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

[Keith Black]

2 minutes ago, clearway said:

hey all have some sort of ice bridge

Oh, the bridge was necessary no doubt, with the exception of the outer edges I'm not sure that its main function was that of a relay point. Information received from lookouts by the Master and then that information relayed to the Captain, helmsmen, and engine room.  

 

 Moving ice is like a chainsaw. In Alaska, every spring piling along the dock faces would need replacing due to being sawed in half. 

[iMustBeCrazy]

54 minutes ago, Keith Black said:

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. 

I'm not so sure. Yes, it's going to interfere with the boats, no way around that, but it would be over the top of a boat suspended from the davits.

But two foot wide is what the drawings show, sure it may not have been built that way but we don't know that. It does look a bit off but was it functional?

 

Two foot wide was certainly wide enough to walk along safely, did it need to be any wider?

How did they mount the stanchions shown in the sketches? How was it supported, it's drawn about 4 inches deep so it's pretty strong, what is the function of the outboard post just forward of it?

How was it manned? One officer crossing backwards and forwards or a crewman either side with an officer in the middle interpreting the observation and instructing the helmsman? I suspect the latter.

How far out from the hull? I don't know, wider would be better but there are limits.

It was probably intended to be stowed when not in use but from the sketches it looks like that may not have been very often, perhaps a favorite spot for the officer on watch?

 

Just some points to muse on.

[Keith Black]

 Craig, two feet in calm water vs pitching seas might not be enough to brace oneself properly?

[iMustBeCrazy]

4 minutes ago, Keith Black said:

Craig, two feet in calm water vs pitching seas might not be enough to brace oneself properly?

Two feet with a handrail either side would give more security than three, but we don't know if there was a handrail either side so.......

 

I just feel that you have to have a very good reason to go against period documentation, but I certainly can't say you're wrong.

[clearway]

Thanks for the input guys, day off work + rain = shipyard time😁.

Been playing around with the bridge again, i am thinking whatever length i will just fit single ball stanchions with a rope handrail on the forward edge (i think this would be easier to remove when having to get the whaleboats off the skids).

 

First pic shows plan view of bridge with dimensions off the plans

 

this pic shows shorter ice bridge using Owen Stanleys sketches as a guestimate

third view shows a view trying to emulate view of Erebus by Owen Stanley with shorter bridge left in place

Take care all and to quote Robert plant in the song Dymaker "wheres that confounded bridge"..... got to be in the wreck site debris fields somewhere!!!

 

Keith

Edited August 18, 2022 by clearway
missed info

[Keith Black]

1 hour ago, clearway said:

"wheres that confounded bridge"..... got to be in the wreck site debris fields somewhere!!!

It may have gone into the furnace to make steam if the Captain thought it was no longer needed. 

[Keith S]

2 hours ago, Keith Black said:

It may have gone into the furnace to make steam if the Captain thought it was no longer needed. 

...or towards building sledges and tent-frames during the subsequent survival efforts... or into the furnace of the ship's heating-system. That is something we will never know. There is even a possibility that you are absolutely correct, because it now seems as though the Terror was moved, not by the vagaries of wind and current, but by artifice, into her resting-place in Terror bay. Perhaps the steam-engine was used. Interestingly a recent DNA analysis of the very few bones found indicate they were the remains of the engineer. 

[Keith Black]

 To both Keiths, I love the historical details that both of you are researching and incorporating into your builds. It's much more meaningful and interesting to me as an observer than simply watching part A being connected to part B. Thank you. 

[allanyed]

2 hours ago, Keith Black said:

I love the historical details that both of you are researching and incorporating into your builds

I totally agree, it makes for a far more interesting build log for folks like us that enjoy the research and history as much as the wood.

Allan

[Keith S]

That is nice of you both to say. My favourite bit so far on my model, I left the W/C door half open on the starboard aft deck enclosure, because that's the way it is standing on the actual wreck.

 

The "Terror" just kind of sucks you in once you start doing research. As my first ship model, I had intended to build it just like the plans said. But I started by trying to do more realistic planking, then started doing research, then an archaeologist friend said "I can maybe help you fix some things on that kit to make it more realistic" and off I went. 

