HMS Victory belaying anomalies

[tedrobinson2000]

I’m in the throes of rigging my Caldercraft 1:72 Victory, and have run up against some oddities.  I am adding a suit of sails to the model, which was not intended to be the case by Caldercraft.  One of the first stumbling blocks is the lack of belaying points for the 4 tri-sails forward – the fore staysail, fore topmast staysail, jib and flying jib. They each have 2 sheets (port + starboard), a downhauler, a tack and a halliard as a minimum.  Additionally, the tacks of the jib and flying jib are mounted to sliding travelers that require outhaulers to position them along the jib boom and flying jib boom. Each of these lines need belaying points.

 

The double sheets on all but the flying jib are rigged with tackles, thus requiring 2 attachment points each – the standing parts of these 6 tackles presumably attach to eyes and the running ends to cleats. None of these points are called out or shown by Caldercraft. I note that shown in almost all old photos, as well as drawings by McKay and also by McGowan in his book “HMS Victory”, and also by contemporary videos of walk-throughs on the current Victory, there are 11 or so timberheads on each of the focs’l rails that presumably would have been used as belaying points for some of the lines. My presumption is that for some reason, Caldercraft omitted these timberheads from their model, even though it is touted as being the most accurate one on the market.  If those timberheads, which I presume are extensions of the frames and are not easily removed or replaced in actuality, were included on the model, the focs’l hammock nettings would have to move outboard to accommodate them, and the channels would also have to be wider for the fore shrouds to clear. Very curious!! Does anyone have any suggestions as to why this is the case??

 

This raises another question, in that several of these lines have to be somehow tied off to the beakhead bulkhead fife rail, as well as to the focs’l breast beam rails. There are not enough sheaves nor timberheads to accommodate all of these lines, so I presume that they were just tied off to the rail, but I have not seen a way to do this neatly. One way would be to run the bitter end of the line around the rail several times then hitch it off to itself, but that would not be very practical for long lines, nor shipshape. Perhaps a bight was formed, passed around the rail and then hitched off.  I wonder if anyone has run across these problems, and what the solutions are.

 

I have some more questions regarding the fore jeers, as well as the cat falls, but will save them for another post.

 

Thanks,

Ted

[allanyed]

Hi Ted,

 

In The Anatomy of Nelson's Ships by C.N. Longridge, he points out that the book is based  on authentic and accurate drawings.  Going with that supposition, you can use pages 264-272 which describe and/or show the belaying points for Victory.  He does state that he did not rig every line on his own model, which I believe is still at RMG or another British museum, but he does give what seems to be most, if not all, belaying points.  Note that there is not always just one line on a single belaying point.  As an example he points out that the Admiralty drawings show the eight timberheads on the rail at the beakhead receiving about three lines on each timberhead.  The book has several diagrams and several lists with the names of each line and their belaying points.   Can't copy  these diagrams and lists here due to copyright issues, but the information should be extremely useful to you.  There are used copies of this book for less than $25.      https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/the-anatomy-of-nelsons-ships_c-nepean-longridge/502417/item/13222021/?gclid=CjwKCAjwmqKJBhAWEiwAMvGt6GJSVfkrD7oa0AsbylrQC9zqMPBbeoxaxxJ6ElXA-cyGJDaZ_9zWrxoCg-gQAvD_BwE#idiq=13222021&edition=3404533 is one example.

 

Looking at contemporary drawings circa 1765 and a model of Victory from the early 19th century at RMG Collections, there are indeed 11 timberheads on each side of the forecastle.   

https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/79912.html

 

Anyone building Victory would be well served to have the Longridge book as a reference.  

 

You mention lines being tied to the rails themselves.  This was common on 17th century ships and into the early 18th century as there were few if any timberheads like those found later on.   I do not recall seeing this practice in later years either on contemporary drawings or models. 

 

Hope this helps!!

Allan

Edited August 28, 2021 by allanyed

[tedrobinson2000]

Hi Allen,

Nice to hear from you.  Thanks for the lead to Longridge, I've just ordered a used copy, even tho I already have about 6 books specific to Victory.

 

I would be very interested in seeing an example of a line being tied off to a rail, and what knots/bends are used.  Can you lead me to a photo or drawing of one?

 

Here's another question. How did they raise the lower fore spar into position?

