druxey

Many ships from about 1810 on had diagonal deck planking. There are a number of deck plans c.1810-15 in the NMM collection showing this form of construction. I suspect Seppings may have played a role in this (then) innovation. 

HMS TERROR, 1845, UPPER DECK PLAN (AS FITTED)
 
The last technical plan required for HMS Terror is the upper deck, which I have finally completed.
 

Please note: This plan has been updated - please consult my later posts.
                                                                                           
The original 1836 and 1839 deck plans for HMS Terror show the outlines of the ship with planking installed. Therefore, on my plans, I have included the outline of the frames as well as the planking to better facilitate construction. Like the original plans, the position of the solid chock channels accounts for tumblehome. Because the 1839 plans depict HMS Erebus, my plans are based on the 1836 upper deck plans for HMS Terror, but the deck furniture is the same type and style as depicted on the 1839 sheets (see previous posts for rationale). Similar to the profile plans, the position of the deck furniture is based on the 1836 sheets.
 
The most substantial modifications to the plans are at the stern - to accommodate the new position of the rudder and the well for the screw propeller. As a result, the central structure on the stern containing the cistern, color boxes, and water closet was removed from these plans (presumably these were moved to the position of one of the chicken coops). These modifications are also depicted in a contemporary image of the Erebus drawn by Owen Stanley, which shows two large structures on either side of the vessel at the stern.
 
The deck planking on the vessels was unusual and was not depicted in any contemporary plans. Rice (Ross 1847), the shipwright responsible for the refitting, described them in detail:
 

 
A contemporary model of HMS Erebus displays that the upper layer of deck planking angled outwards and forwards from the central planks towards the bulwarks. This style was also used for the upper deck of HMS Investigator, which searched for the Franklin vessels on two voyages between 1848-1853. Investigator’s upper deck plan shows that the planking was placed on an angle about 45 degrees from the centerline. On my plans, the width of the central planks is based on the 1839 midships cross section, but the width of outer planks is not described in any contemporary sources and required more research. Fortunately, an archaeologist at the Canadian Museum of Civilization, has recently identified a piece of 3 inch thick “fir” deck planking that she demonstrates is very likely to be from one of the vessels (if so it is the only piece of the ships known to currently exist). The plank is exactly 7 inches wide; therefore this is the dimension I use on my plans. 
 
References:
Ross, Sir James Clark
1847    A Voyage of Discovery and Research in the Southern and Antarctic Regions, During the Years 1839-1843: Volume I. John Murray, London.
 
As always, please see my blog for better images.

Here is short video guide how to make it like this

 
 
(click CC to turn on subtitles)

Very neat indeed, Chris! Enjoy rattling down.....

Jaxboat: I've used Fiebing's dye - both brown and black - for some years now, with no apparent fading. Of course, the models are never exposed to direct sunlight.

Jaxboat: I've used Fiebing's dye - both brown and black - for some years now, with no apparent fading. Of course, the models are never exposed to direct sunlight.

Greg & Druxey, Thanks for the guidance.  I used my measuring stick to get the approximate length of the beam arms but I won't glue them yet.  Upper deck ceilings now treenailed and installed and ready for testing the fit of the beams.
Maury

At 1:48 scale, from counter timbers to the knee of the head she's a very sweet 22". Just for laughs, I've attached a rejected Swan bow for comparison. It makes our little sloop of war look huge doesn't it? So far only box has been used but holly wales are next with Fiebings leather dye to blacken.

The deck clamp was built up from two layers of pine strips, much the same as the hull's battens.  The sub deck would be 3/16" luan plywood with strips glued down on top for the visible decking, so the deck clamp was set down so the finished deck would be flush with the sheer.
 
 
The subdeck was cut from the ply and fitted

 
Then the positions of the hatches and deck furniture marked on it to determine where the deck beams would be needed.

