SJSoane

Thanks so much, Zeh, Dafi's log is well worth looking at. His little figures really bring the deck activity to life, and the jack screw clearly illustrates how the beams were lifted in order to pull out the pillars. Mark

Gaetan, it looks like that young child in the painting is about to do serious damage to the rigging! Your craftsmanship on the stairs continues to set the highest standard. And the photos give a nice perspective on this area of the ship. Well done! Mark

Looking again at the tops of the pillars in this image, I think the tops might be dotted lines because they are drawn the height at the centerline of the ship, but the beams are drawn at the side of the ship, covering the tops of the pillars in this view. I know in some cases in the Bellona, the pillars are at the center of the beam, so could not slide out the side. So there must be a tenon at the top as well as bottom, using the jack device to remove them. Except for the pillars that hit only partially, as seen in the far left here, or in some cases don't hit a beam at the top at all. I recall a story about Frank Lloyd Wright and his masterpiece house, Fallingwater in Pennsylvania, which has large concrete cantilevered decks over a waterfall. The story goes that the workmen did not want to go under the freshly poured concrete to knock out the form supports, for fear that it would collapse upon them. The architect, confident in his design, walked under and knocked them out himself. Now whether this story is true or not, the fact is that the decks did massively sag over the years, and had to undergo significant reconstruction a few years ago. So I wonder how much the guys cranking up a deck in a 74 worried about breaking something in the process?😗

Thanks, druxey, good thinking! Here are guns run in and out, in plan: And here is a gun run out in section. The black line shows Lavery's length, while the orange shows the additional length of Goodwin. They would be hard-pressed to use the capstan with guns on the deck. at the longer length. So I think I will use Lavery's length, although I wish he had given a source.... Gaetan, thank you for the photos. You are right, these are good examples of something so obvious to the shipwrights that they probably never would have drawn them out. But it makes sense, and it would be very easy to lift the pillars out the way when the space was needed. Best wishes, Mark

Gary, I would love to see that detail of the hinged pillars, if you ever come across it again. I have a couple of pillars that cannot sit directly under a beam because of something like a hatch below, and I am wondering how the pillar is attached at the top in these situations. Sailor, druxey points out that the pump brakes can be easily removed, and they can also be connected or disconnected in various ways so that both can drive both pumps, or one side can drive one side, or one side can drive both pumps. So I imagine if they needed to use the capstan and also pump, the fore brake would be used to drive both pumps while the aft brake was temporarily taken away to leave room for the capstan bars. While looking at this further, I discovered that Brian Lavery's book on the Bellona calls for capstan bars 11'-6" long (p. 69), while Goodwin's Construction and Fitting book calls for bars one third the beam of the ship. The drawing below shows the result of Lavery's dimension in orange, and the Goodwin dimension in black. Goodwin's dimension does get awfully close to the immovable bitt pins, so maybe it is a little closer to Lavery's dimension. Does anyone have a way to resolve which it is? I tried looking a photos of contemporary models showing the capstan bars, but it was inconclusive for me to see. Best wishes, Mark

You are right, druxey, the bars JUST clear the bitt pins on the gundeck, the purple squares below. All pillars and pump bars removed will work. They were pretty clever, weren't they?

Thanks so much, druxey, Gary and Siggi, for your observations and help. Siggi, in all of the models you have looked at, was the Bellona unique in having so many pillars on the upper and quarter decks? It sure does look like a forest of trees on the quarterdeck, and in the captain's cabin... I am amazed as I start to finalize details on the Bellona how much I have not noticed in looking at these ship drawings and models all these years. You are all helping enormously as I try to work some of these details out. I am a little envious of the drawings later in the century that show so much more detail; the Bellona drawings were clearly rushed out the door with just the bare minimum of detail. But then, I would not have had as much fun over the years working out these details... I have been working away on the drawings, noticing for example that the sheaves under the steering wheel for the tiller rope have to be dropped below the carlings in order for the rope to clear the beam just aft (see below). I have also begun to wonder how I am going to rig the tiller ropes, when this assembly will be buried under two decks before the steering wheel can be attached. I may have to build the upper and quarterdecks together, working from aft. And realizing the main capstan on the gundeck has no clearance for normal length bars, which will hit the pumps unless they are very short:

Oh, and one more curious detail. The models in the previous post show the chimney pipe for the stove as fully filling the opening in the deck. But when I draw the stove in section and also the opening in the deck as dimensioned in Slade's original drawing, there is definitely a large gap between the two. Bigger chimney, smaller opening?

