HMS Victory spare yards and topmast storage

A cursory inspection of Longridge's The Anatomy of Nelson's Ships and its various illustrations of deckplans do not show this. However, the chapter on the upper deck shows Figure 54, which shows brackets for main stunsail booms jutting out from the main channels- evidently then these were stowed outboard.

Also, I "think" they may have used some as boat skids?

Gerarddm wrote:

A cursory inspection of Longridge's The Anatomy of Nelson's Ships and its various illustrations of deckplans do not show this. However, the chapter on the upper deck shows Figure 54, which shows brackets for main stunsail booms jutting out from the main channels- evidently then these were stowed outboard.

 

Except main studding sail booms are part of the ship's normal operating spars.  They swing out to 90 degrees from the hull to deploy the studding sails, and folds against the channels when studding sails are not deployed.    These booms are not spares. 

Big Jake wrote:

Also, I "think" they may have used some as boat skids?

 

I think the practice of stowing boats on spare masts and yards above the midship well went out of fashion by late 1700s.  In 1770s and 1780s, you still see this.  But by 1800s, it seems the general practice was to strengthen the gangway on either side of the well with solid structural beams, and the extend these beams right across the well opening on to the other side, and then stow the boats and the spare masts on top of these beams.

The models in Musee de la Marine in Paris shows that the French ships of early 1800s either stowed the boats on the beams and the spares on either side of the central boat storage, right on the gang way, or they stowed spars right on the beams between the boats, with their ends extending right through special gaps in the railings at the front and back of the well opening.   But current restoration of the Victory does not show any special gaps in the railing at the front and back of the well to allow long spare spars to be stowed there, and the campanion ladders coming up from the upper gun deck onto the gangway would be blocked if the spars are stowed on the gangway.

 

Spare yards, masts and lumber would be lashed, external to the hull to the channels/shrouds or lashed to the insides of the gunwales. Made for efficient storage but isn't too attractive on a model. 

"Victory...carried spare spars upon the booms alongside the boats."

The 100-Gun Ship Victory by John McKay, Anatomy of the Ship series, page 16.

 

 

steves wrote:

"Victory...carried spare spars upon the booms alongside the boats." The 100-Gun Ship Victory by John McKay, Anatomy of the Ship series, page 16.

 

I know.  I read that.  And this same method of storage is consistent with what is shown on the very exquisit models of Napoleonic French warships displayed in French National maritime museum in Paris.

Except the current reconstruction of the Victory does not show any of the features the French used to accommodate the stowing of spars in that location.   When trying to fit the spar spares (I have 2 complete kits) on my Heller Victory, I realised how important these features are and how awkward it would be to stow the spars without them.

Regarding stowing spars on the channels, perhaps that is possible with small sized timbers and spars.  But I doubt it is possible or practical to do so with massive main yards and main top masts.

Chuck Fan wrote:

Except the current reconstruction of the Victory does not show any of the features the French used to accommodate the stowing of spars in that location.   When trying to fit the spar spares (I have 2 complete kits) on my Heller Victory, I realised how important these features are and how awkward it would be to stow the spars without them.

Perhaps there were no special accomodations like that on Victory. It has always been my impression that spare spars would have been lashed to the skid beams where space was available.  Looking at the quarterdeck plan on pages 40-41 and the sections on pages 74-75 of AOTS Victory it appears that there was space available for spars between the boat chocks, especially between the pinnace and the launch, almost at the centerline of the ship.   The other question would be how much spare spar stock she actually would have carried.  As a fleet flagship she would never be far from assitance, should she require it, from other ships and, therefore, may not have needed to carry extensive spares.  I have read that after Trafalgar she had to unship her fore topmast to fish the damaged foremast.   Perhaps that is an indication that there was not much spare spar material on board.

 

Contemporary records suggest that when first commissioned Victory carried spare topmasts:  quote;  April 1778  moored in the Medway spare topmasts and booms taken on board, (but no further details as to location.)

Victorys Fore topmast is 63' long which at Heller scale is 192mm, the waist opening - rail to rail is 144.68mm. which means if carried, a spare Fore topmast would extend forward to at least the Galley chimney.

