Scraphs shown in elevation

[allanyed]

A few of us have looked at these drawings and are of the opinion that the drawing of the beam ends in elevation indicate lips of the scarphs.   This was new for us so would be interested to hear others' opinions as to what the circled area indicate, offsets of the scarphs or something else.

 

Note that the Bristol (50) has no scarphs on the orlop beams where as the Portland (50) may, if the offsets shown are indeed scarphs.  Hard to see on the JPG but pretty clear on the PDF that follows.

 

Allan

 

 

Beam question.PDF

 

Edited November 30, 2023 by allanyed

[Jaager]

Allan,

 

Touching base, but I have nothing to offer on this point.

I do have one "wonder" about this sort of detail on a design plan.

I have the impression that prior to Anson's control of shipbuilding,  that the individual masters at each yard were very protective of their "prerogatives".  Allin's exercise of this lead to a disastrous  result for Victory 1737.  Would they pay any attention to construction detail like scarphs ?

 

 

Since we do not have a seminar room for scratch builders,  jumping on any opportunity for general discourse seems worthwhile.

 

 

I am a bit of heretic on this sort of detail. 

I am purely superficial about otherwise hidden detail. 

I prefer fully planked decks, so I opt for simple one piece beams - since they are hidden. This saves on carlings, ledges, and all sort of knees.

 

I know that many of the contemporary English shipyard models feature minimally planked decks.  No definitive information would be added by speculating on the reasons behind it, but after years of observation, my determination is that once I have seen one, I have seen enough.  Too busy and unfinished looking for my eye.

 

I do not intend to be negative about this, I am suggesting that rather than mechanically following a formula for an acceptable look, take a wide angle view and determine what sort of final look will fit your esthetic.  I wonder just how many derelict scratch build logs would have reached finished status if the author had not become overwhelmed by the complex internal detail?  A shallow and superficial epidermis only works just as well for everyone but the cognoscenti.

 

To offer a comment about decks that I did not see commented on, since I am suggesting fully planking the decks:

A recent photo of the deck of Tennessee showed the deck.  Tennessee was a later era and another country, but I saw no evidence of any trunnels - plus I saw no butts on any of the strakes.  To my eye, the deck was clear of any of the faddish detail distractions so popular now.

 

Dean

 

Edited November 30, 2023 by Jaager

[druxey]

Chacun à son goût! - Each to their own taste. The individual style of different builders is what makes things interesting. It would be dull indeed if we all built in exactly the same way with the same amount of detail - or lack of it.

 

P.S. Decks were never treenailed to my knowledge, but nailed and plugged, which was almost invisible. However, some builders like to show fastenings. I'm not defending the practice, but if folk like it, let 'em do it!

[allanyed]

Hi Dean

Sorry for the miscommunication.  I was not suggesting anyone must follow the construction, I was asking about the correct interpretation of the drawing.  Is it indicating scarphs or something else?  As to including hidden details, I am with David, put 'em in if you want to, leave 'em out if you don't.  I have done both and feel good about both.  Even an in between with the partially planked decks to show a few of the carlings and lintels and maybe a peek at the stove and such is an option as you mentioned.

 

David,  regarding tree nailing decks I would go farther and say that, for me, the use of these has ruined a lot more otherwise really nice models than they ever enhanced.  But, as you so eloquently stated en français, chacun à son goût!  

 

Allan

[iMustBeCrazy]

4 hours ago, allanyed said:

A few of us have looked at these drawings and are of the opinion that the drawing of the beam ends in elevation indicate lips of the scarphs.

For what it's worth, I agree. This is what is depicted (not to scale):

[Mark P]

Good Evening Allan;

 

This kind of detail is quite common on draughts of the later 18th century, certainly. I have always been of the opinion that such things represent the joining of beams by scarphs, seen from the end, and cannot conceive of it representing anything else. The location and spacing make it certain.

 

The use of scarphs was not so much dependent upon the whim of the shipwright in charge, but rather was driven by the timber available. As good timber became harder and harder to obtain, it became necessary to use ever shorter pieces. I have read of deck beams being formed of two, three, or even four separate sections, all scarphed together. 

 

The scantlings of timbers used in early 17th century ships, which were much smaller than those of the later 18th century, are much larger in size than the corresponding timbers ever were in the later period. This presumably reflects the need to make the most of the timber available. 

 

Deck planks were both spiked (nailed) and treenayled at various times. Generally the butt end of a plank would be fixed with a bolt for extra security, or if a wider plank, with a bolt and a treenail, if my memory serves me correctly. 

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

[Jaager]

39 minutes ago, allanyed said:

Sorry for the miscommunication.  I was not suggesting anyone must follow the construction, I was asking about the correct interpretation of the drawing.

No miscommunication.  I just took the opportunity for a riff.   After we got our hands waked for venturing out our area....  Your interpretation looks accurate to me.  And you certainly have enough experience to essay as much of the structural fine points as you can tolerate.  You know what is involved.  It is a cost-benefit situation.  I am thinking that by sticking to only the necessary, two and maybe three ships could be built for the time and effort required by a fully detailed model.  But what do I know?  I am still stuck in my framing rut.

It has been a while, but I was channeling the occasional tyro who bangs in with too much enthusiasm and a mistaken certainty that a fully detailed first rate from scratch is not really a problem and manageable. 

[allanyed]

2 hours ago, Jaager said:

I just took the opportunity for a riff.

 

2 hours ago, Jaager said:

I was channeling the occasional tyro who bangs in with too much enthusiasm and a mistaken certainty that a fully detailed first rate from scratch is not really a problem and manageable. 

Love it Dean!!

[Thukydides]

I unfortunately do not have anything to add to this discussion, but I wanted to pop in to mention how much I appreciate reading these sort of topics both as they happen and also when while researching some obscure topic I come across them.

[scrubbyj427]

I also believe that this is the scarph joint represented in profile, I am however slightly puzzled as to why Portland had them and Bristol did not? Bristol was built right after Portland in the same yard. Perhaps Portland was drawn with them but never built that way. 

[iMustBeCrazy]

1 hour ago, scrubbyj427 said:

I am however slightly puzzled as to why Portland had them and Bristol did not?

Actually they both did. The drawings in Allan's first post show the deck of Bristol  (with scarphs) and the profile drawing of Portland (also with scarphs).

 

Here's some more drawings:

 

Now, here's an interesting one, Stirling Castle has no deck beam timbers longer than about 24 feet. Where 24' is sufficient for a scarph joint one is used, if 24' is not long enough a chock is used instead. Unfortunately  the profile drawing doesn't show any joints.

 

 

[iMustBeCrazy]

I just found this in the Danish archives: