Bitt Pins and Cross Pieces

[allanyed]

Goodwin gives details on how the bitt pins are mortised and the cross pieces  bolted in place.  He also shows a sketch of the cross pieces on the Foudroyant being secured to the bitts with hooks and eyes.    The hook and eye method was apparently around for a long time as I found the following description in contracts for Severn and Burlington (contract dated 20 September 1695,)  Colchester and Romney  (contract dated 18 February 1693) and Jersey, (contract dated 31 July 1696)  They all use the same wording.  To score the Crosspeices into the Bitts about Two Inches and to brace them together with Four pair of substantiall Iron Hookes and Eyes.   The contracts describe the bitt pins being bolted to the appropriate beams, but make no mention of the cross pieces being bolted to the pins, just the use of the  hooks and eyes.

 

As the cross timbers weighed about 750 pounds (single baulk of English oak, 15"X15" X 128") it would be a chore to remove it for any reason.   My question is, unless damaged or worn out, why would it be removed?   If it is not to be removed on a regular basis, why have the hook and eye rather than bolting them in place which is more secure and I believe was the more common practice, at least according to Goodwin.   

 

As all of the contracts are clear, I plan to use the hook and eye method in the model, but at least this enquiring mind would love to know why it would be used rather than being bolted.

 

TIA

Allan

[druxey]

As a matter of interest, the photo in Longridge's The Anatomy of Nelson's Ships, Plate 23, shows the displaced cross-piece due to WW2 bomb blast. This would have been unlikely had the piece been bolted to the pins.

[allanyed]

Makes sense Druxey, but I do wonder why the cross piece would be secured to the bitt pins with hooks and eyes rather than bolted.  Possibly to more easily mend if struck by a cannon ball?    Time to get out the WABAC machine again and visit the old master shipwrights for their take.   

[Jaager]

In the condition of accepting that the cross piece had reversible attachment, two questions come to mind:

Which rigging lines are secured to pins on the cross piece?

What would they need the extra space on deck for, at a time when the lines that attach to the cross piece are not in use?

 

Was the iron metallurgy of the time up to the task of producing a 3 foot long bolt with a nut that would not rust in short order.

Hooks and eyes would be easier to replace, and easier to undo if the timber needed to be replaced. 

[Frank Fox]

@Allanyed and Druxey:  This is an interesting question.  Crosspieces took terrific wear on their after surfaces and had to be changed out from time to time.  In big seventeenth-century ships (maybe third-rates and above) the crosspieces were in two parts, a massive permanent piece which was bolted to the pins, and a much lighter piece which was probably hooked to the forward piece and thus could be conveniently changed as needed.  In lesser ships the crosspieces were light enough to be manhandled, and thus were in one piece hooked to the pins for easy removal.  My area of study is the seventeenth century, so I'm not sure whether this still applied in Nelson's time, but the joints of the after pieces are visible in Longridge's plate 23; are the forward crosspiece sections bolted or hooked to the pins?  I can't tell from the photo, but I know the whiplashing of a violent explosion such as a bomb under the hull could shear off bolts, and do so in steel ships as well. 

 

@Jaager:  If numerous long iron bolts going through keel, floors, and kelson could survive for many years without rusting out, then I think those at the bitts could survive as well.

[allanyed]

Hi Jaager,

 

Thank you for your response.   Sorry for any miscommunication, I was referring to the riding bitts not the jeer and sheet bitts.   There were no belaying pins on the sheet and jeer bitts nor were there pin rails elsewhere, at least on British ships, from the 17th century.  I posted a photo from a late 17th century model at NMM below as an example. The contract states that the stern and stem pieces  were to be bolted with 1 1/8" bolts so I don't think making three foot long bolts was a problem as those were actually longer.  You bring up a very good point when you mention bolts and nuts and rust as at that time, forelock bolts may have been used as well as threaded bolts with nuts due to corrosion problems (although a good coating of tar may have helped.)  Then again, Vasa was found to have bolts and nuts used to a high degree.  I agree that hooks and eyes would be easier if the cross timber had to be replaced, but how often would that happen, if ever? Maybe during a major overhaul or complete rebuild so I don't think that was the reason.     

 

The following is the complete paragraph from the contracts.  Note that the spelling below is not mine, but is as found in the contracts.   

 

To place Two Pair of Substantiall Bitt Pinns The Aftermost Pair To be Sixteen Inches and the Foremost pair to be Fifteen Inches Square in the Head with Cross Peices to Each pair of the Same Dimentions. To Step them in Hold and to Place them abaft the Beame. To be Stopped with a score of an Inch Deep into the same and Bolted with Two Bolts in Each of an Inch Auger. To score the Crosspeices into the Bitts about Two Inches and to brace them together with Four pair of substantiall Iron Hookes and Eyes. To fix Two Pairs of good Standarts Upon Four Substantiall Carlings Placed between Beame and Beame in the Wake of them. The Fore and Aft Arme to be as long as the Bitt Pinns are in Distance and Bolt them with Five Bolts in Each Standart by an Inch and Eighth Auger.

