Cutty Sark Conservation Photo Diary - WOW

Looks like they are really pulling out the stops to restore as much as possible of the old girl, and it must be costing an absolute bomb.... Pity they couldn't get that kind of money before the fire!  Those iron frames in the bow have corroded right back to toothpicks..... 

Some very interesting photos there - thanks for posting the link! It looks like the restoration work is proceeding well, but I have to say I'm shocked to see how badly the structure of the ship had deteriorated, even excluding the damage caused by the fire. It looks like the ship was very much in need of its thorough reconstruction and restoration.

Seeing the photos of the restored deckhouses reminds me of a Cutty Sark question I have. The "booby hatch" cover (between the aft deckhouse and the mizzen mast) currently on the ship is a varnished teak structure with a curved, white-painted roof, similar to the smaller hatch covers aft of the windlass and on the poop deckhouse - and quite different to the angular structure found on Campbell's plans and on (as far as I know) all of the many plastic and wooden Cutty Sark kits.
Presumably the hatch cover shown on the plans is the original design, and the current one is a later modification. But when was it added, and why was it retained when the rest of the ship was rebuilt to its original appearance? To provide more headroom for visitors climbing down the stairs?

The following is a quote from Frank G.G. Carr, "The Restoration of the Cutty Sark," an article published in the July, 1966 Quarterly Transactions of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects.  Mr. Carr was in charge of the restoration project that took place in the late fifties and early sixties.  The article is a transcript of a paper he read to a meeting of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects in March, 1965.  It's a fascinating document.  I bought a copy of it in the ship's gift shop about thirty years ago; I lost that copy in a move, but was lucky enough to find another one via the web.  Highly recommended - and I think it answers (at least in general terms) epinniger's question.

From p. 204:

"In order to make all parts of the ship accessible to the public, and to enable visitors to gain some appreciation of what the clipper ship represented in the history of merchant sail, it was necessary to accept certain departures from a complete restoration to her 1870 condition.  Greatly to be regretted was the necessity to retain, for ventilation purposes, the row of ports on both sides of the 'tween deck, inserted when she was being used as a training ship.  The alternative, to provide an artificial ventilation system with trunking and the noise of fans would, however, have been even more objectionable.  To provide an entrance on the level, a gangway bridge from the dock side leads into the 'tween deck through entrance doors cut through the side amidships....A complete new deck has been constructed in the lower hold, with a wooden bulwark surrounding it, and wide stairways leading down from the 'tween deck at both the forward and after end.  A central  handrail divides descending from ascending traffic, a very necessary precaution when holiday crowds are on board.  Similar wide stairways lead from the 'tween deck to the upper deck, where their exits are covered by hooded companion hatches panelled in teak in the same style as the deckhouses, so as not to be too obtrusive.  To give protected access to the cabin accommodation aft, it has also been necessary to retain the tall hooded companion hatch fitted by the Portuguese, instead of replacing it by the original low-built fitting...."

My recollection (which, as has been established repeatedly in this Forum, is of highly questionable reliability) is that the big Revell kit got the "booby hatch" right - i.e., in its original form.  The one in the Imai 1/120 kit, as I've noted several times in other threads, matches the Campbell drawing in side and plan views, but looks ridiculous from any other angle; my suspicion is that the Japanese draftsmen weren't familiar with how the real thing was supposed to look.  The two Academy kits apparently made the same mistake.  (Caveat:  I base that comment on photos of their components that have been posted in web reviews; I've never actually bought either of them.)  I don't remember how any of those kits handles the hatch at the after end of the poop deckhouse, just ahead of the wheel.  [Later edit:  this is a mistake on my part.  The hatch in question is in fact at the forward end of the poop deckhouse. My fault; sorry.]

The good news is that all these fittings are essentially pretty simple.  Fixing the inaccurate parts in any of the kits would involve, at the most, an hour's work with some plastic sheet - and the Campbell plans.

