HMS Bellona 1760 by SJSoane - Scale 1:64 - English 74-gun - as designed

[SJSoane]

A little more digging last night, and I remembered that I was looking at HMS Valiant (1759). I saw this in Brian Lavery's "Building the Wooden Walls: The Design and Construction of the 74-gun Ship Valiant". The Valiant, according to Lavery, was begun the same time as the Bellona, as a substitute at the last minute for a Dublin class 74 that was about to start construction. So this deck plan would have been at least one way of constructing the upper deck of a 74 at the time of the Bellona.

 

Assuming the athwartship arm of a lodging knee reaches from the side to the carling in the middle section of the deck, then these carlings set closer to the side for the remaining 5 beams would either require their knees to be shorter, or for the heads to be cut off, as I have shown above. I will try drawing some shorter knees in this aft section, and see if that looks more shipshape.

 

Mark

 

Detail of Valiant upper deck, from https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/384159.html

[garyshipwright]

Hi Mark. I just checked some of the contracts I have and the one in 1755 gives the Hanging knee arm against the beam as 3 feet 7 inches long and the Lodging knee arm against the beam as 4 feet long. The contract of 1763 says the same thing  accept the hanging  knee arm is a inch shorter. They also say that the lower end of the hanging knee has to run down at least 6 inches past the upper edge of the spirketting. This is  what am using as a base line for making mine on Alfred upper deck and doesn't seem to  have changed much up to Steel's time and looks like it increased in only a inch or two.  

[Mark P]

Good Evening Mark;

 

I have done a bit of looking through the draughts on Wikimedia, and besides the Dorsetshire, there are plans of the Hampton Court and Weymouth? with similarly detailed deck plans. All of them show the knees abutting the carlings with rounded ends, not cut off square.

 

See below a plan from Inflexible, which, although it is dated 1790, when she was converted to a store-ship, shows the deck beams from an earlier period. Doesn't show any knees, unfortunately; but the carlings are far enough from the side for the knees not to need shortening in any way.

 

 

Following on from some of the comments above, here is the deck plan of the Stirling Castle of 1775, showing the improved sweep with rollers and other parts of the steering mechanism, which will be of interest, even if it is from a later period.

 

 

Then there is the deck plan of Vengeance, 1774, showing just what you need.

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SJSoane]

Thanks so much Gary, Mark and Siggi. You caught a mistake, and I was beginning to cut wood for the upper deck!

 

Here is the refined version, thanks to your eagle eyes and research. My athwartship arms of the lodging knees were a trifle too long further forward, and the carlings at the stern were too wide apart. Adjusting for both of these, and the geometry comes out just right.

 

I also fiddled with the geometry of the steering, moving the sweep back one beam, locating the sheaves at the sides according to the Dorsetshire print, and then running the lines to the steering wheel hub location afore the mizen mast. I worked out 7 turns on the hub, which located where the line comes up and then comes down, which are offset fore and aft by the width of the 7 turns. This makes the cross for the sheaves in the deck asymmetrical, as you can see below. Looks funky, but covered in decking eventually, so I guess I don't care!

 

Am I understanding correctly that the port line up is the forward one on the steering wheel hub, i.e., the hub is wound clockwise? So a clockwise turn of the wheel would pull on the port line, which would move the tiller to the port, which would turn the ship to starboard?

 

Hate to get it wrong, and have the helmsman accidentally steer into an obstacle!

 

Mark

 

 

[druxey]

Below are my field notes (and calculation) for a 64 gun ship from many years ago. Seven turns it is!

[garyshipwright]

Hi Mark. After looking at your knees lay out at the last couple of beams of the upper deck I found out that fitting hanging knees in the last 3 or 4 beams that it was not possible for me and it was because of the knees that fit the helm port and wing transom.  They are big knees which stuck out from the side, and would have may it just a little on the hard side fitting hanging knee's.  It made of been the way I fitted them but can think of no other reason why Hector plan show's them  that way. When you look at the plan of the Hector  you will noticed that they used  double lodging knees between the last few beams because of those transom, at least that is what comes to mind.  Here is a photo of those knee's on Alfred  that show those knee's. Any way it does give you some thing to think about when you get to this point. I looked in your log for those knee's on Bellona but doesn't look like  you have added them yet. Just some hind sight for you.  Gary 

[SJSoane]

Thanks druxey and Gary.

Gary, I see what you mean. Couldn't see it in three dimensions until looking at your stern. So I left the hanging knees out for now, will see how long my horizontal knees come into this space.

