Rigging in 1855 - Need a Sanity Check Please

[BANYAN]

Hi folks, I am starting to make some progress with HMCSS Victoria's Rigging, but as mentioned in my build log, there were some very diverse differences in the rigging of ships in this era, mainly driven by the Captain's or Ship Owner's preferences.  I have used the Rigging Warrant and the contemporary lithographs of the ship as my primary references, and in the main these agree with each other, but in some instances are very different to the general conventions of the time (as described by Fincham, Kipping, Underhill and Harland)  - I have also referenced Lever, Campbell and others in trying to nail these rigs down.

 

There are several rigging arrangements that, due to my lack of experience, I am not sure that I have interpreted properly.  The first two of these are the Fore and Main Gaff/Boom Halliards, and the Fore Course  sail handling lines.  I would like to ask the more experienced and/or knowledgeable to offer comments on the first two of these as described below please.

 

I have attached two images to assist as my descriptions as they may be a little difficult to follow   The first is a crop of a lithograph showing the artist's interpretation of the rigging of the Fore Course.  Note, just faintly, you can make out 2 x bunt lines and 4 x leech lines (plus bowlines which I have not addressed).  The Rigging Warrant list 2x Bunt, and 1 x Slab line  but NO leech lines.  Both of these have proven quite accurate so far so I am betwixt which to use- my leaning at the moment is to combine them.

 

The problem I have though, even the Specification called for 'light courses' (light weight canvas) I have not seen this arrangement whereby there are 2 x bunt lines as shown, but also 1 x Slab line on the centreline (Rigging Warrant).  Has anyone seen this setup of the sail handling lines before?  I am assuming all three were used together to assist the furling/reefing of the sail, with the centreline slab line used in conjunction with the bunt lines simultaneously.  This arrangement would allow the sail handlers to not interfere with each other.  Underhill infers the course usually had 3 x bunt lines?  If the slab pulls the foot of the sail up the back of the canvass, while the bunts up the front of the canvas, would this assist or hinder the furling of the sail?

 

 

The second image shows my 'very quick and dirty' drawing of this arrangement, and my interpretation of the Peak and Throat halliard arrangement for the Fore and Main fore-and-aft gaff/boom sails.  The green line is the slab, purple the buntlines and blue are the leeches.

 

The Rigging Warrant lists 3 x 10"  and 2 x 9" single blocks associated with the peak halliard proper,  but also associates a purchase made up with 2 x 7" single blocks.  The imagery of the other lithograph (not the one above) shows that there was a running part emerging from the upper and lower blocks attached to the lower masthead, but does not show a connection to, or the purchase (probably as there is too much rigging in this area and it would have complicated the depiction of the other rigging.   NOTE - I have not included the boom topping lifts etc to simplify this - I have also exaggerated the positioning of the gaff and  realise when hoisting and lowering, the gaff was first made horizontal.

I have assumed the three 10" blocks were fitted to through eyebolts in the lower masted (as described by Fincham and Kipping - 1855) and the 2 x 9" fitted to the gaff as configured by Harland, Underhill and others.  Where this rigging arrangement differs from all the options illustrated or described by the various authors is that typically the standing end of the halliard is usually set-up to a becket on one of the masthead blocks.  In this instance, the only way I can configure the halliard and purchase is as shown in my drawing. In this arrangement I have allowed two running ends to the halliard (blue) turned on metal thimbles to allow the tackle to be shackled to both running parts. 

 

The purchase fall running part belays to a pin in the spiderband of the foremast; the throat halliard standing part belays to the equivalent pin on the other side.  The gaff tackle standing block is shackled to an eye on the centreline under the after crosstree, and the running block shackled to an eye on the upper part of the gaff jaws.  The peak halliard purchase block will easily fit in the space of the lubbers hole abaft between the middle and after crosstrees.

 

From a practical aspect this arrangement would work well as taking up the running parts with equal tension simultaneously would over come the issues with unequal strain on the fall parts using a single running part when first hauling on the halliard.  As far as eliminating any alignment issues with the masthead blocks/running parts of the halliard, these blocks are normally staggered with the middle block/eyebolt on the centreline of the vertical axis of the masthead, and the other two blocks/through eyebolts offset either side of the centreline.  This would then create a fair lead for both running parts of the halliard.

 

Has anyone seen this arrangement before?  Can anyone see any difficulties in such an arrangement from a 'mechanics' point of view?

 

cheers

 

Pat

 

 

 

Edited January 5, 2021 by BANYAN

[Tony Hunt]

Hi Pat

 

Interesting questions - I'll have to think about this!  Gut feeling is I don't think the peak halliard would work with two running ends.  Perhaps the the arrangement of the blocks should be reconsidered (although the way you've done it does seem logical). Three on the gaff and two on the mast perhaps?  It  is interesting that they have specified 3 x 10" blocks and 2 x 9" blocks, it's very specific and implies a difference in loadings at various points in the set up.

