HMCSS Victoria 1855 by BANYAN - 1:72

[BANYAN]

John, Michael, Carl, Keith, Druxey, Eberhard - thank you all for your very kind comments and encouragement; but as we all know we are our own worst critics   Thanks also for the advice re  turning acrylic; I have noted that all away.  I think my issue is turning speed as I have put the 10K rpm mod onto my lathe to get the higher turning speeds required for a clean wood finish.  The lowest speed is mid 1-2 k rpm, which is probably still too fast   Anyway it is done now and I am onto to completing the pivot gun as best I can.

 

Still some research required on the subject of 'ship's cranes as I need to make that decision very soon.  The Contract called for 'two cranes' for ash removal.  Still not sure what way to go, as I would have thought a 'goose neck' davit would have been the go, but as the Contract was specific for the 'fish davit' I think they may have specified it as such.  That said, a full blown crane seems a bit excessive and there is nothing showing on the imagery.  Cranes were around at the time and I have found two 'possible' illustrations/drawings of such items in the NMM (for this specific period) but they seem too big.  As far as I can tell, a simple goose neck davit over the hatch would have done the trick?  Any ideas?

 

cheers

 

Pat

 

[wefalck]

Our knowledge about how the steam-side of these ships was operated seems to be rather limited. You not only have to hoist the ash-buckets up to deck-level, but also carry them across the deck and then discharge them overboard. There must have been some sort of ash-chutes already. At least in the mid-1870s these were installed on both sides, so that you could always discharge to lee. It seems that during the time the ships were flush-decked, the buckets were indeed carried by hand. When ships began to receive engine-houses and other superstructures, typically some sort of overhead rails were installed along which the buckets could be moved. I don't recall having ever seen any ash-hoisting installed on a model.

 

Perhaps you could contact the Portsmouth guys and see, how they think this problem was solved on HMS WARRIOR. She is a few years younger, but essentially of the same structural layout. I don't recall any such information in the books about her I have in my library.

[BANYAN]

Thanks Eberhard, I've  not found much either.  I have assumed ash chutes as there is some reference to these in contemporary ship plans, and I have read that the ash, once raised was transferred by wheelbarrow to the lee chutes for disposal.  The Contract called for portable 'iron cranes' which I read as 'shiftable'   

 

So three options; a gooseneck arrangement, a derrick arrangement or a full on crane.  The NMM has sketches for two such cranes for this period, but they appear a little large and will have been obvious in the imagery.  My assumption then is that when required the crane would be moved to the 'lee side' and would only need a reach to service the hatch and barrows.  If a derrick was used, the reach may have been sufficient to allow the ash to be dumped overboard without transfer to a barrow.  The derrick could be dismantled easily when not required and maybe why it cannot be seen in the imagery.

    

I am leaning towards the simple derrick crane shown below.

cheers  

 

Pat

 

 

 

[BANYAN]

Hi again folks, yet another issue I am trying to resolve (well several actually) relating to the bowsprit and Jibboom (noting 1855 time frame)

 

Q1.  From Kipping I have sufficient information to dimension and shape the spars.  What is not given, and not shown in any plan, is what ratio is used to determine the housing lengths (bed to step of the bowsprit, and the doubling of the jibboom onto the bowsprit.  Is anyone aware of these ratios?  As best I can determine the inner end of the bowsprit was only 5 feet - is this too short for a 23 foot bowsprit?

 

Attached is a drawing I am doing which is superimposed on the profile photo of the ship.  The profile and photo do not fully align as the photo is taken with the sip laying with a slight stbd bow inclination so the angles (and lengths change).

 

Q2.  You can see where I have circled or called out possible joints for the heel chock/jibboom.  From what I can make out of this photo (not great quality as it was taken in 1867/8) is where I think the heel chock ends, but not sure where the butt joint is.  Both options are viable according to Kipping and to Underhill, whereby some ships of this era still employed a small/short chock, whereas other ships, especially clippers, used a longer version.  see other attached drawing from Underhill.  I am leaning towards the latter (longer version) as there appears som rounding down (more than the proportioned shape of a jibbom) evident.  that said though, this would leave a shorter housing?  Hence Q1 (part 2)

 

Q3.  the last question relates to interpreting the  bopwcap as shown in the image.  My read is that as it is so close fitting it is more likely to be an iron cap rather the squarer and larger wooden (old style) cap?

