Topsail Lifts - 19th Century

[BANYAN]

Hi all, as most of you will be aware I am trying to sort the rigging for HMCSS Victoria (1855).  I have the Rigging Warrant, but I am finding there are many differences to the accepted practices for rigging sail/steam vessels due to the wide uuse of wire rope and chain , with iron fittings, throughout the rigging.

 

I am finding the the general practices mostly conform with the rigging advised by Commander G. Nares (1863) in his book 'Seamanship'.  However, there are deviations to this so I have also used less contemporary authors such as  Lees, Underhill and Harland.

 

One area providing me some difficulty is the rigging of the topsail lifts.  I have managed to sort out the fore topsail lifts which accord with Lees, page 85, for ships post 1805.  However, I have not been able to find a configuration that conforms with the listed items in the Rigging Warrant, specifically: "15½ fathoms (93’) of 3¼” hemp rope associated with 6 fathoms (36’) of 1½” hemp rope.  These are associated with four 6” singe blocks, two clip hooks and two thimbles.  There is also a lift tackle and lanyard listed.  The fore topsail lift is "Single" an d does not have the additional cordage listed with it.

 

The fore topsail lift is similar but does not include the additional length of rope with the lift PLUS there is a running whip used with the tackle working end (but not on the main).  The lift was made-up such that the outer end is clip hooked to the upper lug of the yardarm spiderband, rove through a sister block seized between the topmast shroud legs (leading pair), then led towards the deck along the middle shroud leg.  The lower end is spliced to the running block of the tackle, with the standing block hooked on in the main channels.

 

1.    What I cannot work out is what the second length of cordage is for.  It is much too short to be a double (second) lift being only 3 fathoms (18') long.   

 

2.    Also, I am trying to determine why a running whip is used with the working end of the fore lift tackle, but none is provided for the main topmast lift tackle?  

 

I would appreciate any suggestions pointers as to what purpose this may have served and how it was rigged?

 

Many thanks.

 

Pat

 

 

Edited September 8, 2021 by BANYAN

[BANYAN]

Anyone?  Please.....

 

cheers

 

Pat

[Jim Lad]

Pat, I've been puzzling over this and just don't have a n answer.  The 3 1/2 inch rope; blocks and thimbles are clear enough, but I can't for the life of me figure out what a short length of 1 1/2 inch is for - it's too big to use for any sort of whipping, and too small for a tackle.  Perhaps the contract cleark need a bit of spare rope for his boat's painter!

 

John

[BANYAN]

Thanks John, I am glad it is not just me puzzling over this.  The only ideas I have (pure speculation) are:

 

1.  the lifts being natural cordage, the tail/other rope may have been used as some form of lanyard/lizard attached to the running block to allow the lifts to be secured under the top/pulled towards the mast when steam was got up (and therefore the funnel raised)? - but then why is other rigging not  treated similarly?

 

2.  the fore top yard was the only one fitted with a battle sling (chain) - perhaps these were used to prevent the running blocks falling if the lifts were parted - but then again why not other rigging?

 

More guesses than knowledge! 🤫  🥴

 

cheers

 

 Pat

[Jim Lad]

Patrick under steam wouldn't the lifts need to be rigged to hold the yard steady?

 

John

[BANYAN]

Your are quite correct John, my thoughts were more of a temporary nature.  The lift and tackle were an integrated rigging, so the lanyard would simply be to pull it back further from the heat if needed; but released when working the lift.  In hindsight however, I do not think that was even necessary as the lift went outboard to the main channels anyway - so back to option 2?  

 

Nares, in his 'Seamanship' of 1863,  talks of a lizard attached to the running block on the forward lifts (not listed directly with the lift in Victoria's Rigging Warrant).  The fore topsail lift did not go the the fore channels but was more up-and-down, belaying to the fore sheet bitt crosspiece pinrail.  Perhaps the additional rope was to act in the same role but as it could not run on a shroud due to the ratlines, perhaps acted more like a 'painter' to catch the running block?  All conjecture I understand; but the only thing that comes to mind.

 

cheers

 

Pat

Edited September 9, 2021 by BANYAN

[Tony Hunt]

Pat and Jim, three fathoms of 1½ inch hemp rope (½ inch diameter) is surely just a length of lashing line, it's too light to be part of the rigging of a ship this size. Since the blocks are hook-on, perhaps it is just for securing them in the top if/when they are not rigged?

[BANYAN]

Hi Tony, agree this is light lashing; hence my thoughts on a sort of preventer/retainer if the lift / lift tackle are parted due to weather/battle.  Being lifts, there would not be too many times they are not in use I would think?  More to the point though, the tackle was an integral part of the lift with the running block of the tackle spliced into the running/tail end of the lift.  So in this instance, if to be secured, the whole tackle would have to be lifted which would not be practical I think.

 

Thanks for the suggestion  and thoughts on this Tony, it made me go back to the original document to recheck my transcription was correct - it was BUT...  It seems that in this case, it is possibly just some careless/sloppy entry of the information (being a fair copy of the original).  The copy does not have ledger lines or the like to line things up, and whereas the text was aligned well for the foremast, in this instance it is not so.  It appears the clerk put the correct data into the correct area but the alignment of the associated items is at odds, but it is all there if re-interpreted.

 

If I separate all of the items I can rearrange them to include exactly the same items (with slightly different cordage sizes) as required for the fore topsail lifts.  So I now have have a lift that is fitted exactly the same as the fore topsail lift, and a tackle arrangement that is the same BUT with the addition of a lanyard fitted to the standing block.  This makes sense due to additional height of the main mast.  The smaller cordage is used as the runner for the tackle working fall.  As there are no 'cells' or such, if I align the smaller the cordage with the tackle, this works (in the fore lift, it was entered under the tackle) - by separating everything from the lift itself, the rest falls into place even if not aligned properly.

 

So, the main is the same are the fore, but with an additional lanyard - case solved

 

Thanks again

 

Pat

Edited September 10, 2021 by BANYAN

[mtaylor]

Sounds like the clerk did his work on a Friday as the clock approached beer o'clock, Pat.  I'm glad you got it sorted out and you not have to pound your head the desk some more.

[Tony Hunt]

Great, I'll claim a 1/3 share of the victory. 😁

[BANYAN]

Hi Tony, all yours but the don't hold your breath - the claim is under 'disputation' in the Prize Claims Court   

 

Pat

[Jim Lad]

Aha! Incompetent public servants strike again! Glad it's all sorted Pat.

 

John

[BANYAN]

Thanks Mark, Tony and John, appreciate the assistance.

 

cheers

 

Pat