Deck beams between frames or against them?

[Hakai43]

I'm working on a scratch-built cross-section of HMB Endeavour. I'm uncertain whether the correct position of the deck beams should be between the frames with hanging knees next to them and against the frame, or against the frame with the knee under it. Underhill and Davis's book seem to disagree about it. Interior pics of the interior of the Australian replica of Endeavour suggest at least some of the beams go between frames, but I'm not sure. Haven't been able to find any guidance on this here.

[Waldemar]

Maybe of help, maybe not:

 

On the “Vasa” of 1628, the deck beams of the lower decks were against the frames, as the frames were too closely spaced to insert the beams between them. It was the other way on the level of the upper decks with much loser frames – there the deck beams were inserted between the frames.

[druxey]

Normally beams rest on the deck clamps. These are ledges that run longitudinally inside the frames. Beams are placed where needed to frame deck openings etc., and are independent of the framing. I recommend you look at  either Londgridge's The Anatomy of Nelson's Ships, Goodwin's The Construction and Fitting of the Sailing Man of War 1650 -1850, or the series of books on the fully framed model by Antscherl.

[Waldemar]

Certainly, and all the deck beams on all decks of the “Vasa” rested on longitudinal deck clamps, which were directly fastened to the frames. Internal planking was added later and – as the last – the hanging knees.

 

My point is that the issue "deck beams between or against the frames" is rather a mix of 1) minimising the work, 2) possibilities and 3) discretion of the individual builder. IMO.

Edited March 27, 2022 by Waldemar

[allanyed]

Follow Druxey's advice in researching the books he mentions.  The space between frames (an inch or two) precludes any possibility of the deck beams going between them.  From Goodwin on page 66, the clamps were  sometimes scored an inch deep where the beams rested.   In addition the beam ends were sometimes wrapped with tar soaked flannel or paper, or had a notch scored about 2 inches deep to help prevent rot.  These features will not be seen if the waterway is put in place, but something you may want to do for your own satisfaction.

Allan

 

 

 

[Waldemar]

 

Well, it is hard to oppose the true archaeological find, even if it seems a little unorthodox today. Please take a look at the drawings of the upper decks of the real ship (quarterdeck, poop, topgallant poop). In contrast to the lower decks, most beams here are inserted between the loosely spaced frames, and in this case it must have been done on purpose, as – exceptionally(?) – even the vertical branches of the hanging knees are hidden beneath internal planking, being placed between frames too, most probably to save available space.

 

However, I do not know the actual dimensions and spacing of the "Endeavour" frames and beams at the quarterdeck level. Just pointing at such possibility (again – only at the highest, i.e. quarterdeck level).

 

Good luck with your choices.

 

 

 

 

 

[allanyed]

Thanks for posting the drawings Waldemar!

On what ship and year are those drawings based?   Are the drawings of a merchant vessel or naval vessel?  A good question or two may be, was Endeavour framed as a merchant ship or like a typical Royal Navy vessel, and what are the framing differences, if any?   If like a navy vessel, there is no room between frames for a deck beam even at the top of the top timbers.

Very interesting topic!1

 

Allan

[Waldemar]

That's fine for me. If it is absolutely certain that solid or nearly solid wall of frames was up to the very top of the top timbers in the "Endeavour", then this effectively decides the issue. If not, unsolved guesses would only be left.

[Hakai43]

For better or worse, I framed my cross-section of Endeavour using room-and-space rules as can be seen. Further, I didn't taper the frames upward (figuring that I could cut them away if needed. So, it is what it is, and I could go either way on any of my deck beams. 
 

My next issue is whether to continue planking the ceiling up to the lower deck clamps, meaning that the hanging knees will be installed over the ceiling. Also attached is a shot of the lower deck of the Australian Endeavour replica. The knees are next to the beams.

[Waldemar]

 

For your reference I have made a few scans from the detailed monograph of “Endeavour” as interpreted by K.H. Marquardt. Hopefully you will find it useful when building your cross-section of the ship. Specifically, you will find the answer to your question in the mid-section drawing.

 

 

 

Edited March 28, 2022 by Waldemar

[Hakai43]

Thank you. Wish I'd been able to obtain Marquardt's book at the beginning - I've made a lot of mistakes already from incorrect guesses.

[Waldemar]

Actually I like Navy Board styled (room and space) framing on the models much more than others.