 

All comments ans suggestions most welcomed.

 

cheers

 

Pat

 

  

 

Edited January 8, 2020 by BANYAN

[wefalck]

Pat, without your markings I would have interpreted the photograph so that the heel-chock sits in the more inward position. The jib-boom seems to be somewhat tapered on its top. I think I have seen this on other ships. From the second quarter of the 19th century on it seems that jib-booms were gradually extended to eventually doubling the bowsprit to account for the higher loads due to taller masts.

 

I would also go for an iron-cap. Though the navies have been quite conservative re. technology for a good reason, namely the ease with which battle- or storm damage to wooden parts could be repaired away from a base, iron was the fashion of the day. And if the iron cap was lost or damaged, they still could make a replacement one from wood.

Edited January 8, 2020 by wefalck

[Jim Lad]

Just catching up, Pat.  I agree with Eberhard regarding the heel chock and the cap.  As for your ash removal cranes, I would have thought that a derrick arrangement would be overkill and difficult to operate on a rolling ship.  Simple gooseneck davits would be portable and easily used - especially considering the large crews of warships - a simple whip over the davit block and a team of men to run it down the deck would soon have the ash up on deck for disposal.  Davits wouldn't be too heavy to manhandle as portable iron anchor davits were used in some of the later merchant sailing ships and were set up by the muscle power of their small crews.

 

John

[BANYAN]

Thanks for the feedback Eberhard and John; appreciate your suggestions.  I think you may be right re the positioning of the chock as the darker section (extension) could be something else.

 

John, WRT to the cranes, a good point and I will revert (again ) to the gooseneck option I think; however, note that "Victoria" was minimum manned (along mercantile manning standards), but that said ash removal would not have been overly onerous on the crew most of the time.  I say this as one of the design considerations made by the designer ,and insisted upon by the build supervisor, was a heavier (than for similar RN ships) spars to allow her to be undersail for the majority of time (to save on fuel as suitable Coals were scarce in Australia at the time).  The engines were provided to allow her to operate in any condition when in her 'saving of life at sea' role, or, if required, in battle .   

 

I have been looking for a 'direct' connection between the Contractual wording of "iron crane" and gooseneck davit (or derrick), just to verify this but have found nothing yet; may just have to run with this as an assumption.  I was running with derrick as it is more crane like?  I too initially, and have reverted, was thinking a more simple arrangement would have sufficed.   Also, the Contract was very specific in using the term davit for the boats and the fish davit???  Oh well, yet another conundrum.

 

Thanks again

 

Pat

Edited January 9, 2020 by BANYAN

[Louie da fly]

I got to see HMCSS Victoria this weekend as a guest of the Ship Modelling Society of Victoria at the Geelong Wooden Boat Festival. She is very beautiful - better in real life than in the photos.

 

Steven

Edited March 10, 2020 by Louie da fly

[BANYAN]

Thanks for the kind comment Steven; as you say, one tend's to favour their creations a little.  Although a club build, as its build coordinator/custodian I take great pride in seeing her develop.

 

cheers

 

pat

[Tony Hunt]

Hi Pat

A lateral question - how are you finding the 1/72 scale to work with for a model of this type?  You seem to be achieving a wonderful level of detail.

[BANYAN]

Hi Tony; a very subjective question as it depends on how much detail you wish to show and are capable of achieving.  The real artist in this scale is Ed Tosti (Young America) who achieves even better detail.  See what Wefalck also achieves at much smaller scale

 

For models where the overall model size is the driver, I find 1:72 is a good compromise scale.  There are also some commercial/aftermarket parts available (eg copper plates) to complement my efforts, and the scale remains 'big' enough for making scratch parts with a fair degree of detail although not to the level you could achieve at 1:48 or even 1:60.  Once I have determined HOW, the making soon resolves itself. but I take a fair bit of inspiration from the likes of Michael Mott, Keith Aug and Wefalck.  I must admit that at times though it can be frustrating but perseverance will win through eventually. 

