Cutty sark disaster

Shipwreck wrote:

BTW, JTilley, I am sure your 2 cents worth is much appreciated by all. It is worth a mint, thank you.

Hear, hear!

The hull tends to hog

Hello all,

A hopeful article from the Guardian:

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/art/2007/05/the_cutty_sark_can_and_will_be.html

It seems this "disaster could not have come at a better time", as the ship had been in danger of falling apart where she stood.

cheers,

Jose Gonzales

Sumpter250 - I think we all understood that your keel-hauling proposal was made tongue in cheek (though if the fire was set deliberately, and they do catch the perpetrator, keel-hauling will be too good for him; flogging through the fleet might be more appropriate). 

And you got the definition of "hogging" right.  The problem is that keeping a wood hull in the water doesn't stop it from hogging.  The natural tendency of such a structure is for the bow and stern to droop vertically, and for the frames to splay gently outward, as time goes by.  The problem probably will be worst if the hull is kept out of the water with inadequat support under the keel.  In such a situation the sheer probably will disappear eventually, and the ship will become fatter at the bow and stern.

Keeping the hull in water will slow down the hogging process a little, but the water doesn't offer enough resistance to make much difference.  A prominent example is the U.S.S. Constellation, preserved at Baltimore.  On the pier a hundred yards or so away from her berth is a restaurant with a balcony.  For several years I made a habit of going out on that balcony and taking a picture of the old ship, with the balcony railing lined up with the painted stripe on the ship's hull.  The fore and aft ends of the stripe sagged noticeably further every year.  Fortunately, the people responsible for the ship's mainenance were as aware of the problem as I was.  They finally took her into drydock and fixed her up with a new, sophisticated, fiberglass-coated hull structure that's supposed to be "hog proof."

Just supporting the keel for its full length doesn't solve the problem either.  The "middle-age spread" phenomenon can still take place in the frames of the bow and stern.

H.M.S. Victory sits (or sat the last time I saw her) in a complicated cradle that supports her hull below the waterline at many points.  That arrangement seems to be working; as I understand it she's hogged a little bit, but it's not noticeable to the casual observor.

The Cutty Sark, with her composite hull (wood planking on an iron frame), is a special case.  When the surveyors took a careful look at he prior to putting her in drydock at Greenwich, they were surprised to find that, in the hundred years or so since her launching, her keel had hogged by less than an inch.  The drydock was therefore designed to support her keel for its full length, with a series of steel pipes running from the sides of the drydock to the sides of the hull to keep her from falling over.  The iron framework, until the fire, was said to be in remarkably good condition; the caretakers weren't much concerned that the hull would get distorted in the usual run of events.  Just how sturdy the framework will be in the wake of the fire I don't know - and at this point I suspect nobody else does. 

In reference to hogging, I remember reading an article in National Geographic on the restoration of the USS Constitution that was also suffering from a hogging problem. During the restoration it was noted that some framing (strakes perhaps?)had been removed from the original structure during a previous restoration due to the restorers deeming it to have no real value. Upon reviewing the original plans for the hull, the new restoration team rediscovered this structure and reintegrated it into their restoration plans. Apparently, this reversed the ongoing hogging problem that the Constitution was suffering from. Does anyone else recall this? I wonder if the Cutty Sark might benefit from some long forgotten innovation that might be resurrected in her rehabilitation.

Flogging through the fleet- he'd better hope that the fleet is out of port. Now that was a ghastly punishment! They would flog the culprit even after he was dead. Yikes!

In todays paper[ friday ]  there is a picture of the inside of the hull.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk

Go to the news section.

subfixer wrote:

In reference to hogging, I remember reading an article in National Geographic on the restoration of the USS Constitution that was also suffering from a hogging problem. During the restoration it was noted that some framing (strakes perhaps?)had been removed from the original structure during a previous restoration due to the restorers deeming it to have no real value. Upon reviewing the original plans for the hull, the new restoration team rediscovered this structure and reintegrated it into their restoration plans. Apparently, this reversed the ongoing hogging problem that the Constitution was suffering from. Does anyone else recall this? I wonder if the Cutty Sark might benefit from some long forgotten innovation that might be resurrected in her rehabilitation.

I had a video that explained the hull design of the Constitution in some detail.  Hogging was a major issue that Humphries had to contend with when designing the large frigates due to the length, breadth, and weight that the design required.   He designed diagonal strakes in order to provide unilateral compression relief that would allow the hull to compensate to the torsional bending and shear stresses.

When the strakes were removed in the center part of the hull, the ship began to not only hog, but develope a twist.  Thankfully, part of the main focus of the last restoration was to get the hull back to the original specifications for not only historical signifigance, but for functionability.  Like the Cuttysark, the Constitution is an engineering marvel that showed a new concept in the era of marine engineering.

Jtilley,  Thanks. My impression of hogging causes came from a conversation with the captain of the Stephen Taber, some thirty odd years ago. He was speaking about the condition of one of the Camden schooners, as "having been hogged by a long period in drydock, without proper support". Oh, I concur, flogging through the fleet would be more appropriate. I watched Pete Seeger's "Clearwater" being built, and I understand the art, knowledge, and craftsmanship, that go into the building of a wood hull sailing ship. To maliciously destroy a work of art like that, would be deserving of nothing less.

