HMCSS Victoria 1855 by Banyan - 1:72

[Tony Hunt]

Do any of Robert Kipping's mid-19th century texts on sails and sailmaking have anything to say on this subject? Unfortunately I don't have any of his volumes in my library.

 

[wefalck]

The 1847 edition is available on-line, the 1860 one not, as far as I know: https://archive.org/details/elementssailmak00kippgoog

 

Didn't have time to check on the issue ...

[Tony Hunt]

Thanks for the link.  This is what he has to say (with regard to the Driver):

 

Cringles for the lacing are made above the upper-reef on the mast- leech, 30 inches asunder : the one next the nock ought not to be less than a yard from the nock. These cringles are stuck two high in the strands.

 

Based on that, the 32 inch spacing looks more like it than the 60 inch spacing.

[BANYAN]

Hi Eberhard and Tony, thanks for the feedback, and very much appreciate the link.

 

Tony, the sail was made from No.1 or 2 canvas, so will have had some strength especially if reinforced along the luff as suggested by Eberhard.  Even so I fear a 5' spacing is still a little much and would not have held the shape of the sail.  The larger number of hoops does correspond with Kipping's comments - thanks for that - I will go with the larger numbers.

 

Eberhard, thanks - quite agree re the mast wedge collar.  I realised that not long after posting, so back to working out how to neatly do the upper part at this scale.

WRT the the overlapping hoops being sewn together, I am not quite following.  All the imagery shows these spaces with no hint of 'sewing/lacing' between them.  Seems I need to do a bit more research there.

 

Edit:  Tony based on your cited text, the interesting point here is that they are used from the 'upper reef only' - There were 3 reefing bands in these sails with the upper reef about half way up the sail.  The head of the sail was laced to the gaff.  This begs the questions of how was the lower half attached ?

 

cheers

 

Pat

Edited September 9, 2021 by BANYAN

[Tony Hunt]

1 hour ago, BANYAN said:

 

WRT the the overlapping hoops being sewn together, I am not quite following.  All the imagery shows these spaces with no hint of 'sewing/lacing' between them.  Seems I need to do a bit more research there.

 

Edit:  Tony based on your cited text, the interesting point here is that they are used from the 'upper reef only' - There were 3 reefing bands in these sails with the upper reef about half way up the sail.  The head of the sail was laced to the gaff.  This begs the questions of how was the lower half attached ?

 

cheers

 

Pat

 

Hi Pat, re the sewing of the hoops, I think Eberhard is referring to the two overlapping tapered ends of the hoop being sewn together, not the spaces between hoops.

 

Re how the sail was attached from the reef bands down, I wondered the same thing. I assume the absence of hoops is somehow associated with the reefing process, although I can't see how. All the yachts I've sailed on have track runners evenly spaced all the way up the sail, they don't get in the way when reefing. More to understand, definitely.  I'll have to track down some more of Kipping's treatises, they're really good. 

[BANYAN]

Thanks Tony, I am being a little 'thick' on this as I still can't visualise it - need to find a piccy I think   Lees, page 160 shows then cross seized individually.

 

I have been looking through Kipping and finding some interesting points he makes.  I have yet to find anything a little more definitive, but in the interim this information (page 62 of Kipping cited above) at least provides some guidance.

 

cheers

 

Pat

Edited September 9, 2021 by BANYAN

[Tony Hunt]

First paragraph on Page 68 of the edition Eberhard linked.

[BANYAN]

Hi guys, a small bit of progress - see below a piccy of the PE for the tops - the fold line will enable me to create the angle-iron trestrees and the after ends of the rim for the 'D" fore rims.  I will need to attach the rest of the rim front, and drill out for the various eyebolts (start holes already etched).

 

I am also back to the Tyes and Purchases/Halliards again.  Having progressed to other things, I revisited this and realised I had got it all wrong and need to sort out the topsail tyes again.

 

Here is the predicament -  the Specification called for the fitting of Purchase winches for the topsail yard.  The correspondence from the ship build superintendent (that I have been able to access so far) is silent on them.  As this person was very detailed and informative in his very regular reports, it is unlikely he will have neglected to inform if these had been omitted.  

 

The Rigging Warrant does not mention them but does offer a very complex arrangement that does not align with the arrangements described by any of the contemporary or more modern authors consulted.  The Rigging Warrant 

lists the tye for the fore topsail as 68’ of ^9/₁₆” chain with “Gin on Yard and 2 Hanging Gins Iron”.   It also lists a halliard associated with the fore topsail tye, made up from 27 fathoms of 2½” hemp rope, associated with four 10”, and two 9” single blocks, and two travellers under the ‘Thimbles’ column. 