 

I have found using a bit of PE to make up the parts (layering etc) has been very beneficial.  I am lucky there in that I am having to draw up the plans for the ship and equipment as I go so I have drawings that do not need a lot of extra work to turn into something suited to have PE done.  Again I am lucky as there is a guy located here in Melbourne who does PE (rather than having to learn yet another skill).  He is experienced and often spares me the time to work through the best way to create the parts (how to determine the individual parts, fold lines, shadow lines etc).  For example many of the parts for the pipe/valve fittings for the Downton pumps were done this way.

 

Overall, 1:72 is a good scale to work with, it is a good compromise between the level of detail achievable and size of the model itself; but does bring a few frustrations along for the ride

 

cheers

 

Pat

Edited March 17, 2020 by BANYAN

[Tony Hunt]

Thanks Pat, that's kind of the impression I was getting from watching your build log (and some of the others too - I agree there's some extraordinary artists here). I'm just in the planning stages for a model of a quite-similar ship and had pretty much settled on 1/72 as striking the right balance between large enough to make the detail work practical but small enough that I won't need to build a new wing on the house to keep the model in; so I was interested to hear how you were finding working in that scale on a comparable ship.

[BANYAN]

Welcome to 1:72 club then Tony,  if there is anything I can help out with just holler.  By necessity I am having to do a lot of research on ships of this era so if I can minimise your research efforts, happy to share what I have assembled.

 

cheers

 

Pat

Edited March 17, 2020 by BANYAN

[Keith Black]

Pat, I'm working at 1:120 and while it can be very tedious, a lot of items less than 6 inches even 12 inches, depending on how intricate an item is, gets left off with the "sometimes less is more" thinking. Do you find at 1:72 you're compelled to replicate more so than not? 

[BANYAN]

Hi Keith, a very interesting question.  1:120 - wow - respect!

 

I am a masochist of sorts in that I often let my ambitions/dreams get in the way of reality.  When it comes to detail, I feel that the more I can add the better (feel compelled as you say), but often I am forced into a reality check as there is only so much that can be achieved (especially with my amateurish skills) at this scale (let alone 1:120) - If I can do it it goes on and I will try many times before submitting to 'failure'. 

 

More often than not this is some minor/small detail on an item.  As an example, I am currently grappling with 'compressors' fitted to the pivot gun, very difficult as they are only 4mm x 2.5mm with rails/sides only .5mm thick.  These may end up being slightly oversized and only the basic form produced/used - time will tell.  The real trick I think is establishing some form of threshold as you have done and simply get on with it.

 

Thanks for looking in.

 

Pat

[Tony Hunt]

Interesting perspective Keith.  That's really why I was asking. I found 1:96 scale to be too small and fiddly. Not far beyond that I expect you are starting to use miniaturist techniques, where you "suggest" a fitting rather than making a replica of it, and it sounds like you are starting to hit that barrier at 1:120.  I agree that at 1:72 you have to put in most or all of the detail (as you do at 1:96 in my experience if it is to look right), I was wondering how tricky that is. Pat' suggestion about using techniques like Photo-etching are good, I haven't tried it but it obviously makes sense.

[wefalck]

If I may chip in - I think there are three main limiting factors to working with small parts:

 

Patience - this is up to you; I believe that in many cases when people claim that they cannot do this or that, what they really say is that they do not have the patience to do it (ok, eyesight and manual dexterity also play a role)

 

Materials availability - sheet metal/foil is commercially available down to about 0.02 mm thickness, wires down to 0.01 mm, fibres for ropes down to about the same thickness; this puts physical limitis on the size of parts.

 

Workability - the mechanical strength of a part decreases not linearly, but at the same rate as the volume; you cannot turn a copper wire of 0.1 mm diameter in the lathe; the precision of your tools also puts limits on the size of parts (remember that industry produces twist drills down to 0.1 mm diameter ... but their machines may be a thousand times more expensive than ours); 'touchless' machining techniques, such as etching, laser-cutting, galvano-plastic, or EDM offer(ed) there new possibilities.

