HMS Terror by Erebus and Terror - FINISHED - Scale 1:48 - POB - as fitted for polar service in 1845

[Erebus and Terror]

Mark: the prop could be uncoupled from the shaft before it was raised, in the vertical position.

 

 

Thanks Druxey.  I'm assuming a slip fit type of coupling?   I think I'll Google for a bit as these little things raise my ears and poke my curiousity button.

 

Hi Mark,

 

Druxey is correct. The prop shaft was simply extended when the propeller was shipped. I'm not certain what sort of coupling was used on Terror (it's not discussed in any literature that I could find), but Battersby and Carney suggest it might have been a "telescoping coupling" similar to that installed on HMS Ajax in 1846. You may want to consult Bourne's A Treatise on the Screw Propeller (1855). The document has several very detailed drawings of raising propeller frames and couplings.  None of these perfectly matches the configuration shown in the plans of HMS Terror, but several are very similar (see here and here). The book is available for free on Google Books.

 

Thanks for the interest - I always enjoy these questions because they force me to think of things I haven't thought of before (i.e. how do I model the shaft and coupling?). Also, the original plans, which I have replicated almost precisely in my plans (warts and all), clearly simplify many details. I'll be using sources like Bourne's  to add all those little details when I build the model. Should I transfer those details to the plans? I probably won't - I want them to be clearly based on the originals, even if I'm altering them to create the vessel as fitted in 1845.  But I'll discuss them here, of course!

 

Cheers,

 

E&T

Edited May 15, 2014 by E&T

[Erebus and Terror]

PROOFING THE PLANS: PART 1 - CONTEMPORARY IMAGES

 

 

 

Over the past several months I’ve received some great feedback on my research into HMS Terror from the model shipwrights on Model Ship World. However, before finalizing the construction sheets, I felt that that it was important to ask the opinion of some Franklin expedition historians.

 

A few weeks ago, I took the opportunity to contact two of the most knowledgeable experts on HMS Erebus and Terror, William Battersby and Peter Carney. Both maintain their own blogs and have published on the ships in peer-reviewed journals (Battersby and Carney 2011). Moreover, both are true gentlemen; they kindly took the time to read through my blog and offered some very useful advice on my plans.

 

Mr. Battersby suggested that I look again at a drawing from the Illustrated London News (ILN) which depicts Franklin’s cabin on HMS Erebus. He pointed out that there appeared to be a cabin stove with a straight chimney on the extreme left of the image, which I did not include in my plans. The image seems reasonably accurate; the number and position of the windows and the shape and size of the stern lockers and superstructure matches the 1839 plans perfectly. As a result, I’ve modified my plans to include this stove; I based its dimensions and shape on what can be deduced from the image. The chimney for the stove is based on an 1839 image of a cabin stove available from the National Maritime Museum archive, and the height of the chimney is based on tables from Lavery (1987:291). Incidentally, the height of the chimneys for the ship’s stove and furnace are based on information in Lavery’s book as well.

 

Cabin stove and chimney detail.

 

Mr. Battersby also reminded me that a (very early) 1845 daguerreotype image of one Franklin’s officers, Lt. Henry Le Vesconte, was taken on the deck of HMS Erebus. I’ve scrutinized it many times before and it’s a remarkable image which should be included in any thread about the ships. Le Vesconte is sitting on the starboard side of the Erebus (note the image is often shown backwards) next to the compass table in front of the mizzen mast. The photo confirms that the position and design of the skylight, mast, and wheel remain unchanged from the 1839 plans, and may also show part of a small deck house further aft on the starboard side (it appears to have a black door).

 

Mr. Carney also provided some extremely helpful insights. He pointed out that another image from the ILN shows two white deckhouses at the stern of both ships (note they also have black doors, just as in the Le Vesconte image). These were most likely water closets and signal lockers, and in my original plans I kept these quite low (almost the height of the bulwarks), based on an 1845 image of Erebus drawn by Owen Stanley. However the perspective used in his sketch probably foreshortens the height of the deckhouse and is not a reliable guide. 

 

 

Following the ILN image, I modified the deckhouses to be the same height and size as the single deck house depicted in the 1839 plans. It is unknown if both were water closets or if one was a locker of some sort, so, in keeping with the original 1836 and 1839 plans, I am assuming that only one water closet was built for this voyage (only one water closet was used on Terror’s first two voyages, and the Terror had roughly the same crew compliment on all three polar voyages). I placed the water closet on the starboard side, following the suggestion of Battersby and Carney (2011:204) and based its design on the 1839 plans. I turned the other deckhouse into a locker for signal flags and other equipment and I admit its interior design is entirely speculative. Regardless, the model will have single black doors facing forward as is displayed on the ILN image (and which appears to be shown in the Le Vesconte daguerreotype). I should also note that both HMS Investigator and HMS Enterprise (1848 Franklin search vessels) shared many design similarities with the Franklin ships and both had twin deckhouses roughly the same size and shape as I have shown on my plans. In fact, both of their deck plans show the water closet on the starboard side of the vessel.

