Chain pumps on first and second rates

[mtaylor]

Druxey,

 

This would mean than that the chains along with their cups, would have been exposed?  Or do you think they just didn't include the tubes, etc. for simplicity's sake?   I'm thinking that this type of stuff was the "common knowledge" that was never written down.

[dafi]

I think one reason for the bad documentation is that that system was only needed about two dozen times in about 100 years - that is about the number of three deckers in the Royal Navy from 1750 on ...

 

But one could also see a development in the display.

 

It started perhaps as a mere longer chain to the upper deck to allow more people as seen in ZAZ0339 Royal Princess.

 

It became more and more encapsulated for security sake but especially to become less messy as water could drop back to the cistern without landing on the decks.

 

Next steps could have been the second extension.

 

And perhaps the lower cistern to be watertight and a cistern atop for reasons that we do not guess yet?

 

XXXDAn 

Edited December 5, 2014 by dafi

[druxey]

The Queen model implies one long, continuous chain to the middle deck, not a tandem bike-like affair.

[Mark P]

The Queen model certainly implies a connection between the middle deck and the lower deck;  I cannot see anything that would enable us to be more specific than that,  though. 

 

If there is one long chain,  I find it difficult to visualise any reliable way in which the turning effort of the men on the lower deck would be applied to a chain that merely passed by in a vertical line,  and did not pass around any wheel.  The links and washers of the chain pumps were not of a shape which would be easy to grip when just moving in a straight line past the perimeter of a revolving object.

 

This of course is not to say that it was not done,  just that it is impossible,  without further evidence,  to be certain either way.

 

Mark P

[jud]

Were I designing the instillation of the chain pumps, 'not really pumps at all, just water lifting devices using dippers to carry the water'. I would place a pump head or multiple pump heads on each deck that I wanted bilge water to discharge, each separate pump independently running to the bilge with no breaks or openings. On a man of war, seldom would there be a shortage of men to power the pumps and provide enough men for rotation on those pumps. Want water on one deck with a pump head, man that pump, have a lot of water to move, then man all the pump heads regardless of deck and open the scuppers. Not having any knowledge of how it was set up, the object still would be to lift water from one place to another using simple and easily repairable methods. Wonder if any method so far noted are 100% accurate.

jud

Edited December 6, 2014 by jud

[druxey]

Mark: thank you for your latest comments.

 

I don't think the 'tall' pumps were intended to be worked by crews on both levels. The arrangement was merely to place the team on one set of pumps on the lower deck, the other on the middle deck. As the shafts of the brake pumps were almost in alignment, both sets could not be worked simultaneously at the same level.

[Mark P]

Hi Druxey;

 

I have been pondering all the points discussed,  and reading up on chain pumps as much as I could.  Unfortunately none of my reference works give any details,  actual or surmised,  about chain pumps on three-deckers.  I can only believe in 'tall' chain pumps if the motive force is not applied at all on the lower deck,  but solely on the upper.  For this to be so,  there would be no need to fit cranks on the lower deck for the 'tall' pump,  as turning them would do nothing.  Therefore any cranks on the lower deck must have been solely to work the pumps on the lower deck;  and the cranks shown on the model of 'Princess Royal's' lower deck,  passing into the cistern of those pumps which have trunking rising to the middle deck,  were simply passing through the cistern so that men could stand fore and aft and work the pumps on the lower deck. 

 

One proof of this would be that when the pumps were all raised to the middle deck,  there would be no cranks at all on the lower deck.

 

I think that the position of the cranks was far enough apart that both could be worked together if the men stood outside them,  not inside;  but I believe it was probably not common for both to be worked at the same time,  as,  if the ship was heeling over more than a little,  only the lee-side pumps would have been very effective,  as the water in the well would be mostly on the lee side;  although the connection between the cisterns,  or a single wide cistern as often fitted,  would mean that in extreme conditions,  both pumps could be worked,  and discharge from only one side of the vessel;  a very necessary requirement when the ship was heeled over so far that the weather-side pump dale was running uphill. 

 

A point of interest,  but which does not advance the final resolution at all,  is that during the trials of the Coles-Bentinck chain pump in the 1770s,  one of the reasons given by the investigating committee to recommend the adoption of the new pump was that it was easier to work and left the men less fatigued;  so perhaps in the last decades of the 18th century,  there was not a need to be able to add extra hands on a second deck to help work the pumps.

 

A note for modellers intending to show full details below the orlop is that the lower part of the return tube on the new pumps was actually left open on one side for a good part of its height,  to facilitate repair and renewal of the chain links and washers.  Although this part will,  of course,  still be largely hidden within the ship's well.

