2nd rate London 1656 – the art of the shipwright

[Waldemar]

 

Martes vigilant as ever 🙂. Thanks for asking.

 

While there are quite a few small kinks in other places (one of which I've shown before), right here is perfect. I've prepared an additional sketch where you can see how the transition of the shapes in this area takes place. It is, I hope, so clear that I will no longer describe it verbally.

 

 

 

[Waldemar]

 

However, it is still worth mentioning here that this is the area where the designer employed variable, increasing radii for the floor sweeps (only for the fore part of the hull; thin red arcs on the above diagram). They increase from 10 feet (for the master frame) to roughly 13.3 feet for the „L” frame. Also, look at how the length of this floor sweep vanishes, going towards the bow.

 

These were the methods used then and there to achieve as smooth hull surfaces as possible, as opposed to the diagonals and waterlines only used later in ship design. And the physical ribbands could at most be used to help position the pre-designed frame elements that had already been cut out before actual assembly.

 

 

 

Edited January 25, 2023 by Waldemar

[Waldemar]

 

It has to be said that for its time it is a geometric masterpiece. It is as if the shipwright wanted to show off his drawing skills. Either way, it shows the capabilities of the designers of the time, which was not so obvious until now. Even Deane is not so advanced or maybe better: so open with his professional secrets. Note, of course, that just drawing skills does not necessarily translate into a successful design. 

 

The topsides of the frames for the fore part are made up of three arcs, and they are all arcs with variable radii! Their construction can be seen in the attached diagrams.

 

One important update has also been made: the rising line of the breadth fore is a simple arc now. This removes the kink in the area of the main frame, is more 'in line' with known English practices and reproduces the lines of the original plans even better. I rate this reconstruction as quite difficult.

 

 

 

 

[Waldemar]

 

The way the toptimbers aft were originally drawn can not be reproduced, as it was done apparently wrong. Instead, it is proposed the similar method as employed for the fore half of the hull, except that the upper breadth sweeps have a fixed radius of 15 feet, and there are only two arcs for a toptimber. Rather than logarithmic scales, it is even more proper to use (for both halves) guides similar to the line of greatest breadth, as described, for example, in Bushnell's 1664 work on shipbuilding. Naturally, they would first have to be defined on other projections.

 

Again, thanks for watching,

Waldemar Gurgul

 

 

 

 

Edited January 27, 2023 by Waldemar

[Martes]

She gets incredibly lovely.

[Waldemar]

 

Yes, indeed. Old sailing ships are perhaps the most beautifully functional man-made objects.

 

Now that the concept behind the design of London 1656 is better understood, one may be tempted to make a handful of concluding remarks.

 

As stated earlier, the design is clearly more advanced than the methods as described in early English works on naval architecture from the first decades of the 17th century, and this is expressed primarily in the very extensive use of variable radius arches. This in turn translated into greater flexibility in forming the desired hull shape. Of course, this came at a price – now each frame (or at most a group of just a few frames) had to have its own separate templates, which certainly complicated shipyard work.

 

The line of the floor is used in forming the shape of the frames in practice only in the midship part. At both ends of the hull, on the other hand, its role is taken over by hollowing templates.

 

In general, the architect flexibly uses a variety of geometric transformations, freely selecting them as he deems most appropriate for a particular application and place. This seems to be the most advanced variant of the 'hauling down/pulling up futtock' method in its classic form.

 

The next stage could be the reconstruction of the entire hull including all projections, but this requires an equally large amount of work...

 

 

[Martes]

16 hours ago, Waldemar said:

Old sailing ships are perhaps the most beautifully functional man-made objects.

 

Ships belonging to some periods may be considered more handsome than others, although it ultimately would be a function of personal preference.

However, there is something in the English architecture of precisely mid-17th century, a style that disappeared afterwards.

At least I fell in love with this model the moment I saw it's photos.

 

Edited January 28, 2023 by Martes

[Waldemar]

 

Oh, no...! Martes. That's my love! 🙂 And she could be so very useful in a more comprehensive reconstruction of London 1656. Also, it would be great to do a reverse-engineering of her lines based on the 3D hull scans of this very important model, just like here for London 1656, i.e. in terms of the design methods used. We just happen to have an information gap for this particular period, and it turns out there was so much going on....