 

The new deckhouse profile, based on the 1839 plans.

 

Detail of stern water closet and signal lockers.

 

 

I should note that Peter Carney has also produced an excellent 3D model of James Fitzjames’ cabin, based on another contemporary image from the ILN. I did not include this structure in my plans as it was never depicted in any of the profile sheets (it is shown on the deck plans).

 

Finally, I should note that the daguerreotype discussed above isn’t the only one that might show part of the ships. Russell Potter, another Franklin blogger, has written some very interesting posts about the reflections in the highly polished caps of the Royal Navy officers, which show the rigging and perhaps the position of one of the ship’s boats.

 

*  Note: Rather than post yet another set of updated plans, I’ve simply updated the plans on the previous post. The images have begun to be indexed on search engines and I don’t want to create confusion!

 

References:

Battersby, William, and Carney, Peter

2011    Equipping HM Ships Erebus and Terror, 1845. International Journal for the History of Engineering & Technology 81(2):192-211.

 

Lavery, Brian

1987    The Arming and Fitting of English Ships of War, 1600-1815. Conway Maritime Press, London.

 

 

Edited October 4, 2013 by E&T

[druxey]

Fascinating stuff. Thanks for posting your findings.

[Erebus and Terror]

PROOFING THE PLANS: PART II – THE LOCOMOTIVE ENGINE

 

One of the major innovations of the 1845 expedition was the conversion of HMS Terror and Erebus to auxiliary steam power (Battersby and Carney 2011).  On his blog, Peter Carney has documented his research on the locomotive engines used in this conversion; he later published his findings in the International Journal for the History of Engineering and Technology (Battersby and Carney 2011). To me, his research strongly indicates that the locomotive engines were not the Planet Type as has traditionally been assumed (e.g Cyriax 1997), but rather the Croydon and Archimedes engines built by G & J Rennie in 1838 and 1839.

 

 

Based on Carney’s research, I originally utilized a plan published in Brees (1840:133) which was labeled as the “Croydon” engine. However, in a recent email correspondence, Mr. Carney pointed out that this image was probably incorrectly attributed by Brees. The issue lies in the wheel arrangement and cylinder position. The image I based my locomotive plans on depicts a “0-4-2” engine with outside cylinders, while the Croydon was likely a “2-2-2” engine with inside cylinders (Bradley 1963; see also Carney’sblog). Mr. Carney believes the image I based my plans on probably depicted the “Hercules” engine, which was an assistant engine while the Croydon and Archimedes where passenger locomotives.

 

 

I always suspected there was something wrong with the locomotive I used in my original plans. If you look at my previous profile plans, the cylinders actually overlap the position of the spare rudder. Given that the modifications to the 1836 Terror plans show the exact position of the new engine room walls, this obviously could not have been the locomotive installed in 1845 (i.e. the locomotive was simply too big). Mr. Carney kindly pointed me to another image drawn by Brees (1840:306) which is unnamed, but which depicts a 2-2-2 locomotive with inside cylinders that was built by G & J Rennie – a good candidate for Croydon or Archimedes.

 

 

Using this new plan and an excellent set of drawings that Mr. Carney created and kindly provided (see his 3D reconstruction), I created my own scale plans of the locomotive. Using the dimensions from Bree’s (1840:14) original report, I scaled this new plan to exactly 1:48 and placed it in the proper position. As you can see, it fits perfectly, with just inches to spare on either side of the engine. To me, this exact spatial correspondence just adds credence to Carney’s theory that Archimedes or Croydon was the locomotive installed on HMS Terror.  

 

My new plans of the G & J Rennie engine, based on Brees (1840:306),

following the research of Peter Carney. The frame is speculative.

 

 

INCORRECT - My original plan using the Hercules (?) engine. Note

the overlap with the spare rudder.

 

 

CORRECT? - The new engine in my updated plans.

 

 

Because of the new locomotive engine, the position of the funnel and steam outlet changed significantly, and these are depicted on the new deck plans. Given that the locomotive was only used in calm conditions or to avoid beating, it is likely that the chimney and steam pipe were removable, to conserve space on the crowded deck (Battersby and Carney 2011:202). As a result, I believe a scuttle or hatch system was used when the chimney was not installed, and I based these on one shown in the 1836 Terror deck plans (I have been unable to determine what that 1836 hatch was originally used for – the furnace chimney was apparently installed at the fore hatchway).