 

I live in subarctic Canada, and the fate or the Franklin expedition continues to weigh heavily on our minds. I live two streets over from Franklin Avenue, and my friends' kids go to Sir John Franklin secondary school. It's one of Canada's most enduring mysteries. Our last Prime Minister (before this one) made it part of his life's work to find the wrecks, and shortly after he left office, we did! Right after I started building my model in fact. For me, there is no choice but to do the best model I can of this iconic ship.

[clearway]

thanks for the likes, comments and looking in everyone, both other Keiths might be right regards salvaging/ burning the bridge (i have also heard about her having to be sailed into her final anchorage as it would be impossible for her to drift there with the pack/ current, there are accounts also of the crew of Erebus hastily stripping her of supplies while was was settling in the water on her way to the bottom).

 

Been playing around with the experimental bridge again and have temp fitted stanchions to the longer length bridge, if i go with the shorter version it will be truncated just outside of the 2nd stanchion from the outer edge on each side.

Got to admit i am enjoying getting onto something that dos not involve rigging after all these months, and keep the opinions coming!

Take care all

Keith

 

Keith

Edited August 18, 2022 by clearway
typo

[Keith S]

Keith, don't forget this picture, which not only depicts the bridge being rather hefty, but depicts is as being crowned, (like the deck ought to be  )

 

Edit: mind you this must be an older picture, since it shows the older style of straight davit. Hurrah for MORE ambiguity!!

Edited August 18, 2022 by Keith S

[clearway]

Oh yes Keith two years on and Terror still playing with us! , i didnt camber the skid beams and now wish i had but didnt want to bring attention to the lack of deck camber, The plan there i think shows the actual  skid beam as opposed to bridge , however my bridge is a scale 6" thick so pretty robust😁.

 

Keith

[iMustBeCrazy]

8 minutes ago, clearway said:

The plan there i think shows the actual  skid beam as opposed to bridge

For what it's worth, I agree.

 

However the devils advocate in me asks why have a shorter bridge if standing on the channel or the shrouds would provide the same view?

 

I think your stanchions look right.

[Keith Black]

 Back to Craig's post yesterday regarding the width of the bridge. Believe me, I'm not trying to belabor the point, honest. 

 

 Craig, if the deck width is two feet, how many inches are the stanchions inset from the deck edge? Three inches from deck edge to the stanchion's outside edge? Stanchion width, two inches? If those numbers are close that would leave approximately fourteen inches of free walking space along the bridge. 

 

 Having worked aboard a fishing vessel in Alaska, we encountered rough weather on several occasions . From my experience in heavy seas the last thing I wanted to be was near vertical. I wanted to able to brace myself and felt the most secure with my body being at 45 degrees allowing my legs to brace  against wind and waves. And that's with also having something to hang onto. 

 

 I measured the bridge on the Tennessee, I allowed four feet for deck width. Inside stanchion edge to stanchion edge is thirty inches total of clear walking space. I list these measurements as a reference only. 

 

  It's hard to go against a ship's drawing, I'm merely trying to introduce a bit of logic into the matter.

Edited August 18, 2022 by Keith Black

[iMustBeCrazy]

4 hours ago, Keith Black said:

It's hard to go against a ship's drawing, I'm merely trying to introduce a bit of logic into the matter.

Logic is good, I certainly don't know how it actually was, I'm guessing too. Perhaps cross pieces under the bridge (there is such a piece on the drawing but it's function is unclear) with the stanchions outboard of the bridge itself, perhaps with a lookout either end access didn't have to be great just adequate.

As drawn it probably wasn't intended to have people continuously crossing while still providing better access than crossing the deck. It probably wasn't intended to be used in bad weather, who in their right mind would be sailing near to ice in bad weather, I expect the regular lookouts would be used to provide sufficient warning to steer well clear of ice in most conditions. I think the bridge was intended for use when sailing in close or very close proximity to ice when the ships ability to maneuver might be limited to feet or yards and communication to the helm needed to be quick and accurate. I think the length depicted, extending well outside the hull, probably with a rope 'rail' on three sides outside the bulwarks is probably what was intended. What was built, who knows.