 

It's easy to visualize raising the main yard, as the jeers (2 each) run down through openings in the quarterdeck to the upper gun deck, through sheaves in the fore brace bitt pins, then can be led to the main capstan where dozens of men working the bars can raise the spar to its desired height to be lashed to the slings. These fall lines are quite large; 7-1/2" (circumference) or so. I've done a quick calculation for the weight of the fore yard, using dimensions from McKay and the nominal density of fir @ 500 kg/cu meter (spruce is about the same- don't know what wood was actually used in making up spars) and I get about 4,500 pounds without cleats, blocks etc.  This would make the total fore yard weight, without the sail bent on, at about 5,000 lbs.  The main yard would have been even heavier, but had the advantage of being nearby to the capstans.

 

I note that with the triple jeer blocks, the mechanical advantage is 6 times, so the weight raised is about 415 lbs per jeer fall, which I guess i doable with 8 to10 men per fall.  The x6 advantage in the triple sheave system comes at the expense of having to pull 6x the length of rope to raise a certain distance.  The fore yard lies about 40 feet above the deck level, so each jeer fall will have to have 6 x 40 = 240 feet of line, plus the slack used by the men to haul on. So, the question, after all that, is: where is all this line stowed?  There's no room on the focs'l deck for this much slack line, I have just sent the ends down to the upper gun deck through the gratings that are near the bitts.  Any idea what they actually did with the extra line??

[allanyed]

Ted,

I have never seen a contemporary instruction on how to tie a line to the rail, but maybe the close up below of lines tied to the rails will help.   I doubt this would be appropriate by 1805 though what with belaying pins and timberheads available.  Keep in mind even though this is a contemporary model at Preble Hall, it may have been re-rigged at some point although they are likely to be accurate.  I looked at a bunch of photos in John Franklin's book and Lees' but cannot find very clear closeups that show how these were actually tied.  That they were tied in some fashion to the rails I have no doubt, but as to the method, I have not been able to find anything so far.

 

Regarding the weight of the fore yard, I am coming up with something much less.   Assuming a length of 89' 1" and diameter20 7/8" (Lees' Masting and Rigging page 198 specifically for Victory) and a taper that left an AVERAGE diameter of about 16 inches for the entire yard,  a weight of about 45 pounds per cubic foot for dry oak (https://www.oocities.org/steamgen/woodweights.pdf)  (Fir looks to be lighter)  I come up with 16X3.14X1069= 53,706 cubic inches.   53,706/1728 cubic inches per cubic foot =31 cubic feet.    31X45=1,395 pounds.   I am no math teacher so my numbers may be bogus but there is a big difference with our numbers.   

 

From  Lees's Masting and Rigging page 64 ----  The fore yard had two sets of jeer blocks.  For each set, the upper block was treble sheaved and hung from the mast head with a long strop.  The yard had two double blocks, (one to go with each treble block) strapped to it at the slings.  I cannot find any information where and how the line was stowed, other than contemporary models that show the lines in large coils at the foot of the bitts.   

 

Again, hope this helps.

 

Allan

[popeye2sea]

For belaying line directly to a rail a clove hitch will work just fine.

 

I don't know how accurate it is, but I have seen on modern replica ships like L'Hermione that the jeer falls were made up with long hanks into a gasket coil and hitched vertically to the falls so that they hang abaft the mast.

 

Regards

[tedrobinson2000]

Allan and Popeye, thanks for the replies.

 

Allan, I re-ran my calcs for the fore yard weight, and using dimensions found in McKay, I get about the same results as I posted before. I used 89’ for the overall length, with a 22’ long central (assume cylindrical) section of 1’-9” dia (without adding the batten thicknesses).  This leaves the two end sections each 33’-6” long; major dia = 1’-9”, minor dia = 9”.  I get 53.5 cu ft for the center section, and 44 cu ft for each of the outer sections, for a total of about 140 cu ft. I used the density given for fir of 53 lb/cu ft., which yields a little over 4600 lbs.  Then add the lower double jeer blocks (which were massive, probably several hundred pounds each), and miscellaneous fittings such as stuns’l irons, bunt, clue and sheet blocks, etc. and it would not surprise me if the total weight that needed to be raised by the fore jeers was way over 5,000 pounds! Not to quibble, but the darn thing was pretty heavy!!