 

The positions of the chimney, steam pipe, and their hatches on my old plans.

 

The positions of the chimney, steam pipe, and their hatches on my new plans.

 

Finally, I should note that on my plans the height of the engine’s chimney and steam pipe are based on the following contemporary description (which also accurately describes the location of the chimney and the steam pipe (Anonymous 1845):  

 

 

*  Note: Rather than post yet another set of updated plans, I’ve simply updated the plans on a previous blog post. The images have begun to be indexed on search engines and I don’t want to create confusion!

 

 

* For better images please see my blog!

 

References:

 

 

Anonymous,

1845    Literary Gazette Journal for the Year 1845. Robson, Levey, and Franklyn, London.

 

Battersby, William, and Carney, Peter

2011    Equipping HM Ships Erebus and Terror, 1845. International Journal for the History of Engineering & Technology 81(2):192-211.

 

Bradley, D.L.

1963    Locomotives of the South Eastern Railway. Solihull: Railway Correspondence and Travel Society (1):11–12.

 

Cyriax, Richard, J.

1997   Sir John Franklin's Last Arctic Expedition: The Franklin Expedition, A Chapter in the History of the Royal Navy. The Arctic Press, West Sussex.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 15, 2014 by E&T

[druxey]

Good digging and rational explanation! However, I can't for the life of me see the difference in the two partial deck plans you've posted. Am I missing something?

[Erebus and Terror]

Hi Druxey,

 

Thanks for your comment.

 

There is only a slight difference. Have a look near the outline of the ship's boat on both images; the hatch for the chimney is moved towards the center slightly, while the pipe for the steam is moved forward and away from the center (the old pipe was smaller and close to the a skylight near the center of the ship). The old steam pipe was smaller so no hatch - the new one was larger, so I gave it a hatch.

 

There really is only few inches difference for both.

 

Of course this will be a POB build, so you won't see that locomotive at all. All this work was simply to get the position of the chimney and steam pipe holes correct! Hours and hours of work, but there is no sense building it if it won't be accurate!

 

Cheers,

E&T

[druxey]

Ah! Now I see it. Subtle, subtle.... Excellent piece of research, E&T.

[realworkingsailor]

This steam fan in me just has to comment....

 

An exhaust steam pipe would not have some off that dome behind the chimney. Live steam is collected with an internal dry pipe and sent to the cylinders,  whose exhaust is sent via a venturi tube and petticoat up the main chimney. This is how draft is also created in the firebox.

 

I could go on at length...but that might bore some people 

 

Andy

[Erebus and Terror]

This steam fan in me just has to comment....

 

An exhaust steam pipe would not have some off that dome behind the chimney. Live steam is collected with an internal dry pipe and sent to the cylinders,  whose exhaust is sent via a venturi tube and petticoat up the main chimney. This is how draft is also created in the firebox.

 

I could go on at length...but that might bore some people 

 

Andy

 

Thanks for the input, Andy.

 

I'm attaching a cutaway image of the same engine. I'm no expert, but it seems to show a steam pipe coming from the cylinders. Am I wrong here? Also, the contemporary sources describe a separate steam pipe, so where was it coming from?

 

You won't bore me. Any input is appreciated!

 

 

[Erebus and Terror]

Also, here's an image of a reconstructed locomotive of a similar design  - note the steam pipe. But if you have good alternative information, please let me know. I really want to make this model accurate, no matter how small the detail....

 

[dgbot]

Fantastic research E&T.  You have a better eye than I do and a lot more patience.  When you are finally done you should try and write a book about your endeaver.  I think many people would be interested.

David B

Edited October 6, 2013 by dgbot

[Erebus and Terror]

Fantastic research E&T.  You have a better eye than I do and a lot more patience.  When you are finally done you should try and write a book about your endeaver.  I think many people would be interested.

David B

 

I really appreciate that, David. 

 

I'm just happy to share on the boards and get such great feedback. I enjoy the research and everyone here has been very patient....

 

My main goal right now is to finally start cutting some wood!!!!

[realworkingsailor]

Thanks for the input, Andy.

 

I'm attaching a cutaway image of the same engine. I'm no expert, but it seems to show a steam pipe coming from the cylinders. Am I wrong here? Also, the contemporary sources describe a separate steam pipe, so where was it coming from?

 

You won't bore me. Any input is appreciated!