 

The only way such a list of items could be configured (as far as I can determine) is for the gins to set up as shown in the following image (I drew up in CAD).  The tails of the chain have long links for the associated halliards.  As two traveller thimbles + 4 by singles blocks suggests two separate halliards.  Halliards were normally a pendant set-up to the port channel (for the foremast) and the purchase to starboard.  The only arrangement I can determine here is that two separate up-and-down halliards with a runner (whip) was used?

 

Any other ideas guys?  

 

 

cheers

 

Pat

 

 

 

Edited October 1, 2021 by BANYAN

[Tony Hunt]

That does seem like the only arrangement that would gel with the gear listed. Two separate halliard tackles seems odd, but maybe that provides the lifting power that the absent winch was supposed to provide?

[BANYAN]

Thanks Tony, yep the 'purchases' or halliards as they were correctly termed are a separate problem.  The listed blocks (4 x 10" and 2 x 9") are 'single' so the only arrangement can be for them to be made up as 'gun tackles' with a a runner (whip).  As they are listed with 'travellers' (long strops attached to the fly block) which ran up-and-down the topmast backstay, they had to be set-up with the standing blocks in the channels.  This meant they were not  'up-and down' tackles but oblique to the direction of effort - very unusual arrangement?

 

I really would like to find another example of this arrangement described by a contemporary (Kipping, Nares, Luce etc) or more modern author (such as Underhill, Harland etc) - unfortunately they all describe permutations of the more common single 'pendant with purchase'; or double purchase (one as a luff, the other a gun tackle).

 

cheers

 

Pat

[Jim Lad]

Patrick, could they have been set up like a Spanish burton, with the single 9" blocks acting as the running whip with a gun tackle attached to them?

 

John

[rwiederrich]

Pat, possibly one side of the haul yard was fixed at the mast head and the chain ran down to split pendant, that then again was secured at one end and the other had the purchase to the deck and or winch?    
 

Rob

[BANYAN]

All possibilities guys; thanks for looking in and the suggestions.  This is the problem I am facing - with no description by any author that uses all of the listed (Rigging Warrant) items in a conventional arrangement, it is proving difficult to identify the rigging configuration.  I am simply trying to find a practical way of setting it up.

 

I will look into your idea of a Spanish burton John.  

 

Rob, that is a variation on what one of the authors offers where a luff was set-up to one side and a guntackle to the other so that when all hands were on deck, the guntackle could be used, and if only one watch on deck, then the luff was used - BUT, this required only a single gin block.  I will relook at the variation you propose  though.

 

cheers

 

Pat

[BANYAN]

John, having looked at your idea of a Spanish Burton, which I had not even considered, if all three blocks are used this would work if a 'purchase winch' was used.  However, the Rigging Warrant lists 4 x 10" and 2 x 9" SINGLE blocks, which suggests two guntackle purchases, with perhaps each being tailed with a runner (whip)?  Here is a workable configuration for a 'Spanish burton' arrangement for the gin blocks (which will have alternated between Port and Stbd for the fore and main masts).  Still need to bite the bullet and go by the Rigging Warrant listing or by the Contract Specification - the correspondence is silent on this, and unfortunately the imagery does not show either configuration.  The following (and previous post) is looking from the front.

 

 

Thanks again John

 

Pat

[Jim Lad]

Pat, could those blocks be rigged a la 'Stag's' running backstays?  An arrangement I've not seen anywhere else, but confirmed by a contemporary painting?

 

John

 

[BANYAN]

Thanks again John.  You got me very excited there for a moment, but ... If I am interpreting the image correctly, it appears as if there are only 5 blocks used?  That is, a conventional purchase (pendant with purchase), then a short pendant seized to the tail of the fly block and a smaller purchase rigged to that?  Unfortunately, there were 6  blocks listed (4 x 10" and 2 x 9" (all single).  I did consider a 'lead block', but then why would one purchase have a lead block and not the other?  Otherwise, this arrangement would work  

 

Edit 1:  Although, perhaps a runner (whip) attached to the fall of the primary halliard?

 

Edit 2:  Another idea is that a single light purchase with pendant, using the 9" blocks was the primary halliard (used if all hands are on deck) - that is with the gin blocks also rigged in a Spanish burton configuration.  Then, if only one watch is on deck, two  halliards, formed from the 10" blocks, would be hooked on and used instead (but no hooks are listed) ?  This seems a little impractical though as the authors whom suggest this arrangement (a light and a heavy halliard), state that both halliards would be used together and that they were permanently rigged.

 

cheers

 

Pat

Edited October 3, 2021 by BANYAN

[BANYAN]

Rob, I had a closer read of your suggestion also, and I think a 'split tail' chain tye may not been practical; however, your wording provided another suggestion to contemplate.  I have been trying to determine whether a winch or the halliards were the only two options, but perhaps there was a third - the rigging arrangement used both?

