HMS Terror by clearway - FINISHED - OcCre - 1:75 - upgraded

[clearway]

 

8 hours ago, allanyed said:

Hi Keith,

Given the great build you have shared with us, especially considering the improvements you have made to what the kit provided, have you decided on your next project?   

Thanks

Allan

 

 

Thanks Allan, i still have Terror to finish along with Victory, Endurance coast boat Bent and some not mentioned on here!!!!I have several in the pipeline but i have bought the old billings birgitte lugger which i want to convert to a steam drifter and on top of the pile on the table is the infamous R.C.M.P. St Roch which i am thinking of bashing into her pre 1942 re fit configuration though will need more details of the wheel (pilot) house and deckhouse/exhaust arrangment.

 

Keith

[allanyed]

Hi Keith

Look like you have a full plate!!!  Continued success to you.

Allan

 

 

 

[clearway]

Ty again Allan and thanks for the likes, comments and looking in everyone. Well i went to continue digging out the area in front of the coal bunker to lay paving stones and after a sweaty hour or so retreated to the shipyard before i ended up looking like yoda!

The blocks have been fitted to the boomkins and the fore course tacks rigged and belayed but not coiled yet, the down hauls for the jib and stay sail have been belayed and coiled but still need the sheets rigged. The pin rails either side of the bowsprit have been shall we say interesting to belay too!

 

Take care all

 

Keith

[clearway]

thanks for the likes and views everyone, while no work on Terror since last pic i have been poring over images and plans of her in matthew betts book and google. it looks like while she did definitely have studding sails and tri sail masts/ yards fitted during the back voyage, there isnt anything to confirm 100% they were still fitted for the Franklin expedition as any images available didnt depict them (maybe the extra sail area wasnt needed because they had the auxiliary steam engine)?

 

However i think i have finally figured out the supports for the ice/conning bridge. As far as i can tell there is an upright fastened to the bulwarks and a support running from the aft skid beam onto the top of said upright. As regards the "plank" itself i am figuring it would maybe have been made out of 6" x 2" sided timber fastened together for strength and is around 2 feet in width as i cant see a plank that size being made out of a single piece of wood and if made in sections could be dismantled and stored when not in use/during heavy weather?

 

2 years in and getting towards the end of the build she is still throwing curve balls at me!

 

Keith

[Keith S]

If you want my opinion, Keith (and as you know my model already has the trysail masts fitted) the fore-and-aft sails in the later years of sail were pretty much essential kit. I believe that on many points of sail, the fore-and-aft rig was used instead of rather than as well as the square rig. I can't see them being omitted, especially taking into account the extremely limited fuel reserves they carried for the steam-engine. Back then, improvements to sail rigging were considered to be high-tech, while the steam engine, as we know, was experimental and even Capt. Crozier was of the opinion that it wouldn't do him any good (referencing a letter he wrote to his nephew on the subject). I am building my ship to look as though she is proceeding under steam, with all sails messily furled. On yours, if you do the fore-and-aft rig, I would consider depicting it with the trysails furled since you have the square sails flying.  I don't have any recommendation about the studding-sails but the irons you made for your Victory are so nice it would be shame not to include them on your Terror, although it's conceivable they would have removed and stowed the booms themselves. 

 

I was able to visit the Polar ship "Fram" recently, and while that ship is half a century more modern, she has an ice bridge in almost the same location. (just aft of the mizzen, instead of before it) There is no helm control; it's simply a bridge, so I think it's got to be pretty much the same idea as what was fitted to Terror. It is a curved and planked structure, similar to a deck only with the planks being laid athwartships. I idiotically didn't take any pictures of it, although my friend might have (I will check). Here is a picture of of it I took from the internet. You can see how it follows the crowned shape of the deck (which our models unfortunately don't have) and is made of planks. There are four iron stanchions in the middle holding it above the deck,  with shorter iron stanchions supporting it from the rails. (From the "Terror" drawings, I think it might be appropriate to use turned wooden stanchions in the centre, and it looks as though it is at least partially supported by the davits as well). 