[allanyed]

Hi  Waldemar,

 

I may be wrong on this but I don't think R&S has anything to do with style such as fully framed style or Navy Board styles which are two different things.   The reason I mention this is that  I had only seen R&S referenced as a dimension not a style.   The fully framed style  as shown in the Marquardt framing disposition drawing above is nothing like what most refer to as Navy Board style framing.  FWIW the R&S for many/most British ships can be found in contemporary contracts,  the Establishments, The Shipbuilder's Repository and Steel's Elements and Practice of Naval Architecture.

 

Allan

[Hakai43]

I have diverged from Marquardt's plan in two ways. The first is frame spacing. The second is construction of the frames. I did them in two laminations with overlapping floors and futtocks, 19 or 21 pieces per frame. I assumed that oak or elm slabs would not exceed two feet in mounded depth and 15 feet in length.

 

How much of Marquardt's specification is conjecture? I wonder if the recently located wreck of Endeavour at Newport has enough left to resolve it.

 

I'm at a cross-road: is what I've done so wrong that I should scrap it and start over following Marquardt exactly? If I'd been willing to pay $100 for the book that's the way I would have gone at the beginning.

Edited March 28, 2022 by Hakai43

[Waldemar]

Allan,

 

According to John Franklin, one of the best authority on the subject, the “timber and room” (“room and space”) has very much to do with the Navy Board style of framing. However, my intention is not to enter the lengthy discussion on this. Instead, may I point you to the following chapters in his book “Navy Board Ship Models 1650–1750”: “II. Hull framing”, p. 8–19 and “IV. Scales and Dimensions”, p. 45–52. Finely, exhaustively and clearly written, featuring equally clear illustrations and diagrams, and surely much more convincing than my input.

 

And I suspect you have somehow misinterpreted my comment on the Navy Board style. I was not referring to the evidently double frame construction shown on the Marquardt drawing, but to what Hakai has said of his model. Hoping all is clear now.

 

Cheers

Edited March 28, 2022 by Waldemar

[Snug Harbor Johnny]

On 3/27/2022 at 8:32 AM, Waldemar said:

 

Well, it is hard to oppose the true archaeological find, even if it seems a little unorthodox today. Please take a look at the drawings of the upper decks of the real ship (quarterdeck, poop, topgallant poop). In contrast to the lower decks, most beams here are inserted between the loosely spaced frames, and in this case it must have been done on purpose, as – exceptionally(?) – even the vertical branches of the hanging knees are hidden beneath internal planking, being placed between frames too, most probably to save available space.

 

However, I do not know the actual dimensions and spacing of the "Endeavour" frames and beams at the quarterdeck level. Just pointing at such possibility (again – only at the highest, i.e. quarterdeck level).

 

Good luck with your choices.

 

 

 

 

 

 

   Great drawings, Waldemar.  It was obvious to me (in light of your previous comment) that they are of the stern on the 1628 Vasa - as I'm trying to make the 'old' (first edition c. 1970) Billing Wasa (spelling used then for the kit) more like what we know now is the actual ship.  The work done in restoration and scholarship in the intervening decades is remarkable.  I note the lapstrake exterior planking for the higher portions.  A challenge to do at 1:100, I'll cobble what I can for my own satisfaction.

[Waldemar]

Hakai,

 

Marquardt's reconstruction is very well referenced, and personally I have confidence in his competence. You can find below a relevant listing from his book (many original draughts!).

 

I would not pay exaggerated attention to any inevitable differences in construction between the model and the original. A 100% compatible model has yet to be built and often aesthetics matter even more.

 

Edited March 28, 2022 by Waldemar

[allanyed]

Waldemar,

Thanks for  your response.   Sorry for the confusion.   I meant that the Navy Board style and room and space are not the same thing.  R&S is a dimension, not a style as you wrote:  

9 hours ago, Waldemar said:

Navy Board styled (room and space) framing

From Franklin it appears that R&S dimensions apply to both NB and fully framed  construction.  His descriptions are indeed highly detailed.

 

Cheers

 

Allan

[Waldemar]

Johnny, wow! You are building my beautiful Vasa! If you need them, I would be happy to PM send you all the detailed drawings done by the Museum in 1970. They used to be sold, but are now being distributed privately for free by museum staff. The problem is that the 9 plates are as much as 240MB in total, unless I compress them with a possible loss of quality.

[Waldemar]

Allan, you are absolutely right, Navy Board style and the concept of "timber and room/room and space" are not the same thing in the literal sense. My statement was a mental abbreviation, just linking these two closely related concepts.

Edited March 28, 2022 by Waldemar

[Jaager]

First,  just to be contrary:

If Marquardt's presentation is the correct one.  If Endeavour was built in a private yard,  it serves to harden my cynical view of the procedure as done in the English government yards.  It would mean that not only did the North American and French yards  - but also the English private yards did not build using the eccentric, labor intensive, in inefficient style of topside framing that the RN yards used.