 

 

[Waldemar]

 

Due to the apparent and quite significant drawing inconsistencies in the aft body plan, it was felt that an alternative solution should be prepared. Paradoxically, although this alternative gives a slightly inferior rendering of the original lines, it is the one that is rather more likely. In the first place, the shape of the line of the breadth is now more in keeping with known English practices of the period. As a result of this change, the two toptimber curves have become arcs of variable radius.

 

Below, in addition, an updated diagram showing the ship's longitudinal lines as they finally develop from both body plans.

 

 

 

 

[Martes]

The second variant of the line of breadth aft looks more natural, I'd say. And corresponding to the forward part.

[Waldemar]

 

A quick 3D model was still created at Martes' request. I made a few minor adjustments to it: upper part of the stempost is shaped a little more upright, and the aft run at the very bottom of the hull is made sharper, which I think the maker of the plans had rather forgotten or refrained from drawing.

 

Overall, it appears that all hollowing curves have been drawn in a somewhat simplified manner. Unlike the use of wooden templates in the yard, they are quite cumbersome to draw on a paper plan and the designers have been taking some drafting shortcuts (see, for example, Sutherland 1711, The Ship-builders Assistant). Hence the probably slightly less than ideal hull lines on the original plan.

 

While doing a full reconstruction of the ship, I would probably still straighten the bow wings quite a bit, as suggested by van de Velde's drawings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 29, 2023 by Waldemar

[Waldemar]

 

Below is a variant of the London 1656 hull lines probably more realistic, and the fruit of a very useful dialogue with @Martes in private.

 

There have been some fairly major changes done, which more attentive eyes will no doubt notice:

 

– timber&room value has been reduced from 36 to 30 inches, which is more consistent with contemporary contracts and specifications ( @allanyed hit the nail on the head with his calculations above),
– the stempost radius has been reduced from 40 to 30 feet (which is more in line with other period material, although not already quite with the original London 1656 plan itself),
– hollowing curves of a more advanced shape were applied than those drawn on the original plan, which also improved the hull shape,
– some additional light fairing of the hull surface has also been carried out.

 

I have also added some diagonals to better illustrate the shape of the hull.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Richard Endsor]

[druxey]

Welcome aboard, Richard! The last line of your post has been truncated, though. What is this march?

[Richard Endsor]

Oh yes, a bit got cut off. I tried to say that there is a London day at Southend on 4 March organised by Save the London. There will be a day of talks by archaeologists and historians and many of the recovered artefacts will be on display. The event is easily found on the net and I think it only costs £3.50 entry. I have given talks there in the past and will do so again next year, if anyone from this forum attends it will be a pleasure to meet you there.

[Waldemar]

 

@Richard Endsor

 

Mr. Endsor, first of all I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your excellent books and, from my point of view, especially the outstanding chapters on ship design and building methods in your book 'The Master Shipwright's Secrets. How Charles II built the Restoration Navy'. Even more so, as these aspects are very rarely addressed in such a detailed and clear way.

 

I would also like to clarify that the purpose of this exercise is precisely to try to identify the original way in which this drawing of London 1656 was made, as you splendidly did with John Shish's Treatise, and that the 3D model is actually just a by-product. Anyway, this drawing of London is so badly deformed in so many different ways that simply retracing the frames outlines would miss the point, whatever the purpose. Besides, despite the difficulties, there is still a chance to determine such obscure features of the ship as e.g. the rake and radius of the stem post, and only the analysis of the original drawing method can help here.

 

* * *

 

You state quite emphatically that the floor sweeps could not have been of variable radius for almost the entire length of the days of sail, as they would have required separate templates for each frame. However, variable radius floor sweeps are covered in a quite detailed way in 'The Ship of the Line. Volume II: Design, Construction and Fittings' by Brian Lavery, with both references and examples. I will not quote this material here as it is too extensive, just add that William Sutherland 1711 uses variable radius hollowing curves, and the reconstructed lines of the Restoration yacht of Charles II, on the basis on its 3D scans, also have variable radius hollowing curves (besides other frame sweeps of variable radii), which of course required separate templates for each frame (or at most a group of just a few frames).

 

Frames shaped or even just corrected by design waterlines or diagonals (practice starting presumably in the decades around 1700), also actually required separate templates for each frame in order to accurately transfer their designed shape to the timbers. Otherwise, the effects of this correction process would have been lost.