 

 

Possibly Croydon.jpg

 

I see what you mean in your second photo. It is most likely hiding a steam safety valve (pop valve). This is a sprung valve that will lift if the boiler experiences too much pressure. I'm guessing the pipe was added to keep live steam from blasting directly into the engineer's and fireman's faces. Here's the inner workings:

 

 

In your sketch, live steam is collected in that funnel shaped pipe in the steam dome. At the base of that is the throttle valve. This is a saturated steam engine, so there is no superheater, the steam is then sent directly to the cylinders. The straight pipe coming up from the cylinders is the exhaust pipe. You can see how it narrows as it extends, but flares just before the base of the stack. By forcing the exhaust steam out at high speed (but not high pressure) it creates a vacuum in the smoke box (that's the compartment ahead of the boiler flues, the pipes leading from the firebox forward). The vacuum creates a draft drawing air from gratings under the fire bed, through the fire and forward through the boiler flues. The effect of this is creating a very hot fire. Hot fire equals more steam generated in a given amount of time equals greater speed/power from the cylinders. More modern locomotives used a small steam driven turbine to draw air when the locomotive was not being worked.

 

The other "dome" (with the lever) over the firebox is most likely part of a pump/injector system to get water into the boiler. Later locomotives do not admit cold water directly over the firebox. This is partly the reason so many early locomotives blew up. If the water in the boiler became too low and the crown sheet (top sheet) of the firebox became uncovered, a panicked injection of cold water would cause it to fracture. Steam at pressure would rupture the sheet, drastically causing the pressure in the boiler to drop, which in turn would cause any water remaining in the boiler to immediately flash into steam. Steam increases in volume 1600 times from water (at standard atmospheric pressure), considering a boiler of the size you've got, a volume of, say 1.5 to 2 tonnes, you can just imagine the effect.

 

Another thought, is it possible your engine would have been of the "Planet" type (like your picture)? They where one of the earliest locomotives produced in large numbers, starting around 1830. Even by the late 1830s they were starting to be superseded by more improved designs, which would have made some of them available on the surplus market.

 

Andy

[Erebus and Terror]

I see what you mean in your second photo. It is most likely hiding a steam safety valve (pop valve). This is a sprung valve that will lift if the boiler experiences too much pressure. I'm guessing the pipe was added to keep live steam from blasting directly into the engineer's and fireman's faces. Here's the inner workings:

 

 

In your sketch, live steam is collected in that funnel shaped pipe in the steam dome. At the base of that is the throttle valve. This is a saturated steam engine, so there is no superheater, the steam is then sent directly to the cylinders. The straight pipe coming up from the cylinders is the exhaust pipe. You can see how it narrows as it extends, but flares just before the base of the stack. By forcing the exhaust steam out at high speed (but not high pressure) it creates a vacuum in the smoke box (that's the compartment ahead of the boiler flues, the pipes leading from the firebox forward). The vacuum creates a draft drawing air from gratings under the fire bed, through the fire and forward through the boiler flues. The effect of this is creating a very hot fire. Hot fire equals more steam generated in a given amount of time equals greater speed/power from the cylinders. More modern locomotives used a small steam driven turbine to draw air when the locomotive was not being worked.

 

The other "dome" (with the lever) over the firebox is most likely part of a pump/injector system to get water into the boiler. Later locomotives do not admit cold water directly over the firebox. This is partly the reason so many early locomotives blew up. If the water in the boiler became too low and the crown sheet (top sheet) of the firebox became uncovered, a panicked injection of cold water would cause it to fracture. Steam at pressure would rupture the sheet, drastically causing the pressure in the boiler to drop, which in turn would cause any water remaining in the boiler to immediately flash into steam. Steam increases in volume 1600 times from water (at standard atmospheric pressure), considering a boiler of the size you've got, a volume of, say 1.5 to 2 tonnes, you can just imagine the effect.

 

Another thought, is it possible your engine would have been of the "Planet" type (like your picture)? They where one of the earliest locomotives produced in large numbers, starting around 1830. Even by the late 1830s they were starting to be superseded by more improved designs, which would have made some of them available on the surplus market.

 

Andy

 

Hi Andy,

 

Fascinating stuff. I never thought about how dangerous the engines could actually be. Each ship only had one engineer. If one or both died (a good likelihood, given the mortality on the expedition), it would have been fairly dangerous for a novice to operate those machines. Adds another dimension to the expedition, for sure.

 

Regarding your thoughts on the "Planet" locomotive being the actual type used - that is a very good suggestion. In fact, the Planet locomotives have been assumed to be the engines utilized for many years. Peter Carney has done some good research on this (recently published), and he makes a convincing argument (to me) that they were either the Archimedes or Croydon types. Check out his blog if you are interested!