 

Frank, Thank you as well for your response.  These ships were 48 gun fourth rates, and I believe the cross pieces were single pieces, albeit, very heavy.  (700 pounds and more)  Was the after wear that you mention from handling the anchor cable?  I can see this, but it would only take place when handling the anchors and that was not so often.  Was the wear that terrific to have to change these out very often?  If that is the case, I would think that  the hook and eye would not have gone out of favor and been replaced with bolting in place.   Wear does seem to be the most logical reason though. 

 

[Frank Fox]

@Allanyed:  I think I'm wrong.  The contracts for the 80-gun third-rates Cumberland and Newark (both in ADM 106/3071), big ships, also calls for the "Crosspieces to be Scored Three Inches in upon the Bitt Pins and Braced with Two Pair of Substantial Iron Hooks and Eyes to Each Cross Piece.  But yes, I think they did have to be changed from time to time due to wear, and it would obviously be more difficult with bolts.  When I go back to 1649 and the specifications for the third-rate Speaker, it doesn't mention the hooks and eyes, but only "bitt pins with crosspieces".  I can't find the hooks and eyes in contracts before the 1690s, but I haven't looked at all of them yet.  Here's another question:  did the bolts of the knees go all the way though the crosspieces?  Not clear in any of my sources.

[Mark P]

Good Evening Gentlemen;

 

I would not be surprised at all at the need to change the facing of the crosspiece at fairly regular intervals. The force exerted by many hundreds of tons of ship being pulled up short at the end of the cable, in any but the calmest weather, would have rubbed away at the wood fibres almost continuously.  This would have applied both on active service, wherein ships frequently spent periods of hours or days at anchor; and also when laid up in ordinary; although being more sheltered and moored both ends, this latter would have been a slower process. 

 

The hook and eye are mentioned in many contracts, although I don't think it is in any much earlier than those Allan mentions above, and continues throughout most of the 18th century. I cannot give a date when it ended, as my interest stops in the last decade of the century.

 

See below an extract from the draught of Dorsetshire 70 guns, 1757. This shows details of the fastenings. Note that the eye is above the centre line, which would help it to better resist the turning moment from the greater projection of the crosspiece. Just about all crosspieces shown on as-built draughts are shown with the dashed line, indicating a facing piece applied separately. This is the only draught I have which showed the hooks, although I am sure I have seen at least one other example. 

 

The iron fire-hearth detail is interesting, and must be an early example, as not long before this they were still made of brick.

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

 

[druxey]

Allan: Riding bitts, as their name implies, were always used when at anchor. This would place a lot of strain on the bitts in a forward direction, further securing the cross-piece in its score as well as abrading it. The wear piece would be presumably simply nailed on for frequent replacement and the main cross-piece less often, but must have also worn on ts upper and lower sides. Anchor handling would not require use of riding bitts unless there was a problem bringing the cable aboard.

[allanyed]

Frank,

If the bolts in the standards/knees  go all the way through  the bitts into the cross pieces, it seems to me it would defeat the purpose of easy removal.   Just my thoughts though.

 

Mark,

Thank you, the drawing is a  big help.

 

Druxey, 

Great points all around thank you.  

 

Lived and learned, so was a good day!

 

Allan

 

[Frank Fox]

Bolts going through to  cross-pieces:  What about pre-1690s?  Earlier contracts don't mention the hooks & eyes.

[allanyed]

Sorry Frank, I have not had the "pleasure" of transcribing any contracts prior to the 1690's, which is a fun filled  hour or more (per page)

I don't think that you can assume that because hooks and eyes are not mentioned, that they were bolted.  Then again, no one can say the model builder had it wrong if there is no evidence otherwise.   

Allan

 

[Frank Fox]

@Allenyed:  The eyes and hooks are not listed in the ironwork fittings used in building the Lenox or Hampton Court (both 1678) and not among the ironwork listed by Keltridge (1675) or Battine (1684) for ships of any rate, and not in the contract for the Mary Galley (1686), or the Yarmouth (early 1691); the Yarmouth contract (ADM 106/1071) does require five bolts in each knee.  So it appears that the eyes and hooks date from after that contract. 

[Jaager]

Excuse what may be my mania speaking,  but would a Kickstarter type project, to translate into current English and combine all of the known builder's contracts - up to Steele - or at least up to 1719 - into a single document - PDF would do - be a possible (practical) thing?

[Frank Fox]

Ask Mark P; he's our 17C contracts specialist.

[allanyed]

Jaager I had this very conversation recently as it would be a second phase to the Scantlings of Royal Navy Ships.   MOST of the contracts over a spread of a few years  are virtually identical for a given rate once you get past the names of the builders, yard location and dates.   It would likely only take a few contracts for each rate in any five or ten year period to have a pretty comprehensive set of contracts. You do have to be careful though as scantlings sometimes varied slightly from contract to contract.   There are contracts for ships' boats as well which would be a nice thing to include.    There are a lot of contracts for later ships in type face so much much easier to "interpret,"   but not nearly as much fun 😐    After 1718 the Establishments, Shipbuilder's Repository and Steel really say it all but I found there were definitely some small differences in contracts at those times compared to these sources.   If I remember this correctly   Mark P explained to me that there are not many, if any,  contracts during the peace years as ships could pretty much all be built in Royal yards so the Establishments scantlings would be the information to follow if a model is from those peace years.  I am sure he can enlighten all of us a bit more as he is truly an expert in this area.

Allan