The athwartships rail at the break of the Foc'sle has a half round recess either side of the Belfry, is this to support  the longer spare masts or yards?

Damage reports following Trafalgar refer to jury rigging a Fore topmast using spars .Victorys' boats on the skids were badly damaged and presumably any spare timbers in that location may well have suffered damage also.

At Trafalgar Victory lost her entire Mizen mast, topmasts and yards, gaff and driver boom.

The jib boom was removed and used as a jury mizen mast, she also lost her fore yard, spritsail and flying jib booms.

I have searched my reference books but can find no information regarding spare topmasts or spars in the aftermath of Trafalgar, but  it is recorded that spare timber in the form of 48' of 4" thick oak plank was expended to splint or ‘fish' the damaged main mast.

What does this tell us, it is hard to draw conclusions, but in a service notable for accounting for lost items even down to 15 leather buckets, the absence of references to topmast spares is perhaps puzzling and if such spares were carried why was it necessary to remove the jib boom to make a mizen jury mast?

As with everything concerned with this fascinating subject, there are always more questions than answers, and perhaps Steves has a point, will we ever know?

We probably will not know for sure.   But I aim to depict the Victory in a plausible typical configuration appropriate for 1803-1805 period, without getting too hung up on the ebb and flow of the discussion over her precise configured on the particular day of Trafalgar.  

The precise configuration on the particular day at Trafalgar is neither here nor there, examination of the records merely serves to  assist in trying to answer your original question.

Unfortunately conclusive evidence was not forthcoming, so the type, quantity and arrangement of spare masts and yards on the skid beams is purely speculative, although no doubt some spare timbers and yards would have been stored between the boat chocks.

In term of the Heller Victory the addition of such features will of course significantly reduce the view of the Upper deck and the interesting features contained thereon.

A friend supplied me with some pictures he took aboard the Victory.   It appears that the sections of the low thwartship rail at the back of the fr'c'stle containing the semi-circular depression are in fact separate and removable.  It is clearly a separate piece from the rest of the railing, and the gap is rather large to be the result of normal wood seams opening up with age.

Also, while the top rung of the railing at the front of the quarterdeck that supports the hammock netting is contiuous athrawtships, the lower rung has gaps that corresponds exactly to the semi-circular depression in the front railing.   So I guess those are the provisions made for stowing spar yards and masts midships.

 

 

Sounds plausible to me Chuck, but any spare spars etc couldn't protrude too far back thro' the breast rails at the break of the Qtr deck without fouling the scuttles thro' which the Main jeers, Topsail sheets, and clue garnets pass to the bitts on the Upper deck.

Any chance of seeing those pics?

The circular indentation in the fr'c'stle rail.  Notice the piece with the indentation appears to be separable:

 HMS Victory museum Model of HMS Victory in 1797, during battle of Cape St. Vincent, showing spare yards and masts stowed on the gangway.     But in this configuration, which was changed during the big 1803 refit, Victory's quarterdeck ended some distance behind the mainmast, with only a small, center line gang way connecting the quarter deck to the base of the main mast.   So this method of mast storage may not be the same as what is used later.

 

 

 

I will try to find a website to host those pictures.  There are about 50 of them.

Thanks Chuck,

Here's a picture I took on 6 June this year of the starboard side of the main mast, essentially for the tackle fixings at the foot of the mast.

The gap in rail on the port side can be seen and the close proximity to the mast and the grating is evident.

It would be great if you can host your pictures, us Victory modelers can't get enough of them. No matter how many times you visit the ship, it seems you always eventually come across a detail  you failed to photograph! The last time for me was in relation to the small rail that runs from the Athawtships rail at the break of the Qtr deck to a newel attached to the forward face of the first skid beam. (Even Longridge didn't know what it was for - but I fitted it anyway.)