 

Thanks again for all of you information!

E&T

[druxey]

I've read of many instances of early engine boiler explosions. I didn't understand the mechanism that caused this, though. Thanks for the clear explanation, Andy. This is one of the most educational and interesting threads on this site. Thanks, gentlemen!

[Erebus and Terror]

Further to Andy's great information, I thought it might be instructive to post this image.

 

 

 

 

Clearly a boiler explosion on one of these ships would have been catastrophic, so their installation came at some risk. Considering that the engines had already been retired from the railway, and that fresh water would have been difficult to produce on these vessels (I assume salt water would have caused corrosion), I suspect the two engineers had many challenges.

[realworkingsailor]

What's really sobering is that locomotive probably only had a working pressure of somewhere from 60 to 80 pounds of saturated steam. Later modern superheated locomotives, which carry have a working pressure of 150 - 275 pounds, where much more spectacular and incredibly deadly.

 

Andy

[druxey]

Oh, my. That is sobering.

[Erebus and Terror]

CONSTRUCTION PLANS

 

The construction plans laid out in my small workshop.

 

While I can never be certain that my plans are precisely correct, I believe, given the available historical sources, that they represent a reasonably accurate representation of HMS Terror as she was fitted for her final 1845 voyage. Certainly, much research remains to be completed on specific details (e.g. colour scheme, masting and rigging, hardware, name and cipher(?), etc.), but now that I’m satisfied with the accuracy of the ship’s general profile and dimensions, I can move to creating construction plans for a plank on bulkhead model.

 

 

I created the plans directly from the inboard profile and body plan, using a method similar to that outlined by Rich Brayshaw. The stern configuration from the sternpost to the rudder will be recreated just as it was designed in the Terror’s 1845 stern modification plan, and the keel, false keel, stempost, stemson, and knee will be constructed in a similar manner. The false keel structure will be made from 1/4 inch (6.35 mm) plywood, which matches the exact scale width of the sternpost and keel. The slots in the false keel descend to the load waterline, and will accommodate 21 bulkheads, corresponding to each station on the plan. While this might seem overkill for a 1:48 scale model of a small ship, it will give a very solid base for the planking, and I believe it will generally result in a more accurate model. You may notice that the height of the false keel doesn’t line up exactly with the inboard profile plans; this is because I modified it to account for the deck camber (derived from the 1839 Terror and Erebus cross section plan).

 

 

The bulkheads (which represent all the stations) may seem quite unusual to those who work with plank on bulkhead models. This is because each includes a precisely faired outline of the solid chock channels that surrounded the ship. The 1839 Terror and Erebus cross section plans show that the channels actually sat on the first layer of planking, and I considered recreating this, but quickly dismissed it. My reasoning is that, after a first layer of planking, it would be very difficult to line up the channels to create a perfectly symmetrical model. As a result, I’ll apply the first layer of planking around the channels (they will actually help me align it), then plank the channels, then apply the second layer of planking (recall that both the Terror and Erebus had double deck and hull planking). The bulkheads will be cut from 5mm plywood.

 

 

There is something very tangible to me about rolling out a freshly printed sheet; the plywood is now being pressed to remove any bends and twists; cutting starts this weekend!

Edited October 18, 2013 by E&T

[druxey]

Interesting strategy for the channels, E&T. Have a fun weekend!

[sonicmcdude]

This is going to be a nice build, I like the plans. 

[Erebus and Terror]

STATION UPDATE

 

 

Over the past several weeks, another woodworking project has kept me away from HMS Terror. However, I’ve made a little progress on preparing the bulkheads for assembly. These are made simply enough; the plans are glued directly to the plywood board using spray adhesive and then cut out using a scroll saw with a fine blade.

 

You can see from the picture that I’ve intentionally left a rough 1-2mm gap surrounding the plan outlines. It is impossible to cut the bulkheads accurately with the scroll saw, so they will be carefully reduced to the precise dimensions using a spindle sander and file. The midline slots will be cut with a coping saw and filed, again to ensure accuracy.

 

If you look closely, you can see the shrewd eye of Crozier overlooking the outfitting of his ship (he’s 1:48 scale as well).