 
At this point I only had two sources for the ship's spar deck layout; Chapelle's drawing of Constellation from The History of the American Sailing Navy, and model plans of the ship from A.J.Fisher which the people restoring the actual ship told me they were using.  The Fisher drawings are of the ship in 1941 and very crude.  Chapelle's drawing says they are from the original drawings, but the 1854 drawing of the spar deck was missing from the National Archives.  The major differences being the main hatch in 1941 was shaped like a capital I and the galley hatch had a house on it - neither of which are on Chapelle's drawing.  I opted to go with Chapelle.  Later, I found more information that vindicated my decision.

 
Down in the hull, straight beams were installed to carry the equipment decks where the radio equipment and sail controls would be mounted.  I also decided to step the masts on these decks.  The deck beams were laid out to form mast partners and hatch framing.  Each beam was cambered and notched to hook under the deck clamp.  The subdeck would be epoxied on and sandwhich the beams and the deck clamp all together.
 
 
Temporary mast steps were put in to get the mast partners properly aligned, and the subdeck was sawn into 2 inch wide strips so it could conform to both the beams camber and the boat's sheer.
 

While I considered what to do about the plug, I found some very nice white cedar while getting something else at the lumber yard, so I began making the lower masts.
Since I had no plans for Constellation's spars specifically, I used several sources for the details, including Spars and Rigging From Nautical Routine, 1849 and Biddlecomb's Art of Rigging, but the best source I found for this 1850's warship was Luce's Textbook of Seamanship which has some very detailed drawings of the rigging of this period.
 
After drawing the spars full-scale, I cut the cedar to the rough dimensions on a table saw:
 
 
I then marked out the details and the taper:
 
 
Shaved the taper, then marked the spar to make it 8-sided:
 
 
The masts were banded with the same brown paper tape the plug was made from, the hounds and the front fish were made and attached:
 
 
The cross-trees and trestle-trees for the lower tops were made along with a rough set of mast caps:
 
 
The topmasts were made from the same cedar and in the same manner as the lower masts.  Some temporary mast steps were placed inside the plug, a stand made from 3/8" plywood to hold the model up, and some paint went on the lower masts.

 
By this time I was convinced that glassing the plug and making it the model's hull was the best course to take...
 
Next: Prepping to glass

Looking better and better with every bit of progress. 

more

Speedwell's framing has finally been completed. Note the various shifts and casts of the toptimbers as they frame the ports. There are many more of these on this vessel than on a Swan class ship and they can be challenging at times. My plan is to plank her from the ports up and rig her.

BassicBill, sorry about the slow response, my internet has been out since yesterday.  I just went and snapped a couple of pictures of the old girl, she got knocked around pretty good on my cross country move and I have repaired her yet.  shame on me.  but here a couple of pics.

Tomas----
I owned one once, but had to close. The wretched customers spilled glue on everything, often attaching themselves to the glassware permanently. They never had any money, always yammering about "saving for the Agamemnon", whatever THAT meant. Then,one night, I hired the Rolling Stones to play, and the customers walked out because the band refused to play "chanteys and hornpipes". They also had an unnerving tendency for self-mutilation, with one bizzare woman taking an xacto to her own hand....horrible. The last straw: Every time I served a nice tall mug of hot Irish coffee, the bastards would stick planking in it.
I don't need that kind of grief....
john

Indeed, if one is looking for authenticity, a fully planked model should also be painted. Why don't we all do that ? Well, I guess for most of us it's just a matter of aesthetics: some find natural wood or stained wood looks better, others don't want their beautiful job of a planking to be hidden under a coat of paint, some are afraid to spoil the model with a poor painting job... For instance I did not paint the hull of my fisrt model beacause the contrast between the different woods pleased me (and the model was not based on any particular boat anyway) but I will paint the second one trying to respect the colour scheme of its period and country both for authenticity and for aestetic reasons (I don't like the look of walnut).
As for museum models, I think that many models were made as shipyard prototypes (like the Admiralty models with partially planked hulls and no masts) so they were left unpainted. Then maybe modelers thought that this was perfection and where inclined not to paint their models (a bit as we constructed buildings with white columns, taking inspiration from Greek and Roman temples, not knowing that they were painted at the time).
Just my two cents' but I think the main answer is "aesthetics".

ccoyle, absolutely fantastic.