 

 

druxey, fascinating little sketch of the wheel. First, I had the sheaves backwards relative to yours. I switched, and now I have the starboard sheave forward of the one on the port, as above.

 

So I did my own calculations, based on your reasoning. With a barrel diameter of 21", one turn of the wheel pulls in 66" of rope. My tiller can only swing 10'-11" to one side from dead center, because of the gooseneck hitting the beam behind the sweep as discussed before. So I need 1.98 (rounded to 2) turns of the wheel to pull the tiller its maximum distance to one side, or 4 turns lock to lock.

 

So, if I understand how this works, with seven turns around the wheel hub,  the rope will move four rope diameters along the hub when turning from dead center to full port, and the same from dead center to full starboard. And turning the wheel itself to port moves the tiller to starboard and the ship to port. In the drawing below, forward is to the right.

 

Assuming I have this right, I located the holes down to the sheaves in the deck so they are about equidistant from the two extremes that the rope on that side will travel. The purple circles are the locations of the holes down to the sheaves. Or would these be slots in the deck down to the sheave, allowing the rope to traverse its full four diameters?

 

I understand HMS Victory had sliding plates allowing the ropes to move without a big slot in the deck; but I am not sure if this had been invented yet in 1760. So many unknowns!

 

Mark

 

 

 

 

 

 

[druxey]

There would be a need for slots to prevent frictional wear on the lines. Whether there were sliding covers in 1760.... where is that Time Machine, please?

 

Your illustration isn't quite complete, as the center turn of the line is nailed securely to the barrel. (See my sketches.)

[Siggi52]

Hello Mark,

 

some notes from Falconer and Boudriot's, the 74 gun ship, Vol 2 page 135. 

First what Falconer under Helm wrote

and Boudriot

 

I deleted the picture, because of copyright and so on

 

 

 

So at least you could turn the wheel only 2,5 or 3,5 turns to one or the other side. For the Dragon I made also 7 turns at the wheel, I think that is what Goodwin wrote. At Page 136 he wrote also something about the sliding foot assembly. May be you find by Falconer more about this.

 

 

[SJSoane]

Thanks so much druxey and Siggi. I think, I hope, I have finally got it.

 

Using primary sources closest in date to the Bellona, the Dorsetshire section and the Falconer dictionary, here is what I now see:

The sweep is one beam astern of the end of the tiller, and the lines run to a sheave in the side, not to a free-hanging block, as in the Dorsetshire:

 

 

And I will use five wraps on the hub, according to Falconer, which works perfectly with the maximum 2 full turns to each side or 4 turns lock to lock, with a fifth wrap for the nail at the center. This leaves a little bit shorter slot for the rope to traverse back and forth at the quarter deck level:

 

 

And centering the sheaves in the upper deck framing on the center of each slot, we get:

 

Back to shaping my upper deck beams!

 

Mark

 

 

 

[SJSoane]

I improved my old beam jig, used years ago for the gun deck beams. It now has a base which runs along the router table surface. Hinged to this is a piece of plywood cut and sanded with the upper and lower deck roundup on each side. The piloting bit on the router table runs against this. an upper piece of plywood clamps down on the beam blank to hold it firmly in place. The hinge allows me to use a digital angle gauge to dial in the correct angle up for the sheer at the beam location. The white screws allow precise adjustment.

 

So I first clamp in for the upper roundup, then switch to the opposite side to do the lower roundup. A spacer behind keeps the beam at its exact moulded depth.

 

3 done, 24 to go.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[jdbondy]

Shameless plug for Rockler Woodworking, I see! I am lucky to have one about 3 miles from my house.

 

What an impressive jig! Gonna spend some time looking at that one, because the more time spent, the more I think I can learn from it...

[SJSoane]

Hi JD,

Yes, I used to live in Denver, a short distance from a Rockler Woodworking store. But now I am 850 miles away...

I am glad you found the jig interesting. here are a few more details:

 

 

 

 

The two template edges were formed by rough cutting the curve of the beam roundup, top and bottom, then using my sanding sticks of the correct radius to refine the edge. The sanding sticks themselves were made by cutting the arc of the correct radius through the middle of a piece of maple, then sandpaper was put on one surface to sand the other, and then the sandpaper reverse to sand the first surface. Gives perfect, smooth arcs.