Those pictures in the Daily Mail are indeed depressing at first glance.  But on closer examination the damage doesn't look as bad.

I don't know much about the effects of heat on iron.  It may well be that the frames have been seriously weakened by the experience.  On the other hand, it looks like - at least in the area shown in the photos - they didn't actually get particularly hot.  My recollection is that the frames and deckbeams were painted white, with a dark red section just above the 'tween deck.  It looks like most of the paint is still there.  The loss of the deck planking doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things; as the Daily Mail reporter pointed out, that planking wasn't original anyway.  (When I was visiting the ship quite a few years ago the maindeck was being replaced with a lower-priced tropical hardwood, which was glued down rather than bolted.  I don't remember whether any of the previous generation of deck planking was left underneath, or whether the new stuff was fastened directly to the beams.)  And, as the reporter also noted, the fire seems not to have reached the beautiful carved work on the stern. 

I don't quite understand the financial implications of all this.  On the one hand, the trust is appealing for additional money to offset the additional restoration expenses entailed due to the fire.  On the other, according to the link I mentioned a few days ago, it seems that the whole ship and restoration process were thoroughly insured - which implies that the trust will get a big check from the underwriters.  I guess it's conceivable that this tragedy, and the great amount of publicity that it's receiving, may actually result in the ship's financial picture getting better than it was before the fire.

The bottom line seems to be that, through a combination of luck, good timing, and (I'm sure) the skillful efforts of the London Fire Brigade, the grand old lady has come through an unspeakable ordeal in far better condition than we had any right to expect.  I see every reason to think that, in due course, she'll resume her position as the dominating feature of the Greenwich waterfront even more majestically than she ever did before.

As Robert Burns undoubtedly would have put it:  Weel done, Cutty Sark.

From a positive standpoint, the pictures look like the fire eliminated having to strip off much of the 1950's era wood that was going to be junked anyway.

The main concern that the metallurgists will have will not be with the distortion of the frame, but with the integrity of the metal composition.  It was reported that the heat was about 600C to 800C degrees at center.  If this was the case, then the iron would not have begun to bend or twist since it takes more then 1500 degrees C to cause molecular change in raw iron.  Where the engineers will be concerned would be not from damage by the fire, but damage caused by the firefighting.

Iron is an amorphous oxide with a large amount of carbon, and one way that the carbon content is reduced in order to make the iron stronger is by applying heat and water to the iron in order to anneal, or harden the iron, or hence, beginning to make steel.  However, there is a point where carbon and oxidation meet equilibrium and the iron becomes brittle before it becomes hard.  Since the CuttySark's frame was hot, but not hot enough for full annealing to take place, and then cold water put on it to the point when carbon dissipation may have happened enough to cause the iron to become brittle so that the integrity of the structure is now compromised.

It would might have been better to have either let the fire burn out or have put the fire out with dry chemical foam.  However, not all would be lost if the metallurgical reports come back that the load bearing framework has been compromised, for with modern composites, it could be that they could still use composite load braces and walers that are hidden behind the original framework that will take the loading.  It may take some creative engineering, but I'm sure it could be done.

jgonzales wrote:

Hello all, A hopeful article from the Guardian: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/art/2007/05/the_cutty_sark_can_and_will_be.html It seems this "disaster could not have come at a better time", as the ship had been in danger of falling apart where she stood. cheers, Jose Gonzales

Just to hark back briefly, check out http://hnsa.org/conf2004/papers/davies.htm to see how badly Cutty Sark needed that restoration!

Michael 

There's a pretty good article about the Cutty Sark tragedy in the new issue of Sea History magazine.  It contains about the clearest, most up-to-date assessment of the damage I've seen on this side of the Atlantic.  (Maybe British readers have seen something better.)  An excerpt (from p. 12):

"A temporary wooden roof, installed to provide cover for the conservation team working on the project, suffered much of the visible damage, and it has been estimated that less than 5 percent of the ship's original fabric has been lost.  Initial assessments have shown that, whilst the ship had suffered considerable damage with the loss of all three decks, the hull planks were very substantial and many only sustained surface charring.  The wrought-iron superstructure {?} appears to have coped well with the flames and heat, although some buckling of flat iron in the decks and around the hatches has occurred.  We cannot yet be certain, but the shpae of the hull appears to have only changed by a few millimeters.  The overall hull form, which gives Cutty Sark her beautiful lines and helped her achieve award-winning ocean runs, remains true."

The article contains a couple of good, depressing, color photos of the fire damage, and one most interesting "artist's conception" of the new display facility that's to be built for the ship.  She's to be lifted three meters above the floor of her drydock, supported on a series of angled steel shores with a glass roof spanning the space between the hull and the sides of the drydock.  Visitors will be able to walk around on the floor of the dock, with the ship appearing almost to float over their heads.