[Erebus and Terror]

HOISTING TERROR’S COLOURS

 

HMS Terror’s paint scheme is considered to be well known. Richard Cyriax, who produced the most authoritative work on Franklin’s last expedition, states: “Both ships were flush-decked, and had black hulls, white masts, and yellow weather works...” (Cyriax 1997:39).  This passage has long been interpreted by subsequent researchers to mean that the ships had a yellow stripe along their outside hull (e.g. Parks Canada, Canadian Geographic, and published work too numerous to list here).  Cyriax based this description not on a primary source, but on a popular work by his friend, Rupert T. Gould (1928:112); unfortunately Gould appears to have misinterpreted the primary source material.

 

Gould’s information came from a remarkable parliamentary record, which documents an Admiralty investigation into two ships spotted trapped in an iceberg off the coast of Newfoundland in 1851 (Inglis 1852). The investigation focused on comparing the eyewitness testimony about the iceberg ships to the firsthand knowledge of the shipwrights who worked on Erebus and Terror. While the Admiralty determined that the iceberg ships could not be Franklin’s vessels (the size difference between the ships was too large and they were not barque-rigged ), the report contains critical primary information on the paint scheme of the Erebus and Terror from Oliver Lang, the master shipwright responsible for the 1845 refit of the vessels.  

 

The correspondence between Lang and the Admiralty is worth quoting here in its entirety (Inglis 1852:18):

 

 

Admiralty, 17 April 1852.

Sir,

I am commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to desire

you to call upon the officers of the yard under your superintendence to

report how Sir John Franklin's ships, the " Erebus" and " Terror," were

painted when they sailed.

 

 

I am &c.

(signed) J. H. Hay,

pro Secretary.

 

Commodore Superintendent Eden,

Woolwich.

  

 

Woolwich Yard, 17 April 1852.

 

Sir,

With reference to their Lordships' letter of this day's date, we beg to

acquaint you, that Sir John Franklin's ships, the " Erebus " and " Terror,"

were painted when they sailed, black on the outside, and weather works

inside yellow.

 

 

                                    We are, &c.

(signed)                         O. Lang,

Master Shipwright

 

 

 

Further information about the colour of the masts was also requested from Lang and appears below (Inglis 1852:35).

 

 

Admiralty, 2 June 1852.

 

Commodore Superintendent at Woolwich,

Referring to your communication of the 17th April last, upon the subject

of painting the " Erebus" and "'Terror," my Lords desire that you will state

for their information how their lower masts were painted.

 

By command of their Lordships.

(signed) W. A. B. Hamilton.

                                                                                   

Woolwich Yard, 2 June 1852.

 

Sir,

Agreeably to your minute on Captain Hamilton's letter of yesterday,

we have to acquaint you that the lower masts of the "Erebus" and "Terror"

were painted white when they left this port.

 

We are, &c.

(signed)                       O. Lang,

Master Shipwright..

 

 

 

H. Chatfteld, Assistant ditto.'

(Mr. Peake sick.)

The Commodore Superintendent.

Submitted for the information of their Lordships.

Henry Eden, Commodore Superintendent.

The Secretary of the Admiralty

 

Lang’s choice of words in the first correspondence appears to be the source of the enduring discrepancy regarding the ships’ paint schemes. It seems Gould, followed by Cyriax, and then myriad others, interpreted the phrase “weather works inside yellow” to mean a band of yellow on the outside hull of the vessel. Indeed, the “weather works”, or upper works of a ship, are those areas of the vessel above the waterline exposed to the weather, including the upper hull and bulwarks both inside towards the deck and outside on the hull. However, Lang specifically states that the “weather works inside “ were yellow, meaning that the inside bulwarks were painted yellow. He makes no mention of a stripe on the outside hull, although a solid paint scheme without a stripe would have been unusual for a Royal Navy vessel of the era.

 

Thankfully, a watercolour painting by Owen Stanley, who accompanied the ships across the North Atlantic to Greenland in 1845, provides important primary evidence which dispels much ambiguity (see below). The painting shows conclusively that the Terror and Erebus had black hulls with a white stripe along the outside weather works. The painting indicates that the white stripe was contiguous with the chock channel and that it ascended the outside stern frame of the Erebus at an angle. Another watercolour, which may also be the work of Stanley (it is clearly based on his 1845 drawing), confirms these characteristics, and also shows the yellow painting on the inside bulwarks (note also the very rusted condition of the iron bow plating). This image also suggests that the white stripe extended forward around the knee of the ship.

 

 

The presence of a single stripe along the hull, which extended around the knee of the ship and up the exterior stern frames, appears to be confirmed in other contemporary sketches by Stanley, Gore (also here), and Fitzjames, as well as by the Illustrated London News (which also confirms the white stripe on the outside stern frame, see below). 