 

If the gin blocks are rigged as a 'Spanish burton', John's suggestion of a running halliard (similar to La Stag's running backstay arrangement) may have been a possibility.  If the primary halliard made up with the 10" blocks (rigged in a conventional way) but with a runner whip) utilising the fourth 10" block in the working end (fall), then the 9" blocks would have formed the halliard runner being seized to the tail of the primary halliard's flying block with a short pendant or strop.  One possible way of working this smaller halliard's working end of the fall is to take it to a winch rather than work it manually?  While this is not how these winches were intended to be used (the winch replaced the tackle in the halliard) - it does utilise all fittings and rigging listed in the Rigging Warrant and the Specification - and would have allowed the topsail yard to be raised and lowered with very minimal numbers and effort due to the large mechanical advantage gained (noting that Victoria was minimum manned).

 

Edit:  This arrangement would have utilised the lighter halliard and winch when only a single watch was on deck, and both halliards when all hands were on deck.  Using both halliards together would allow the yard to be hoisted or lowered much faster - although it should be remembered that in action, chain 'battle' slings' were fitted to the bunt of the fore topsail yard.  However, in heavier/stormy weather, where controlling the yard more quickly was important, this additional speed will have been beneficial.

 

Thoughts?

 

cheers

 

Pat

Edited October 3, 2021 by BANYAN

[Jim Lad]

Is there anything that says that the tackles have to be singles, Patrick?  Could one of them be a gun tackle?

 

jOHN

[BANYAN]

Hi John, I think all of the halliards were made-up as single tackles (gun tackles plus whips) as ONLY single blocks (the 4 x 10" and 2 x 9") are listed which prevents the make-up of a luff etc.

 

cheers

 

Pat

[Ras Ambrioso]

Another WOW model. I am going to follow you project. Will live to see your development of the carronade at 1/72 scale. thanks for your comments on my cruiser Amapá.

[BANYAN]

Welcome to my build log Ras; it is a bit of slow progress at the moment while I continue to try and develop/sort-out the rigging plan.

 

John,  in re-reading your comment I think I misinterpreted - while the blocks were single, there is nothing to suggest they were not rigged double (which was the first way I was going).  I may have found a lead which I am teasing out at the moment that these may have indeed been rigged double (a heavier guntackle with runner and lead block on one side, and a lighter guntackle or double whip on the other side).  This arrangement would then fall into the guidance of the heavier (slower to use but more mechanical advantage) for when only one watch is on deck, and the lighter but faster to work tackle on the other when all hands were available.  Thanks again for your suggestions.

 

cheers

 

Pat

Edited October 16, 2021 by BANYAN

[KeithAug]

Hi Pat, Is the shipyard experiencing an extended shutdown? Looking forward to the next instalment.

 

 

[BANYAN]

Hi Keith, unfortunately yes  I stopped work late last year to catch up on too many chores I had been putting off (still working on them) but other issues have also got in the way.  I hope to make a restart in February 2022 (Hope being the operative word)  

 

cheers

 

Pat

Edited May 5, 2022 by BANYAN

[rwiederrich]

A start I’ll be looking forward to.  
 

Rob

[Keith Black]

 Pat, fortunately our projects wait patiently for our attention. I look forward to your updates when circumstances permit. 

[BANYAN]

Thanks Keith (A) and  (B), and Rob for your kind wishes.  Things were looking on track until along came some bad weather recently which caused some minor water damage which I am now attending to   I hope to get back into the 'saddle' again soon.

cheers

Pat

[druxey]

Hope all will be well from here on in, Pat.

[Louie da fly]

Yep, we had that bad weather up here in Ballarat, too. It was a bewdy.

 

We got considerable flooding here - fortunately we live on top of a hill, so it didn't affect us personally. But it was all pretty dramatic - thunder, lightning, heavy downpour, big old trees blown over. I was glad I'd cleaned out the roof gutters about a week prior, thinking, "Well, it's summer, not likely to get much rain from now on. Good time to clean the gutters . . ."

 

Keith's right, though. Victoria will be waiting for you when you're ready to get back to her.

 

Steven

[BANYAN]

Thanks Druxey and Steven for your kind thoughts; much appreciated. 

 

The (box) gutters were my issue; simply could not hold the volume of water which back flowed into my garage ceiling.  A lot of people copped a lot worse so not complaining; insurance will sort it.  Certainly a 'bewdy' of a storm; I  even contemplated starting on an 'Arc' (of sorts) .

 

I am still doing some research for Victoria's rigging in the background, but nothing too serious.

 

cheers

 

Pat

Edited January 20, 2022 by BANYAN

[Louie da fly]

Box gutters are a b*gger. Having spent my life designing houses, I try to steer very clear of them - they collect leaves and clog up, water doesn't have anywhere to go if they overflow. But the great majority of (Victorian) houses in Ballarat have them . . . including my own. Fortunately in our case, they haven't overflowed (yet - cross fingers).

 

Steven