 

I then attached the template with hinges to the base that runs along the router table top. The white screws allow precise adjustment to the desired angle of the template for the sheer of the beam in cross section.

 

Stops screwed down to the template are used to position the blanks before cutting. The edge of the stop on the convex edge of the template is straight, because the blanks are originally straight. I cut this edge first. The concave edge stop is shaped to the same roundup, because the just-cut blank now has the correct upper surface. The distance from the edge of the template on the concave side to the stop is the exact moulded size of the beam. I rubber cemented sandpaper on the template in front of each stop to give more friction to the clamping. A top sheet is then clamped down on the blank, with a temporary spacer at the opposite side of the template to achieve even clamping on the blank.

 

Because it is so easy to insert things backwards in the monotony of doing the same thing over and over, I labeled each blank with which edge is the top curve, and also which surface should be up in the jig. I religiously check this before clamping the blank into the jig. And once the top surface is cut, I put the blank in the other side of the template and move the spacer to the other side. The angle is already set, giving perfect parallel surfaces to the top and bottoms of the beams.

 

The router has to be adjusted for height for every cut, ensuring that the pilot bearing runs as close as possible to the top edge of the template. You can see in the diagram that if the pilot bearing were further down, it would cut further into the blank, messing up the thickness of the beam. For this I greatly appreciate the Rockler router table, which has an adjustment screw on the top of the table itself for precisely dialing the router up or down by small increments.

 

Fiddly, maybe, but way less hassle than shaping every beam by hand. And also a much more precise way of dialing in the correct roundup and also angle for the sheer.

Plus, it is fun to make jigs!

 

Best wishes,

 

Mark

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SJSoane]

While taking a break from the monotony of cutting beams, I started to look at the relationship between the beams of the gundeck and the beams of the upper deck, where certain things have to align, like the main bits, bowsprit step, etc.

 

This then caused me to think about the pillars for the first time. I don't have a clear idea of where they are positioned. Brian Lavery's book on the Bellona shows them down the centerline of the hull in a cross section on page 42, and in a perspective cross section on page 43 he shows two athwartships next to the capstan; but he doesn't show any of these in plan. The contemporary model of the Princess Royal in Rob Napier's book has two rows of pillars on the middle deck, running down either side of the hatches, etc. But there are none in the fore or aft ends of the deck. And none I can see between the upper deck and the quarterdeck and forecastle. There could be two rows as opposed the one Lavery primarily shows for the Bellona, because the Princess Royal is a larger ship.

 

Also, these are supposed to bear on the deck beams, but not every beam on my upper deck aligns with a beam on the gundeck. So are pillars omitted in these places? Do the pillars sometimes go down the center where there are no obstructions, and then shift to two athwartships where there are obstructions?

 

Has anyone seen more evidence of where the pillars are located on a 74?

 

Just asking for a friend....😏

 

Mark

 

 

[druxey]

Perhaps the pillars rest above carlings when the beams at different levels do not coincide vertically.

[Mark P]

Good Evening Mark;

 

I have seen contracts which stipulate that a thicker deck plank is to be used below the columns. This could refer to the binding strakes which run parallel to the centre line. I don't remember exactly which ships and periods this occurred in. Druxey's suggestion of carlings being used seems reasonable also, although a 4" deck plank supported by the ledges would also take a fair amount of weight. In the 17th century long carlings were used to form a raised line each side of the centreline, making the outer edge of all the hatchways, but again, I cannot remember if these seated the columns also. I will have to do a bit of checking back through some contracts.

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

[AON]

On my plans some are aligned with those above and others are not.  I've not looked at pillars... something worth keeping an eye out for as I'm thumbing through stuff for the next few weeks.... unless your "friend" notices it first.  

[AON]

In this painting of HMS Bellerophon's gun deck there seem to be a pair of pillars

[druxey]

Also note that bulwarks and carriages are NOT red! What is the date of this painting?

[garyshipwright]

Mark here is a draught of the Glory of 98 guns showing what I believe is the way her pillars were laid out.  On her gun deck and middle deck looks to have all her pillars and seems there is one on each side of the capstain on the fwd side. I know its not a 74 but at the moment its the best I can find. Hope it help's. I also added one of the 64 gun ship Standard. Gary   

[AON]

Druxey

Below is the image of HMS Victory in 1765

 (ref: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2583165/Nelsons-flagship-HMS-Victory-true-colours-blue-deck-none-hideous-orange.html). 

 

I am looking for the source of the Bellerophon  painting above but suspect it is in early service.

