jud

Stoppers could have worked while re positioning the lower block on the cable. Have knocked the keepers off of pelican hooks holding the anchor chain and have been at the capstan when hoisting the anchor, taking in the chain when unshackling from a buoy, taking a strain on  bow lines and even used a capstan once to pull a 40mm gun out of battery. The hawse hole, chocks or blocks were used to lead the chain or lines to prevent sharp angles in all of the above. Have pulled rope around sharp angled corners and know what it does to the rope and if wood, what happens to the angle point on the wood itself, chains usually hang up in such conditions, so my question is based on experience. The hawse holes on the Constitution and ships so rigged would destroy themselves and any cable pulled through them with any strain at a near 90° angle, even a light load would do it, something missing in how the evolution was accomplished. Those old boys went to a lot of trouble to use blocks, bits, guides and fraping gear, to prevent damage to all their running and standing gear, the same care was also needed for the anchor cable and chains, those needs resulted in changes in how the hawse pipes were used to lead the cable, 'chain', out of the ship. Not a light question for me, I see a problem and I wonder how it was addressed. Have thought through how I might do it, but that is not the same as doing it or hearing from someone who actually needed to lift an anchor with that gear and hawse hole configuration. Not worth arguing about, but will continue to wonder how the anchors were lifted, I have a strong suspicion that the whole picture has not been reveled yet.
jud :)

Mark, thanks, I had seen that before and it bothered me then, it is only a solution to taking in the cable when the cable is lead out ahead of the ship, be a good way to move the ship against the wind or current until it was near the anchor. When the cable was up and down, the cable coming outboard of the hawse would bend down 90° when tension was created by the capstan pulling against the anchor that would have been under the bows, creating the up and down position of the cable.  More  modern hawse pipes  that lead the cable outboard from the powered capstan outboard do not allow an angle to develop as a hawse leading horizontally outboard does when the cable is up and down. That cable being pulled around that sharp angle would not only act as a brake but would damage the anchor cable. My question is, what was done to overcome that problem. I suspect that the cat was used to do all of the vertical lifting when recovering the anchor.
jud

Agree with all that has been noted, the cable let out beyond the depth was and is called the scope and it is there to force the flukes to dig in, bringing the ship over the anchor while hauling in on the cable will lift the stock and pull the flukes free of the bottom. It is from that point that I question and still do, something is missing in the lift, not the hauling in of the scope. Granted, exceptional measures are taken when the anchor is snagged on the bottom and sometimes the cable was cut, not questioning those things, only the everyday lifting of a anchor that is on the bottom ready to begin the vertical lift part of the recovery. When an anchor cable becomes so large it can't be used on the capstan without damaging it, why would a sharp angle on the outboard side of the hawse be OK? Thanks all.
jud

Agree with all that has been noted, the cable let out beyond the depth was and is called the scope and it is there to force the flukes to dig in, bringing the ship over the anchor while hauling in on the cable will lift the stock and pull the flukes free of the bottom. It is from that point that I question and still do, something is missing in the lift, not the hauling in of the scope. Granted, exceptional measures are taken when the anchor is snagged on the bottom and sometimes the cable was cut, not questioning those things, only the everyday lifting of a anchor that is on the bottom ready to begin the vertical lift part of the recovery. When an anchor cable becomes so large it can't be used on the capstan without damaging it, why would a sharp angle on the outboard side of the hawse be OK? Thanks all.
jud

Hi Jud
 
I agree that there's a lot of chaffing in the the final meters or feet but I think that would not be much more than the wear
from the cable on the bottom to and fro as the ship keeps swinging. I recall reading somewhere (can't place it right now) that
the part of the cable nearest to the anchor was reinforced to resist chaffing on the bottom, which would also protect the cable in the hawse.
 
 I stand corrected on my thoughts about the force necessary to start the ship moving according the the link bellow, it  seems that
they used "dead slow ahead" too.
 
https://books.google.pt/books?id=4bYoCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=hms+victory+dimensions+anchor&source=bl&ots=3wfmia38p4&sig=b6wZodd96O1ObvDaZwQ8e2cOiw0&hl=pt-PT&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjfoumRwpvNAhXMiRoKHXNHAJkQ6AEIYjAM#v=onepage&q=hms%20victory%20dimensions%20anchor&f=false
 
pages 89 and 90.
 