 

Actually,  a final thought has just struck me,  which is that in the event of one pump (say the aft one) being worked from the lower deck,  and one pump on the middle deck (say the fore one) a line of men could stretch out fore and aft of the cisterns on both decks,  each line working one of the two pumps;  whereas if the two pumps being worked were on the same deck and the same crank,  only half the quantity of men could be employed to work them.  Therefore raising one pump to the middle deck does allow for a greatly increased number of men to be working them;  which may have been the way you had always visualised it.

 

There is then no requirement for a secondary chain;  but why would all the pumps later be raised to the middle deck?

 

Mark P

Edited December 9, 2014 by Mark P

[Tadeusz43]

Hi,

Pups on ships I have seen

Pumps on Victory gun deck (fot. 1-5)

Fot. 1 Elm tree pump

Fot. 2 Chain pump and crank

Fot. 3 Chain pump discharge

Fot.4 Two chain and one elm tree pumps

Fot. 5 Pump pipes in ship hold

Fot. 6-9 Pumps on Danish freegate  Jylland

Fot. 10 VOC Batavia elm tree pumps and Admiral

Tadeusz

 

[druxey]

Thanks for the photos, Tadeusz. However, Victory has been re-furbished many, many times over the years and very little "original manufacturers' equipment" remains in her. Jylland is of a later time period and country and Batavia is also a modern re-creation. Your Admiral is lovely, though!

 

Mark: I agree with your latest assessment. However, I don't have either a theory or an answer to your final question at the moment.

[Tadeusz43]

Hi,

Information about the pumps used on British warships in
during the XVII-XIX century with detailed drawings can be found in the excellent books :

The Arming and Fitting of Englisg Ships of War 1600-1815 by Brian Lavery

and

Englih Man of War 1650-1850 by Petr Goodwin

 

Tadeusz

 

 

 

[dafi]

Here some contemporary drawings of the "short" pumps

 

(Still have to look for the source)

 

 

Parts of Victorys pump (date unknown) REL0450

http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/63556.html

 

Indus 1839 ZAZ6853

http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/86644.html

Thetis 1817 REL0407

http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/63513.html

Edited December 9, 2014 by dafi

[Mark P]

Hi Tadeusz, 

 

Thanks for posting the pictures.  I too have both these books,  and have read the pump sections again,  and attentively,  in recent days.  Although full of information concerning pumps,  unfortunately they do not have any specific information about their use in 3-deckers.

 

Hi Dafi;

 

The sketch of 'Indus',  although dated 1837,  shows something similar to the inboard profile draughts that were discussed a few posts back.  The red dotted lines show the pumps 'as usually fitted'  which seems to imply that in Indus' case they were not covered over,  but left open for some reason;  which,  judging by the context,  seems to be to save space.  If so,  this must have been important for some reason,  for the amount of space actually gained is not large in the overall volume of the ship.

 

By the way,  the beautifully engraved picture of the chain pump,  with all its parts,  was printed by the Navy Board,  for distribution to ships' carpenters,  to help them with maintaining and repairing the new pumps.  There is certainly a copy in the NMM archives.

 

Mark P

Edited December 9, 2014 by Mark P

[dafi]

Just to proove how blind we sometimes are: I do believe, most of us saw this drawing of an early 19th century first rate in Arming and Fitting page 174 plenty of times ...

 

 

I stumbled over it because of Robin´s question about the panelling of the great cabins. And I discovered something on the right edge of it ...

 

 

... the extended pump, showing dales and handles on both levels. Best picture so far.

 

So the question is, does anybody have more information about this picture including the bow section?

 

Cheers and thanx, Daniel

Edited January 24, 2015 by dafi

[Walter Biles]

I see that this hasn't been responded to for about 5 months, but after reading this through, If I was on a ship which was collecting water, building up into the hold, and was working the pumps, I would have to wonder how long can she float.  Then I would be thinking, what if the water got above this pump crank level, does this mean there would be no hope to try to prolong her staying up long enough to get her to some land.  It would make good sense to be able to plug off the dale on that level, and retreat to the level above.  If there were more hands that could work the pumps from above, then we might have a better chance of staying off the water a bit longer until we could get farther.  So having the cranks working on both levels would be good.  HOWEVER, in order for the hull not to refill through the return line to the bilge, the return chain would have to bypass the lower station so any water at that level could not flow back down.  My idea would be that there would need to be a second sprocket follower to keep the chain held into the seat of the lower sprocket so the crank sprocket could keep the chain rising.  That way, it could be worked by both upper as well as lower drive cranks as long as possible, and once that deck became flooded, the work would have to be done from above with more frequent reliefs from the crew to give us more time to get near land.  I have noticed on the pictures that there was a groove to hold a plug over the outlet or hold a discharge pipe.  That would make it so the lower pump could be closed up but remain effective from the upper crank station.  That means that if you find any evidence of a separated return pipe at the lower level, then we might still have an answer.    Any other thoughts?