 

However, the most important argument in this particular case is probably the drawing of London 1656 itself. The floor sweeps radii are gradually increasing in a quite noticeable way, and that reading I am absolutely sure of (as opposed to a few other things), and only my reconstruction of how they were actually drawn by the creator of the plan may be considered a modern interpretation here.

 

For confirmation, I've also attached a diagram below, where it can be seen that the 10 feet (fixed) radius arc clearly doesn't match up with the original line drawn. This is also the case with all other floor sweeps in the forward half of the hull, except that of the master frame, of course. On the other hand, in the somewhat easier to shape smoothly aft half the hull, the floor sweeps are already of expected, fixed radius.

 

 

* * *

 

Finally, I would add that in the quite possible case of the reconstruction of the hull lines of London 1656 (as opposed to this attempt at the reconstruction of the drawing method of her supposed plan), I would certainly not leave the smoothing/fairing the hull surface to the automatic mechanisms of the computer software, but I would rather manually correct the longitudinal construction guides (i.e. both lines of the floor and the breadth), conforming to the known contemporary methods, and also apply appropriate hollowing curves in order to obtain the best possible with this design method shape, or at the least – acceptable. Just as an experienced shipwright of the era would have probably done. To conclude this point, the suggestion to simply retrace somewhat spoiled original contours and spoil them up even more haphazardly using today's CAD software does not seem particularly attractive to me, as it is more akin to carpentry than real shipwrightry in its design aspect.

 

Regardless of everything, even a possible difference of opinion on certain issues, once again thank you very much for your interest in this thread and of course I invite you to post again. You are always welcome.

 

Waldemar

 

 

Edited February 6, 2023 by Waldemar

[Martes]

@Richard Endsor, thank you very much for looking in and welcome!

 

10 hours ago, Waldemar said:

the 3D model is actually just a by-product

Indeed, at this stage we used the 3D mesh to simply verify the feasibility of the hull and spot problematic places. And there are lots of them.

 

The premise of this undertaking was the hope that, unlike later ships in 18th century, a ship of this period can be "recalculated", if a method of the design was determined, and utilizing @Waldemar's familiarity with period methods to reconstruct the profile and, eventually, the appearance of the ship.

 

For London we know the most basic dimensions (Winfield, and it is a separate question of where he got them and if there is something more there) - the keel length, the breadth and depth in hold.

 

Initially it was hoped to derive the missing dimensions of the ship - rake of the stem and the stern, room and space, distance between stations and the length of middle body from this set, however we soon understood it to be impossible due to the inconsistencies that plague these plans.

 

My suggestion at that stage was to look at the closest reference we have - the 1650s model from RMG that is generally identified as the Antelope and while narrower is very close in size and time of construction to the London. We have photos of the model and some measurements in the Franklin book, including measured parameters of the stem, stern and R&S, however it is not entirely clear how they would relate to those on the London, which is only slightly longer, but considerably wider.

 

I suppose it would be of enormous help if there were lines taken off that model, but I am unaware of such a set in existence.

 

Edited February 6, 2023 by Martes

[Richard Endsor]

Hello London enthusiasts. I reckon we can pursue our enquiries and come to a good conclusion Most importantly, we should always go back to original source material when pursuing a theory, not use what I or Brian may have dreamt up. Firstly to answer a question about Riff's dimensions, The keel length is given in Pepys Register of ships in Magdalen College, Cambridge as 123' 6" Breadth 41' 0" and Depth in hold 16' 6" while another list NMM CLU/9 gives the keel as 123' 0" and the same dimensions for the rest. As for the radii of the floor sweep, take a look at Brian Lavery's Ship of the Line II page 19 where he says in the caption for image 2 Body Plan that the floor sweeps are reduced in diameter(sic). Then take a ruler and measure the clearly marked floor sweeps of said illustration and I make them all to be the same at 13mm. Please check for yourselves as we need to agree our understanding of a floor sweep is the same. Be careful not to measure to a diagonal line on the aft side. Check all the other contemporary plans you can find. Then consider the way moulds were made in the method describes in Shipwright's Repository. Remember Brian wrote his book in the late 1970's when the understanding of such matters was largely forgotten and he blazed the trail for us. Seventeenth century plans do have what look like diagonals but they are in fact the heads and heels of futtocks and toptimbers. The first known evidence of checking lines with water lines appears about 1680 but the method of plotting them must have been well know way before that in order to plot the contours of the transoms. Waldemar may well be right in finding the floor sweep varies, in which case Frank Fox was correct in believing the plan is not authentic. Alternatively perhaps Waldemar could use the best fit floor sweep. I suggest the plan has so many anonmoles that to create the rising and narrowing lines is almost impossible. And why would you? the rising and narrowing lines were drawn first to create the sweeps and the sweeps are there already.

