HMCSS Victoria 1855 by BANYAN - 1:72

[BANYAN]

Having a mate who does this at cost ( a few cents per item for the materials) does help.  I am very lucky in that as he also has an interest in maritime matters and is happy to draw up the 3D for nix.   Commercial printers can make the items less attractive to print.

 

Many thanks for your kind comments Carl.  yep, AB is the way to go mostly, but once some dust settles you need to assist the process with a soft brush.  Some parts seem to have an EM charge or the like that attracts dust more than other parts - or is that just my imagination - at my age I never know whether it is observation or perception

 

cheers

 

Pat

[BANYAN]

Hi folks.  A question for the more learned  about the fitting of hounds to the lower mastheads in 19th century ships (with particular interest for the 1850s).

I am currently grappling with the correct way to fit the hounds/cheeks to the masts of HMCSS Victoria, AND also how the mast head was shaped.

1.    WRT to the hounds, I have shaped and used the dimensions provided by Kipping and Fincham, both contemporary published naval architects of the period.  I am reasonably confident in that Victoria will have had hounds/cheeks although some ships of the period may not have had them fitted (if I have interpreted these two authors and Harold Underhill correctly.
Accordingly, I have decided to fit them but this has raised a quandary for me and I cannot find a published method as yet.  I have dimensioned / shaped the masts in accordance with the given dimension provided in the 'Specification' attached to the ship's Contract IAW the rules provided by Kipping and Fincham.  The attached drawing shows three options of how the hounds may have been fitted.  From what I have found, they are fitted parallel to the waterline, but as the rake of the masts in Victoria was extreme (5 degrees - Foremast, 10 degrees - Main Mast, 15 degrees - Mizen Mast) the set of the skeletal tops on the hounds will have required some of the masthead stop to be checked (taken away).  The three options being:
    a.  The check being based on the mid/centreline of the mast stop; that is only half of the hound is checked into the mast stop (option 1),
    b.  No check being based on the hounds/tops being aligning with the leading edge of the mast stop (option 2)
    c.  The check providing full support and being fully checked in with the after edge of the mast stop (fully checked in - option 3).

I am leaning towards option 1 as this provides the best support.  the options drawn are for the Main Mast and will be even more severe for the Mizen.
Please also remember, in the steam vessels of this era, the tops were skeletal and only fitted to the lower masts.  in 'Victoria' the tops were formed from three crosstrees rather than the usual two, and each horn was fitted with a roller for the futtok/topmast shrouds (which were one piece.)

 

2.    The other question, for which I have yet to find appropriate guidance, is the shaping of the masthead.  In steam vessels of this period I am confident that the mast head was cylinderical.  However, the Sprecification states 15 inches lower and 12.5 inches upper - 7 feet long.   This implies a tapering/conical shape (option but most comments and illustrations show a true cylinder.  The width (diameter) of the upper mast at the stop (4th quarter) is 15 inches.  However the hounds are checked in at this point also.  I am leaning towards the true cylindrical shape (12.5 inches at the stop as well as the head) based on Kipping and Fincham drawings but remain open to further advice on this. (option A)

 

All suggestions, critiques, recommendations etc most welcomed.

 

cheers

 

Pat

[wefalck]

You are getting really into the specifics there ... can't give founded advice on the hounds, but wondered, whether the difference between the options would be discerneable on the model ? OK, this is our old plague, that we want to get it right, even if no one would notice the difference.

[EdT]

The model is looking fantastic, Pat.  You might be splitting hairs on your questions, Pat, but I understand how wanting to get this detail right works on our brains.  I suspect much of this detail was left in the hands of the shipwrights, so it maybe hard to go wrong.

 

Cheers,

 

Ed

[BANYAN]

Thanks for looking in and comments Eberhard and Ed; much appreciated.  You are both right in that this is deeper detail that will not be readily apparent on the model.  However, as also commented I would like to get it right

 

I think I will go with the following unless some better evidence emerges.