 

I also think that surely the purchase using the 2 x 7" blocks would be for the throat halliard?  In my experience of sailing on gaffers (small ones!) the throat halliard is the tackle that does the real lifting, the peak halliard mainly just trims the spar to the right angle to get the sail setting nicely.  It's the fine adjustment, not the brute force.

 

Re the buntlines and slab line, an arrangement with two buntlines and a slabline in the middle seems quite practical to me.  My understanding of a slabline is that it is afixed to the front of the yard, runs loose under the foot of the sail and up the rear of the sail to a block on the yard. So it doesn't really pull the foot of the sail up to the rear of the yard, it just gathers up the foot of the sail evenly.

 

This is all said from memory - I'll reread Underhill and Harland this evening!

 

Cheers

 

Tony

[BANYAN]

Thanks Tony, just to clarify a few things.  The Rigging Warrant has proven very accurate (was compiled after the rigging had been fitted) so I think it reflects the actual fit and overrides anything broadly specified in the Contract.

 

WRT to the second purchase - Nope, the throat halliard is listed separately with its own set of blocks.  This purchase is definitely associated with the peak halliard.   I have only seen one example of a double (two-ended) running halliard.  This is in the Lore of Ships page 117.  I raise it, as this is very unusual, but would work especially for minimally manned ships as Victoria was.

 

WRT the slab line agree, but what I was trying ( ) to point out was that the foot of the sail, if the slab line is worked separately, takes the foot up the back of the canvas (to the back of the yard).  As you infer, the three lines were probably worked together to bring the foot up almost horizontal.  What I don't understand is why not then just fit it as a centre-bunt line?  There must have been a reason for this which I cannot fathom.

 

[edit - perhaps one reason for the centreline slab was to be able to lift the centre part of the course for visibility forward much as the same purpose as the tack tricing line in the boom foresail and mainsail.]

 

cheers, and appreciate the feedback

 

Pat

Edited January 5, 2021 by BANYAN

[Jim Lad]

Pat,

I think it's important to remember that this period was one of great innovation and experimentation (within reason) in rigging and that many unusual things were happening aloft.  The slab line may very well have been used to 'goose-wing' the sail as under some conditions of wind it would be partly blanketed by the gaff sail.  The double running peak halliard is certainly unusual, but again with the bounds of rigging development at the time.

 

of course I could simply say that it was all crazy 'Grey Funnel Line' stuff, but I would obviously never stoop that low! 

 

I'd go with the warrant if it's proved reliable so far.

 

John

[Richvee]

If I’m following correctly, your peak halyard has a take up end and a hauling end, both belayed at the deck. My 1856 whaler , Kate Cory has a similar setup with 2 single blocks on the gaff and one triple on the mast. I was confused on how this functioned. Michaelmys gave me a very good explanation on how this works. In this thread  

 

Edited January 6, 2021 by Richvee

[BANYAN]

Thanks for your responses and input John and Richvee.

 

John:  Your honour would not let you stoop to such depths     The rigging  in Victoria though was to merchant service standards.  One Lockyer (RN Officer) resigned his position as Commanding Office (designate) he allowed Commander Norman to rig the ship to his preferences.  Norman was from a merchant service background, and correspondence confirms he rigged the ship to the mercantile way of doing things.

Yesterday, in doing a google search on a related rigging item, I stumbled on an answer to the way the bunt lines were rigged in "Boys Own Manual of Seamanship" which describes the rig probably used for the bunting lines (different to what I posted) which I will post separately in the next day or so once I tidy up a few loose ends.  As the description so accurately reflects the components listed in the Rigging Warrant I believe this manual may answer more of my questions so will have a search today/tomorrow for the halliards also.

This manual calls the slab line a 'bunt slab line which appears integral with the bunt line arrangement and DIRECTLY aligns with the other components.  This is confirmed by Harland page 34 whereby, while not fully describing the whole rig arrangement, provided enough info to identify it, and he writes this was the preferred arrangement in the merchant service (Bunt/Slab line arrangements).  I agree, goose winging does seem very plausible - thanks.  The Boys Own manual suggests also aided the final lift of the canvas when furling in that being abaft the canvas eased the effort in lifting the 'bunch' up and over the yard.

 

Richvee.  A very similar arrangement with two running parts of the peak halliard - glad to see another example.  The only difference to the ends being mine both went to a purchase rather than directly to the deck.  Appreciate the input.  I am hoping to find something in the Boys Own Manual of Seamanship and will update this thread when I have a bit more info.