Now that we have more instructions and plans, I'm back to work on the section.  The sanding jig is a great idea.  The beams and arms all  have the same round-up shape top and bottom.  Cutting the tenons on the beam arms before they are cut to rough shape is easy on the table saw.  I assume we will cut the matching mortices on the beams the same way on the saw.  That way, they are all the same depth.  Careful marking will be very important when the time comes.  The second pic. shows the beams and arms at this stage.  Next comes marking the height of the ceiling planks, then trial placement.  Setting the beams in place is easy once you get the spacing jig cut right.  Next is drilling the ceilings for tree nails.
Maury

And finally, a few dabs of touch-up paint here and there, and a careful separation of the model from its working base (sliding mono-filament line between the two does the trick neatly), and V108 is done, done, done!



 
I hope you have enjoyed reading this tutorial as much as I have enjoyed creating it.  I really, really hope that at least a few of you will be emboldened by this little treatise to step out and try a card model of your own.  Let's see what you can do!

Mark has the best advice. Stop and think. Which way am I going? Kits or scratch built? Now make two lists. One, 'things I want'. Two 'Things I need.' That will clarify your thinking before you spend like, well, a drunken sailor.

Mark has the best advice. Stop and think. Which way am I going? Kits or scratch built? Now make two lists. One, 'things I want'. Two 'Things I need.' That will clarify your thinking before you spend like, well, a drunken sailor.

Max,
 
Put the checkbook down.  Make a cup/glass of your favorite beverage and sit back.  Now ask yourself this:  Where do I want go with this hobby?   If it's kits then power tools are a waste of money.  If it's scratch building, then kits are a waste of money. 
 
Then ask yourself:  Where am I in the shipbuilding learning curve? If you're doing more and more scratch work and bashing, what tools will most useful for that? 
 
It's a growth process, I think.  When you're ready for the big power tool, you'll know it and no one will convince you otherwise.    if you're more kit oriented, go for the kit and put the money away until you need that "next thing".. be it tools, kits, or wood.
 
Now I could tell you exactly what I'd buy, but it may not be what you'd want or need.   Kinda' evil, aren't I?

TERROR MODIFIED: THE HISTORIC PLANS (Part 1)
  As outlined in a previous post, HMS Terror, originally designed as a bomb ship, was extensively modified three times for separate polar expeditions. Like all bomb vessels, she was already  highly specialized, with an exceptionally strong frame built to withstand the punishing recoil of her two massive mortars, and a spacious hold for storing munitions (for an excellent discussion of the Terror’s original configuration, please consult Ware [1991]). To build an accurate model of the Terror as fitted for the 1845 expedition requires concatenating design information from all of the plans as well as data from other historical sources. The plans discussed here are preserved at the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich, and copies are available for purchase from their online image library. Detailed images of the plans are also presented in Ware (1991).
  1812 Sheets A full set of plans “as designed” and dated March 30th, 1812, exist for HMS Terror; these are shared with her identical sister ship HMS Beelzebub. It is important to note that HMS Vesuvius plans are virtually indistinguishable and the two sets only differ in minor details (for example the scarph joints on the keel are not depicted in the Vesuvius plans). HMS Terror was so extensively modified that its final 1845 form bore little outward resemblance to her original design. The 1812 plans are critical, however, as they are the only drawings that depict her sheer, half breadth, and body plans, lines, framing configuration, keel and keelson construction, and stem and stern architecture.
  1836 Sheets HMS Terror’s first extensive modification began in 1835 and is outlined in a series of plans dated March 1836 (and later December 1837) which depict the inboard profile and all decks. The plans are extremely important because they illustrate the fundamental refit of the Terror - and thus represent her final overall size and shape of as she appeared in 1845. The plans also document some important innovations for polar exploration that would be adopted by all subsequent polar expeditions (for an excellent overview see Battersby and Carney 2011).