[druxey]

Every best wish for a successful March 4 rally! Unfortunately many of us do not live in the U.K. and won't be able to attend.

[Richard Endsor]

Thanks Druxy, I believe that in order to understand a subject fully its no good being interested in just one genre, such as model making. You need to engage with art, shipbuilding, history and archaeology. It takes years to do but well worth pleasure of doing so.

[Waldemar]

 

@Richard Endsor

 

Dear Mr Endsor,

 

Thank you for your new entry. Let me start by answering the question why to reproduce the shape of the ship's design lines. The most important reason is that I am curious about what ship design might have looked like in practice then. There are, however, some other reasons already explained above as well (I point out in passing, as it were, that what I show should often be perceived as a process flow rather than the final result).

 

You rightly advise using the period sources directly in the first instance. Personally, I consider this alleged plan of London 1656 authentic, as it has all the visual characteristics of the 17th century document and the context of its origin is also not in doubt. And so it will be until the results of laboratory analysis of the paper or ink contradict it. Therefore, my approach is not to date an already dated document on the basis of today's knowledge of ancient shipbuilding, but, on the contrary, to deepen today's knowledge of ancient shipbuilding on the basis of this very document.

 

* * *

 

As to the variable radius floor sweeps, you expected me to measure the drawing on page 19 of Brian Lavery's book (which I had already done anyway), but after all it is not about this particular plan, but about the text, the diagrams, and in particular the reproduction of another plan on page 24, for some reason overlooked. 

 

You also demanded, and I complied, to check „all the other contemporary plans” in terms of this issue. There are plenty of them featuring variable radius floor sweeps, if only on the RMG website, and after finding about two dozen I stopped looking further. Below is just one of those, from 1771, chosen as both the frames themselves and the centres of the floor arcs are clearly marked with letters, so there is no question of any confusion as to the value of particular radii.

 

 

* * *

 

You also advocate to avoid non-English sources for the analysis of English shipbuilding practices. This is, in my opinion, unnecessary and even harmful self-limitation. I've already experienced quite emphatically that without knowledge, and sometimes application, of these „external” sources, a full understanding of English practices and the dynamics of their development is simply impossible. This also applies to the various types of geometrical devices employed to shape the hulls' design lines. It is improbable that even the simplest of these methods were not known and used in just one part of Europe, especially as it was at the forefront of naval architecture at the time.

 

* * *

 

To be sure, I'll also add that I don't artificially "bend" the lines when I try to match them to the original contours to prove something to someone, because I primarily perform this process to satisfy my curiosity and only share the results. In the event of deviations, I always indicate this together with the reasons.

 

 

[Richard Endsor]

Dear Waldemar, You are a tease who can cheerfully ignore admitting the floor sweeps of Bellona 1754 on image 2 in Brian Lavery's book are all the same radii. They clearly are the same radius and follow seventeenth century practice. What you are describing is mentioned by Brian Lavery, Ship of the Line II, Page 21, first column "Around 1765 a new line, known as the centres of the floor sweep, begins to appear on draughts". That's over a 100 years after the London was built. She surely would have been built according to the fixed radius floor sweep method, as Brian further records on page 19 "It is usual for all the floors sweeps to be of one radius, (ref25 Mungo Murray 1754)". Come on Waldermar, put a smile on your face, be friends and please agree the London must have had a fixed floor sweep radius. I am happy to admit my ignorance in that I never knew about this 1765 practice as I stick firmly in the seventeenth century and never stray out of period or country as its so very, very easy to be misled, as you have here. As for the differences between English and foreign practices, take a look at 18th Century Shipbuilding by Blaise Ollivier ed David Roberts. A bookful of differences between English, Dutch and French practice. I am also sorry for appearing to indicate the London drawings are not authentic. What I meant to say, they definitely date from the seventeenth century but as the late, great Frank Fox said, they may not be be an accurate copy of the original ships plans. I really appreciate our dialogue as I have learnt something today, even if its out of my period. Stay happy, and remember we study ship building for pleasure.