 

cheers

 

Pat

 

 

[Tony Hunt]

Hi Pat

 

I took a look at the two lithographs of Victoria, and as I'm sure you know they are both very consistent in how they depict the rigging of the peak halliard - two blocks on the fore and main gaffs and three on the mast, plus presumably a purchase on the fall running down toward the deck.  However, this doesn't seem to be consistent with what can be seen in the broadside photo at the SLV - only two peak halyard blocks are visible on the aft side of the doublings of the fore and main lower masts, just below the cap.  Unfortunately I can't clearly see the lines leading to the block(s) on the boom, which is lowered, but the lines running up from the innermost block on the foremast gaff appear to be running as a parallel pair, implying that the standing end of the halliard is attached to the lower of the two blocks on the mast.  This would be consistent with the normal arrangement which would see the running end of the halliard pass through the uppermost block on the masthead and then head down beside the mast to the deck (or the to the upper end of the purchase tackle).

 

Annoyingly, the photo of the officers on the quarterdeck (also in the SLV) just clips off the main boom short of where the view would get interesting, although it does clearly show there is only one peak halliard block on the mizzen gaff, which is consistent with what is shown in the lithographs.

 

So the lithographs do seem to have a rig using 5+2 blocks, but the photo only shows a 4+2 arrangement.

 

Do you know how good the resolution is on the original photo plate?  They're often pretty good.... It would be nice to get a sharper view.

 

On the subject of the rigging on the course, the painting in the NGV showing the ship with the sails partly hauled up pretty clearly shows the forecourse has two buntlines and what could easily be a slabline in the middle.

[Tony Hunt]

That said, if there were three blocks on the mast it would allow both ends of the tackle to be running. If this was set up as Rich has shown on the Kate Cory, with the fall from the upper block running down the starboard side and kept belayed (so in effect a standing end, but adjustable) while the fall from the lower block runs down the port side to the purchase tackle, that arrangement would allow the upper block of the purchase tackle to be kept from jamming against the lower masthead block when lowering the boom (by letting out more line from the belayed end).  I suspect that the purchase tackle will have enough length to allow the inboard end of the gaff to be lowered to the boom, it will presumably just be kissing the lower masthead block at that point. It would then be belayed, and the peak of the gaff could then be lowered using the other (starboard) running end of the tackle, which could then be cast off to trim the gaff down onto the boom.  I can't imagine you would have two running ends in play at the same time, too much to go wrong, even with an experienced crew.  In this setup the heavy work of hoisting the gaff and it's sail from the stowed position on the boom up to the sailing position would be done by the purchase tackles on the throat halliard and (to a lesser extent) the peak halliard. The relatively lighter work of trimming the peak of the sail would be done by the tackles between the gaff and the mast.

 

So perhaps there is a third block on the doublings but it is lower down and so isn't visible in the photo.

Edited January 7, 2021 by Tony Hunt

[BANYAN]

Hi Tony, thanks for the update and suggestions.

 

I purchased a copy of the photograph from the SLV as a tiff and was able to enhance that in Photoshop.  You are right about the 2+4 in the photo and I can only put that down to a rig change after Norman had passed command over to the Marine Survey (Hydro) RN Officers.  Perhaps with the close-in to shore work they need a different rig?  I am more convinced than ever that Norman set-up the rigging initially in a Merchant Service convention (as inferred in the correspondence), probably the same as he experienced when commanding Queen of the South.  

 

I used the wrong Manual title above, it should read 'Boy's Manual of Seamanship and Gunnery', written by Commander Burney 1871 for the RN.  The description given in that corresponds nicely with what is given in the Rigging Warrant, and as such I am going with that rather than what is shown in litho 2 (not wrong, there is just no detail).

 

In this set-up, the buntline was rove through the upper sheave of a shoe block (similar to a sister block but one sheave is turned through 90 degrees) then both running ends are rove (from aft to fwd) through a double block at the top or cap (still to be determined), with one end then toggled to the foot of the sail and the working part/end sent to the deck.  The bunt whip was rove through the bottom sheave of the shoe block with a clip/sister/clasp hook on one end to clip onto the gullet becket as required, and the running part of the fall worked from the deck.  Lever and Harland both state this was the preferred way in the Merchant Service.    A very old fashioned way to do this, but apparently easier when minimum manned.

 

There was no jigger listed but a bunt rope was. Yet to establish positively what that was for, but may have been set up as a centreline bunt whip but called a jigger (possibly the bunt rope) to avoid confusion when calling orders from the deck.  The single block and hook sort of leans to this being the case.  It also makes sense as having shoe blocks at the bunts would have made the glut difficult to lift and a centre jigger with the centre line Bunt Slab line would assisted in getting that up and onto the yard.

 

The centre slab line was called a bunt slab line in the 'The Boys...' and informs that this was used to assist in hauling the gullet/glut of the canvas up and over onto the yard when the canvas had been got closer up during furling.   The whips were further outboard so they need something in the middle.

 

Starting to come together?

 

cheers

 

Pat

Edited January 7, 2021 by BANYAN