[dafi]

Thank you Walter for your input.

 

If the handles of the crank shaft in the lower gun deck have to be given up, I do strongly believe, that the ship is really lost beyond hope :-)

 

As you state the strongest guess for the upper handle is to have more men handling it. Other reasons are still not yet to be seen, as there seems to be enough fresh water pumps for washing and fire fighting.

 

Just rediscovered this topic as in another place there was another discussion about it and this seemed a good idea to check if any new resources popped up to this topic :-)

 

Cheers, Daniel

[druxey]

I suspect that the limbers were cleared by working the pumps from the lower deck. One would not want to to use more energy in raising the water much higher than water level. The upper set would only be used to raise water from the lower cistern to the upper deck for washing the deck down, etc.

[dafi]

Thank you Druxey, but this is what I still doubt.

 

The chain pumps are for the bilge water, and this - in my humble opinion - is not really suitable for cleaning. On top the chain pumps do not give water with pressure, essential for fire fighting with a hose.

 

Both Fresh water and water with pressure can be given by the elm tree pumps, getting their Water from the outside of the hull.

 

So still it remains a mystery to me, why the Princess Royal and many later drawings show cisterns in the middle deck, while early plans show just a part that could be interpreted as a cogwheel with handle.

 

XXXDAn

[druxey]

Dafi: on reflection, you are correct: bilgewater would not be suitable. However, now I recall seeing a cross-sectional drawings of a ship showing inlets and pipes below the waterline for drawing in fresh seawater. These had brake pumps with outlets for each deck, not chain pumps.

[dafi]

There are plenty of these systems for fresh water shown in modern compilations and contemporary sources as seen in                                           #40                          and in NMM.

 

Some come through the bottom, some come through the sides, some straight into the pump, some filling up a cistern and being pumped from there.

 

And if one looks at all the links here in NMM about the heads and other fecal facilities, one understands, that the fresh water is taken from some way underneath the surface ...

 

In my understanding, the chain pumps were only to evacuate the bilge from normal drainage, condensation and normal leaks and of course emergencies.

 

But back to my mystery of the middle deck chain pumps: The "normal" chain pump for two deckers and lesser ships is quite well documented, as there were hundreds of them being in use. First and second rates were only about 30 in the whole time from 1760 to the end of the era. So that could explain the lack of hints about these "phenomena".

Edited December 13, 2016 by dafi

[dafi]

As there is an ongoing discussion about Victory´s midship section at the very moment, I would like to bring up this topic again, that still puzzles me. And I think others too 😉

 

I also realised, that I never presented the renderings I did those days trying to understand the possible setup on the Victory in about 1788 to 1805. As said before, a mere guess based upon the available sources. The 3 light brown tubes are the elm tree pumps. For the "long" pump I opted for no cogwheel in the lower deck, therefor no half round hood.

 

All the best, DAniel

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 11, 2020 by dafi

[dafi]

*push* 🙂

 

As I am working on this topic, I just bring it up again to see, if anybody has new thoughts or even evidences.

 

 

 

 

Let me sum up the thoughts so far.

 

Until approx. 1760 all major ships of the British Navy - First-rate, Sec.-rate, Third-Rate, forth-rate - had a set of 2 pair of chain pumps in the lower gun deck. So far, so good. This is also shown in all standard literature, contemporary and modern ones.

 

Afterwards this setup was only for two-deckers and lesser ships, three-deckers got a new set-up for their chain pumps.

 

In the first step plan showing the inboard profile of three deckers show one of the pair of pumps - mostly the forward pair - extended to the middle deck, showing something like a coq wheel and a turning handle. See NMM 'Sandwich' 1759, 'Barfleur' (1768), 'Princess Royal' (1773). This gives the impression that it was only to provide more manpower and no transport of water.

