Another Rigging Clarification Needed - Lifts

[BANYAN]

Hi again folks, another conundrum I am trying to resolve.  I would greatly appreciate any thoughts on the following.

 

The Rigging Warrant (RW) for HMCSS Victoria lists lifts single associated with a 7" double block and a clip hook with each, lift tackles associated with a 7" single block each,  and a Jigger.   Lees page, 69 explains the jigger, which was removed after the yard had been hoisted into place, so it is not relevant to this discussion.  Of note the RW notes specifically that the lifts are 'single' which ties in with Underhill's description of their rigging.

 

Underhill, page 157, informs that lower yard lifts were always rigged as running rigging and provides some guidance that largely aligns with the RW listing; except using single blocks with the lift, BUT, more importantly utilising a purchase.   Based solely on using the listed rigging fitting associated with each lift and tackle ONLY, the arrangement probably used in Victoria, will have had the 7” double block shackled forward on the sides of the upper cap.   The purpose of the outer sheave has not been determined but may have been used to lead the associated top rope when fitted. 

 

The single lift will have been made up with the outer end, or standing part turned on a thimble, and spliced back into itself.  This end was then shackled to the upper lugs on the yardarm band.  The lift was then led up through (fore-to-aft) the inner sheave of the 7” double block fitted on the respective side, forward on the lower mast cap.   The running end of the lift was also formed in a hard eye with the thimble rove through the eye of the clip hook.  The running part of the lift was led down through the lubber’s hole in the lower top and hooked (and moused) to the running block of a whip.  To allow sufficient working length, the end would have terminated just below the lubber’s hole with the yards set horizontal.

 

A hard eye was sliced into the standing end of the whip fall which was shackled to an eyebolt in the deck abreast the mast near the partners.  The fall was rove through the 7” single block which was hooked to the lift, forming a whip.  The working part of the fall was then led down, possibly through a bullseye fairlead, or belayed directly to a pin.

 

The use of a whip for the lower yard lift seems rather unusual but is the only arrangement I can think of that uses only a single block.  Does this make sense at all?  It seems to me that such a heavy yard will have required a purchase to gain the necessary 'power' to cant the yard arms?

 

cheers

 

Pat

[Jim Lad]

Pat, even large and heavy as they were, I wouldn't think it would take much power to cant a lower yard.  After all they were pivoted at the centre and should have moved pretty easily.  It also wouldn't have been much work to tail a tackle onto the running part on deck if it was really needed.

 

John

[wefalck]

I think John is right. The lower yards would not normally be raised and lowered, unlike the upper yards, where both, lifts and falls may be needed to move the heavy yards up and down.

[BANYAN]

Thanks guys, even though that was the only workable solution I could see that incorporated the listed fittings in the Rigging Warrant, I was concerned with the 'weight' .  Much appreciate the reassurance, this would have worked.

 

cheers

 

Pat

[BANYAN]

Ok, now that the lower lifts are resolved; here is another one that bamboozles me a little.  - The Topsail Yard Lifts.  

 

While discussing this, please note this yard was fitted with an iron parrel on Lt. Green's patent as shown by Underhill.

The RW lists single lifts again but the lift itself having no associated block but does have a thimble and a common hook.  I am trying to figure out which end the hook would be.  Lees says a soft eye was formed outboard and placed over the yardarm (lower yard had an iron band and I would think this yard would also?).  This would put the thimble with hook on the inboard/running part.  

 

There is a tackle with runner also listed.  the tackle is formed with two 6" single blocks, and the whip (if the runner, if that is what it is) has a thimble and another 6" single block.  I am basing this on the convention used in the RW that has the tackle immediately following the line with which it is associated, and the 'tackles' are grouped/bracketed.

 

This seems an extraordinary amount of 'power/mechanical advantage' for a lighter yard, which would be restricted in canting by the iron parrel?  This yard is also hoisted and lowered with the chain tye to a wirerope halliard fitted to a winch, so I doubt this amount of power would be need to assist in hoisting the yard. 

 

Lees, Underhill, Harland and others I have looked at, do not appear to discuss any arrangement like this (unless I have missed something).   Surely, for this to work (cant the yard) the parrel would have to be released I think.  How often was the topsail canted?

 

Am I missing something very obvious?  Underhill mainly talks of standing lifts in this era where the inboard end was belayed or seized to the middle shroud of the gang (des not state where); but, then why associate tackles if a standing lift.  And,  why such a powerful tackle for a lighter yard?  I understand some power would be required as this yard does not have a central pivot point. 

 

Any pointers, suggestions or comments most welcomed.

 

cheers

 

Pat

Edited January 27, 2021 by BANYAN

[BANYAN]

Bump - any ideas anyone?

 

[Jim Lad]

Sorry Patrick - missed this one.  Topsail yard lifts were usually standing - i.e. shackled to the yardarm band and the mast band as they were only required to steady the yard horizontal.  Lower topsail yards didn't have lifts.

 

John

[BANYAN]

Thanks John, that accords with Underhill also - all upper yards lifts were standing lifts.

 

I was thrown with the association of the tackles (tackle and runner).  I am now wondering if the tackle was for hooking to the lifts to balance the lord/weight of the yard whenit was being struck/raised into position (I think Harland reflects) this?

 

Last question then, based on the above assumption, I think the thimble and hook would then go on the running end, and a soft eye over the yard arm.  Although, as you suggest it may have been shackled (hooked?)  

 

cheers

 

Pat

[Jim Lad]

Don't know why you'd have a tackle associated with a topsail lift, Patrick.  If you were going to use a tackle on the yardarm when maneuvering the yard itself, wouldn't you simply grab a tackle out of the bosun's store?

 

By the period of your ship, I would have thought a shackled lift would be most likely.

 

John

[BANYAN]

Couldn't agree more John, that is why it has thrown me.  Not only associating tackles, but also the lift itself has a thimble and hook.  lees says a soft eye over the yardarm stop, but Underhill says hard eye shackled to yardarm band lug.  My current interpretation being that the lifts were set-up as standing lifts that were hooked, rather than shackled, at the yard arm and once hove taut, the working end was seized to a topmast shroud leg (within working reach of the top).

 

POSSIBLITY:  The lift was set-up with the hook to allow it to also be used as a sort of (mast) pendant for working/setting-up lower rigging?  The tackle was provided to assist the tye/halliard when lifting/lowering the yard as required (only tailed on as required).  This sort of fits with Underhill whom says the weight of the yardarms was carried by the lifts, and a tackle used when hoisting them into place.

 

Only sort of arrangement I can think of that might work that utilised the fittings listed in the Rigging Warrant.

 

cheers, and thanks for your continued interest/assistance.

 

Pat