 

As to the stowage of the jeer falls, I again note that each would have been about 250’ long with the yard raised, and were 7-1/2” lines. Popeye, as to making hanks and hanging the excess on the falls, it may do for smaller ships, but 250’ of 7-1/2” line seems way too much line to have been done this way on a first rate. It seems easier to send the unused line below, through the gratings, to the upper gun deck for stowage. I believe, that once the lower yards were hauled up, probably at the shipyard at first, they were not lowered again very often, if ever. The upper yards were frequently raised and lowered to shorten the top and topgallant sails, but I doubt if the course yards were moved very often.

 

Thanks to both of you for ideas regarding tying off to a rail. The photo that you sent Allan, is a little fuzzy, but it looks like they are using a simple clove hitch, as Popeye suggests, or a similar knot. This is how I handled these lines originally, before I ripped them off to re-make my sails and redo all the fore rigging, but it doesn’t seem very practical. If one had a slack length of say 50’ on a line, a clove hitch would require the bitter end to be sent around the rail 3 times, each time running the whole 50’ of slack around the rail.  A lot of work, and especially hard to deal with if the line needed to be freed up on a dark and rainy night.  My guess is that if they took a say 15’ bight over the rail, it could then have been made up into a clove hitch to secure it, but I haven’t been able to find an example of this anywhere.  Curious!

 

Here’s another, similar question.  What was done with the excess cat fall lines?  The cat blocks on a first rate were triple, thus for every foot gained in raising the anchor as it was hooked on near the hawse holes, 6’ of line was gained on the cat fall.  From the waterline to the upper position where the anchor was catted, is about 40’ or so, so the excess line would have been over 250’, including the excess needed for the hands to get a purchase on it to haul.  Jotika says that the excess was coiled and hung on the cleat mounted on the outer, after side of the cat.  This, again, seems curious to me.  That would require a sailor to go out on the cat itself to hang the coil, and it doesn’t seem as if it would be very secure hanging there, and subject to being washed away in heavy seas. Any suggested solutions are appreciated.

 

Regards,

Ted

[popeye2sea]

I have never been able to get an answer to the same question regarding stowage of jeer or halyard lines.

 

4 hours ago, tedrobinson2000 said:

 

 

As to the stowage of the jeer falls, I again note that each would have been about 250’ long with the yard raised, and were 7-1/2” lines. Popeye, as to making hanks and hanging the excess on the falls, it may do for smaller ships, but 250’ of 7-1/2” line seems way too much line to have been done this way on a first rate. It seems easier to send the unused line below, through the gratings, to the upper gun deck for stowage. I believe, that once the lower yards were hauled up, probably at the shipyard at first, they were not lowered again very often, if ever. The upper yards were frequently raised and lowered to shorten the top and topgallant sails, but I doubt if the course yards were moved very often.

 

 

 

Yes, that is true for ships from the late 17th century on. But the same conundrum would occur for earlier periods where the lower yards were shifted much more frequently and consequently the halyards were probably left rigged. Would you then have a very large coil on the gun decks fouling the cannons or capstans? Would you lead the bitter end down to the cable tier for coiling?

 

Again, I have no answer.

 

Regards,

[Ian_Grant]

Ted, great questions! When I did my Victory, I saw a photo of someone's model with the fore jeer falls coiled in tight eliptical turns, and frapped, lying on deck fore-and-aft on each side of the mast between the bitts. I did the same, but I did not coil a realistic amount of thread for the function...

 

Neither did I coil realistic lengths for halyards and cat falls. Don't know how they handled it in reality. Raising anchors is not frequent - could they have long-spliced an extension to the catfall when needed? I don't know.

[popeye2sea]

I think cat falls, like top ropes, were rigged as needed. But halyards and jeer falls are another story.

 

Regards,

[tedrobinson2000]

Popeye and Ian,

 

I think that unreeving the cat falls would have been very inefficient.  I guess that if the ship was to be on a long ocean voyage (away from shallow coastal waters) it would be possible, but just begs the question since the falls (both bower anchors?) would need to have been re-rove when the need for them was again anticipated. Normally, they would be left catted, and removing the falls would have been a pretty big job, and all just for relieving the need for stowage?  My guess is that they just coiled the falls up and hung them on a shroud or other convenient out-of-the way spot, even though the focs’l was a rather congested area.  That being said, I have never seen a model that displayed the cat falls stowed this way, so it’s just conjecture on my part!

