What is this type of rig called.

[BANYAN]

Hi folks, in an attempt to try and find detailed information I first  need to isolate what this rig would have been called; then I can search for info on it.  I cannot find anything by any author etc nor in the NMM (so far).

 

Please also see: 

Please note:

• The ship was deigned as a three masted schooner (masting etc) but rigged as a Barque + Shcooner rig (some elements).  The masts have a lower mast with single extension as a pole (combined topmast, topgallant and royal) - only the single doubling.
• She is not a pure Barue Rig, nor a pure Three-masted Schooner or Topsail schooner.  She is a combo of these I think?  
• She definitely had a single (not double) topsail on the fore and main masts.
• She only had one set of tops (really trestletrees rather than tops - zoom in to see) at the doubling and appear to be the same construction that would be found for the topmast trestle trees rather than main top.  The lithograph aligns with the photo of the ship almost exactly but shows the rigging much more clearly
• She also had light course on the lower yards (not full as for ship rig) - ascertained from letters by the ship's designer.
• Although not shown in the following lithograph, I have seen two examples (wood engravings) of her flying royals.
• Ths same rig was adopted by the RN in the Beacon Class (1867)
• Victoria was built in 1855 along mercantile lines but to the quality required by service ships

 

The closest I have found is a Barquentine but that is only rigged this way to the Fore mast.   No other rig description seems to fit?    The lithograph shows her running as a topsail schooner but other images shows the full Barque rig as shown following.

 

HELP much appreciated Pease

 

 

cheers

 

Pat

 

Edited March 22, 2019 by BANYAN

[grsjax]

That is a bark.  Although it doesn't follow the rules exactly it still fits the definition.  I.e. a three or more masted vessel with square sails on all masts but the mizzen.

[vossiewulf]

Since she was one of a kind, couldn't it be a unique rig if you haven't been able to find anything else using it?

 

 

[Louie da fly]

Well, she's certainly not a topsail schooner or a barquentine. Neither is she a "pure" schooner or barque, but she has elements of both.

 

But despite the gaff mainsails on fore and mainmasts, she has square rig on the first two masts (I'd count the courses in this definition, even if they're "light" - whatever that means) and only fore and aft on the mizzen.   If she has to be put in a category I'd agree with grsjax in calling her a barque/bark. After all, if instead of gaffs you had staysails behind the fore and mainmasts there'd be no hesitation in calling her a barque.

 

Otherwise, maybe vossiewulf has the right of it - as Dr Maturin would say, her rig is  "nondescript"  - in the sense that it has never previously been described. Perhaps a squark?

 

Steven

Edited March 22, 2019 by Louie da fly

[JerseyCity Frankie]

I say this is a three masted topsail schooner. In order to be a schooner she needs two or more masts with a fore and aft rig on the lowers and the main taller than the fore, the image at the top of this thread satisfies those requirements. In order to be a barque of any kind she’d need a full unambiguous square rig on the fore, which she does not have. The crux is the foremast when you’ve got a Gaff Lower AND a square course. Some use the criteria of a fidded tgalent being the thing that turns a mast like that from a schooner formast into a barkentine formast but I’m sticking with the gaff rigged fore and aft sail on the fore as the criteria that swings it solidly into schooner mast territory. I’d argue that the definition of a mast has more to do with the primary lower sails rather than the way the mast is configured way above the topmast.

[catopower]

4 hours ago, JerseyCity Frankie said:

I say this is a three masted topsail schooner. In order to be a schooner she needs two or more masts with a fore and aft rig on the lowers and the main taller than the fore, the image at the top of this thread satisfies those requirements. In order to be a barque of any kind she’d need a full unambiguous square rig on the fore, which she does not have. The crux is the foremast when you’ve got a Gaff Lower AND a square course. Some use the criteria of a fidded tgalent being the thing that turns a mast like that from a schooner formast into a barkentine formast but I’m sticking with the gaff rigged fore and aft sail on the fore as the criteria that swings it solidly into schooner mast territory. I’d argue that the definition of a mast has more to do with the primary lower sails rather than the way the mast is configured way above the topmast.

It's definitely not a one of a kind – I've run into this rig before a number times, particularly on steamers. I've been trying to classify it as well.

 

It's a good question, and my first thought was also that this is a 3-masted topsail schooner. But even so, I think ships of this type may have been considered bark rigged, though they may not have strictly fit the definition.

 

There's a beautiful model of the Russian steamer Strelok, I found one time. It has a similar rig:

 

 

I've been studying the Japanese ship Kanrin-maru, a Dutch-built screw steamer with a similar rig, and she's commonly referred to as a bark. Her sister ship, the Bali (see below), was called a schooner, but had a pretty heavy square rig on the foremast, including a mast top. 