 

1.   As some of the sides of the mast will be checked in (paralleled) to fit the hounds anyway, it would be unlikely that a small section deeper would make any difference to mast strength, and will allow a sightly deeper ledge for the trestle trees to sit on, so I will go with option 3.

 

2.  I am going with option A as having an overhang on the trestletree (after checking in for the hounds) would be unlikely (to allow for wood movement and top movement).  Further more,  with the Jibboom for example, the width (GD) is given at the stop but it is then checked in to allow for the spider bands to sit flush.  I am assuming therefore a similar principle may apply here

 

I will keep looking though.

 

cheers

 

Pat

[Tony Hunt]

Hi Pat, 

 

I'm struggling to see a significant difference between options 1, 2 and 3, although it would be nice to get it exactly right, of course.  All that aside, Option 1 seems the most intuitive to me.

 

I agree the Option A for the doubling. I can't imagine any reason for it to be tapered.

 

Cheers

 

Tony

[BANYAN]

Hi Tony, thanks for looking in.

 

To clarify, if it wasn't for the extreme rake of the masts (15 degrees for the Mizen mast) the options 1 through three would not be an issue at all as the masts are fairly upright.  Therefore when checking in to fit the hounds (single piece in steam vessels of this era) the upper edge would provide a 'natural' flat/horizontal length onto which to fit the trestletrees.

 

Unfortunately, as you rake the mast backward you are changing the angle and taking out much more of the mast when checking in for the hounds.  Similarly, you have to adjust the heel of the mast such that it fits snug and parallel along its length against the keel/mast footing to allow a tight fit for the heel tenon.  When the mast is up and down the hounded and headed lengths are IAW the dimensions of the masts given in the Specification.  This allows easy application of the rules for shaping the mast as given by Kipping and Fincham.  However, as you lay the mast backward more what is the hounded length?  Is it from the partners  to the stop (where the head starts) along the mast centre line (CL) or is it a true perpendicular/vertical height? 

 

I am assuming it is the first option, and therefore by adjusting the heel and how much of the stop is taken away will influence/impact of the hounded length (only a bit but still....)  I am trying to stay within the rules and the given dimensions for shaping the mast by minimising the amount the heel and the stop is adjust to allow the skeletal tops to be fitted parallel to the waterline.

 

If you look closely, option 1 has the after part of the hounds sitting proud of the stop as the tops is axis is centred on the CL crossing with the mast.  Option two, which minimises the amount checked out of the stop, creates an even larger area abaft the leading edge of the mast that is not conformal/level with the stop's shoulder.  Option 3, and my selected way ahead, checks more out of the mast but provides maximum support.

 

The issue is though where is the hounded length measured, from the CL or from the point where you have checked in for the hounds creating a new lowest point for the shoulder.  In reality, I don't think this would make much of a difference and the rules are given as the starting point for shaping the mast, but then adjusted to fit the ship/need?  As such I created the masts (in my CAD drawing) to be slightly longer, such that after shaping the hounded length is measured along the CL of the mast between the partners and the centre/mid point of the hounding stop's shoulder.

 

I hope this clarifies what I was trying to elicit?  Simply, having to write it out and the reassurance of the responses helped me settle on a solution.

 

cheers

 

Pat

[Tony Hunt]

Yes, I see what you mean about the geometry changing with the increasing mast rake.

 

I would have thought that the mast would be measured along its centreline, rather than with reference to the rest of the ship when stepped.  It would have been made in a workshop, not in situ, and would have been measured there using a tape measure run along it, surely?

[BANYAN]

You are quite correct Tony.  That is exactly how it was done.  The finished mast was then taken to the ship but I am not sure whether it was onboard that the spar was 'adjusted' (wood removed to set the tops parallel to the Waterline, sit in the footing correctly, etc),  or whether this was all done ashore.  My discussion/question was more about how much wood was removed as the authors etc do not cover this, and as pointed out would have been at the builder's whim.  