On page 91 I would rather say the cable paid out to be three to five times the depht of water depending on the type of bottom
and weather conditions.
 
I would say they were very much aware of the problem you raise, so much that as soon as they could place the hawseholes in a less awkward 
position (as we now have them placed) without compromising the strenght of the bows they did - iron construction.
 
Zeh

It may be worth a read of the process for "Getting up or Weighing an Anchor" published in Steel, D. 1795. Seamanship, Both in Theory and Practice. Printed and published for, and at, Steel’s Navigation-Warehouse, Tower-Hill. docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/rarebooks_1600-1800/VK541S81795.PDF. 
 
The description begins on page 154.  It is fairly brief, reflecting the process previously described (raise using the hawser until the anchor is clear the water then catted and fished).  He also describes using additional mechanical means when necessary:
 
When the strain is so great as to require other purchases, the top tackles may be used thus : The double block is lashed to the main-masl or topsail-sheet bits, the treble block is lashed on the cable, and the fall brought to the capstern. If the top-tackle falls are thought insufficient, any hawser may be used that will reeve through the blocks.
 
 

I am not sure if it is relevant to the discussion, but I wanted to point out that it is not the weight of the anchor which secures the ship.  Rather, it is the flukes of the anchor digging into the seabed (or lakebed) that does the work.  The cable is paid out to allow the anchor to lay almost horizontal...the design of the anchor does the rest.
 
When the anchor is set, hauling the anchor in does not bring the anchor to the ship.  It brings the ship to the anchor.  Once the cable is up and down the flukes break free from the bottom and the anchor can be raised.  Sailing or driving the ship to the anchor allows the cable to slacken and puts less strain on the cable.

Hi Keith;
 
I think you will find that in the days of sailing vessels a clove hitch was used where the ratlines crossed the inner shrouds,  but an eye-splice was formed in each end and this was seized to the outermost shrouds.
 
All the best,
 
Mark P

While keeping up with what lambsbk is doing with his hawse holes and the breast hook, it made me to wonder about the use of the configuration of those hawse holes and capstan to hoist the anchor. Would work well to take in the scope but when the cable became almost up and down, the angle at the hawse would act as a brake and the sharp turn would damage the cable. When the cable reached an almost up and down position was the capstan secured and the lift taken over  by the cat rigging using stoppers to reset the lifting block to the cable after each two blocking of the rig?
jud

Stoppers could have worked while re positioning the lower block on the cable. Have knocked the keepers off of pelican hooks holding the anchor chain and have been at the capstan when hoisting the anchor, taking in the chain when unshackling from a buoy, taking a strain on  bow lines and even used a capstan once to pull a 40mm gun out of battery. The hawse hole, chocks or blocks were used to lead the chain or lines to prevent sharp angles in all of the above. Have pulled rope around sharp angled corners and know what it does to the rope and if wood, what happens to the angle point on the wood itself, chains usually hang up in such conditions, so my question is based on experience. The hawse holes on the Constitution and ships so rigged would destroy themselves and any cable pulled through them with any strain at a near 90° angle, even a light load would do it, something missing in how the evolution was accomplished. Those old boys went to a lot of trouble to use blocks, bits, guides and fraping gear, to prevent damage to all their running and standing gear, the same care was also needed for the anchor cable and chains, those needs resulted in changes in how the hawse pipes were used to lead the cable, 'chain', out of the ship. Not a light question for me, I see a problem and I wonder how it was addressed. Have thought through how I might do it, but that is not the same as doing it or hearing from someone who actually needed to lift an anchor with that gear and hawse hole configuration. Not worth arguing about, but will continue to wonder how the anchors were lifted, I have a strong suspicion that the whole picture has not been reveled yet.
jud :)