 

Next step was that in the middle deck got an extra cistern with an exhaust outlet (if the level of details of the drawing show that). This suggests that the water was transported to the middle deck and drained from there. The cisterns in the lower deck all kept their outlets. 'Royal George' (1788); 'Queen Charlotte' (1790)

 

Final step was the full set of two pair of cisterns in both decks all with water outlets. 'Hibernia' repair 1821

 

The best guessed reasons so far:

- more man could man the pump

- the water could be discharged by a higher scupper if the ship was heeled in a way that the lower scuppers were submerged.

Edited February 2, 2021 by dafi

[Morgan]

Daniel,

 

My research correlates with what you have captured.  The single level chain pumps had a combined cistern, water could be discharged from either side with a simple partitioning of the cistern at the centre to allow water to discharge to port or starboard irrespective of which pump was operating.  It had an access hatch at the centre to allow the partition to be put in place that then closed off the port from the starboard cistern for single pump / side use.

 

The middle deck chain pumps only operated from this deck level, they could discharge to either the lower or middle deck level by simply closing off the discharge ports on the other deck, they operated single side only.

 

The lower deck single chain pump crank handles passed through the lower cistern cases for the double height pumps, they did not drive or affect the operation of these pumps so operated independently.  This was to maximise the number of men who could be deployed to the pumps facilitating an increase in the effective length of the crank handles per pump.

 

The Elm Tree or Brake Pumps are as you have them, but note that they could discharge to multiple levels having outlets that could be plugged / unplugged, so for example the middle deck pump could also discharge to the lower deck by blocking off the middle deck outlet. This feature isn’t commonly shown, but is captured by several drawings at the NMM.

 

There is then the forward pump casing shown on the 1788 plans, this was most likely a fire pump adjacent to the Galley.

 

Gary

[dafi]

Thank you Gary, as usual many great and new input !

 

My understanding today is, that in our days the Vic in P. is equipped with a pump for two-deckers (third rate) or lesser vessels. As all three-deckers (First and second rate) of that age she should have a setup including one pair pump going to the middle deck as to be seen in the 1788 plans in NMM.

 

Chain pumps:

 

Let me sum up the open questions:

 

- Why not in the two-deckers? Benefits would have been the same. Probably the cranks would be in the way or the whole ensemble too exposed within the waist? It is here where the boats were stowed and sails were handled.

 

- Even though all the hints known to me suggest that the tubes from the lower cistern and the upper cistern were in line,  the quality of the drawing still does not satisfy me, as they could contain simplifications. So still looking for the real technical way of working.

 

- What mechanics? Gary mentions the cranks on the lower deck not being used to turn the upper pump. Are there any proves for this or is this still a working thesis?

 

- When and how was the exhaust on the lower cistern used? Every time that that scupper was not submerged to save height and therefor work?

 

Elm tree pumps

 

In my model I still have at the moment the 3 elm tree pumps going up to one deck each. The 1788 deck layouts and the model of HMS Queen suggest that there was one pump ending in the lower deck, two ending in the middle deck and none in the upper deck (in contrast as seen today). Reason could be as it would be exposed to the elements as the waist is open at that space. So I would shorten that long pump on my model.

 

All the best, Daniel

 

 

Edited February 3, 2021 by dafi

[dafi]

I hope it is ok, to sum up an overview to the remarks from Rob Napier in

LEGACY OF A SHIP MODEL 
Examining HMS PRINCESS ROYAL 1773 
Seawatch books https://www.seawatchbooks.com/ItemDisplay.php?sku=110002

[Morgan]

6 hours ago, dafi said:

Why not in the two-deckers? Benefits would have been the same. Probably the cranks would be in the way or the whole ensemble too exposed within the waist? It is here where the boats were stowed and sails were handled.

 

- Even though all the hints known to me suggest that the tubes from the lower cistern and the upper cistern were in line,  the quality of the drawing still does not satisfy me, as they could contain simplifications. So still looking for the real technical way of working.

 

- What mechanics? Gary mentions the cranks on the lower deck not being used to turn the upper pump. Are there any proves for this or is this still a working thesis?

 

- When and how was the exhaust on the lower cistern used? Every time that that scupper was not submerged to save height and therefor work?

Hi Daniel,

 

My thoughts on your points are as follows:

 

Two deckers - this probably is a matter of space as you highlight and probably manpower, a three decker can accommodate 2 decks of men manning crank handles, but it also has a larger hull capacity and in a bad situation more water to shift, so may merely be a matter of convenience (men and available space).