 

The "Fram" is a very trustworthy source of information, because unlike many museum ships, she was drydocked and roofed over for the museum almost immediately after having returned from a voyage. She is exactly the way she looked back when she last sailed, and hasn't been subjected to "interpretation" by non-sailing museum staff (or if she has: it's been minimal)

 

Edited August 16, 2022 by Keith S

[Keith Black]

 Keith, you kept referring to a "ice bridge" and I wasn't sure but I thought you might mean a "flying bridge". A lot of ships carried flying bridges including the Tennessee and they were permanent structures. Why do you think they would assemble/dismantle at certain points in the voyage? 

[Keith S]

Keith, you're right, it's a flying bridge. However, in some plan views of the Erebus and Terror, it's referred to as an "Ice Bridge". There was an officer aboard whose role was defined as "ice master" and whose job was to con the ship through ice floes and pack ice. The fact that the bridge is called the "Ice Bridge" makes it seem to me that it was intended for the exclusive use of the Ice Master. This may lead one to believe it was removeable, as it doesn't seem as though a flying bridge was standard equipment on Royal Navy ships of that era. Plus, it is not visible on the very few drawings we have seen by artists who were sketching first-hand as the ships made their way across the North Atlantic prior to entering the straights.

 

It may very well be that it was not removable... we simply don't know. But drawings of the ships, and of similar ships, don't seem to show a permanently-installed bridge. 

 

On my model, I have decided to depict her as she would have looked steaming through pack-ice, with her sails hastily furled and the chimney and screw in place. Therefore, I will certainly be installing the ice bridge. But it's not unreasonable to assume it was removable, because it is not depicted in a lot of drawings of the ships, nor is it always depicted in the Royal Navy draughts I have. There's always the possibility of its being "omitted for clarity" however. The fact is, I just don't know. Also, in a lot of draughts it's just shown as an outline, with no real details. 

 

Here are two drawings. In one, it seems to depict a flying bridge with a man on it. In the other, it is not depicted. 

 

I suppose the only reason to believe it's a removable structure is the fact it's referred to as the "ice bridge" in some drawings. 

 

Also, the beams upon which they stored their many boats would seem in some drawings to interfere with the bridge, or at least make it unuseable.

 

Also, it doesn't appear in any of the wreck photos, which you would think it would if it was a permanent thing. But on the other hand, Parks Canada has been annoyingly parsimonious with their photographs. 

 

I think it's pretty safe to say that this bridge was a feature of these ships and ought to be included. It's just a bit weird that so little detail of it or its supporting structure are depicted in contemporary drawings and plans. There's a picture which depicts it as hanging WAY over the side, and others that depict it being a normal length. Some depict it as being flat; others depict it being curved. It's just like everything else on this boat: A GREAT BIG MYSTERY.

Edited August 16, 2022 by Keith S

[Keith Black]

 Keith S, okay, you dismantle it. Then what? Where would they have stored the stanchions, the iron runners/joist in which the deck planking was fitted, and the stairways.

 

 IMHO, when a ship's wheel is below the cap rail or so far astern making visibility almost impossible for the helmsmen, a flying bridge is almost imperative in the case of ships fitted with steam engines. Course corrections, engine speed, and engine forward, reverse and stop needed to be made much quicker than a ship under sail alone and couldn't have been preformed without a clear field of view whether in icy waters or clear. 

 

[clearway]

Thankyou for your input Keith and Keith, I think i am basing to much trust in the London news lithograph regards the tri sail masts and yards, other exploration vessels also had them (Beagle for one), part of my reasoning was they were used to close haul and permit better control into the wind hence why i was in two minds as the Navy would have installed the steam engine to do this instead. I will have to leave them off as i wont be able to fit them now without demolishing all the rigging! As regards the ice bridge my thought follow Keith s argument and have been wondering if there were any supports midships not just for the bridge but the skid beams as well (could be iron supports as they were coming into fashion around then)

 

Also great to see you back keith and have some Terror back and forth going again☺️

 

The other Keith

Edited August 16, 2022 by clearway
typo

[Keith Black]

 Keith C, I'm of the opinion that once the Terror was fitted with steam engines the ice/flying bridge would have been permanent. On the Tennessee there was a engine telegraph where the engineer on the flying bridge could instantly relay instructions to the engine room. With sail alone, a keel and rudder was it. Once fitted with steam they had a prop, prop shaft and stuffing box to worry about none of which took kindly to being bounced about and would have required dry docking to be repaired had any been damaged. . 

 

 I bet the "Ice Master" had a crew of at least four (one starboard, one port, one forward and one on the main top) all relaying information to him and he in turn relaying information to the helmsman at all times and also to the engine when under steam. 

[Keith S]

Keith B I think your reasoning is sound, although I won't be including an engine-room telegraph. The Fram doesn't have one, and I think it probably would have been sufficient on Terror to just bawl orders down the skylight. She only went three knots at full chat. There remains the fact that the bridge is called the "ice bridge" on the drawings, but I'm pretty sure that's because the engine was primarily intended for use in the pack ice, and I had the same thoughts as you regarding steamers having a flying bridge while pure sailing ships didn't. This ship existed right at the threshold of an incredible leap in ship design, which makes a lot of common-sense assumptions a bit more risky than otherwise. 

 

Ultimately I agree with you and have always planned to include the bridge on my model.

 

Other Keith, I don't know that you would necessarily need to demolish anything to carefully stick a couple of gaffs in there. You might not be able to fully rig them with trysail masts but with sails furled or struck altogether all you really need are some peak and throat halyards leading to another set of little blocks under the tops. Just something to think about: on the other hand there is such a forest of rigging, it's not going to be noticeable one way or the other. One of the reasons I haven't made any progress on rigging is that I'm scared to death of it. 

 

Also, I agree. Isn't it nice to have so many Keiths all working together! 

Edited August 16, 2022 by Keith S

[clearway]

Honestly Keith S there is that much in the way regards shrouds, trusses, halliards and lifts that it would be a nightmare rigging the gaffs😵. However i am also thinking wouldnt it be nice to have an Erebus to go with her🤨! Regards the bridge Keith B i am planning on having the binnacle mounted on there and having metal rods supporting it midships along with the wooden framework at the bulwarks and yes i agree they would have had a men on the bridge wings and in the topmast trees shouting warnings/ directions to the officer of the watch so he could give instructions to the helmsman.

 

the other Keith

[Keith Black]

1 hour ago, Keith S said:

Isn't it nice to have so many Keiths all working together! 

Downright cozy. 

 

 

[DanielD]

Wow, keeping track of all the Keith’s is a bit of a challenge  

 

This ice/sky bridge for the Terror, I’m sure it was rudimentary at best as an early example, anyone have an idea what it might have looked like? I can’t seem to  hallucinate this ice bridge in any of the Terror etchings that I’ve seen…

Edited August 16, 2022 by DanielD

[clearway]

🤪😁😎

[clearway]

3 minutes ago, DanielD said:

Wow, keeping track of all the Keith’s is a bit of a challenge  

 

This ice/sky bridge for the Terror, I’m sure it was rudimentary at best as an early example, anyone have an idea what it might have looked like? I can’t seem to  hallucinate this ice bridge in any of the Terror etchings that I’ve seen…

I am Thinking along the same lines as Keith s Fram pic, with a single railing around the edge and the binnacle on there with iron supports, The pic of Terror in tow during heavy weather does have what could be a bridge with officers way higher than they should be if on deck.

 

Keith

[Keith S]

Almost all the shipyard pictures, and Matthew Betts' drawings show the outline from above; it looks like a big ice-lolly stick, ha ha. But I'll post this picture again: I never noticed at first until I was specifically looking for it. But now I can see the bridge, as well as a man standing on it! This picture is from Australian archives, and I'm not sure which era of the ship's life it's from!  I blew up the part I'm talking about. Tell me that's not a man standing on a bridge.

 

Maybe it would be a good place for a binnacle. There doesn't seem to be anywhere else to put one, other than a portable one on the top of the aft skylight.

 

 

Edited August 16, 2022 by Keith S

[Keith Black]

23 minutes ago, Keith S said:

Maybe it would be a good place for a binnacle.

For a total of at least two, correct? 

[Keith S]

2 minutes ago, Keith Black said:

For a total of at least two, correct? 

Well, somewhere there is an account of how Erebus and Terror stopped off somewhere on the Thames after their big refits to have the compasses calibrated, and I seem to remember reading each ship had two. I could never work out where they were, though.

[iMustBeCrazy]

48 minutes ago, Keith S said:

But I'll post this picture again: I never noticed at first until I was specifically looking for it. But now I can see the bridge, as well as a man standing on it! This picture is from Australian archives

A zoomable copy:

 

https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-138503762/view

 

And one dated May 30th 1845:

 

https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-138503618/view

 

Hope they help.

[Keith Black]

Thank you, Graig. Both images seem to show a bridge and figure standing on the bridge. 

[Keith Black]

1 hour ago, Keith S said:

I could never work out where they were, though.

The helmsmen required one and if there was one on the bridge would account for the two. I think all ships carried at least two in case one failed. The Tennessee had at three that I know of and there could have been more. By the time the Tennessee and others in her class were launched the amount of iron had increased significantly causing compass deviations and woes. It must have been a case if two agreed then that was the assumed correct heading.  

[iMustBeCrazy]

Now, I may be really out out line but:

 

 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=rmg+erebus&title=Special:MediaSearch&go=Go&type=image&fileres=>1000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Keith S]

16 minutes ago, iMustBeCrazy said:

Now, I may be really out out line but:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No mate, you are not out of line. 

 

No-one would think you're out of line by making helpful observations. Please continue to do so. 

Edited August 17, 2022 by Keith S

[clearway]

7 hours ago, iMustBeCrazy said:

A zoomable copy:

 

https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-138503762/view

 

And one dated May 30th 1845:

 

https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-138503618/view

 

Hope they help.

out of line- no way Craig we need as much input as possible-the 2nd pic from 1845 is the one i was referring to when mentioning what could be an officer standing on a bridge- interestingly though Stanley doesn,t show them extending out as far as the plans would suggest (maybe they shortened them for the Franklin expedition after earlier experiences)? 

 

Hey Keith we are back on to the mystery of the binnacles again with an ice bridge thrown in for good measure!?!?

 

Keith

[clearway]

Thanks for the likes, comments and looking in everyone and hope we three Keiths arnt causing too much confusion!

 

I have finally finished belaying and coiling the ropes going to the bow pin rails which only leaves the jib/stay sail sheets to rig to the cleats and the anchors to stow in the bow area. Using matthews plans as a guide i have jury rigged a 40 feet x 2 feet ice bridge just to get a feel of how it will look, thinking maybe a scale 3 feet would be better as it does look really skinny!

Take care all

 

Keith

 

[Keith Black]

 Keith C, I agree with the three foot width but not sure that the ends should go much beyond the channels. That way there's no interference with the davits. 

[clearway]

Thanks Keith B, i am thinking along the same lines myself but tried them the length according to the drawing just to see, The other option i am thinking is were they somehow extendable thus giving you a more compact working bridge which could be extended when needed to spot leads in the ice pack?

Keith

[Keith Black]

10 minutes ago, clearway said:

when needed to spot leads in the ice pack?

 I would think any leads could have been spotted by lookouts in the tops. 

[clearway]

3 minutes ago, Keith Black said:

 I would think any leads could have been spotted by lookouts in the tops. 

true enough Keith , however when you see most polar exploration ships they all have some sort of ice bridge along with the ubiquitous barrel for the mast top look out., maybe ice bridge was to observe smaller bergs and growlers closer to the ship?

 

There was a documentary filmed in 2019 about a contest entered by 23 yachts to sail the north west passage from east to west and think it was called journey to the edge. All but two gave up and one of those become beset and sank, it was quite an eye opener and shows despite all our modern innovations the one thing the captain relied upon was reports from the lookouts port/ starboard/ bows and mast head regards avoiding aforementioned bergs and growlers.

 

Keith