 

When the rules were determined, most masts were relatively upright with only a few degrees of rake.  Victoria had 5, 10 and 15 degrees rake respectively for the Fore, Main and Mizen masts.  Effectively, when removing the wood to set the trestletrees parallel, the measured 'Hounded' length of the mast (partners to Stop - top of hounds - to bottom of trestletrees) was shortened; that was why I was a little concerned.  The overall length was not affected.

 

In Victoria, as the mast was rounded in section at the hounds (not squared), before being dressed/lined at the sides for the cheeks of the hound pieces, I have 'assumed' removing more wood, thus shortening the hounded length just a little, was not significant and will have imparted the greatest strength to the trestletree support.

 

cheers

 

Pat

[rwiederrich]

Love you work and love to listen to your plans

[BANYAN]

Thanks Rob, I am learning a lot as I research Victoria - just sharing what I am learning along the way.

 

cheers

 

Pat

[BANYAN]

Hi again folks.

 

Not much work done on the model in the past few weeks as I am getting into research of the spars and rigging, which is taking far more time than I thought.  I am making progress though, and I need to do this before progressing as it affects the positiong, type and configuration of other equipment in the ship.  

 

As usual I have run into a few issues the more experienced may be able to assist me with?  Pleeeaase!

Some of these do not effect the model as such as the scale woill mask the problem, but I wish to get it righ for the drawings I am doing.  Rather than flood the log with all questions at once I will 'batch' them, getting the results before moving on I hope

 

The first batch are related and all are caused by the extreme rake in Victoria's masts (5, 10 and 15 degrees for the Fore, Main and Mizen masts respectively.)  The problems listed below all relate to the various contemporary and more recent authors discussing the masts as if the stand vertical.  That is, the stops, tops etc asre all cut or placed as if the mast is not raked and no guidance is offered for what to do when they are raked aft (except for the tops which we know are placed horizontal or parallel to the waterline.)

Please see attached drawings where I have tried to illustrate the issues.  Cross hatch is ironwork including a 1 inch fid plate fitted on top of the trestle trees.  The diagonal hatch represents the ends of timbers.  Please look closely as the drawing of the top as gaps are small but evident as is the misaligned fit of the heel (slanted) into the squared hole for the heeling.  The small unhatched piece is a 'small cross-piece' that sits behind the rim.  Again the guidance infers to make this square on its after face. I can move the rim forward a bit which fixes the overlap at the forefoot of the topmast heel; but opens the gap.  The larger gap abaft the crosstree is there by design, as the Kipping and Fincham adise a 1" allowance was made here (assumed to allow the upper mast (long pole) to pass through due to the rake of these masts.

Q1.    Should the stops (no hounds) for the upper mast be cut horizontal also?  If not, as the standing rigging (wire rope) have eyes seized to fit snug/tight on the stop, the backstays would, and perhaps the shrouds may, lead fair, BUT the forestays would have a large kink induced as , say for the main mast, they would point 10 degrees into the sky (vertical) before bending down.  My gut feel is they should also be parallel to the waterline but cannot find any guidance on this.

 

Q2.    AS the top, and therefore the crosstrees are fitted parallel to the waterline, but the upper mast is set-up at an angle corresponding the the relevant mast's rake, it would not sit up-and-down in the hole framed between the trestletrees and crosstrees. 

 

The imagery shows that the foremost crosstree passed between the lower masthead and heel of the upper mast (combined pole including top, topgallant and royal masts).  This would mean this crosstree would sit square (true up-and-down) having been let into the trestletrees, whereas the masthead and heel would be raked.  This results in only a part of the crosstree fore and after faces providing support (sides are not an issue).  The contemporary practice was to use a shaped chock here (instead of a crosstree) but that was for a standard top (larger and fully made with a platform, battens etc)  The tops in Victoria are unlike in any other ship I have seen, and, in form, were more like the tops used at the topmast hounds where loose masts were fitted.  Even here, the guidance shows squared crosstrees.  Simply fitting a wedge would not work.  My only solution might be to fit/fay a shaped filling piece on the fore side of the masthead, and after face of the heel to square the resulting gaps (hope that makes sense) The issue there though is that increases the distance between the crosstrees much more than what is shown in the imagery. Such filling pieces were used to remove excessive 'play' of the heel but were usually evenly  sized in section (not sloping/wedge shaped).  Any ideas?