 

Working at a larger scale for me doesn't make it necessarily easier, as it means that you just can pack more details into the model - the absolute size of the parts to be worked on stays the same. Again, the level of detail is limited by the materials that are available and how it can be worked. For instance, at 1:350 I probably wouldn't represent door hinges, up to 1:96 scale I would represent it by length of wires, up to 1:48 I may shape the wire on the lathe and above, I may reproduce it in full. Or, at 1:350 I would not represent the rivets on rivetted parts, up to 1:96 I would represent them by surface etching and above, I may to go for individual rivets.

 

We had the scale discussion somewhere else a while ago: I think the problem is that a typical  (ship)model is viewed from different distances, unlike the situation, where a diorama (in the real meaning of the term) forces the viewer to preset viewing distance and angle (as for a theater stage). This means, that when you put your nose close to it, you expect to see all the little details, that you wouldn't be able to see say from a couple of metres away.

 

So, for me the question is not the scale of the model, but rather what is the smallest part I have the physical ability and patience to reproduce ...

[BANYAN]

Some small updates as I have been somewhat delayed/distracted rebuilding a new computer.

 

WRT to the Contract calling for 'Cranes" (see post #513), I decided to go with a gooseneck davit, as nothing more complicate would have been need.   The photo shows one in situ with a temporary ash bucket.  I will replace that with a metal one  (wood or canvas I think will have been burnt when removing ash with possible hot embers still in it).

 

 

I have also made a start on the bowsprit.  I have shaped it (and the combined jibbooms - but the latter broke ) and I now am in the process of adding fittings (heel stop etc) which is not shown, and starting on the ironwork.  The photos show the Bowsprit Cap in two stages of its manufacture.  I used a jig (two dowels appropriately spaced in some scrap wood to hold the brass tube while I soldered them together and added the sides, then filed them.   The first photo sows the assembly after it has been parted off with a dental cutting (separation) disk  (much stronger and better than the standard Dremel disks)). 

 

I have soldered on the base lug with two hole for the Bobstay (after hole) and for the martingale (forward hoe), and two of the side lugs for guys etc.  Two more lugs to be added, plus two 'horns' at the top for the man ropes.  The side lugs are copper wire which I am filing flat after soldering to give the impression of flat forged lugs.  Very fiddly at this scale but getting there without blowing the lot apart as I solder the lugs into drilled holes (fingers crossed  and touching wood as I say that).  I still need to work out how I will add the Jackstaff bracket; then a LOT of cleaning up before blackening.

 

The form and structure of the Cap is based on drawings by Underhill.

 

cheers

 

Pat

 

 

Edited March 19, 2020 by BANYAN

[Louie da fly]

Lovely work, Pat. I'm very hamfisted with soldering. Your work leaves me awestruck.

 

Steven

[Keith Black]

Nice metal work Pat, I wish I had the skill sets to do likewise.  

[BANYAN]

Hi again folks,

 

I have been slowly progressing some more of the metal work.  first was the 'charlie noble' for the galley stove, which will be fitted just forward of the forward mast.  This was made from 3mm thin walled tubing, filed with a 'V' notch, folded/bent around a flexible internal former, then soldered.  A small piece of .6mm ID tube was also soldered into the top of the bent top to accept the rod for the 'sealing/weather flap',  this won't be fitted until much of the forward rigging has been completed.  It doesn't look it but the bent part is very nicely rounded; just a poor angle I took the shot. 

 

Now that I have made some decisions WRT to what 'may have' been fitted to meet the Contract's requirement ' to fit air shoots to the hold'.  As this was specified under 'Joiners' Work, I have decided the most likely solution will have been similar to "HMS Warrior" which were formed wooden trunks fitted to the bulkhead, with a bent metal air intake on the upper deck.  These will have had vents.outlets at the appropriate points for the Holds and probably fitted with a manually cranked ventilation unit, probably the one designed by Lang (ship's designer) himself based on the one invented by his father ( a copy of a sketch is held by the NMM.  This unit drew the air down and also worked as a 'splitter' with separate piping to various storerooms within the forward and after holds. 