 

How about another anomaly?  Both Caldercraft and in McKay’s AOS, the fore top yard braces are shown to be belayed in the waist on the second skid beam of the boat tier, in between the boats.  This seems not to be very efficient in that a sailor would have had to climb over and between the stowed boats to even reach this point, and then would have had no room to haul on the line, much less having room for the other dozen or so hands needed to haul. Seems like the top yard braces would have been in constant need of adjustment, especially when tacking.  There must have been a better way to belay these lines. Any ideas?

 

Regards,

Ted

[popeye2sea]

1 hour ago, tedrobinson2000 said:

How about another anomaly?  Both Caldercraft and in McKay’s AOS, the fore top yard braces are shown to be belayed in the waist on the second skid beam of the boat tier, in between the boats.  This seems not to be very efficient in that a sailor would have had to climb over and between the stowed boats to even reach this point, and then would have had no room to haul on the line, much less having room for the other dozen or so hands needed to haul. Seems like the top yard braces would have been in constant need of adjustment, especially when tacking.  There must have been a better way to belay these lines. Any ideas?

 

I agree. A brace (or any other line) would never have been belayed to a boat skid beam. 

 

Regards,

 

[Ian_Grant]

I imagined they would stand on the main deck and access from below the pin, rather than climb over the boats. I wondered where to coil them when I rigged my model; in the end I think I just cut them and moved on.🤔

[tedrobinson2000]

I agree, Ian.  on the model I'll just belay them to the focs'l breast beam rails, or to the belfry, or some other logical place. I enjoy trying to understand how 18th century sailors did things in their everyday lives.  I've come to the conclusion that their lives were not as romantic as it seems from a viewpoint 250 years in the future, but full of danger and deprivation. Just little things, like how they handled belaying lines, interests me. These things are easy to do on a model; not so much in real life, I believe.

 

I try to picture a sailor, many days at sea from being a lubber, attempting a topman's duties for the first time on the footropes of a main yard 4 or 5 stories above the deck (twice that to the sea) on a dark and stormy night.  A fall would almost certainly result in death or crippling injuries, or drowning. Life must have been fairly cheap if you were a hand. Even more certain if he was working a top or topgallant yard!

[allanyed]

Ted,

The following is from Lees' Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War.    

From the 1733 Establishment, the fore topsail yard braces on a first rate  belayed to cleats on the bulwarks just aft of halfway between the fore and main masts.   Once the gangways and skids came into use, this would not work.  By 1742, the fore topsail yard braces were being belayed to the forecastle rails but not on the belfry itself.  About 1805 the fore topsail yard braces were belayed at the main jeer bitt.   Note that the location of the standing parts and blocks were in slightly different positions on the main stay for each period as well.

Allan

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 3, 2021 by allanyed

[tedrobinson2000]

Allan,

Thanks for the tip from Lees.  I actually have a copy of Lees, but missed that section on belaying the topsail braces.  I did end up belaying them on the breast beam rail, but (as per my original question) was not sure how the actual belay was made in the absence of belaying pins there.  Still not sure how this was done back in the day!

Ted

[allanyed]

While the below is not HMS Victory, it is a contemporary model of a British frigate and may be of some help.  While contemporary, it has likely been re-rigged over the past couple hundred years, but hopefully the person doing the re-rigging was faithful to the original belaying points and methods.

Allan

 

Edited September 3, 2021 by allanyed

[tedrobinson2000]

Allan,

 

Thanx for the picture; it's quite helpful.  Especially the jeer falls.  The port fall is coiled over the bitt pin, while the starboard fall is frapped and lying on the deck.  It looks like both methods may have been used in the day.  This model has no gratings just abaft the main topsail sheet bitts, unlike Victory, It would seem that a bundle lying on the deck would have been a trip hazard, especially at night.  I'm just going to send the running ends of the jeers down through the gratings to the deck below for stowage.

 

The photo also shows the focs'l breast beam assembly and its belayings quite clearly. Like this model, Vic also has 4 timberheads either side of the belfry. I added sheaves to each of the timberhead knees, but unfortunately I already have 10 lines that belay to the 8 timberheads, so I need to find additional belaying points. I have already doubled up on the fore course buntlines at the breast beam, but need to secure several more lines in the vicinity. That's why I'm trying to determine how the seamen made lines fast to a rail without having timberheads or belaying pins available. I'll probably just use clove hitches at the rail, and let it go at that.