 

Again, everything above is just guesses using the drawing as a guide. My guesses may indeed be wrong.

 

 

 

[clearway]

Having worked on fishing boats in the irish sea i can see where Keith B is coming from, however i agree with Craig and think the outer "wings" were just used when navigating through the ice pack- i have left the four cross timbers joining the planks wide enough to accommodate another plank giving 3' width if needed (will trim back to length if needs be). Another thought i had which Craig touched on is was the bridge in two halves? would explain why there is room for 2 bridges one behind the other.

 

You Have to  respect Matthew Betts for the fun he must have had researching her for his model!

 

Also got into work this morning and found this had been delivered yesterday.

Take care all

 

Keith

Edited August 19, 2022 by clearway

[iMustBeCrazy]

First off, do I need to change my name to Keith?

 

42 minutes ago, clearway said:

Another thought i had which Craig touched on is was the bridge in two halves?

Did I? Well the support piece(?) under the bridge would allow that, I guess that's what you mean. Any more than that and it would hit the compass post(?) (can't really be called a binnacle can it).

 

Sorry about all the question marks in both the text and the drawing but there are so many questions.

I assume the were detailed drawings of the bridge but all we have are those telling the shipyard where to put it.

Why the step in height between the skid beam and the bridge? As that section of the drawing is at midships it probably depicts the difference of the cambered skid beam and the flat bridge. A tripping hazard for sure.

We seem to have an outboard support post to support the forward side of the bridge, what supports the rear side? Is it a support post at all? Is it part of the original drawing? The top is about six feet above the deck.

 

I also realise I've been very lax in not complementing you on the work you have done, she looks great!!!

 

 

[clearway]

Craig, as far as i can make out the support joins to the knee supporting the skid beam though that would throw it way out of line to join in with the outboard upright- Matthews plans show the support leading to a support inboard as far as i can tell. Interesting speculation about  the binnacle stand and certainly looks like a binnacle stand with the fluted post... The joy of Terror speculation continues!

 

Keith

[clearway]

Back with the much debated bridge (and Craig we dont need more Keiths as we have already been confusing people for two years now)😁.

 

I have started on the two supports for the bridge and will stick with this arrangement unless anyone dives down on the wreck site and posts photographs to the contrary😜 (based the arrangement on the plan view from the terror book). Still in the air regards length/ sections etc but here is how it looks at the moment.

Take care all

 

Keith

[iMustBeCrazy]

1 hour ago, clearway said:

and Craig we dont need more Keiths as we have already been confusing people

Hmmm, I'm not sure if that's a relief or not, we have three Craig's in the family (two by marriage).

 

I finally looked at the earlier drawing (ZAZ5674 1837) which shows a support outboard bolted(?) under an extended skid and reaching to (my) outboard post. No other supports are shown but that doesn't mean there aren't any. Perhaps one between the skid and the 'compass post'?

 

This will be problematic for you as you have moved the davits forward to clear the shrouds. You could perhaps put the davit outboard of the support post ??? If you choose to put outboard supports in.

 

[clearway]

Psst Craig my dad is also called Keith! Dont forget the plans show Erebus, i do have the stern most davit post a little too far forward but also i should have double checked the ply occre bulwarks ( think the ports are a little too far towards the stern). Matthews plans show inboard supports on his 1845 plan view so will stick with them. I suppose this is a case of hindsight is a wonderful thing!

 

keith

[iMustBeCrazy]

8 minutes ago, clearway said:

I suppose this is a case of hindsight is a wonderful thing!

Can be a wonderful thing, but all to often disappointing If only I had bought Bitcoin when it first came out.

 

 

[clearway]

My m8 at work was going to buy a load of bitcoin around 10 years ago but didnt and has been kicking himself ever since. On the other hand i have checked the plans in matthew betts book and not really that far out , the support posts are where he has them but the stern most skid beam should be around 3mm or so farther back, but i can live with it.

