a seaman or two! I imagine the Pandora and Guadaloupe were later ships (?) where the designer had other ideas.

Michael, Now she's looking like a real working boat. Good job. Will the deck line will be longer and continuous?

Mike, I can see it now – 'I'm just going out to ballantine the hose, dear.' Frankie, Thanks for that detailed description. I'll have to try it. Btw, any idea why it's called a Ballentine coil? My guess is it's from the man who invented it.

Having sailed on a couple of schooners when I was younger, I have to say I don't remember this problem. The throat and peak halliards were normally made fast to the pin , and the coils hung from them, as mentioned previously. Yes, the halliard was 'double ended', i.e. it was primarily belayed to one pin, but could be tightened that bit extra on the second fall. As Spyglass said, I have never seen or heard of this Ballantine coil either. Interesting and thanks for the pics of it. Perhaps you only have it across the pond?

Michael, If you want to have a model of a working pilot cutter, then I'd go with the dark hull (black or perhaps dark blue); if you want her as a yacht (perhaps after her working life) then white might be ok. Having sailed on one years ago, which still retained her black hull, I'd go with the former. Incidentally, many of the owners of these craft still like to keep their boat's working look, and in many cases their old number, as they are historic craft. It might be worth pointing out that the Jolie Brise, a former French cutter from 1913, also has a black hull. I agree with the comment that you can relieve the colour somewhat with a contrasting line.

Ian, I think there would usually have been racks, ie. thick planks with hollows to take the balls, around the edge of the hatches. Check out some of the Bounty logs.

Nigel, I think most of us have seen this model, either in the catalogue or for real (in my case in a model shop), and thought 'what a great model'. BE made a superb job of his, and I expect you will do the same – given your penchant for accuracy! Looking forward to seeing how she turns out. I suppose the only down side is that it will slow up work on your other models – but I guess you will just have to 'bite the bullet'! Btw, I trust you didn't take any 'selfies' whilst watching the Tour de France – and now seemingly England?

Eamonn, I don't think anyone really knows. Some people call it the sun, I believe, although I always thought that was something else. Anyway, we don't often see that yellowy round thing much up here either – the last couple of days have been an exception, however, so we're outside too, and as well. The plans for the dog house sound rather involved. Will it be carpeted – deep pile Axminster, or Wilton perhaps? Look forward to the pics.

Mark, A Very Happy Birthday, to you! Your Licorne is looking tremendous, great workmanship. Nice and steady does it. Btw, thanks for all you do for MSW.

Mike, The ensign on your Badger looks ok to me as well (pre 1801 Union Flag in the upper corner) - and I just might have mentioned it! Ian, I had the same job as you did, both at my last school and at the museum where I later worked, which must have stemmed from my interest. I wasn't under the same compunction as you were, although I do remember things going wrong on occasion!

Mike, Good choice of kit and, as I mentioned on the Unicorn thread, it should help with that model. This will be one to watch, I think. I was going to mention the flags, but I see Ian has beaten me to it!

Mike, Sounds like a good plan. Working on Pegasus at the same time would, as you say, most likely help in decifering the plans of the Unicorn. At the very least, it might stop you going bananas!