[druxey]

Well, the photo of Victory's stern shows that the paint job is still not right! The lettering of 'Victory' is in Perpetua, a typeface from the 1920's. Since that photo was taken it has been repainted in Clarendon - a Victorian design from about 1845! So, a degree of scepticism is justified. All the restoration team need have done was studied painted contemporary models' sterns to get that detail right. Obviously, they did not!

[AON]

Ahhh, but the article states they removed layers upon layers of paint to discover the Orlop deck painted a creamy stone colour, the surgeon's cabin "a grand two shades of blue", and  the admiral and Captain's cabin a light blue.  So is it not very likely the gun deck was painted something lighter, rather than blood red?

[AON]

HMS Bellerophon Gun Deck water colour, date unknown

National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, London

https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/110266.html

[bruce d]

14 hours ago, AON said:

there seem to be a pair of pillars

Pumps?

[bruce d]

Careful with that watercolour: the NMM links it to 'Waterloo' which would make it the 1824 Bellerophon.

[AON]

I still refer back to the article where they scrapped off layers of paint to reveal the original colours, then look at the various paintings.

 

But the original point was the number of pillars, single row or set of two rows.

 

We've digressed on Marks build.  Sorry for that Mark.

Possibly this might be an excellent separate discussion elsewhere?

[SJSoane]

I finished cutting the upper deck beams this morning, looked at the website, and discovered a rich conversation going on here. Thanks, everyone, for participating in these endlessly fascinating issues in the design and decoration of mid century 74s.

 

Gary, the section of HMS Glory gives great detail on the pillars and much else. Thanks, I had not seen this before. I also looked at John McKay's Anatomy of the Ship for the HMS Victory, and his drawings seem to agree with the Glory section regarding the pillars. In section (p38-39), between the gundeck and the middle deck, there is a pillar for every beam in the upper deck framing, stopping just aft of the mizen mast, and just forward of the foremast. This is to avoid the manger and the tiller. Most of the time, the beams of the two decks do align, and so the pillars go from beam to beam. Sometimes, they are offset a bit, and the head of the pillar still aligns with the middle deck beam, but the foot sometimes lands on the binding strake, not the beam itself in the gundeck framing. And there even appear to be some crooked pillars, like a lazy Z, that connect two offset beams to each other. The locations are more spotty between the upper deck and the quarterdeck/forecastle, I need to study more the rationale for this.

 

The Victory clearly has two rows of pillars. It's beam is 50'-6", while the Bellona is 46'-9". Could 3'-9" less span in the Bellona mean it could have gone to one row down the middle?

 

Still so much to figure out!

 

Mark

 

 

 

 

 

[SJSoane]

When in doubt, look at the original source! I wish my brain worked better in retirement....

Here are my own photos of the Bellona first model.

 

 

The pillars clearly run down the center, except where the center is interrupted by capstans, bowsprits, etc. And heads are always aligned with a beam, whereas feet can land on the binding strake when the beams do not line up. I guess I will just start plotting logical locations based on this observation, and see how things turn out!

 

So now we know, a 74 primarily uses a single row, a first and second rate use two rows.

 

Best wishes,

 

Mark

 

 

 

 

[garyshipwright]

Mark if you look in Lavery book on the Bellona, on page 27 you will see the lower deck of the ajax of 1767 which shows the layout of the pillars. It does seem a couple of them are missing but you can tell because of the color difference of the wood  in those spot's when you look at it.  There is also a mid section of a 74 that shows 6 pillars, three per side around the capstain. I don't think that bigger ships with only a 3 foot difference would have called for a double row but a single role untill something like the capstan/pump handles, changed the setting of them. My understanding, and can't remember were I read this,  if they set one pillar on top of the one below it, it  would help transmit the weight of the decks down to the keel/ keelson. I will do some more looking for something that just tell us were they were placed. you may be right on the rows so don't hold me to this. My reason is if you look at the Glory at the stove carling you will see the pillars under neith it sitting on the deck plank in the middle of the gun deck beam.  We know this carling was in the middle of the upper deck beam which leads one to believe they are sitting in the middle.  Also if you look at the forward capstain you can see that the capstain is shown behind the forward pillar which would tell me another pillar is on the other side. . To me it looks like most of the pillars are touching the dash line on the bottom of the beams which would be the middle of the beam I believe on the bottom of it. We also know that around the chain pump there is a row of pillar's on both sides. Just my thoughts.  Gary