 

 

Q3.    Similar to the issue with the stops, it would appear to be sensible to adjust the fid holes tosuch that the fid  would sit flush on the trestletree.  Again all auther say this is cut in parallel to mast sides, but does not make sense for mastes that are raked.  Do I agjust these to up-and-down?  Would this weaken the fid or holding power as the centre of force (weight) is now not acting direct through the fid.

Any help, suggestions, pointers etc most welcomed.

 

cheers

 

Pat

[druxey]

I suspect that the fid would have a beveled bottom surface. To make the slot for the fid other than vertical would invite a split in the wood.

 

Mast stops would probably have been at right angles to the spar. The eyes of the stays would be able to bend sufficiently, as in other vessels.

[BANYAN]

Thanks Druxey, appreciate the feedback.  WRT stops, would this have been the case even with 10 and 15 degrees of upward slop (once the masts were set-up)?  That's a pretty big bend in wire rope for the stays; as I said earlier no issues for backstays, breasts and shrouds.

 

cheers

 

Pat

[Keith Black]

Pat, I set the rake on the Tennessee's mast at 7 degrees and set the trees at 90 degrees to the mast. I don't see an issue but that doesn't mean there isn't one? 

[Louie da fly]

WAAAAY outside my experience, but it's looking very good, and following the discussion is very interesting. I may never make a model from this period, but finding out the details is fascinating.

[wefalck]

Ad Q1: my gut feeling is that the stops would be perpendicular to the masts. It will always be a compromise and if you look at it from the front, you may see and equal bent for the shrouds and backstays. There are (at least today) rules for minimum radii through which wire rope should be bent, so that it does not split open and loose strength. The parcelling and worming would to some degree counteracting the splitting of the rope.

 

Ad Q2/3: Perhaps one should draw a parallelogram of the (static) forces that act on the different parts. That gives you some idea for where the strenght needs to be and where there is a risk of splitting the wood. When the downward force of the topmast pushes at an angle against the cross-pieces on which the fid is resting, this means that the force that would tend to push forward the heel of the topmast needs to be counteracted somehow. Either there needs to be a notch in the member on which the fid rests, or there needs to be some kind of wedge between the heel and the forward cross-piece. If the fid had a round bottom, rather being square, and the trestletree had a corresponding round notch, this would make it probably less likely that the upper part of the trestletree splits away, compared to the a square bottom and square notch.

[EdT]

Pat, I can offer opinions on your questions, but they are just that, based on the conclusions I reached in interpreting the various sources while constructing Young America.  The questions relate to very small details.  You may be overthinking this.  However,

Q1.  I would say no, the extreme rake of the masts notwithstanding.  I do not believe it would be practical or important  to angle the stops to  avoid additional bend in the stay at the eye splice (or seizing) due to rake.  I have seen no details of angled stops in any spar drawings.

Q2.  My guess is that, in general, major structural elements. like crosstree assemblies, would not be constructed with bevels in the members and that where necessary wedges or shims would be used,  Again, I have seen no references showing bevelling of furniture framing.
I notice that you show the cap in two different ways - horizontal and right-angled to the mast.  Based on Fincham's construction specifiation for caps, at least, the right-angled (not horizontal) configuration would be correct, in spite of the fact that many diagrammatic spar plans of the period show these horizontal.  I cannot explain these differences, but would go with Fincham based on the difficulty of shaping angled mortises - square and round - when making the caps.

Q3. I would go with square fid holes.  I assume the fids would be standard iron bar stock  and would rest on iron plate and believe this would be OK.   Again, have never seen reference to angling fid holes in any reference.