 

 

These steamers seem to have mucked up the classification system...

 

 

 

 

Edited March 22, 2019 by catopower
Clarification

[amateur]

There are a couple of ships in the dutch achive (like the bali) http://www.gahetna.nl/collectie/archief/inventaris/gahetnascans/eadid/4.MST/inventarisnr/797/level/file

 

they are all referred to as steam-screw ships, sometimes added: schooner rig

unfortunatedly, there are no rigging diagrams in the archive, just hull-details

 

Jan

[amateur]

The only rigging info I can find is this kind of diagrams:

http://www.gahetna.nl/collectie/archief/inventaris/gahetnascans/eadid/4.MST/inventarisnr/797/level/file

Victoria was not the only one carrying this kind of rig.No naming, though....

 

Jan

Edited March 22, 2019 by amateur

[HMS Bellisle]

you could call it a barque or you could call it a schooner - but as it is neither one nor the other it comes into the class of "jackass barque"! 😀

[amateur]

And some were designed with a rediculous among nt of sail. Apparantly they did not trust the steam engine (or it was more economically sailing to the far east than steaming  )

 

[Jim Lad]

A jackass barque is fully square rigged on the for but not the main or, in a fore masted vessel, usually square rigged on the fore and main and fore and aft rigged on the mizzen and jigger.

 

This vessel is only partially square rigged on both for and main so would more properly be called a topsail schooner on even a two topsail schooner.

 

John

[rwiederrich]

Three masted Two topsail schooner..with the leanings of a Baltimore clipper.

Me thinks.

[druxey]

Barque? Schooner? Why not a Scuaque (as in The Hunting of the Snark)?

[Louie da fly]

Or a quark? Oh, no - that one's already been taken. A squawk?

 

Steven

[BANYAN]

Many thanks for all the feedback folks and I am ever so glad to hear that this rig is not just making me a little 'squirrely' (or squarky or quary or Scuaqey" etc

 

I do know the RN adopted this rig for the Beacon class (1867) and as suggested this type of rig appears unique to steam screw sloops/vessels.  I am very surprised though that I cannot find mention of it by any author of that time, or since, nor can I find any reference of it in the NMM or Rigsarkivit museum holdings.  I think it may have been Lees or Fincham that stated that most post-1850 rigs were fully described with dimensions etc as part of their records; so I am very surprised there is nothing listed in the NMM etc.  I will have a good look through the Dutch museum (online) also as that may turn something up - thanks Amateur.  

 

As to 'light courses', my reading of related correspondence between Oliver W. Lang (Designer) and Capt. Lockyer RN (ship's build superintendent) suggests this meant smaller courses (and possibly yards) than a normal 'ship/barque) fit, that is, not as deep, as the main course for example had to clear the funnel etc, and more often than not, (for Victoria at least) was not even 'loosed' when sailing was assisted with steam power.

 

The reasoning for the ample sail, in Victoria's case at least, was the cost of the coal (referenced as 'black diamonds' more than once).  There is some correspondence from the ship's Captain (Commander Norman) to suggest that steam power was there to enable passage/salley to predefined points in the harbour (even if wind did not allow) to defend the port of Melbourne (Port Phillip) to allow a coordinated defence with the coastal batteries to ensure any/every entry course could be covered, and also to assist in manoeuvring for saving lives from a shipwrecks etc; most of the time the ship would try to use sail power only.  One letter during the ship's sea trial even states steam power to assist the ship departing the river and then revert to sail power as soon as possible.

 

I will continue search for a description of this rig as it will help determine many aspects of the masting, yards and sails, especially the mast fittings.  Kipping and other provide very good details and illustrations for a 'steamer', "schooner' etc but not such a combined rig.  So in the interests of getting a start, I will take the many useful comments into consideration but as all 'known' instances of this rig seems to have been on steam screw vessels, i will use the mastherad configuration (lower mast) provided by Kipping, but modify some of the fittings/furniture to better support a schooner rig.  there will be a single doubling, using Kippings tables for the heeling of a standard topmast, but modify the tables to try and get a reasonable list of diameters for a combined topmast, topgallant and roal mast (as a pole), and see how that eventuates.

 

Does anyone know if James Lees is still active in this field (rigging etc) as a correspondence with him may elicit some further information?

 

cheers

 

Pat

Edited March 24, 2019 by BANYAN

[Louie da fly]

In the absence of anything more specific I think this sounds like a good way forward, Pat.

 

It makes sense that the main course wouldn't have been set when she was under steam.

 

As far as conserving coal goes, it makes sense to use it only when necessary. Getting out of the river into the bay without needing a tug would have been an advantage. Also Port Philip Bay is pretty big, and in the event of a (never materialised) attack it would have been important to be able to manoeuvre as fast as possible to the point of danger without having to rely on the wind. As I understand it, Victoria would have been about the only major warship available at the time, so mobility would have to take the place of numbers. The forts either side of the Rip would have been the other part of the defenses, but if an enemy vessel managed to get past them, Victoria would have been the backup defense. Presumably she would have had enough warning from the fort lookouts to get steam up in time to meet an attack.

 

Steven

[BANYAN]

Hi again all, following some ideas elicited from the above comments, I relooked at some plans in the NMM and came across the sail plan for the Alert Class Gun Despatch Vessels (one of the designs that heavily influenced Victoria's design - assumption) and found her sail plan (ZAZ6663 - Boxx 66 7418A).  This plan (sail wise) is exactly the same and as she was a steam screw sloop; I think it is now safe to assume that this particular sail plan was designed for these type of vessels.

 

There are no details on the mast construction, but I think I can now lean a little more on Kippings drawings and text for the masthead and fixtures as fitted for a "steamer" - now to try and find a name for that rig

 

Also, I would greatly appreciate any pointers/ideas towards that combined pole mast used in this plan (combined topmast, topgallant and royal masts)

 

cheers

 

Pat

Edited March 24, 2019 by BANYAN

[BANYAN]

Hello again all.  With the hope of trying to get a better definition of this sail plan, I have investigated further (again) and find this rig was quite common in the mercantile ships (especially steam assisted clippers etc) of the 1850s.  See line drawing of City of Glasgow below (from Wikipedia).

 

It appears yet again that even back then there was no name convention for the sail plan as it is most commonly referred to as "Barque Rig" while not accounting for the differences.  It also further confirms the usage/configuration is associated with steam screw vessels.  This is exactly the same sail plan (cannot confirm mast configuration) as for "Victoria"

 

Just to be sure i am not going the wrong rabbit hole, does a barque rig include the fore/aft (gaff) sails?

 

So in the absence of correct terminology I think I would have to find the belaying plan of a ship that had this rig/sail plan.  In the absence of such, I think I will run with Barque sail plan and rigging, and modify it to accommodate the gaffs etc.

 

Highly unusual that such a common rig (as it is proving to be) has not been covered with any detail or even named - perhaps we show simply run with Kipping and called it a "Steamers" rig?

 

 

cheers

 

Pat

Edited March 25, 2019 by BANYAN
added graphic

[Jim Lad]

Some barques and ships sported gaff sails on the fore and/or main, Pat, But I don't think it was very common!

 

Johnb

[rwiederrich]

I'm confident in her non-descript rig.  This conclusion is deduced from one major element not mentioned.  She is an early steamer and from knowing just this, history shows that sail configurations were being experimented with during this transitional period.  I have seen some extremely odd yard/sail configurations during this period.  Depending on which painting you presented, you wish to model her from, it looks as if even from these there is an inconsistency in sail configuration.  From single to double topsails.  Now this may be evidence of her continual evolution of sail design as I mentioned earlier...of the period.

 

I wouldn't stress over it too much....for even in my researching for all of my McKay clippers...there are inconsistencies based upon the vessels history, time frame and ownership.  This accounts for so many differences in sail, masting, deck arrangements  and  sparing I have noted. 

With my own Great Republic searching, there is much error that is found were one artist depicts her with partial Forbes rig and bulwarks, while yet others depict her with skysails and a full railed weather deck.

 

One could say if they chose too build it so....that their version of her with sky sails and bulwarks(With Only two cabins) or with only royals and a railed weather deck(My version) or as a three masted full rigged ship(her later/final German years) are all accurate representations of the Donald McKay masterpiece Great Republic.  At some point in her history, they would all be right.

 

I think the wonderful model you are building will fully represent the vessel you are replicating.  Artistic license can be the missing sequence we use in the reconstruction of our vessels DNA.

 

Rob

[BANYAN]

Thanks Rob and John.  Nondescript rig for a Steamer it will be then.  John, that sort of explains why they keep referencing it as Barque Rig, but in this instance, she was initially planned (and masted) as a three-masted schooner.  The initial plan was to revert to that rig after delivery, but I think the sailing qualities of the Barque-styled rig were too good to lose, and she retained it for most of her career.  I think she finally reverted back to the three-masted schooner rig when permanently assigned to "The Survey" in late 1878.

 

Now to just find that masting configuration somewhere

 

cheers

 

Pat

Edited March 27, 2019 by BANYAN

[BANYAN]

For some new information please see my other thread on masting at: 

 

cheers

 

Pat

[catopower]

Pat,

 

A great discussion you started here. I appreciate it very much since I've been studying the Kanrin Maru (ex-Japan). 

 

I missed the discussion on coal preservation, but I'll add that the Kanrin Maru only carried enough coal for 6 full days of steaming. Presumably, the engines were intended for use primarily for travelling into and out of port. For the most part, the fledgeling Japanese Navy (all trainees) used it primarily under steam – I guess they kept close to port. When she crossed the Pacific, she was under sail the whole time.

 

The USS Saginaw, a topsail schooner rigged side-paddlewheel steamer of 1859, spent a year operating only under sail. I can't remember which year was referred to. 

 

I believe Perry's mission to open Japan was in part to secure safe harbors with supplies of coal.

 

As for sail names. Lt. John M. Brooke kept a detailed log of his journey aboard the Kanrin Maru from Edo (Tokyo) to San Francisco. As I mentioned earlier, the Kanrin Maru has the same sail rig as you've been discussing and was referred commonly referred to as a bark. Brooke specifically mentions the gaff rigged sails, calling them "trysails".

 

 

 

 

[BANYAN]

Thanks mate, seems like our two vessels of interest may have a lot in common then.  I'll keep you in the loop on anything else I find.  

 

The particular rig does seem to be 'steamer' related and most commonly referenced as a "Barque/Bark" rig.  The main point of difference I am finding, at the moment at least,  is that the upper masting in some ships with this rig were the more usual 'lower + topmast+ pole (combined topgallant and royal'; whereas, Victoria and many other had the two 'stick' configuration.

 

Further to my find re the Survey Records Book for HMS Arrow (1854), I have now unearthed one for HMS Vigilant (1856), and both have the same rig and mast combinations.  I will see what else I can derive from those records and let you know.

 

cheers

 

Pat

Edited March 28, 2019 by BANYAN

[druxey]

What about simply referring to this as a Transitional rig?

Edited April 5, 2019 by druxey

[BANYAN]

I have been pondering on what to call the rig also Druxey and had been leaning towards 'Steamer rig' as that is the type of vessel (both paddle and screw driven) it seems be exclusively fitted to.  I do like the use of 'transitional' also and perhaps I will add that.

 

I am working on a document at the moment (Word) that collated the research I have done to date and I will make it available via PM (for anyone one interested) or, via this thread, in the very near future for those whom may be interested to comment upon etc.  At this point, the research is purely to provide the reasoning for the shaping and structure of the masts, and the rigging/sail plans (and eventually a belaying plan) as I have enough information to draw the masts now I think.

 

I know it is a single stick upper mast (combining the top, topgallant and royal masts) to which I will apply the 'rules of thumb' proposed by Kipping and Fincham with a slight adaption to the head of the royal based on a comment by one of these authors.  Once drawn in isolation I will overlay it to onto the lithographs and photograph of the ship and adjust to best fit.   Hopefully I will be quite close.

 

The next exercise is to determine the spar furniture and here I will run with the proposals of the same authors for the fittings specific to a steamer and adapted for merchant rather than RN (service) ships.

 

Many thanks for your continued interest and suggestions; it is very much appreciated.

 

cheers

 

Pat

Edited April 5, 2019 by BANYAN

[wefalck]

I can understand Pat's pre-occupation - the child has to have a name. However, I found that the contemporaries were much less concerned about putting things into drawers, or even the right drawer. You may find that one and the same rig is referred to differently in different sources. Somehow it seems to be our modern pre-occupation to classify ships and ship-rigs 'properly'.

 

As she seem to have had a main-course, I would probably call her a barque. Without a main-course she would be a jackass-barque. The two-piece masts on the other hand are more typical for schooners than for barques, but on steamers they tried to simplify the rigs and reduce weight a-top.

[BANYAN]

Thanks Eberhard; that is exactly what I am finding; in the meantime I have decided to call it 'Steamer' Rig as it seemed to be fitted to commonly to most steam powered vessels (both screw and paddle driven).

 

I have also found a description of a Barue by 'Desmond' in his book ‘Wooden Ship Building’, (1998), in Chapter 3, page 123  which depicts a Barque rig with some fore-and-aft sails as shown below (note they do not appear to be gaff sails though).  He describes a Barque as a three-masted vessel (foremast, mainmast and mizzen mast) the two foremost masts are square rigged, as in a ship, the after or mizzen mast has no yards being fitted with a topmast only and carries a gaff sail (called the spanker) and a gaff-topsail.  that said, Victoria did not carry the gaff-topsail.

 

cheers

 

Pat

 

[BANYAN]

Hi all, another update.  After some deeper reading of Kipping and Fincham (both authors published in 1854) I think I have some resolution on this rig.

 

Neither author (actually no author then or since) have actually named this rig.  However, all authors tend to discuss the rig under reference to 'a Steamer' - that is, the relevant discussion relates to a subject (such as masts, or tops, or fittings etc) under the auspices of as fitted to a steamer.

 

Based on their writing, supplemented with information gleaned from several authors and sources, I have established a 'common fit'  for a rig that was used exclusively for steam powered vessels (paddle or screw driven).  The 'rig' appears to have been derived when steam was used as auxiliary power (late 1840s/early 1850s)  and sail was still the primary 'driving' force until much later when steam prevailed as the primary motive power.  The rig appears to have been used well into the late 19th century. 

 

It also closely aligns with Victoria's rig with a few minor differences.  These differences can be attributed to her merchant vessel design features and the 'whims' of the designer/builder.  The research has also exposed that the rig, especially the forms of the Tops' framing, differed slightly between the 'typical' Service (Naval) and Merchant vessel fits.  The rig also, as suspected, was a composite Barque/Schooner rig but can now I think be identified as a specific type which for want of a better term I will call "Steamer Rig"

 

Essentially, the main characteristics of the 'Steamer Rig' are:

• 3 masts and a bowsprit.
• Two part masts with a taller (than for other similar sized vessels) single tree Lower masts and all with a single loose extension pole mast.
• The Fore and Main mast pole extensions were usually formed as a combined Topmast and Topgallant mast with short stub pole (to fly pennants, flags etc) - however, in one of those identified differences in Victoria, she also had the Royal mast included in this single Upper pole mast.
• The Mizen mast comprised the usual (for square rigged vessels) pole mast extension with no crowjack.
• The bowsprit is short, nearly horizontal, with a jib and flying jibboom in one.  (The 'steeve' of Victoria's bowsprit was measured at 15 degrees up from the waterline as the reference (75 degrees from the vertical).)
• Square sails to the Fore and Main mast, Spanker/Driver on the Mizzen; Staysail, Jib, Outer Jib and Flying Jib to the Bowsprit/Jibboom.
• The Fore and Main masts carried a Gaff Trysail with Gaff booms ( or Boom-Sails as Kipping refers to them) - as large as the spacing between masts and deck equipment etc would allow for them to be conveniently worked.
• Some versions also occasionally carried Gaff Topsails (not in Victoria)

Additional detail to assist identifying this rig includes:

• All masts were fitted with a lightweight skeletal form of Top at the Lower mast hounds only; no other tops/trees were fitted to the pole extension masts. 
• The pole masts had stops/shoulders at the appropriate height where the yards for the associated yards were to be lifted; these were fitted with a iron and copper 'funnel'.
• Spreaders were not fitted to the Tops.
• Service vessels had different forms (framing) of Tops fitted to the Fore and Main/Mizen masts - curved rim on the Foremast only. 
• Merchant vessels had the same, lighter (than Service vessel Tops) framed form of skeletal Tops fitted on all three masts; all had the curved rim forward.
• The lower yards were usually fitted with an iron-Truss, with an option of Truss or Parrels used for the upper yards

 

Fincham also stated:  The masting of steam-vessels is not subject to the same strict rules that are made to determine the masting of other classes of ships.  The length of the masts and yards must, however, bear some general relation to the length and breadth of the vessel; but both this relation, and the positions of the masts, are subject to many variations depending on particular circumstances, especially on the service in which the vessel is to be employed, whether for long and short voyages, or only in rivers.  The positions of the masts must, in many cases, be determined by the situation of the machinery, and the quantity of sail be regulated by the requirements incident to its employment.  It is, however, important, on account of the obstruction which the masts and yards present in steaming head to wind, that they should be made as compact as possible. …………..

 

There is a significant amount of information on the shaping, form and fittings of masts for a Steamer provided by both authors, but their 'rules-of-thumb', or formulae, for reducing/tapering spars differ.  Unfortunately neither (any) author provides a 'rule' for dimensioning the single pole extension.  I will continue to find something on this and advise when i have anything worth mentioning.

 

I hope this information helps others whom may need to use similar rigs to ships they are/or wish to model.

 

cheers

 

Pat

Edited April 10, 2019 by BANYAN

[vossiewulf]

On 4/5/2019 at 4:25 PM, BANYAN said:

I have been pondering on what to call the rig also Druxey and had been leaning towards 'Steamer rig'

You could call it a Fazdangler Boomenhooper rig and it would make just as much sense as most of sailing terminology.