Mark, thanks, I had seen that before and it bothered me then, it is only a solution to taking in the cable when the cable is lead out ahead of the ship, be a good way to move the ship against the wind or current until it was near the anchor. When the cable was up and down, the cable coming outboard of the hawse would bend down 90° when tension was created by the capstan pulling against the anchor that would have been under the bows, creating the up and down position of the cable.  More  modern hawse pipes  that lead the cable outboard from the powered capstan outboard do not allow an angle to develop as a hawse leading horizontally outboard does when the cable is up and down. That cable being pulled around that sharp angle would not only act as a brake but would damage the anchor cable. My question is, what was done to overcome that problem. I suspect that the cat was used to do all of the vertical lifting when recovering the anchor.
jud

I think one gets easily tricked by the fact an iron anchor as a very heavy object. 
 
Just some thoughts to jud´s interesting question: The cat hook is to be hooked in as soon as the ring breaks the surface. This can be seen nicely on the famous picture of the Royal Sovereign with the little man standing on the anchor´s stock handling the cat block´s hook.
 
At this moment the weight of the anchor is far less as it is not its weight of iron but only the one of the displayed water, which is - if I am right - 1/7th of the weight of iron. Afterwards the cathead, cat tackle and all the other rigging parts of the fishing rigging have to take the whole weight of the iron.
 
As the ship is always drifting with wind and current, the anchor cable always will have a certain direction a forehead. The ship should neighter run over the anchor, so a turn backwards of the cable was less favoured. Also breaking the anchor was often done by the big boats means there should usually not be the pull spill-hawse-downwards. 
 
So the pull downwards is far less than expected imho, but I do strongly believe, that a ship an a long cable, especially in a strong gale, will pull with a multitude of the anchor ´s weight. So it makes for me perfect sense to have the hawsers horizontal for that case, means in the direction of the ship pulling on the cable and having the minimum of breakage risk or chafing in those moments :-) 
 
XXXDAn

There was no way to reposition the cable to the cat, and (particularly on larger vessels), the messenger was below deck, not on the upper deck with the cat. As Zeh pointed out, the cathead was for final stage as the anchor cleared the water for stowage.

Hi Jud
 
When you start heaving the anchor you're trying to get an object weighing about 1500 tons moving.
That's the moment the chain or cable is under the greatest stress, once you get the ship moving it's easy.
When the anchor is up and down you have to contend only with someting like 3 tons, unless the anchor is fouled 
on the bottom, that bend really acts as a brake, but is not under enough stress to damage the cable.
As an aside, on ships with weak anchor winches or capstans we would go dead slow ahead as we started heaving to
overcome the inertia of the ship then stop  and let the capstan carry on.
 
The cat can only be used once the anchor is out of the water so that the tackle can be hooked to the anchor and the main purpose 
is to move the anchor from the hawseholes (where it would eventually end) to the side of the ship to then be stowed.
 
 
All the best
Zeh

Think that a cow hitch is used on the outside schrods and clove hitches between, takes advantage of the natural lay of the hitches. Been looking at the constrictor knot, it might be the better knot for the ratlines, replacing the clove hitch. popeye2sea suggested the constrictor on another post, probably a knot used by grandad on the ears of grain sacks, to start and finish sewing the tops closed, a knot I haven't used but see some use for it.
jud

Think that a cow hitch is used on the outside schrods and clove hitches between, takes advantage of the natural lay of the hitches. Been looking at the constrictor knot, it might be the better knot for the ratlines, replacing the clove hitch. popeye2sea suggested the constrictor on another post, probably a knot used by grandad on the ears of grain sacks, to start and finish sewing the tops closed, a knot I haven't used but see some use for it.
jud

Like your post # 122, shows some objective and respectful opinions about this subject.
jud

Going along very well Dashi.
I am nearly convinced to add a "transom" under the tiller of my build.
If I can get it under their now.
 
Dave R

Thanks for the likes and thanks Ron. I think Pat has offered a really good interpretation of this log entry to my question in the discussion I started on this and which could alter my representation of that tiller transom as Cook calls it. Certainly worth dropping in to check it out http://modelshipworld.com/index.php/topic/13109-hmb-endeavour-tiller-and-steering-question/. 
 