[Waldemar]

 

Dear Mr Endsor,

 

You are the last person I would want to have a difference of opinion with, but since we already have the circumstances we have, first I have to say what you are unlikely to like, and I certainly do not like:

 

1. suggesting that I could not recognise nor admit the floor sweeps of Bellona are all the same radii was not elegant. That is not the point and you are well aware of it,
2. to suggest that Lavery's book was already out of date when it was so convenient, but to later opportunistically cite his supposedly invalidated findings is an inconsistency that is difficult to pass over,
3. you have coined the meaning "surely only one possibility" from the word "usually", which is an obvious semantic inconsistency,
4. you imply that I am putting a total equal sign between practices from different regions, which is not true and I have never written even something similar,
5. finally, you rather arbitrarily state that I have been misled, although it is not clear how.

 

You really did not have to resort to these eristic tricks, because I am prepared to concede something that you happen to like, if it is of course relevant to you:

 

1. I certainly make a distinction between the preserved plans and the actual shape of the real ship, moreover, for various reasons I think they surely differed,
2. there is no guarantee that the preserved plans even attempted to reproduce the hull shape of the real ship fairly faithfully, despite that the transverse proportions are correct,
3. at this point I believe that the use of variable radii was the exception rather than the rule, however, it was known and sometimes used even in the 17th century, as this very drawing proves,
4. taking all this into account, personally I would have done a reconstruction of the London 1656 based on these plans, that is, with floor sweeps of variable radii for the front half, if only for formal reasons. But this at the same time does not mean that I reject the other, incomparably more common method, i.e. with fixed radii.

 

I sincerely hope, that such conclusion would make you happy too.

 

 

[shipman]

Looks to be a two pipe problem.

[Martes]

11 hours ago, Richard Endsor said:

floor sweeps of Bellona 1754 on image 2 in Brian Lavery's book

 

I feel compelled to note that the Bellona is a very controversial example here, herself being based on the lines of the French L'Invincible (1747) (Winfield, British warships 1714-1792), and is not the most typical representative of the native British design school (as opposed to the practice of incorporating foreign designs) of the 18th century.

 

11 hours ago, Richard Endsor said:

may not be be an accurate copy of the original ships plans

That the plans are not ships building plans is obvious - they carry post-Restoration decoration, while Van de Velde portraits show the Commonwealth style and arms on the stern. Some details, like the form of the taffrail, are very similar. Still, for some reason they were drawn as they were, and they contain some system and probably some hints to the original, that would be somewhat wasteful to disregard outright.

 

As I mentioned earlier, it would be much easier if we had the lines of the Antelope model to analyze. But, alas, we don't, so we try to examine the possibilities.

Edited February 7, 2023 by Martes

[Richard Endsor]

Dear Waldemar,

I think we were beginning to entertain readers of this forum with some amusing confrontation. Let me say, I am truly mortified if I have offended you. You are a colleague who makes very good points, you are not an opponent.  Before getting on to the London, let me say, I bought Brian's  Ship of the Line and Frank Fox's book Great Ships in 1985 to take with me when I was going abroad to work in the aerospace industry. They got me interested in making a model of Lenox and one thing led to another. They both have little mistakes, Brian's caption on page 19 does not agree with the image. I would love your opinion on this as its out of my period of interest. This may not be Brain's fault as publishers make more errors than the author. Both these wonderful books are outdated in being published in black and white and if new editions were made today they would be brought up to date. I originally said in this forum that Brian's book was a trail blazer and stand by that and hope you agree. Your Item 3 of my misdemeanors misquote me and reckon I changed from "surely" to "usually". It was Mungo Murray (what a great name) who said "usually" in 1754, I quoted him. I honestly have no intention of using what you say are "eristic tricks", mainly because I don't know what the word means.  I try to tell it as it is.

