Capstan questions, late 18th century

[bruce d]

First question: 

How was a capstan measured? Multiple contracts relevant to my subject use the phrase '... a Main Jeer Capstand abaft on the upper Deck of 1f’ 11in’’ Diameter in the Partners'.  

I get it, this measurement is the effective footprint of the mechanism as it sits on the partner, but on the face of it it says nothing about the spindle, loading or diameter of the trundle head. So I'm thinking there must have been a table of proportions to give all dimensions from the one specified, as was the case for just about every other thing made in HM dockyards at the time.  This is backed up by the contracts also stating the capstan shall  '... in every respect to be completed as is done in His Majesty’s Yards.'

 

Second question:

What determined the length of a capstan's bars? Was it space available, ie as long as possible? Or was it a figure derived from a set of proportions as mentioned in Q1 above?  I thought I had a table giving this relationship but can't find it.

 

For context, it is for my Berwick, (74) of 1779.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Bruce

[allanyed]

Bruce,

I am not sure how much information in Lavery's Arming and Fitting book will be useful, but it has a number of drawings amongst the  9 pages describing single and double capstans from the 17th through the early 19th centuries.

Allan

[bruce d]

Hello Allan,

Thanks, I thought all answers were in that wonderful work, but alas no. Good drawings, useful text, but no tables.

I trawled through my reference books thinking I had seen a simple rule but I ain't found it yet.

 

 

[druxey]

Steel gives all the dimensions of each part of a capstan on Folios XXXVIII to XL. Also, these are given Allan's own book, which he is too modest to mention! It Scantlings of Royal Navy Ships 1719-1805, Allan Yedlinsky, SeaWatchBooks,2014, pages 184-194. 

[bruce d]

Sounds good. Which edition of Steel is that? I will look again but when I looked I thought looked it described making a capstan, not giving guidance on sizes.

Looks like I can't live any longer without Allan's book!

[Gregory]

You might already have this Bruce, but just in case..

 

Of course, it will not be a substitute for the actual scantlings.

Edited July 16, 2023 by Gregory

[bruce d]

3 hours ago, Gregory said:

You might already have this Bruce, but just in case..

 

Thank you Gregory, 

Good choice, that is one of the drawings on my short list!

The scantling question remains, I will look at Steel again later as suggested to see what I missed.

[druxey]

Steel 1805, or the Sim Comfort facsimile edition 1977.

[dafi]

Here is the capstan from Implacable, as seen in the Museum de la Marine in Rochefort 🙂

 

Fits quite well with drawing Gregory shows. It is the one the british installed after the capture of the french ship. I have one note that it was about 1820/1830 but the source vanished (https://www.patrimoine-histoire.fr/Patri...e-la-Marine.htm). It was retrieved before the demolition and scuttling of the ship.

 

XXXDAn

 

Edited July 17, 2023 by dafi

[dafi]

As for the bars: Goodwin´s Construction and Fitting tells: "one third of the vessel´s extreme beam"

 

I think that is too general, because on different decks the available widths for the bars were different.

 

This is the lower Deck, 10 sailors easily fit plus 2 on the swifter. The length is tetermined by the guns arranged flat against the hull. This is about the 1/3 of the extreme beam.

On the middle deck the bars have to be shorter, only 6 sailors fit plus 1 on the swifter.

 

 

The number corresponds with the famous drawing of the NMM.

 

 

Also a point in consideration is the placement of the pillars on the deck. How many of them were to be taken out to allow the bars to rotate?

So the pink circle is mandatory. The green circle is 2 more and the blue one 4 more to be taken out. The red one is the maximum considering the guns.

 

As well known, this was more complicated on the british ships, as the beams needed to be lifted with the help of a jack. 🙂

Blaise Olivier was joking about that as the french had iron pillars that were hinged and could be swung up.

 

I looked at all available contemporay models showing the capstan bars. All of them kept clear the guns and followed a pragmatic solution, considering the circumstances. That is how I defined the length on my model.

 

XXXDAn

 

PS: And some small views, how cramped and claustrophobic the situation was once beams and knees  were added.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 17, 2023 by dafi

[bruce d]

33 minutes ago, dafi said:

As for the bars: Goodwin´s Construction and Fitting tells: "one third of the vessel´s extreme beam"

 

I think that is too general, because on different decks the available widths for the bars were different.

Dafi, thank you. This must be right because the contract for similar ships has different lengths for bars.

[allanyed]

16 hours ago, druxey said:

Also, these are given Allan's own book, which he is too modest to mention! It Scantlings of Royal Navy Ships 1719-1805, Allan Yedlinsky, SeaWatchBooks,2014, pages 184-194. 

Thanks Druxey.  I will go with the modesty excuse, but truth is I forgot it was there.   Bruce I am PMing you regarding these pages

Allan

[druxey]

The Implacable capstan is a little later than 1779, as it has a drop pawl rim as per the 1796 technical drawing. I believe that this feature was introduced in about 1790. It's curious that the upper drumhead is missing. However, one can see the square tenon at the upper end of the spindle.

 

Dafi's model is a brilliant recreation of a capstan manned and in action.

Edited July 17, 2023 by druxey

[dafi]

Thank you druxey, very appreciated!

 

I found in my notes that Implacable´s capstan was build around 1820/1830 following some sources out of the Meseum in Rochefort. Unfortunately the source/link that gave the information has vanished. I added this detail in #9.

 

XXXDAn

Edited July 17, 2023 by dafi

[druxey]

Thank you, Dafi, for confirming that the Implacable capstan with its drop pawls and rim is early 19th century, not 18th.