 



 

 

A white stripe painted on the exterior weather works is entirely consistent with Royal Navy standards of the mid-19^th century. Yellow and black striping, or the “Nelson Checker”, was common in the Royal Navy vessels up to about 1815. However, after ca. 1815, Royal Navy vessels began to adopt the black on white pattern first established by the American Navy around the turn of the 19^th century. In fact, black hulls with white stripes remained the standard paint scheme of Royal Navy vessels well into the steam era (see Konstam 2010 for good summary).  It therefore seems obvious, given all of the available data, that Erebus and Terror were painted with the standard white on black scheme of the era, which may explain why Lang didn’t deem it necessary to mention this standard attribute to the Admiralty.

 

Most Royal Navy ships placed the white stripe over the gun ports above the waterline; when opened, the ports/lids created the “checker board” pattern. However, all contemporary images of the Franklin ships show that the white band corresponded with the solid chock channels grafted on to the ships. It is important to note that this paint scheme is different than that utilized during the 1839 Ross voyage, where the ships appear to have had two bands of white on the outside weather works. This watercolor of HMS Terror by Davis shows that one of the white stripes was contiguous with the chock channels, as in the 1845 expedition, while the other white stripe was a little lower, perhaps contiguous with the band of copper sheathing that extended below the chock channels for most of the ships' length at this time.

 

The colour of the top, horizontal, surface of the channel is less certain, as the Stanley watercolours provide little detail in these areas. One of Stanley’s sketches (see here) seems to indicate that the tops of the channels were black, while another suggests they were potentially white (see here). However, the famous image from the Illustrated London News clearly shows that that the top of the channels were painted white (see image above). An image of the Terror beached on the Irish Coast in 1837 by Owen Stanley (see here) also shows that the tops of the channels may have been painted white (or at least a lighter colour), though how consistently the ships were painted on subsequent voyages is unknown. Since the paint scheme is ambiguous, I intend to try both versions on the model and choose whichever seems to fit better with the overall colour scheme of the ship.

 

 

Similarly, contradictory information exists about the paint scheme on the rudder and transom of the ships. The 1845 watercolour by Owen Stanley seems to show that the transom and rudder were painted black, although the lighting effects on the painting suggest that those areas of the ships may simply be in shadow. Other contemporary sketches by Stanley and  Graham Gore (also here) suggest that a lighter colour was painted on the stern window frames and on the entire transom of the ship, while the rudder remained black (perhaps with white trim?).  The Illustrated London News image is slightly different (see above), showing a thinner arch of white surrounding the windows of the ship and a darkly painted rudder.

 

Colour paintings of the Erebus and Terror produced for the Antarctic expedition by Davis (see also here) show that the entire transom was painted white and the rudder was black, again perhaps with white trim (although lighting might play a factor here as well). Interestingly, the Davis paintings also show detail of an arch-shaped feature surrounding the windows.  Similarly, a sketch of the Terror from 1837, by Owen Stanley, indicates that the transom was painted completely white (Back 1838:400, see below).  A water colour of the Terror on the same voyage by William Smyth also shows an all white transom, this time with a white rudder.

 

 

HMS Erebus and Terror under sail . Note lighter colour of transom (Ross 1847a).

 

On balance, the available sketches and paintings suggest that the transom was painted completely white, and that the window frames were as well. The rudder is more ambiguous, but again, the weight of evidence seems to indicate that it was painted black, perhaps with white trim (the Terror did have several separate trim pieces grafted to the aft margin of the rudder).  

 

I assume the black hull paint extended to the keel, as we know that HMS Terror and Erebus were not coppered below the waterline, as noted in The Times on 26^th April, 1845:

 

 

“The decks of the Erebus and Terror are constructed on the diagonal principle,

and about twenty feet on each side of the bows has been cased with strong sheet

iron. There is not any copper sheathing on either of the vessels, as no danger is

to be apprehended from the attacks of shellfish or barnacles, the ice soon clearing

them from encumbrances of that description.”

 

                                                     (The Times, London, 26 April 1845)

 

This is in contrast with the Illustrated London News image of the ships which appears to show a copper plated hull, which must be an error.

 

One of the things I enjoy about ship modeling is that it is woodworking – often with very fine hardwoods. Like many ship modelers, I don’t want to cover beautiful wood with paint; instead, I intend to present the Terror’s historic paint scheme using minimally treated natural or dyed/stained wood finishes. My plan is to use dyed or stained Swiss pear for the keel, stem and stern timbers, and hull planking; holly for the transom, chock, and deck planking; and yellowheart for the inside bulwarks. I’ve order the material from Hobby Mill, all planed to exact scale thicknesses, which I will discuss in future posts.  My wood arrives in early December; until then, I will keep cutting stations!