The techniques and theories of artifact conservation have evolved a great deal since the last time this great ship underwent a major restoration - more than forty years ago.  (To put that figure in perspective, it represents a third of her lifespan so far.)  I'm sure the people in charge of the current project - who clearly are among the best in the business - will come up with some different and, by modern standards, better solutions.  But the problems they confront are the same as their predecessors did:  they have to reconcile the standards and principles of conservation with the practical aspects of operating a tourist attraction.  A visitor won't learn much from a pilgrimage to the Cutty Sark if he knocks himself unconcious by bashing his head on a hatch cover.

I just hope money, time, and health will combine to let me go on board her at least one more time after the restoration is done.

Thanks very much for the information! I asked this question as I've reached the stage in my 1/75 Billing Boats wood kit rebuild (which has turned out as more of a semi-scratchbuild) where this structure needs to be added, and I couldn't decide whether to build the original low hatch cover or the taller curved structure found on the preserved ship. However, if, as you say, it was added after the Cutty Sark was opened as a museum ship, and the ship never actually sailed with it in place, I'll go with the original design.

Checking through my photographs of the ship (when it was still open to the public), there's another identical structure in place of the forward cargo hatch, just aft of the original (much smaller) companionway hatch cover aft of the windlass and forecastle. 

You can probably guess from my numerous questions that I've never actually visited the Cutty Sark, despite living not far from London! (I did visit it in the 1980s as a kid, but don't remember a great deal). I only became interested in modelling sailing ships a few years ago, by which time it had closed for restoration. I saw it in early 2007 (before the fire) when visiting the NMM at Greenwich, and bought the excellent Campbell plans from the (still open) gift shop, but there wasn't much to see of the ship, just a partly dismantled hull under cover. 

I did see the ship's deckhouses, masts and fittings when I visited Chatham Dockyard later the same year (they were stored out in the open, on the dock between the submarine and HMS Gannet) but unfortunately didn't think to take any photos.

I think the best advice for anybody undertaking a model of this ship is quite simple:  unless you have some excellent reason to do otherwise, believe Mr. Campbell.  I imagine the research done in conjunction with the current restoration will reveal some inaccuracy in those plans (such projects always do), but I'm not aware of any so far. 

There's a short but intelligent, and well-illustrated, article about the Cutty Sark restoration project in the current issue of Wooden Boat magazine.

Among other interesting things, the article points out that, in trying to make the ship last into the indefinite future, the conservators are doing something the original designers and owner never intended.  The researchers guess that old Jock Willis figured his ship would last - and make money for him - for twenty years or therabouts.  She's now survived for 120, and it's hardly surprising that she's showing her age.  Just as one example, the builders fastened her hull planking to the iron frames with nothing whatever between the wood and the iron - a sure-fire recipe for corrosion and rot, especially when water (salt and rain) was added to the equation.  The shipwrights may well have known that, but figured it didn't matter; if the frames started to rust a little after twenty years, who cared?  The conservators are coating every frame with some sort of hi-tech epoxy paint, which will effectively "encapsulate" all the ironwork.  And the original hull fastenings, which were made of Muntz metal, did just fine throughout the ship's active career, but now show signs of serious deterioration.  (Removing them from the ship presumably didn't help.)  The replacements are being made, surprisingly, of fiberglass.  The chief conservator says it's actually, ounce for ounce, stronger than steel in such applications - and, obviously, corrosion-proof. 

The conservators are making sure that the new, replacement components are "visually differentiated" from the original parts (i.e., that it's fairly easy to tell, by eye, what's original, 1869 fabric and what isn't).  They estimate that, surprisingly, as much as 90% of the ship's original fabric has survived.  The individual hull planks, for instance, are still in existence; they were removed from the frame back before the fire, and have been carefully maintained under tension since, so they won't tend to spring out of shape when they're put back.

Though it undoubtedly will have its controversial aspects and its critics, this project clearly represents the state of the art in ship conservation and preservation.  Personally, on the basis of the designer's drawings I've seen, I'm honestly not sure whether I'll like all the aesthetic aspects of the result or not.  Frankly, I've always liked the way she was exhibited before - in her drydock, with the waterline at ground level.  To my old-fashioned eye the artists' renderings of the planned new installation system look a little...well, on the wild side.  But I'll cheerfully reserve my opinions till the job is finished. 

