1:98 Wooden Stanchions for HMS Victory

[allanyed]

10 hours ago, Gregory said:

Is there good reason to believe Victory's pillars would have been replaced between 1765 and 1805?

Hi Gregory,

Remember that post #9 refers to pillars in the hold, not on other decks.  I am not convinced the pillars in the hold were ever turned.   As to the other decks, based on the contracts and plans turned pillars seem to be the norm.

 

In looking at several contemporary contracts the wording has me convinced the pillars in the hold were probably always square and those on higher decks turned.    When they are to be turned it is so specified in the following contract samples.  

 

Astrea (36) and Curacoa (36) 1808 

     The Pillars in Hold under the Lower Deck and Orlop beams to be square 7½ inches at the Lower End, and 7 inches at the Upper End.

     The Pillars under the Upper Deck Beams to be 6½ inches square at the Lower End, and 6 inches at the Upper End, and turned.         

 

  Elephant (74) launched 1786

       The Pillars in Hold under the Gun Deck and Orlop Beams to be 9¾  inches square at the lower end, and 8¾ inches at the upper end.

       The Pillars under the Upper Deck Beams to be 8½ inches square at the lower end, and 7½ inches at the Upper End, and turned.   

        To have Pillars to the Quarter Deck  Beams, handsomely turned 6 inches square at the lower end & 5 ¼ inches at the upper, 

 

Severn (50) and Burlington (50) 1695

         To place under Each Beame in Hold and Upon the Kelson one Pillar. To be Seven Inches Square.

         Upper Gun deck  To place Two Tire of Turned Pillars in such Places as are Convenient Under ye Beames fore and aft, Six Inches square.

 

Lark (40) 1702

        To place under Each Beame in Hold and Upon the Keelson one Pillar. To be Six Inches Square.

          Upper Deck to place Two Tire of Turned Pillars fore and aft in such Places as are Convenient Under ye Beames, to be Five Inches square.

 

Edited September 21, 2023 by allanyed

[Gregory]

Thanks for the info.

[Morgan]

Looking at my photo archive of the UK’s 3 surviving historic ships, Victory, Trincomalee and Unicorn columns or stanchions in the Hold and Orlop are straight sided.  The mess or berth deck on the 2 frigates could be either turned or straight (i.e. not turned).  However, columns on the gun decks are always finished and turned in the centre section.  I don’t believe there was a standard or pattern for this, other than being ‘custom and practice’, and down to the individual dock yard / constructor.

 

The Trincomalee has the Wadia (Bombay constructor) barley twist columns, she also has the more classic turned columns which are probably a later addition.  I’ve attached a photo below, I’ve got a scratch Trincomalee in hand and have no idea as to how I will reproduce those!

 

The other 2 photos are from the Unicorn for comparison, one of the mess deck, the columns are crude in comparison to others, the second is of columns in the hold.

 

So in summary, for Victory I would venture straight for the hold and orlop, and turned on the gun decks.

 

Gary

Edited September 21, 2023 by Morgan

[tmj]

I think my mind is made up. I'm going to use square stanchions in the hold and also between the Orlop and lower gun deck. All other pillars/stanchions/whatever's that will be supporting the upper level gun decks will be squared on the ends and turned in the middle, just like post #6 depicts. Bear in mind... post #6 is nothing but a concept of how I intend to fabricate those stanchions. It is 'NOT' anywhere close to the exact geometry that I will truly be using!  

I truly appreciate everyone who has chimed in on this subject. 

  Many thanks!

    Tom... 

[tmj]

Hmm, one more question. "How were those stanchions/pillars, etc. actually 'anchored' in place?" Would it have been via tongue & groove, or what? This obviously has no value in the building of a small model. It would just be nice to know...

Edited September 21, 2023 by tmj

[tmj]

This is the stanchion design that I settled on for supporting the lower gun deck. I'm rather sure that it isn't historically accurate, but it's probably as descent an attempt as any. 

 

[Gregory]

On 9/21/2023 at 4:42 PM, tmj said:

"How were those stanchions/pillars, etc. actually 'anchored' in place?"

A little late to this, but I think they would have been hammered in place with a very tight fit.

 

It seems I remember that some of the pillars on the gun deck could be swung up, out of the way, so that would have involved some sort of hinge.

[Morgan]

There was a specific screw jack supplied that fractionally lifted the beam and allowed the wooden stanchion to be removed.

 

Victory does have some brass stanchions as well which are hinged and swung up out of the way, from memory these are in the vicinity of one of the  capstans, I believe they are a later addition and can also be found on the Trincomalee.

 

Gary

[dafi]

Blaise Olivier was joking about the english having to lift the deck beams to unlock the wooden stanchions and refers to the french ones that were iron and could be swung up.

 

Afterwards the jack is taken out too. There are also smaller iron jacks, but this is the one Olivier refers to in his book.

 

Reasoning for why the english chose that complicated way? The only reason I see is that the wooden stanchions could handle nuch more pressure than the thinner iron ones. As always open for other or better ideas 😉

 

XXXDAn

Edited October 9, 2023 by dafi

[druxey]

Perhaps weight and cost were factors in using wood?

[dafi]

My personal theory is that the english ships were build strong enough to have the stanchions removed under normal conditions when using the capstan.

As for my understanding, in heavy weather those wooden stanchions can stand much more pressure from the structures above than the thin iron ones could, there is more likely the danger of just bending aside if pressure gets to big. I often read the english comment about the french ships not being that resistant to extreme conditions, perhaps for details like this.

 

XXXDAn