In general, I believe mast rake could be adjusted.  While not likely to be done very frequently, if at all,  this would obviously upset any precise bevelling features that were built in to either the spars or furniture.

Hope this helps.
Ed

[rwiederrich]

Pat...I concur with Ed.  The fids from what I gather were of iron....they were required to hold large loads.  My study shows that some fids had rounded bottoms to compensate for rake.  This is not concrete, however.

Here is an image of the Charles W Morgan during a turn of the century refit.  You can clearly see the fid through the mast foot.  I wouldn't expect them to be made of wood, unless the application was not extreme.

 

Rob

[druxey]

I don't believe that fids were ever made of wood.

[wefalck]

I think that at least since the middle of the 18th century they were made from forged iron.

[BANYAN]

Thank you all very much for your opinions and suggestions - this type of feedback is exactly what I needed.  Your comments reinforce what I have been reading, or more to the point what I could not find in the reading.  Kipping, Fincham, Crothers, Underhill and Harland are all silent on these particular matters.

 

Based on these comments, I agree re use of iron fids, they were the go by this period.  Unless I find better information I will retain the fid hole as cut with sides parallel with the masts heel sides (square to the heel) and perhaps add, as Druxey suggests, a beveled bottom so that the fid is flat along the bottom relative to the mast's rake.  There was a iron plate set on or into (the authors differ) the upper face of the trestle trees to carry the iron fid, so that would take the weight - but Rob's advice re rounded fids intrigues me.  I have seen, in Underhill I think, that a round bar preventer fid was fitted, but these did not bear the weight unless the lower (main) fid failed.  Just for interest I may have a go at the diagram of forces acting on the fid suggested by Eberhard (at some point).   Ed's point about readjust the rake would also impact any bevel on the fid hole iand fid is also relevant....

 

WRT to the stops, the overwhelming advice appears to cut them square to the mast.  The point about the wire opening up with increased bending was my main concern, but It appears I may be overly concerned

 

WRT to the mast cap, still very early days - ED, I agree these would have been square to the mast.  In this case, an iron forged cap with circular openings/mortices.

 

WRT the tops; well that is another story now - more on this later.  Suffice to say, that no matter what type, the issue I am having WRT holding/securing the topmast heel remains extant.  Rob, that is a great photo and shows that the gaps athwartship were of little concern as there is a reasonable gap shown in your photo.  If you have any more photos of clippers or ships of this era that confirm these gaps, I would be most interested in the confirmation of the following.

 

Fincham and Kipping advise a 1 inch allowance for play (but Fincham also says 1/4 inch elsewhere.....confusing) .  This is well within the athwartship tolerance of Victoria's topmast heels - possibly of little concern as the shrouds would essentially keep it upright.  The fore and aft securing though still leaves me a little confused with masts at extreme rake.  Again the stays may have kept it centred once set-up; but, .... I am concerned that the rake and a flat fid would tend to try and make the mast 'skate' forward?    I have also found guidance, as has been suggested by Ed, that any filling pieces are payed onto the masts and not the trees.

 

All that said, in doing another close inspection of the imagery I now have concerns on the actual framing of these tops.  I will post separately about these but the top was still set parallel to the waterline, but closer inspection shows that perhaps most of the top was made of iron.  Underhill advises that this was increasingly the practice in merchant ships during this era.

 

Many thanks again

 

Pat

[BANYAN]

Hi again folks, as advised in my earlier post,I now having to rethink the framing of the tops in HMCSS Victoria.  Based on the issues I have raised, I went back and reread most of the authors discussions about tops, and had a closer inspection of the lithographs.

 

Having drawn up the masts IAW with the rules provided by Fincham and Kipping for forming a stick into a mast, the resulting mast when superimposed over the correctly scaled imagery (2 x lithographs and a profile photo of the ship), is an almost identical fit.  The lithographers of these days were very accurate it seems.  If we accept this premise, their depiction of tops must also be accurate.  