 

I think there would have been a continuation of the taper between the middle deck wheels and foot of the pump system, so they would be in line but still tapering between the lower and middle decks.  Having looked in the pump heads on Victory you can see that this was not precision engineering, these are blacksmith produced parts with a wide degree of tolerance, introducing any in-line secondary wheels would be problematic in terms of aligning them.  Then there is ensuring that an upper and lower drive system worked at the same rate of revolutions is an issue that would put undue strain on the system, we know they often broke down but two rates of drive would cause tension in the system leading to more frequent breakages, if it would work at all.  Take a look at the scene in Master and Commander where after the first battle they are operating the chain pumps, it isn’t a smooth rotational operation it is very much a harsh jerky lift and push, you could not do this over two decks on the same system.

 

For the double height pumps to work over two levels would require that the suction or discharge side of the system to open into the lower and upper cisterns, but that the return side was sealed from the lower cistern and passed through so the water could not flow back.  The discharge tube could be open to the lower cistern if operated from the upper level, once the dale was sealed and the cistern chamber full then the water would continue to lift to the upper cistern.

 

If a secondary set of wheels was placed in the lower cistern then both sides (discharge and return) would both have to be open to accommodate the chain linkages on the sprockets, this means water would be pulled back down the system rather than pushed to the upper cistern - gravity simply dictates this.

 

Double height operation was probably not common, for merely pumping the ship dry I would imagine a single set of pumps being used.  In a serious situation then both sets, but was there discharge scuppers for two pumps per side on the lower level? It could be there was a single set to reduce openings and another set on the middle deck. I would think normal operational pumping would always be discharged on the lower deck which ever set was used - simply less effort to raise the water, but when it mattered you would discharge to both levels.

 

Gary

[dafi]

Just to continue the topic. Achilles from our german forum did build a magnificent Queen Charlotte 1790 in 1:48.

 

Included was of course the double decked pump that could be seen in the drafts shown in the NMM.

 

First the lower deck with the casing on the forward pump going to the middle deck. The aft pump is a classical "one deck" pump.

 

 

ZAZ0159

And here is the upper part of the forward pump protruding in the middle deck.

 

ZAZ0160

 

Also nicely to be seen the different openings on the cistern casings to interlock them or give extra discharge possibilities.

 

ZAZ0157

 

XXXDAn

 

PS: A picture from this truly wonderful model was taken, when I was allowed to make the layout for the cover of Joachim Müllerschön´s (MSW Nickname: Schiffebastler) most interesting book about the Color Blue in historic Shipbuilding  🙂

https://www.amazon.com/colour-blue-historic-shipbuilding-antiquity/dp/3749419884/ref=sr_1_8?dchild=1&keywords=müllerschön&qid=1612969575&sr=8-8

 

 

Edited February 11, 2021 by dafi

[Lieste]

For working pumps in action. IMO

Working pumps on exposed weather decks is very probably costly when enemies have a definite preference for musquetry and grenades, and grape or case firing espignoles, perriers and obusiers/carronades.

Taking men from the gun crew according to their station bill for 'pumping and fire fighting' is normal, with upper deck likely to be called on for fire-fighting most often, using pressurised hoses, while those on lower and middle deck (where present) are more likely to be called on to reduce or control flooding - with water rising in the well by six feet or more despite pumping in some cases recorded.

As the 'fighting' crews are assigned to and stationed on their respective decks, it makes sense to work middle and lower deck bilge pumps using crews on their 'proper' places, rather than permitting crew to leave their assigned deck under fire (too much risk that they will abandon the guns and lose the ship if the companionways are not well guarded).

When operating out of action, the same assignment to stations on the two decks allows more men to be assigned from a wider section of men 'in their proper stations' again.

If you *only* worked lower deck pumps, you would lose *all* of your most powerful guns (as the work crews from this need would exhaust the single deck), while retaining full effect of a middling sort of gun... but with a split set of pumps you can continue to fight both decks with near full effectiveness (if fighting to one side only).

[dafi]

As I had some dicussions about this topic on the modelling conference in Evian, France, this weekend, I would like to bring this back to attention. Perhaps new prooves popped up?

 

Cheers, Daniel

[druxey]

Here is a diagram of a chain pump. From the inscription, it looks to be from 1772:

 

https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-86580?_gl=1*guf33e*_up*MQ..*_ga*MTE5NTQwMjM0MC4xNzI5NjgyNjk2*_ga_7JJ3J5DBF6*MTcyOTY4MjY5NS4xLjAuMTcyOTY4MjY5NS4wLjAuMA..*_ga_4MH5VEZTEK*MTcyOTY4MjY5NS4xLjAuMTcyOTY4MjY5NS4wLjAuM

 

The segmented tubes (square in section on the 'down' or return side) were replacing the bored elm pipes.