Rigging Knees

[BANYAN]

Hi folks.  Another question for the more experienced in rigging and construction.  

The Contract for HMCSS Victoria (1855) stated a requirement for "Iron knees on both sides of head knee for bowsprit shrouds, ..." 

 

This has me a little confused as contemporary authors such as Kipping and Fincham (1855 editions), and knowledgeable authors such as Underhill, describe the set-up of these shrouds/guys to a point slightly abaft and above the hawse holes.  The Contract has proven mostly accurate but did result in some deviations during the construction of the ship.  This creates several questions in my mind for which I would value feedback:

 

1.     Would the set up on the knee of the head (head timbers) have been implemented?.  Victoria had a narrow (Aberdeen style) bow which would not have provided much spread for the (bowsprit) guys.  The Jib and Jibboom guys/shrouds were rove via whisker booms on the cathead then aft and set-up to rigging screws just forward of the Fore Channel (confirmed by imagery).  I am assuming to eye bolts or eye plates?
2.   What type of knee would have been used?  There is evidence from Master Shipwright Oliver Lang (ship designer) showing 'Buck's Knees' as part of a survey of British Naval Dockyard practices (mid 19th century) in an effort to standardise the fittings used, and how they were fitted. The lower knee (crutch) also incorporated support for the bobstay plates.  I am assuming these replaced the breast hook (upper) and perhaps the timber knees (lower)
3.  What alternative fixings may have been used?  Would an eye bolt, perhaps picking up one of the bolt/rivet holes in the iron knee/crutch (as shown below) have been an option?

 

Any feedback, suggestions or corrections most appreciated as usual.

 

cheers

 

Pat

 

[BANYAN]

Bump - anyone?  My real issues here is that I have never seen a vessel with protruding iron knees in the knee head of the bow.

 

cheers

 

Pat

[Mark P]

Good Morning Pat;

 

This is outside my era, so unfortunately I can't give you any definite help. However, it does seem to be rather odd. The bowsprit shrouds need a decent spread, or they will not perform any kind of bracing function. What the contract seems to describe is rather like fixing the mast shrouds to eyebolts in the deck each side of the mast, thereby rendering them useless.

 

Is there any chance that the author is confusing the shrouds for the bob-stays, or the martingale back-stays. 

 

Alternatively, is the knee referred to not the actual knee of the head, but the knee supporting the cat-head.

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

 

 

[BANYAN]

Hi Mark, many thanks for your response.  you are asking all the questions going through my head also

 

WRT to it being an error in the Contract, or more specifically the Specification, I cannot be certain.  The Articles of Agreement (Contract) was all the legal stuff and I have a true copy of that (which I have transcribed).  The Articles had the Specification and the first Rigging Warrant as attachments.  The only copies of the Specification I have found are the 'officially' transcribed copies (for Gazetting in Government Records).  Whether the author of the Specification (Oliver Lang, Mast Shipwright at Pembroke 1855) made the error (if it is one) which is unlikely, or whether an error was made in the official transcription (which is also unlikely but possible) cannot be determined - I am assuming this was correct as much of the document is very true to other correspondence and imagery I have - some changes were made like a change in the steering wheel from double to single were made - but I have not seen obvious errors.

 

WRT Cathead, I also had this thought.  the Jib and Jib boom guys (wire rope) were led via whisker booms on the Catheads, so having the bowsprit guys go somewhere nearby makes sense.  This also ties in much closer to the guidance provided by Kipping and Fincham in the 1855 editions of their respective 'Papers/Books'.  Their guidance suggests they should go to a point just above but abaft the hawse pipes to be clear of the ground tackle.

 

All that said, looking at the imagery (photograph c1868) and 2 lithographs (as launched - one showing her going to port, the other to stbd which between them expose/show 99% of the rigging) show the Bowsprit shrouds (guys) going to a point on the headknee just under the bobstay plate - unfortunately no detail is discernible.  As the ship had a black hull, it may be the artist could not show it (although they show some other stuff)  

 

One other thought I have had, is that in reading the description/requirement literally "Iron knees on both sides of head knee for bowsprit shrouds, ..." - it does not say for setting-up the sshrouds - may simply have been booms/whiskers similar to whisker booms on the Cathead? 

 

I guess I will just have to 'suck it up' and make a decision soon - at this stage I will keep researching in the hope of finding something a little more definitive.

 

cheers

 

Pat

 

[Mark P]

Good Evening Pat;

 

Thank you for your reply; I suppose it could be referring to a knee used as a fairlead for setting up the shrouds in the bows. Whisker booms themselves, when used on the catheads, were only a fairlead, as I am sure you know. But I don't think that the spread would be sufficient.

 

However, to come at it from a different angle, I note that it is referred to as the 'head knee'. The 'pointy bit' in the bows is normally called the 'knee of the head'. Could it be that the author is actually referring to the cheeks, which are like knees, and function to support the head. A metal bracket could be fixed to the cheek.

 

all the best,

 

Mark P

[BANYAN]

Thanks again Mark, your thoughts and suggestions.

 

Based on your thoughts re interpretation of the wording - this makes much more sense now in reading this as an iron knee fitted in the 'head of the vessel' rather than the Knee of the Head as you point out.  ED Tosti's shows Young America also had a similar arrangement, so based on this I am now beginning to think that an iron knee replaced or supplemented the breast hook; I am leaning to supplement.  This interpretation (as a supplement) provides a strong bow and a fixing point for the shrouds etc.  The positioning of the knee could be such that it would reinforce the Bulwarks, align with the cheeks (as you also pointed out) and provide more spread for the Bowsprit shrouds (but still not very wide considering the sharp bow arrangement)

 

Thanks again for your insights, much appreciated

 

Pat