 

The tops shown in the two lithographs are both skeletal form with no gratings fitted despite the Contract (Specification) calling for them.  Fincham, however, explains that the gratings were supported by metal plated fitted to the undersides of the crosstree such that they can be easily fitted or removed.  Perhaps the gratings were only fitted on as required basis?

 

More importantly, as can be seen from the attached crop of the foretop (first and mainyop, from one of these lithographs, there are two trestletrees, and based on their sizes alone, there appears to be only one full crosstree, a rim (forward), and the after two crosstrees appear to be  iron rods (spreaders).  The size of these latter crosstrees are not much bigger than the sizes of the topmast/futtock wire rope shrouds.  Note that the trestle trees do extend aft to support these rather than battens fitted ('V' like to their tops.

 

 

 

Underhill also explains that the use of iron in the tops, with some ships having complete iron tops, was growing more common in this era.  Additionally, inspection of the image shows that in form, these tops were more akin to those fitted to the topmast than lower masts; but they still complied with the overall descriptions for the skeletal forms discussed by Kipping and Fincham as those fitted to the mastheads of steamers.

 

My current interpretation is that the rim (elliptical crosstree) and foremost crosstree were wood, as perhaps were both trestle trees.  As wooden upper masts were fitted, the usse of wood for the framing around the masthead and topmast heel will have been required to minimise damage to the timbers.  Underhill also provides evidence of iron plates fitted either side of the trestletrees with a hinged iron plate across the front to support the heel of the combined top, topgallant and royal mast.  

He provides no guidance of how the after face of the mast head was supported, but as there was a wood fixed block fitted here between the trestletrees, for the throat halliards, that a short wood cross-pice was fitted, perhaps supported with an iron strap fitted beneath.  The two after cross trees may have been simple iron rods.

 

All that said, another option is the complete assembly was iron with wood payed to the iner surfaces of the masthead and heeling holes.  My current leaning is to go with the former, but the dimensions, particularly the depth, of the trestletrees shown in the lithograph appear very small. When overlain on the lithograph it was about three to four times bigger than depicted in the lithograph.  I think, in this instance, I am just going to have to wing it by drawing up the framing to conform with the lithograph.

Unfortunately, Underhill (or Fincham or Kipping) does not provide any dimensioning details for iron clad, iron or any combination) thereof, and the lithograpgh shows the trestlees and crosstrees were not very large - certainly a lot smaller than the dimensions I had calculated, and drawn up, based on Kipping and Finchams' rules.  

 

I would very much welcome any further comments for or against my observations.  Many thanks again for your time in looking through and commenting on this topic.

 

cheers

 

Pat

[rwiederrich]

Material and scale will be the biggest dictators to what you do.  Most folks only have a limited knowledge of what you are speaking of and that is based upon their observations of imagery similar to what you have provided.

 

The model in the hands of a skilled modeler need not reflect at all times actuality .  In fact, part of his skill (and probably one of his greatest attributes), is to skillfully reinterpret and give the illusion something is what it is not.  Basing this attribute on the availability of accurate materials, their manipulation of said materials and their mental prowess to be able to accept these limitations and knowing when to say enough detail is enough.  Again...this is all subjective and follows the first two dictators of scale and material.   IMV, your interpretation is the only interpretation that truly matters...but if your past doings have anything to say...you'll probably not stray far from the quality and matchless detail you have been following and exhibiting.

Do what you think best, when accurate drawing are not available.  The only person who will criticize you the most is you yourself.

 

Your HMCSS Victoria is a beautiful rendering.

 

Rob

[Keith Black]

1 hour ago, rwiederrich said:

to skillfully reinterpret and give the illusion something is what it is not

Rob, very well said. 

[BANYAN]

Thanks again Rob, especially the encouragement.  Also, thanks for looking in again Keith.