 

Now, on Navy Board framing and R&S

Based on Deane -  even though  very few have survived, plans were probably used at least in the last half of the 17th century.

The interval of the stations on the plans is a hard data point as far as framing.  I am also convinced that the actual Body plan station shapes were essentially all that was used in both the shipyard mould loft and the model shop mould loft to prepare the frame timber patterns for both the ship and a model of it.  

The station interval was usually every three,  sometimes four, maybe two at the ends, - bends.   A bend is two frames with the timbers of one overlapping the butts of its partner.

The table of scantlings decreed the thickness of the timbers.   If the station interval is three,  then it is six frames.  

Using HMS Prince George 1723 90   

R&S = 2' 7"  (31")  

Station interval = 8' (96")  3 bends or 6 frames per station

Floors sided = 14"

For the ship:    31" - 14" -14" = 3" space per bend   31" x 3 = 93"   so each bend would need another 1" of space.  Designer ego is my thought about the discrepancy.   I am fairly sure that even in the last half of the 17th century the frames would be all wood.  The space would be between.

 

For a Navy Board model, the space is within a frame.  The timbers must be wider. 

Stations 96"   - 6 frames per station = 16" width for each timber.

I think that the 17th century modelers rough shaped their frames in stack of six layers - using the station lines as their patterns.  The stock was wide sheets - maybe -each frame was one sheet. - The waste would have even the Hahn technique in a different league.  All of the layers put together for hull shaping.  Then the spaces were cut out using a chisel - the space zone would not have been glue coated to begin with.  Maybe thin paper was used to make it easy to find for removal.

 

As I wrote a few days ago, I think the Navy Board style framing served two purposes.  It is a strong hull and no battens or clamps are needed.   The overlap - the solid band at the turn of the bilge - is an easy visualization of two proof diagonals.

 

My recent reading has turned up that Navy Board framing was used for special model well into the 18th century.  It is an elegant and artistic style of framing.  I am happy that I have precedent of using it for ships built right up to 1780.  

After 1780 the warships design started to become purely functional war machines that do not deserve an artistic framing style.

[Waldemar]

Interesting. Could you show your alternative interpretation of the “Endeavour” framing disposition in a graphic form, for the benefit of this ship model makers?

 

As to the Navy Board framing. Right. When building a model in a such stylized way, it is unnecessary, and even impossible to keep with the last inch of timber scantling. Just showing the general disposition in a much simplified, yet at the same time attractive way was apparently deemed enough. This is what we do today too. And this also helps to explain why so many identified Navy Board models are exact on their breadth and depth dimensions, but quite different in length from the originals.

[Jaager]

3 hours ago, Waldemar said:

Interesting. Could you show your alternative interpretation of the “Endeavour” framing disposition in a graphic form,

I really can't draw.  If you look at most any NMM plan that shows the framing, it shows something like the following :

For a plan with a three bend station interval, there will be a bend with a frame on either side of the station line. (This is normal in most every case.)  But in between  there will be only one other bend. The rest of the area is filled with single filling frames.  The futtocks significantly reduce is sided dimension. They often jog so that they frame the sides of the ports so that they are not cut into.  To me, it looks like a cross between a plate of spaghetti noodles and 2x4 16" on center house framing.  

The NA/French is all bends, most all the futtocks have the same sided dimension - except maybe the tops.  The timbers are cut into for the ports.  The zone with cant frames is as small as possible. 

 

(On a model, I take this more efficient method one step further: I avoid cants altogether.  I do not mind cutting away a lot of wood, so I keep my frames square to the keel all the way.  At the last station forward, the bow/hawse timbers come in at 90 degrees (parallel to the keel).  At the stern, my last square frame is where the fashion frame would be.)  ( I think the stern framing is a bear - It does not matter how the rest of the hull is built - POF, POB, even carved - it is difficult.)

 

Most of my framing has been for all bends,  before about ~1770 it was about 2/3 timber and 1/3 space. Attractive to display.  Somewhere around 1770 the framing was about all timber.  The space was 1"-2".  Pointless to display.  Here is where the Hahn style of omitting every other bend makes sense.  This also really saves on wood.   Then some time around 1815 it went back to 2/3 timber and 1/3 space (on average).    I guess that it was discovered that all wood does not stop hogging and does not stop cannon balls and less space meant more fungal rot.