And my wife seems to be entirely supportive of my desire to get back to Greenwich at least once more.  (That was one of the stops on our honeymoon.)  She (the ship, not my wife) is scheduled to be open for public visitation in about another year.  That looks a little on the optimistic side, but maybe, just maybe, for our twentieth wedding anniversary in 2011....

Epinniger, if you re-read Master Jtilley's 7/11/09 post, the bold section says that the hooded companion way was introduced by the Portuguese. The early Cutty Sark did not sail with the hooded companion way, but the Ferreira and Maria di Amparo did. When Captain Dowman purchased the ship from the Portuguese and re-commissioned her as the Cutty Sark, the hooded companion way was retained. That means the latter Cutty Sark did sail with the hooded companion way. The right Cutty Sark depends on the point in time that you are looking at her. Pick your Cutty Sark.

searat12 wrote:

Looks like they are really pulling out the stops to restore as much as possible of the old girl, and it must be costing an absolute bomb.... Pity they couldn't get that kind of money before the fire!  Those iron frames in the bow have corroded right back to toothpicks.....

In many ways the timing of that fire was very fortunate. I think I am right in saying it happened when many parts had been removed and put into storage. It galvanised world attention when money was hard to come by and the damage would be minimal.

Shipwreck wrote:

Epinniger, if you re-read Master Jtilley's 7/11/09 post, the bold section says that the hooded companion way was introduced by the Portuguese.

I think the text in question refers to the companionway on the poop deckhouse, leading to the officer's cabins. Longridge's book - based on the Cutty Sark in the 1930s, before it became a museum ship at Greenwich - shows the original booby hatch, not the current hooded companionway, so it appears that it was retained by the ship all through its working life.

I agree with Davros's comment; it's very lucky that the fire occurred when much of the ship's structure and materials had already been removed, the actual damage caused was far less than it might have been (I'm not sure how much of the damage to the iron framework is due to the fire, and how much is due to corrosion and rust beforehand)

Actually, Epinniger, I am referring to the bobby hatch. It was located between mizzen mast and the aft deck house. It had a sliding panel and was latched to the aft hatch and served as a companion way to enter the tween decks from the rear of the ship. At some point the Portuguese added the hooded cover. I have a photo of the cover just before her 1954 restoration. Also, a curator from the Cutty Sark Foundation confirmed that the cover was installed by the Portuguese, was present when the museum took it over, and was retained at restoration for the convenience of the visitors. The Longridge model does have the original style bobby hatch. He was building a Cutty Sark and probably did not want to include Portuguese innovations.

Shipwreck,

Can you scan the picture(s) in so we can print it?  It would be a great reference point, PLEASE?

Jake

On getting out my copy of the Campbell plans, and comparing them with the verbiage in Mr. Carr's article, I see I made a mistake earlier that may have created some confusion.  The phrase "To give protected access to the cabin accommodation aft, it has also been necessary to retain the tall hooded companion hatch fitted by the Portuguese, instead of replacing it by the original low-built fitting...." pretty clearly refers to the hatch at the forward end of the poop deckhouse.  (That's the one that contains "the cabin accommodation aft."  My earlier reference to a hatch at the after end of that deckhouse was in error - the result of bad memory, as usual. Sorry about that; I'll go back and fix the earlier post in a minute.) 

The space below the maindeck was, generally speaking, empty, except for the small "forecastle" in the extreme bow.  That compartment is separated from the rest of the 'tweendecks space by an iron, watertight bulkhead.  Everything aft of the bulkhead on the 'tweendeck is cargo space - or was, when the ship was in her tea- and wool-hauling days.  When she was serving as a training ship, the cadets had living quarters (with the oft-mentioned airports to ventilate them) on the 'tweendeck.  When I was last on board the ship, that space was used as a sort of museum, filled with artifacts - and the ship's store. 

It's worth noting that during her cargo-carrying days all the structures mounted on the hatches were, by definition, temporary and easily removable.  I imagine that "booby hatch" structure could be picked up and moved by two or three men.  It was, in fact, fairly ordinary for British tea clippers to be fitted with something called a "hatch house" - a small box covering the after hatch, containing the bunks for a couple of apprentices.  When the ship was to be loaded or unloaded the "house" would be dismantled, to provide access to the hatch.  (I read a book once - my poor old brain has forgotten the title and author - by a British merchant marine officer who lived in a "hatch house" during his first voyage.)  For modelers working with the Ima/Aoshima kit, or either of the Academy ones, an easy way to deal with the problem of the booby hatch would be to simply leave it off.  You could say the hatch was open for handling cargo.  (An observer would have to look down the hatch at just the wrong angle to see that there was no 'tween deck underneath it - and no hatch on the 'tweendeck leading to the hold.)