The question I have is how much of a complete set of spare yards and masts would a ship realistically need? Would a ship realistically carry a full spare set of masts and yards, or a minimal set that would allow the ship to sail with reduced capacity until suitable spares could be obtained? I expect that there was considerable interchangeablity with masts and yards on a ship and between ships. My understanding is that the crews were very resourcefull when it came to using whatever wood they had to make sure they had a sailable vessel. How much of the yards and masts would be stored disassembled? How feasable was it to limp to a friendly or uninhabited harbour to source local timber and manufacture new masts and yards? A great thread.

I would guess a British ship on mediterranean blockade duty during Napoleonic war will probably carry as much spare masts and yards as she can.  

1.  In Mediterranean square rigged ships are seasonally wind bound, having to laboriously beat up tack on tack against pervailing wind to reach there they are going.   If a ship suffer damage to her rigging while she is down wind of the nearest base, she might have a hard time beating up into the wind with a jerry rig.   So it would advantageous if the ship can fully repair rigging damage in situ as much as possible.

2.  British ships of the era remained at sea far longer than they were able to do during previous wars.   If this was not caused in part by carriage of additional spares, it would still prompt the carriage of additional spares.   We know ships like the Victory carried extensive amounts of spare yards and spars during the previous war.

3.  Its one thing to make a vessel out of whatever wood is available in an emergency because you have no choice.  It's quite another to equip a first rate ship of the line, a national investment equivalent to a aircraft carrier today, with masts that can be counted on to not break when the ship is off a lee shore.   I am not sure how available in the mediterranean shore are the straight, flexible pine suitable for making masts and yards.   I understand suitable timber for masts mostly came from the Baltic and New England area.

 

 

Chuck, What you are saying makes complete sense. A ship that is going to sail in combat and all kinds of weather and is likely to occasionally suffer storm damage will need to have lots of spare rig. It is also without doubt much better to have proper spares than to try to find something off whatever shore is nearest. There are still a number of things to consider. 1. Would some of the larger masts and yards be stored disassembled, particularly the larger items? 2. Would a spare set be fully operational replacements of all yards and masts, or would compromises be made such as using keeping spares for the fore mast and using them on the main mast when required? 3. what role would the various tenders have in storing this spare gear? 4. Are some of the yards and mast parts simply too large to cary as spares? 5. Where on the ship could you store this stuff, keep it maintained and out of the way for normal operations. The basic questions remain: What constitutes as set of spares? Where would this be stored? What condition of disassembly would this be in?

The main trunk of top masts and yards are generally fashioned out of single piece of timber.   So spare masts and yards are probably stowed in essentially complete configuration, missing perhaps some lines, cleats, etc.

I think whenever possible, a ship would use full-sized spares to enable complete repair of any damage.   But if fullsized spare is unavailable or has already been used up, then some swapping or substitution undoubtedly happens.   For example, the fore-yard might substitute for main-yard, and a fore top mast might substitute for main top mast.   In more dire emergencies, a top mast might be jerry rigged to replace a broken lower mast, and a yard arm may be modified to serve as a jerry rigged top mast.

Tenders in the Napoleonic Royal Navy were generally not store ships.  They were usually small, fast, weatherly sea-going vessel such as a schooner or cutter that are assigned to accompany a larger ship, often a flag ship, for the purpose of helping with various chores such as carrying dispatches, participating in cut out missions, scouting for the larger ship, and transporting the crew or officers so the larger ship does not have to leave her station, etc.    Tenders are often privately owned ships, either captured or privately paid for by the captain of the larger ship.   Stores and spares are usually carried in chartered or impressed merchant ships.

USN of that era did have special support ships that are direct predecessors of modern tenders.   These were usually built to resemble frigates, and were capable of cruising with frigates.   They made up for USN's lack of oversea bases.

Although the RN does  have a proceedure for using a ship's own resources to install a complete replacement lower mast, using two spare yard arms, stepped on the channels and lashed together at the top as a A-frame, to hoist the lower mast,  spare lower masts and bowsprit were probably too large to be routinely carry.   But I think all other sticks can be carried on a ship like the Victory.   The only question is whether the spares are available, and what priority each component has in relation to others.   They would mostly be stowed midships, above the boat booms.