 

Of late, I now feel comfortable with a Navy Board style framing for vessels up to 1770.  True Navy Board framing has the floor timber extending above the turn of the bilge.  The shortened F2 is missing as is part of F4 below the wale.  F1 is much longer.  It goes from above the wale to a bit short of the keel.  It makes both timbers very long and very curved.  The plank that they are cut from has to be wide.  There is a lot of waste.   For a more efficient use of wood and to not need frame stock wider than 2", I alter the disposition.   I have a normal length floor ( ~ 60% of the breadth ). I have an extra long F2 that butts against the floor and goes above the wale.  (unlike the floor with a different curve at either end, it is a single curve, so it fits on a 2" board.)  For F1,  I use a 5'-7' piece that half laps the floor and F2.   It is either a short timber or a long chock.  The spaces are not staggered.  They are both in the F1 zone.  From a distance it looks the same as Navy Board - until you notice that the spaces do not stagger.  I get the look without the waste.  Oh, because I think it is ugly, I plank over everything from the wale on up.  Because it is covered, I use a solid wall of timber from the wale on up.   I also have a piece of deadwood between every floor timber.  From what I read, most ships also had this as a chock.  There was a 1"-2" gap above the keel so that water could flow across the keel from bilge to bilge,  A model doe not need the gap.

[Waldemar]

 

Many thanks, Jaager. From your description it appears that you build your Navy Board style models as shown in Fig. 5 below, except your models are solid-framed in the upper parts of the hull (this is a diagram from the book on Navy Board models by Franklin, perhaps the most enlightening work on the subject).  

And in general, I see that we all interpret (meaning: simplify) the actual construction, more or less. To make things easier, faster, more regular, better looking, less wasteful etc. For several reasons it is simply not possible to make a true copy of a real ship.

 

 

[allanyed]

Further to the post by Jaager, a few minutes research will turn up plans of framing dispostions and scantlings from which you will find the R&S for different ships and eras.   You can find a number of framing distribution drawings that may be similar or possibly the same as Endeavour at the RMG Collections site. Two pages to try are  https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/search/5th rate framing plan and https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/search/6th rate framing plan     For scantlings that also give the R&S, look at the 1750 Establishment or  Shipbuilder's Repository scantling folios where the R&S scantlings are similar for a fifth and sixth rate, 27" .  You can find all the scantlings from the Establishments, the SR, and Steel in the folios in Scantlings of Royal Navy Ships from Seawatch Books. In addition to the R&S, the floor and futtock sidings are also given in the scantlngs so you can determine the siding of the wood and the spaces between to match the R&S.  

 

Allan 

 

 

Edited March 29, 2022 by allanyed

[Waldemar]

This is all fine and useful, and the hopes are all the data on the frame layout given here in this topic could help Hakai with his 'Endeavour' cross-section model.

[Morgan]

Endeavour was not a RN built ship, she was built in 1764 as a Collier, i.e. a bulk coal carrier.  She was originally named the Earl of Pembroke and brought in to the RN in 1768.  One of the reasons for her selection was Cook’s familiarity with Colliers, this is where he learned his trade prior to joining the RN.

 

I would suggest using RN scantlings etc. is a red herring, for accurate research studies of merchant ships would be more appropriate.  She was built in Whitby at the yard of Thomas Fishburn, again Cook has strong connections with Whitby, being where he started his seagoing career.

 

EDIT

 

Wiki Commons holds drawings for the Endeavour, no framing plans but perhaps enough to assist, the attached example for the great cabin suggest beams were inside the frames.

 

Gary

 

 

Edited March 29, 2022 by Morgan

[Waldemar]

 

Oh my... So many references, arguments and authoritative opinions, and here one actually a conclusive sketch....

[allanyed]

Gary, Thanks for posting.  The contemporary drawing you show is from the RMG and can be seen at both https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-86382  and at the Wiki Commons site as you mention https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Ship_plans_of_the_Royal_Museums_Greenwich&fileuntil=Experiment+(1774)+RMG+J3479.jpg#/media/File:Endeavour_(1768)_RMG_J2052.png and is clearly showing the beams resting on the clamp, not going between frames.   

Allan

[Waldemar]

 

Perhaps more convenient for the casual model builder would be a framing plan, which I have taken from Steel’s Shipwright’s Vademecum (1805). It is of merchant ship of similar size to “Endeavour”.

 

Essentially double frame layout, with only small gaps for airing and easier repairs (individual timbers replacing). In fact, I suppose Marquardt actually used this draught and only slightly simplified this layout to ease the model construction, and – somewhat ironically – corrected some simplifications made by Steel himself.

 

Still, a relevant archaeological find would be the best source...

 

Edited March 31, 2022 by Waldemar