 

These were usually fitted as pairs so I have decided to fit a pair forward and a pair aft.  I am assuming the reason I cannot see one in the photograph of the crew on the after upper deck, is that these intakes were fitted very close to the margin boards close to the bulwark, and as such will have been hidden behind the gun carriage in the photo.

 

I have used a plastic after-market part for the bent pipe, but I am making the base which will be inserted into the deck to hold the upper part.  The base has been made using brass thin wall tubing with an ID the same as the OD of the part.  To this, I have silver soldered a washer with the right ID to fit the tubing (using my resistance soldering vise) then turned the washer on the lathe to get approximately the right 'flange width and height.  The tubing was held in the vise at approximately the correct height while I soldered the washer; but the neck extension was parted while on the lathe to the correct height.  Once assembled I think they will look the part.  I used an after-market part simply for the sake of speed and because it had the right detail for the securing flap.

 

The photos show the parts, and 2 completed base parts (2 more made since), the soldering vise and  set-up, and the unit in the lathe ready to be turned.

 

 

cheers

 

Pat

 

 

[Jim Lad]

Looking good, Patrick.  When you replace the ash bucket, don't forget to lower it to the deck to stop it swinging! 

 

John

[cog]

Wow

[KeithAug]

Just catching up Pat. Some nice details and interesting manufacturing methods - well done.

[Beef Wellington]

Quite a bit to catch up on Pat, but as others have said your metalwork and soldering are just fantastic.  Looking forward to a few more overall beauty shots hopefully soon 🙂

[BANYAN]

Thanks all for looking in and supportive comments.

 

John,  I hadn't thought on that but it is intended to service a special ash wheelbarrow (also to be made) - hence the height

 

Thanks Keith, another option was to mill them from brass round stock (the idea from your marvelous build), but as I had already invested in the after-market pipes, I thought this a better option as my accuracy for both boring out (no reamers yet) and controlling consistent wall thickness is not quite up to par yet .  I wasn't worried about using brass washers etc as I will be painting these parts; it was the overall finished effect I need to achieve.

 

Thanks Carl and BW; thanks for the reminder, I do need to do a good overhead and profile shots showing the additional details - I'll do that after fitting the air intakes etc.

 

cheers

 

Pat

Edited April 1, 2020 by BANYAN

[BANYAN]

Some further work started as I received the PE I had drawn up, which I then send off to have etched.  The sheet is .025mm thick

 

Cheek Blocks - once I have parted the the base (backing) and top piece s off, I give them a touch up with the file.  I then drill out/clean up the holes to 0.6 mm diameter, then fold down the side pieces.  I then thread the base, sheave and top piece onto some 0.6mm brass wire and place into one of the holes in the soldering jig ready for soldering.  Once silver soldered, they need to be cleaned up before blackening.

I have also completed the Bowsprit Cap, adding the upper side lugs (for the foot ropes out to the end of the Jibboom) and the horns for the manropes (lead aft to stanchions on the knight heads.  The two horns have holes through the knob for the manropes but cannot be seen in the photo. The lower side lugs are for the Bowsprit Guys/shrouds, and the bottom lugs for the martingale (forward hole) and the Bobstay.  The start of the process for making this is shown at post #528 earlier on this page.  the whole of this assembly has been silver soldered together for strength.  Solder was needed for holding the base of the pin in the drilled holes as the depth is only about 0.2 mm and CA would have marred the blackening process.

The size of these made polishing the brass very difficult, especially with such thin walls etc; so some scratch/filing marks remain.  These are very close up shots, that I have sharpened a bit which enhances the scratches; the marks cannot be seen to the naked eye from about 150mms (6 inches) away.

 

cheers

 

Pat

[wefalck]

Excellent blacksmithing job !

[Louie da fly]

Beautiful work, Pat. I'm a total klutz when it comes to this kind of work. I tips me lid, sir.

 

Steven

[Jim Lad]

That photo etch has come up well, Pat!

 

John