 

Keith

[Keith S]

The azimuth compass is a bit of kit that comes in a box and looks a bit like an old-fashioned pilot's astrocompass. That vertical post is likely one of a pair that sit on each side of he compass/map table. The beams and bridge being crowned on the original would make outboard AND inboard support necessary. The older drawings showing the skid beam are consistent with the beam being supported by brackets on the davit posts, and I would say Keith (other Keith) has got it right on his model, except the forward supports on the aft skid beam (if that makes sense) I think are outboard of the gunwale. Generally, on the side-drawing you are referencing (I have a full size photocopy of the original), anything in black ink is outboard of the bulwarks, and red ink is inboard. 

[iMustBeCrazy]

1 hour ago, Keith S said:

The azimuth compass is a bit of kit that comes in a box and looks a bit like an old-fashioned pilot's astrocompass.

Thanks for the confirmation, that's pretty much what I envisioned.

 

1 hour ago, Keith S said:

That vertical post is likely one of a pair that sit on each side of he compass/map table

The deck plan shows a single post coming up through the middle of the table, the profile shows it squared at that point then round or fluted then squared again at the top.

 

1 hour ago, Keith S said:

The beams and bridge being crowned on the original would make outboard AND inboard support necessary.

While the beams are crowned, the bridge is depicted somewhere about midships and the same height as it would be if supported by the outboard post so I suspect it wasn't crowned. Crowned would give it more strength at midships but I think it would be bouncer at the ends (not sure).

 

1 hour ago, Keith S said:

The older drawings showing the skid beam are consistent with the beam being supported by brackets on the davit posts, and I would say Keith (other Keith) has got it right on his model, except the forward supports on the aft skid beam (if that makes sense) I think are outboard of the gunwale.

I agree, that's what it shows. Even though four inches thick, three or four supports feels better to me. As it stands even with supports outboard of the bulwarks you would be standing seven to eight feet from the last support. But that was probably OK in calm conditions.

 

1 hour ago, Keith S said:

Generally, on the side-drawing you are referencing (I have a full size photocopy of the original), anything in black ink is outboard of the bulwarks, and red ink is inboard. 

I tend to think of Black as viable (unless dashed) so mostly outboard but note the masts are Black, Red is nominally a midships section but does show other inboard details, Red is also used for alterations but there is usually a notation about the alteration somewhere on the plan (but it still gets confusing). They needed more ink colours.

Edited August 20, 2022 by iMustBeCrazy

[Keith S]

I just remembered why I stopped working on my "Terror".

[clearway]

Lol keith trust me i have been tempted to walk away as well m8. Back to the great plank debate of 2022🤨, while the 1839 plans do show an outboard support post which is what i was going to go with originally, the plan drawing in matthew Betts book clearly shows them mounted inboard more or less in the manner i have depicted. Now you know why (as stated in my log) i have been waiting till Matthews book came out before starting on the ice bridge😁.

 

As we have found out if it is on the official 1839 refit plans things were altered i.e. davits.

 

Keith

 

P.S. that isnt the final bits of the ice bridge, i will be adding supports either side of the azimuth compass table (wood or iron i havnt decided yet) along with a compass on a column either both sides of the bridge or one infront of the bridge and another to the starboard side of the wheel (beside skylight) for the helmsman.

Edited August 20, 2022 by clearway
missed info

[clearway]

Thanks for the likes, comments, views everyone. I have now finished the main wooden supports for the bridge and am sticking with it😜. Though still in the air about full length or shortened bridge itself (not sure if way too big but added a box for azimuth compass to the table).

Also temp fitted a couple of pieces of 0.9mm brass rod to bridge which if sticking with metal supports will be cut to proper length and blackened.

Onto something different and have never been happy with the set up on the starboard deck house (W.C.) and after seeing the plans thought Kudos Keith s you were bang on, are you going to add the map locker door keith as it was missing when you made yours based on the wreck photo?

I very carefully "tickled" it with a flat bladed screwdriver and thankfully came away without bringing half the deck with it (god bless inferior wood glue)! Still needs tidied up,  sanded and varnished, i used slightly different types of veneer strip to create contrast between panels and framing with brass planking pins for the door handles.

Take care all

 

Keith

Edited August 20, 2022 by clearway
typo

[Keith S]

 Now that I see yours I might make a door for it. On the wreck the door seems to be missing, but I did put little shelves inside that space on mine.