Marc, I was also struck by how the first Bellona model was so heavily aged. It looked like it had centuries of old dust crusted onto it. It must have sat out of a case for a long time, and has not been cleaned for some time. I have also noted some inconsistencies, like the gratings in some places that are grossly overscale, like they were taken from another model. Compare the upper deck and quarterdeck gratings in this image: As they say in the Western United States ranching and horse culture, this model was "rode hard and put away wet".🙂 druxey and Gary, thank you once again for your close observations and exceptionally helpful advice. I have fixed the oval hole drawing, removed the pillar under the cat beam, moved a single carling under the stove to the center, redrawn the pillars under this carling, and drawn in the large posts in the beakhead bulkhead that support the cat beam and frame the opening for the bowsprit. I think as I am getting older, my powers of observation or maybe memory are not as reliable as they used to be. For example, I got it in my head that there were two carlings under the stove, but when I went back to all of my resources, I could not find that anywhere. I made it up. It sure helps to have others more knowledgable than me checking my work! Drawing more detail has shown me a few more areas where sources show different designs, for example, the railing at the aft end of the forecastle. Thomas Slade's original drawing shows knees supporting the uprights: And we see these in the original model, although almost flush with the beams and perhaps covered in some way by the planking if it were installed? These are shown clearly above the planking in Slade's original design for HMS Victory of about the same age: But the knees are gone in the second model of the Bellona, about 20 years later: And then to make life for us poor researchers even more fun, the first Bellona model shows 2 sheaves in each upright, the second Bellona model shows 1 in each upright, and the Victory model does not appear to have any. And I don't really understand how the first Bellona model could have knees and also sheaves, because the knees would be severely cut into. And how could the rigging plan work with either no sheaves, one sheave or two? Tenons into the beam, or knees, that is the question! Best wishes, Mark

Hi druxey, I edited the post, replacing that PDF with a screenshot instead. Let me know if this doesn't show up either. Mark

Hi everyone, I have been pretty silent for a while. I had to upgrade my CAD software because the old version would no longer run on the updated operating system. And you know what happens when software is upgraded; no end of issues to resolve. But I finally got everything working, and then kept plugging away at more details. I was mainly concerned to check alignments of things running through several decks, mostly the bitt pins but also the pillars. For details like the belfry, I looked at the second Bellona model, the HMS Victory as build ca. 1760, and the Princess Royal which I recently rediscovered was also designed by the Bellona's designer, Thomas Slade, just a year after the Bellona, as best I can tell. So I am thinking that details I can't figure out elsewhere might reasonably look like what is in the Princess Royal contemporary model. Here is a snapshot of the details I am beginning to pin down. I am also showing here a detail Gary (garyshipwright) first highlighted; how to provide a landing for planking around the bowsprit.

Well observed, druxey. I hadn't noticed the change in the bag of the upper rail. I wonder why, in a rebuild, they would make this change for what would be mainly an aesthetic look. Changing tastes? or they found a purpose for the space beneath the platform? In a 74 it is only about 2 feet high in the clear, and of course, split in two by the bowsprit. Mark

Gaetan, wardrope, very funny! And a beautiful wheel. You set the highest standard! Mark

Beautiful, beautiful work, Gaetan! I like seeing the shipwright assembling the tiller equipment. It really shows just how large these assemblies really are. Where does the tiller rope go after reeving through the block at the center? Is there another block that leads the rope up to the steering wheel? Mark

Gary One more thought. In terms of structure, the main issue to address is the upward lift of the bowsprit due to the lines mostly exerting an upward force. If we think of the bowsprit step as a pivot point, then the upward lift has to be counterbalanced by downward forces. The further away from the pivot point, the better, and the gammoning is furthest out and therefore more effective. Partners so close to the pivot point of the step would not be as effective, particularly since it would be the aft part of the partner resisting the upward lift, and this is super close to the step, less effective. In fact, if the gammoning is tight, I don't see how there would be any upward movement of the bowsprit at the location of the partners that the partners would need to resist. The engineers in the group might have a better thought about this... Mark

Hi Gary, Many apologies if I am late to the party in helping think about this bowsprit deck framing question. Too many things taking me away from the shop lately... But here are some more thoughts. I have always wondered about those delicate little diagonal pieces in the forecastle partners for the foremast in the first Bellona model. They can't make sense as real partners, so they must be a model-making shorthand for saying "partners go here". Although why they would detail everything else accurately and not this, I have no idea... So if that is the case, then I think druxey is right in saying that the real issue is how to land the planks around the bowsprit, coming in at an angle to the deck. I agree with Alan that this does not have to be structural, because there is already the step, the top of the stem, gammoning and stays holding the bowsprit in place. I drew in purple the areas where a "thicker than planking" but "thinner than a structural step" would be needed to land the planks around the bowsprit. There would not be a need for planking fore of the bowsprit as Siggi pointed out, particularly since it is directly beneath the platform at the beakhead; but aft is definitely a walkable area needing planking. So is this like the thicker baulking around the opening for the rudder at the stern of this deck? the purple highlighted in the cross section is the depth of the carling on either side of the bowsprit. Maybe the baulking could be a little thinner? Best wishes, Mark