 

 

References Cited:

 

Gould, Rupert T.

1928    Oddities. Frederick A. Stokes Company, London .

 

Inglis, R.H.

1852 Vessels in the North Atlantic. House of Common Parliamentary Papers, London.

 

Konstam, A.

2010 Naval Miscellany. Osprey Publishing, Oxford.

 

 

As always, for better images please see my blog!

Edited November 4, 2013 by E&T

[AntonyUK]

Wow.

That is digging into the archives with so much history coming to the surface.

You can add another skill to you portfolio of skills. Master historical researcher.

Your drawing look real nice. And it's nice to see that the timber is being prepped for the model

Keep it coming ..the resurch is fascinating to read.

 

Regards Antony.

[druxey]

With all due respect, I doubt that the rudder was painted white. In the William Smyth painting that you cite, I think it more likely the effect of light makes the rudder appear to be white.

[Erebus and Terror]

Hi Druxy,

 

In fact, I'm relieved to see you write this about the rudder colour. I was trying to be objective about the colour scheme in all the paintings - just presenting the data. But I've tried a few mock-ups and a white rudder or a black rudder with white trim just looks goofy against a black hull. As I mentioned, the weight of evidence suggests a black rudder.

 

I know that vessels like the Granado had white rudders, but here the ship's hull was painted white as well. I've looked all over for information about standard RN paint schemes of the era but have found only a few references. It seems in general the rudder colour matched the hull colour, but I have no solid reference to cite in this regard.

 

E&T

[Erebus and Terror]

Thanks Antony! if I can match half the skill displayed in your current Victory build, I'll be very happy!

[Erebus and Terror]

There has been little progress on my build over the last several weeks due to demands at work and with the holidays, but I just had to post an image of an (early) Christmas gift. My stock of building material from HobbyMill arrived a few weeks ago!

 

Swiss pear, holly, and yellow heart, all milled and finished to Jeff’s exacting standards. It was a real pleasure dealing with him and the wood is top quality. In fact, the swiss pear is so nice that I’m starting to rethink my plan to dye it…

 

[Erebus and Terror]

Laying the Keel

 

In September, 1812, around the same time that Napoleon was entering a deserted Moscow on his push to the Kremlin, HMS Terror’s keel was being laid down in Topsham shipyard on the River Exe. Her keel construction exposes much about her design; it incorporated some traits of a merchant vessel of her size (ca. 325 tons), but was generally overbuilt to the standards of much larger ships. The Vesuvius class bomb ships were based on the lines of merchant vessels (Ware 1994:64), but with a much stronger frame to withstand the punishing recoil of the mortars. Sir Henry Peake, Terror’s designer, achieved this sturdiness by incorporating some aspects typically reserved for 36 gun frigates (ca. 1000 tons) and even 74 gun third rates (ca. 1500 tons).

 

Scantlings for Terror’s Keel:

 

Sided = 12 and 1/2 inches (consistent with merchant vessel of the same tonnage)

 

 

Depth of keel = 1 foot 3 inches (consistent with a small fifth rate frigate)

 

 

Number of pieces = 4 (consistent with merchant vessel of the same tonnage)

 

 

Scarphs in length = 4 feet (consistent with 36 gun frigate)

 

Scarph type = plain (with tables)

 

Lips of the scarphs = 3 inches (consistent with standards for a 12 ½ inch sided keel)

 

 

Bolts = 8 (consistent with 76 gun vessel, standard for bomb vessels)

 

 

Bolt diameters = 1 and 1/8 inches (consistent with 36 and 74 gun vessels, standard for bomb vessels)

 

Depth of False keel = 7 inches (thicker than a 74 gun vessel)

 

The keel of my Terror model is made from swiss pear, with black dyed paper vellum used to simulate the tarred flannel used to line the scarphs in a real vessel. I use acid and lignin free vellum which is both colour stable and dimensionally stable, and takes wood glue very well. As in many model ships, my scarphs aren’t tabled as they won’t be visible when glued.

 

References:

Ware, Chris.

1994    The Bomb Vessel: Shore Bombardment Ships of the Age of Sail. Naval Institute Press, Annapolis. 

 

Vertical keel scarphs prior to gluing.

 

Dry fit of keel scarph.

 

Vellum glued to scarph.

 

Trimmed vellum on horizontal scarph (stern).

 

Keel scarph with vellum.

 

Profile of scarph with vellum.

 

Gluing the keel sections.

 

Finished keel section.

 

 

Edited January 2, 2014 by E&T

[druxey]

Off to a promising start! Very neat scarphing.