The story is that Captain Woodget, during the ship's time in the Australian wool trade, found an unusual use for the big open spaces of the 'tween deck when she was running in ballast:  he used it to give the apprentices lessons in bicycle riding.  Given that the space had a series of iron stanchions running down the middle of it (to say nothing of three masts, three bilge pump pipes, etc.), riding a bike along it must have been an interesting experience.  Especially if these were typical nineteenth-century bikes, with big front wheels.  Especially if the ship was rolling and pitching even a little.

Woodget had two other eccentric hobbies:  raising prize-winning border collies, and photography.  One of the most famous photos of the ship (with most of her sails set) was taken by him, with a bulky, glass-plate camera balanced on a board stretching between two of the ship's boats, which were being rowed by the long-suffering apprentices.  (One wonders what sorts of things they may have said about the Old Man behind his back.)

The article by Mr. Carr contains a copy of an original drawing of the Cutty Sark, drawn by John Rennie, the chief draftsman of the firm that built her.  It shows the "booby hatch" (with the words "booby hatch" written on it) just as the Campbell plans do.  The after deckhouse (the one between the main and mizzen masts) is conspicuously absent from that drawing; it shows a second capstan in that position.  Mr. Campbell notes that the after deckhouse "existed in 1871 if not when launched," and that it was "lengthened by 4'0" in later years."  I don't know whether the various plastic kits depict it in its longer or shorter state.  According to the Campbell plans, the after deckhouse contained quarters for eight apprentices, the bosun, the carpenter, the cook, and the sailmaker.

I do not know if this is going to work. I am trying to use photobucket. This photo is from "The condition of the decks before her overhaul at Blackwwall in 1954." Cutty Sark, p 15, Pitkin Guide, purchase at www.britguides.com, Jarrold Publishing, Healey House, Dene Road, Andover, Hampshire, SP10 2AA, UK; or www.cuttysark.org.uk/





In John Richardson's "Cutty Sark Ferreira", he has a late Cutty Sark with a similar structure built on the number 2 hatch. The deck houses are white, not teak.
The Portuguese apparently liked large, convenient companionways. At some point they acquired the rounded hood, probably under the British refit.

/>/>

Sorry for asking yet another Cutty Sark-related question, but I have one more thing to ask about the original booby hatch cover: how was it painted (if at all)? I assume the panelled teak sides were simply varnished, like the deckhouses, but was the "roof" also varnished, unpainted wood or (as I suspect) painted white? Campbell's plans don't mention the colour, and Longridge's book is based on the ship as it was in the 1930s as a training ship at Falmouth.

(I promise to post some photos of my model once all the deck structures are complete!)

Regarding the colors of the booby hatch - I'm not sure, but my guess is that it originally was finished like the deckhouses - i.e., with some sort of oil and no paint.  (The white paint on the deckhouse panels apparently came later.)  Whether the top of it was actually made of teak, or of some less luxurious wood, is an interesting question.  As Epinniger noted, the Campbell plans don't answer it.  If I were building such a model I think I'd be inclined to paint the booby hatch to match the deckhouse sides.

The color of the booby-hatch is a question I never thought of. Thanks for asking. I assume that we are talking about the make-shift companion way on the aft hatch just before the break in the poop. My research only confirms Master Tilley's assumption that the cover was the same teak color as the deck houses. I examined two photos that show glimpses of it in Longridge and Lubbok. That does not mean that it was always teak. The Cutty Sark wore various colors throughout her career. I have seen a couple of photos of her with white boxes for companion ways over both the main and aft hatches. So it depends. I am considering a 1872 Cutty Sark, and without any contra evidence, it will probably have a teak covered aft hatch. I hope you enjoy your Cutty Sark build, EPinniger.