Perhaps the most extensive modification depicted in these documents was the creation a flush deck with two layers of thee inch planking to increase strength. Though not depicted on the plans, contemporary images by Owen Stanley reveal that the copper sheathing on the Terror’s hull below the waterline was removed as protection from shipworm was not needed in the freezing waters of the Arctic. In its place, a cross-shaped series of thick copper reinforcement plates were riveted to the bow to protect against ice damage.

The ship’s profile was modified significantly as well. The stern galleries were removed (to eliminate any projection that would catch the ice), and the stern, at the position of the upper and lower decks, was both lengthened and widened, presumably to provide more space on these decks. The bow was altered as well, with the keel simplified and the ship lengthened overall. It is uncertain if the cant frames were altered or if the bow was simply bolstered behind the new copper reinforcing plates (a strong likelihood), but the plans clearly depict a forward change in the overall frame position.

On the interior, the Terror’s bow was reinforced with solid oak chocks bolted to the stemson, forming a solid mass of wood ranging between 4 and 8 feet thick from the wale down to the keelson. In an effort to strengthen and streamline her contours against the grasping ice, each of her chock channels were individually filled in and planked over.  Thick iron plates were added to their upper surface, and the chains were replaced with solid iron plates bolted to the planked chocks. A spare rudder was suspended in a special well just behind the mainmast which penetrated from the upper deck down to the hold.

According to the inboard profile, the Terror’s mast positions were moved forward slightly and the rake of her masts, particularly the mizzenmast, appear to have been altered. It is uncertain when these modifications occurred, but they were probably done to improve the sailing qualities of the vessel (see previous post). In fact, they might have been undertaken during extensive repairs after the Terror was nearly wrecked in Portugal in 1828.

A cistern for melting ice was added to the ship’s stove, and 47 large iron storage tanks were added to the hold for water and other provisions. A novel addition was a hot water heating system fueled by a massive furnace in the orlop deck. The system functioned by pumping warm water through a complex series of pipes into the crew’s quarters on the lower deck. The furnace was an abject failure; it never worked as designed and George Back (1838) reported that it constantly had to be dismantled and repaired:
 

 
Perhaps the most overlooked innovation instituted during the 1835 refit was a system of watertight bulkheads designed to make the ship unsinkable. The concept of airtight chambers appears to have been the invention of Sir Robert Seppings and was first implemented by Sir Edward Belcher on HMS Aetna (Belcher 1870: 156).  As Belcher described, “the Terror was the model ship” for an entirely new coal-based bulkhead system and it was to be used by him in the abortive rescue of the stranded whalers in 1835 (see previous post). He describes the system thusly (Belcher 1870:156):
 


 
Though Back (1838) gave them no credit, the bulkheads undoubtedly helped keep the Terror afloat during her harrowing return journey across the Atlantic. As Belcher (1870:156) described:  
  The Naval authority must have agreed with Belcher, as the 1839 midships section and hold plan (see below) display that the bulkhead system was incorporated into the Erebus with little apparent modification. The 1839 midships section shows that the bulkheads were constructed contiguous with the frames in the hold and orlop decks and were lined with “two thickness of 1 ½ inch African [board] wrought diagonally across each other”. 

 References:

Back, George R.
1838    Narrative of an Expedition in H.M.S. Terror, Undertaken with a View to Geographical Discovery on the Arctic Shores in the Year 1836-7. John Murray, London. 

Battersby, William, and Carney, Peter
2011    Equipping HM Ships Erebus and Terror, 1845. International Journal for the History of Engineering & Technology 81(2):192-211.

Belcher, Sir Edward
1870     Admiral Belcher’s Remarks on Bulkheads. Transactions of the Institution of Naval Architects 11:155-156.

Ware, Chris.
1991     The Bomb Vessel: Shore Bombardment Ships of the Age of Sail. Naval Institute Press, Annapolis.

Chris,
I've been following along as time permits and finally managed to get up to date.  I'm not building along but you're doing a great job with this tutorial.