Exceptionally eautiful work, Karl, as usual for you! I like the way you make a pattern for the hanging knees, using little pieces with a general template. I will use that idea! Mark

Hi Gary, I just caught up on your postings. It sure is helpful to see you working on all of the things that I know are are coming next for me! I will look around a little to see if I find anything about where the bowsprit goes through the deck.... It is looking great, including the beakhead bulkhead framing! Mark

Hi Alan, Great news! Now you will always have that feeling when you look at one of your details blown up in high resolution photos! Yes, I was also struck by the contrast between the precise rules for sizing blocks relative to rope diameters, only to see in Steel's tables that there is not a close correlation in many cases. They did seem to standardize on some basic block sizes, so as not to have to carry hundreds of different sized replacements. So why did they not say, "for circumferences from x to y, the sheave size is z". Who can I call about this.....😏 Mark

Hi druxey, I see now. I confused its length because of the wheel handle coming down in front. So it looks like it would be shorter than the actual travel of the rope lock to lock, but more than chafing in a hole just a little bigger than the rope. I will use it, because I would reasonably guess the sliding cover as in Victory would have been something later than 1760. More work on the pillars, now on the upper deck reaching to the quarterdeck and forecastle. I am mainly working from what I can see in my photos of the original Bellona model (below), and what seems rational. For example, no pillars beside the aft hatch, and therefore no pillars possible there because the centers do no line up with any beams above. No pillars close to the bitts, because they are providing vertical support at their locations. Except, the model shows pillars under the fore brace bitts on the quarterdeck. Also, iron columns beside the stove. I am not sure about pillars in the wardroom on the upper deck. It looks like there are more in the last photo below, but I can't quite see if it is every beam, and how far astern. I seem to have more beams in the quarterdeck over the wardroom than the model shows, but my beams are taken directly from the original dockyard drawings. 5:00 Mountain time, sun over the yardarm, and time for a scotch to think about it! Mark

I have been pulled out of the workshop by other stuff for a while--don't you hate how that happens?--but back to it! Thanks, Gary, I added those additional pillars: It is a little tight on the tiller, I may have to trim it back just a bit. And the one just forward of the fore riding bitt has to miss the square hatch on the gundeck, so it stands just aft of the beam in the upper deck above. Maybe it just ran up to the deck above, or maybe it was longer and bolted to the side of the beam above. I am showing the carlings under the stove in the section above, but they are on the sides, not the center, so they don't interact with the central pillar. Or maybe the pillar at this point is two, so it can sit under the stove carlings at this one location? druxey, thanks for that photo. If it is indeed a single hole with a hood, then I guess they didn't originally worry too much about chafing. Because the initial sketch you sent, and that I redrew for the Bellona, clearly shows the rope will traverse back and forth from the wheel. Interesting! My photo of the original Bellona model frustratingly shows no detail here. This issue shows how a technological invention--the steering wheel--had to be adjusted over time as experience showed some of the shortcomings of the original version. Happens at light speed today, much slower back then. We might have enjoyed a slightly slower pace of life! Mark

Wow, those are beautiful, Gary. I see why you chose this one. And I see it has a smooth, serpentine curve on the stern balcony, just like the original Bellona. The later Bellona brought the balcony in to a sharp corner at the frame ends, which I don't think is as graceful as the one you and I will be building. Mark

Gary, Thanks so much, I completely forgot about that image of the Ajax. I used that to map against the Bellona gundeck framing, and with the exception of a beam or two not the same, they pretty much line up. The pattern seems to be this: no pillars aft of the mizzen mast, because they would interfere with the tiller. A single row in most places, except around the aft capstan and the hatches around the mainmast. They match up to every beam in the upper deck, needing a little offset on the gundeck in order to center on the upper deck beams. The only beam that cannot get a pillar is the one directly forward of the riding bits. The gundeck and the upper deck beams are too offset to match. thanks so much, Gary, you really helped me figure this one out! Best wishes, Mark

Hi Gary, I see you changed the name of your build to HMS Montague/Alfred Class. I am curious, since I don't know the history of this class. Was the Montague before or after the Alfred, and were there major differences in decoration, etc.? Best wishes, Mark

When in doubt, look at the original source! I wish my brain worked better in retirement.... Here are my own photos of the Bellona first model. The pillars clearly run down the center, except where the center is interrupted by capstans, bowsprits, etc. And heads are always aligned with a beam, whereas feet can land on the binding strake when the beams do not line up. I guess I will just start plotting logical locations based on this observation, and see how things turn out! So now we know, a 74 primarily uses a single row, a first and second rate use two rows. Best wishes, Mark