 

I have decided to go with what the imagery is showing based on the fact it is very accurate in most regards.  I have also found a comment in Underhill that 'iron' tops in wood built ships with wood  masts were becoming increasingly common - but no guidance on shape, form or dimensions.  I am still at odds with myself WRT to using a full iron top, wood trestletree with short wood cross-pieces supporting iron rod crosstrees, or (and my current basis) is wood trestletrees, wood short crosspieces with iron rod for the centre and after crosstress, and full wood forward crosstree with shallow wood/iron rim sitting ontop or recessed. 

 

I am drawing these up and overlaying them on the imagery to get a feel of what fits best.  I think Underhill, and probably other authors do not cover this type of top as it is a radical change and probably up to the builder to construct with their own experience.

 

Thanks all for your continued feedback; all is mot welcomed.

 

cheers

 

Pat

[rwiederrich]

Pat...several other factors may come into play as well when determining what direction to go.  Mostly two.  First what was the practice at the time.  You can rarely go wrong when you default to common practice.  Secondly, and probably the most demanding, is what was the practice of the builder(If you can even know this)?   Some builders prided themselves in a particular practice or use a  particular media.  Be it for practical purposes, historical, family, or availability of material.  Donald McKay, generally built his clippers from wood, preferring quality wood members then opting to forego the  mechanics skill at fabricating robust members from oak, poplar, or white pine.  McKay was famous for utilizing the most modern machinery and providing for his shipwrights welfare, but as far as constructing his vessels his practices were well known...and many quite secret.  Other builders such as Webb(who eventually made profits in building iron steam ships, utilized iron more readily.  Knowing this, however does not negate the fact that modifications did occur on vessels later in their careers.  One could drive themselves into oblivion, if they fail to realize they are only creating a replica.

You get my two thumbs up...waaay over hear....across the pond.

 

Rob

[BANYAN]

Thanks Rob, appreciate the thumbs up and you have encapsulated my delema nicely in those two approaches.

 

My first attempt was to use the most current general conventions/building practices written by Fincham and Kipping, whom both released books on Masting and Rigging ships in 1855 (the year Victoria was built).  This resulted in a top that is WAY oversized -nearly thre to four times bigger than what is shown in imagery.  I agree with you WRT the builders using their own methods and designs, but unfortunately, as far as I know this was not recorded by the Victoria's builders.  I live in the hope that when I can get back into the Public Records Office (once we get out of lock downs etc) and complete my investigations into the correspondence from and to the ship build supervisor (who wrote weekly build progress reports for the Governor of Victoria - a naval offer so the reports are in depth and about the appropriate matters - not just fancy words and 'fluff'). 

 

Underhill, as I have said, does advise that it was becoming increasingly more common to use iron in the tops.  I am now reading him from cover-to-cover rather than selections based on the current item I am working on.  As a result, I am now almost sure that Victoria will have used iron hounds and tops.  Unfortunately, he, Fincham, Kipping Crothers nor Lees gives any guidance on these; so I will have to cast my net wider.  I am now to trying to find anything that will help me in drawing up a set of completely iron tops and hounds. 

 

Thanks for all the 'thumbs-up' and looking in folks, much appreciate the interest in this subject matter.

 

Cheers

 

Pat

[Tony Hunt]

Fascinating discussion Pat. I suspect there was no "universal practice" in those times, it probably varied quite a bit from yard to yard, region to region and even designer to designer.  There was a lot of change going on in the world of shipbuilding in the mid 1800s.  

Anyhoo, surely it's time for an update on how the model is progressing? 

[BANYAN]

Thanks for looking in Tony.  Well.......... the reason there has been no progress shown is that I have made none.  Before I can progress further I need to get the spars and rigging sorted and drawn up.  The issue as you can see from the above discussion is that so much of this is inter-related - i.e the size of one thing determined the size of another etc.  Until I get those finalised, I can't start on making the spars, which in turn governs some of the belaying of the rigging, which in turns governs the positions of the bitts, some pin rails/cross-pieces etc etc.  Well I am sure you get the picture.  As soon as I have sorted these tops I think I am in a position to finalise the spars.

 

cheers

 

Pat