Which brings us to the most enjoyable purpose of our lively debate, the London. I think we are making progress and I agree with Martes, it seems most probable that the creator of the surviving drawing copied the original draught after the Restoration in 1660. His work on the end views (I have never seen the term "body plan" used in the 17th C) was far from perfect and he drew inconsistent lines. He then embellished his work by adding decoration without actually seeing the ship. So the general structural layout is correct but imaginative in detail. He also appears to have added his own idea of cross pillars and oversize guns etc. When analysing the sweeps of the of the floors they are found to vary in radius in an apparent method known to have been introduced c1765 and completely different from seventeenth century practice, which used a fixed radius sweep.  The varying radius sweeps may well be coincidence as other known seventeenth century sources do not describe this later method.

I hope this summary sums up our debate. I have found it valuable as being a trustee of The London Shipwreck Trust I try my best to help them. If a model maker wishes to make a model that can be shown at Southend I will help all I can. I have to confess to working on what the ship looked like for some time which will go into a book about the London. The other wreck of interest is the Gloucester, a third rate of the same type as the early NMM model referred to by Martes, which he says should be recorded. Guess where I was last week with the device shown on page 125 of Master Shipwright's Secrets. Although models are far from ideal as reference, the model is the nearest we are likely to get for the Gloucester. I hope this forum and the expertise in it will enjoy helping with this. By the way, I am interested to know why Martens calls her the Antelope? 

 

[DonatasBruzas]

Hello,

I came across this thread and found it quite intriguing. I was hoping to gather your thoughts on a potential connection with the ship model located in the Maritime Museum in Sweden, which is attributed to Francis Sheldon. Sheldon was known for his involvement in the construction of London before relocating to Sweden. It's worth mentioning that the dimensions of London and Sheldon's model are quite similar.

Apparently, the lines of the model were measured back in the 1930s, but I am uncertain about the accuracy of the plan. Although, it might be useful to examine the underwater part, as it appears to be very round. You can find the plans here: https://digitaltmuseum.se/011024828744/ritning and https://digitaltmuseum.se/011024828745/ritning

I've learned that there have been two attempts in recent years to measure or create a 3D reconstruction of the model. One was done by Dr. Kroum Batchvarov, and I would love to learn more about his research in this area. Additionally, a 3D scan was done in 2022 and is yet to be made public.

Edited February 7, 2023 by DonatasBruzas
Spelling mistame

[Richard Endsor]

Thank you for the link DonatasBruzas, Interesting, but as you say, it looks very round. I wonder what Kroum has to say.

[Martes]

5 hours ago, Richard Endsor said:

By the way, I am interested to know why Martens calls her the Antelope? 

Both Winfield (British Warships 1603-1617)  and Franklin (Navy Board Ship Models 1650-1750) say the model is closest in dimensions to the Antelope of 1651. It was also compared to Speaker and Fairfax, as far as I remember.

 

3 hours ago, DonatasBruzas said:

lthough, it might be useful to examine the underwater part, as it appears to be very round.

The model of Riksapplet is indeed very sharp and round, especially for a 3-decker, but there is at least one more Swedish ship, probably made by Sheldon's son or grandson

 

Swedish ship Sparre, by Sheldon

A 1037 VIII

https://www.sa.dk/ao-soegesider/da/billedviser?epid=17149179#208027,39521509

 

 

That displays very similar hull to the model. The ship is either the Sparre of 1724 or even later of 1748, so it definitely can't serve as a direct reference, but the design recycling is interesting in this case. Other early 18th century ships signed by Charles or Gilbert Sheldon are very different.

Edited February 7, 2023 by Martes

[Waldemar]

 

@DonatasBruzas

 

Donatas, we have already considered this model together with Martes in private correspondence. But as you pointed out, its lines made in the 1930s are too uncertain for analysis. Upon receipt of more reliable 3D scans, I would immediately start trying to reconstruct its design concept, as I did for London 1656 and other ships or their extant images. As it turns out, so little known so far or even completely misunderstood despite their capital historical value.

 

But even in this research activity, competition is not welcome. As you can see, such attempts are associated with a certain risk, because the new discoveries made in the course challenge stereotypes, orthodox views and previous findings of scholars. As a result, they are even met with hostility, personal interventions and at best indifference. Poor payment for the effort and free show. Perhaps a change in the way these attempts are made available to interested parties would be a good solution, as I have already been advised.

 

 

Edited February 7, 2023 by Waldemar