Cheers Dashi

Like your post # 122, shows some objective and respectful opinions about this subject.
jud

Like your post # 122, shows some objective and respectful opinions about this subject.
jud

Hi Gentleman,
 
have you seen this little video here ?
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWYWphMtZZg
 
Tom

Hi folks, to get back the the key discussion here, I think it prudent (for the time being) to ignore the technical definition of what exactly is a "transom" and concentrate on whether a tiller support was fitted (and when).  Once this has been determined, its naming convention can be sorted later?  Only a suggestion!
 
Druxey, I agree WRT hard fact, but I think this discussion was not trying to establish hard fact for the existence of the Tiller Support but whether such a device was a possible fit (at some stage) as implied by "interpretation of several cited log/ entries, and the curved device shown on one of the draughts - that latter part is fact as it is drawn there - but what is it?  That part can only remain conjecture unless hard evidence is found.  I think (correct me if I am wrong) that Dashi is trying to establish what this was, but we may never be able to truly determine that, but could arrive at some very real possibilities?  Similar to the yet to be fully resolved issue of whether Endeavour was fitted with bumpkins/boomkins?  I don't think there is any harm in postulating as long it is recognised that is simply a postulation?
 
The log text cited by Dashi, indicates that Cook had been experiencing troubles with the tiller for some time and that he set his armourers and carpenters to work to try and resolve the issue; and with some success in NZ.  This included fixing the iron work, including the 'braces' (still to be defined).  From my naval experience, fitting a 'jury' rig to overcome a design deficiency, or temporarily fix damaged equipment, is not unheard of (and probably acceptable back in those days also), and if the fix proved satisfactory to the task, could be formally submitted as a design change and eventually included in the ship's official drawings and if necessary, also updated in the related technical documentation.  This  approach forms the basis of my interpretation of the cited text. 
 
What I am suggesting, and is only one possible interpretation of the cited text, is that Cook may very well have contrived a jury rigged support for the tiller (in addition to fixing transom timbers, metal work etc) to overcome the issues he was experiencing, and that on his return to England, submitted the results of this "fix' in his reports to the Admiralty.  This may then have been formally included in the 1771 refit (and may therefore be the basis of the drawn curved shape in the draught - it may also have been a steering compensation device, or even a combo of both - we will probably never really know?).  Cook was the type to try new or different things, and such a support would certainly have assisted in bearing the load of the tiller arm.  As an example of Cook's willingness to try different solutions, there is a Parkinson drawing (I think it is Parkinson) which suggests that at some stage he also rigged a spare spar across the transom to provide additional flexibility to the working of the mizzen/driver (let's not deviate on that discussion here though ).
 
In summary, I am suggesting that Cook must have tried several options to resolve the many tiller issues he cites in his log/journal.  From what I have been able to determine, I do not think a tiller support was fitted in the 1768 refit, but it is possible that some form of tiller support may very well have been contrived as a jury rigged fitting during the voyage, and later formally accepted and fitted during the 1771 refit. One interpretation of the cited text infers a 'fix', but at best, the statement is a little ambiguous in that it does not directly state it was a tiller support, but it also does not eliminate it.  Therefore I submit that we should not ignore it?
 
Ranging shots complete; fire for effect
 
cheers
 
Pat

Thought I'd repost these so they don't get lost under the recent posts.

Thanks Jud. I was starting to wonder what was going on also? 
The Encyclopaedia Britannica page does mention such a thing as a Tiller Transom in reference to shipbuilding when the tiller exited the stern in earlier ships which I think Jud is pointing out also.
 
I wonder if it is possible that it is this earlier terminology Cook was drawing on to describe this transverse support timber that he got the carpenters to fix as a tiller support in place of those iron braces? I see the annotation as an attempt to clear up possible misconceptions that may have arisen here because of Cooks use of this term. Therefore I don't think we should dismiss this annotation which indicates that Cook is referring to the carpenters as fixing a transverse timber under the end of the tiller as a support.
 
 
Pat's answer seems to stack up the to the evidence and as I've already stated my representation could be wrong in light of this.