This structure looks pretty futuristic, and I'm not a hundred percent sure my Old Phogey's eyes are going to like it completely.  But there's little room for doubt:  the people responsible for this project know exactly what they're doing, and are keeping their professional responsibilities for conserving the ship uppermost in their minds.  The overall tone of that magazine article is quite optimistic; it seems that public response to the tragedy has been pretty tremendous.  I think the day is indeed going to come - and not in the too-distant future - when we'll be able to see the Cutty Sark again, not only in her old glory but better. 

I do hope, though, that in modifying the drydock they retain the plaque under the stern that bears the quotation from John Masefield:  "They mark our passage as a race of men/Earth will not see such ships as these again."

Thanks for the update.  I do wish the Cutty Sark website was kept more up to date on progress - it's been quite difficult to get any real news.

I wonder if sailing ships might not make a come-back, albeit a more hi-tech variety.  The increasingly expensive price of oil might make them attractive in the future.

Michael 

I agree with MJH:  the ship's website isn't keeping us as up-to-date on this vital matter as I'd like.  On the other hand, I rather suspect everybody involved in the ship is extremely busy.  Such organizations never have enough people.

I did recently order a set of the George Campbell Cutty Sark plans from the ship's gift shop:  http://www.cuttysark.org.uk/index.cfm?fa=contentShop.productDetails&productId=40&startrow=1&directoryId=6

My old set of those plans, which I bought from the old original Model Shipways company back in the seventies, have faded so much that they're almost illegible.  (They were blueprints, which don't last long.)  The new copies arrived in good time (via air mail, in about a week and a half after I placed the order on the web).  They're blackline prints, which should last much longer than the old ones.  The paper isn't the best in the world, and the lines in some cases have bled a little; from the aesthetic perspective the prints could be better.  On the other hand, everything the ship modeler could want is on those three sheets of paper.  The detail and draftsmanship are outstanding.  I've sung the praises of these drawings more than once in the Forum; they still, even with the wretched pound/dollar exchange rate, represent one of the most spectacular bargains in ship modeling.  Anybody with any serious interest in the Cutty Sark really needs to get hold of those drawings.  And the profits from them (meager though those profits must be) will, I assume, go toward the restoration of the ship.

Those with slightly deeper pockets may be interested in the fine, limited edition print that the superb marine artist Geoff Hunt has created as a fundraiser for the restoration project: http://www.cuttysark.org.uk/index.cfm?fa=contentNews.newsDetails&newsID=29744&from=list

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree strongly with the last post - or at least with part of it.

The maritime museum and ship preservatin profession long ago established that floating a ship - especially a wood or composite-built one - in water is, from the standpoint of preservation, just about the worst thing that can be done with it.  Water is, by definition, not capable of supporting the structure of a wood ship's hull indefinitely.  Historic wood ships (e.g., the Victory, Constitution, and Constellation) have been found to hog (sag at the ends) severely over the years.  In order to restore them after they reach that state, the conservators have to decide between taking them out of the water (like the Victory) or subjecting them to extremely radical preservation methods that entail replacing a great deal of the original fabric (like the Constitution and Constellation).  Water also introduces its own set of seriously damaging effects, accelerating such things as wood rot and rust.  Even "modern" steel ships aren't immune to such tendencies.  The U.S.S. North Carolina is about to undergo a hugely expensive refit at Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock to overcome the leakage problems she's developed from sitting motionless in the Cape Fear River for so many years. 

The Cutty Sark, until quite recently, withstood the ravages of time remarkably well.  When she was taken out of the water and put into her current drydock, her keel was found to have hogged only a few inches - a tribute to the intrinsic strength of composite construction.  In the past twenty years or so, however, rain water and simple old age introduced serious problems of rust and rot.  The people responsible for her restoration took into consideration a number of possible solutions - including a "complete" restoration that would send her to sea again.  They rejected that idea fairly early on, as I understand it - and most, if not all, musem and conservation professionals would agree that they were right.  On the basis of what I've seen on the web and in the press, I'm convinced that these people know precisely what they're doing, and that the new facility for exhibiting the ship to the public will, bearing in mind the inevitable financial constraints, be consistent with the most current thinking and ethics of the artifact preservation professions.

There are several other strong arguments against sending historic ships to sea.  The basic ethic of cultural resource conservation requires the utmost respect for the genuine, historic fabric of the artifact.  There's simply no way that a hundred-year-old ship can be made seaworthy without sacrificing a great deal of that fabric.  Just making her strong enough to withstand the stresses of wind and weather probably would require replacement of much of the Cutty Sark's structure.  Equally important, the legal authorities would demand lots of compromises with authenticity.  (Do we really want a ship like that sailing around with modern radio antennas, radar screens, modern life-saving apparatus, watertight compartmentation, and all the other features that would make the modern governmental authorities - not to mention the insurance company executives - happy?)  Unfortunately the Cutty Sark has already deteriorated to the point where much of her original structure is going to have to be replaced anyway.  To make her seaworthy would entail virtually destroying her and building a new ship.  To do that would, according to the ethics of the profession, be unconscionable.

Then there's the risk factor.  I'm reminded of what happens all too frequently in the field of aircraft preservation.  It seems like the aviation history magazines carry stories every few months of one more WWII-vintage aircraft that's crashed before, during, or after a flying appearance at an airshow.  A particularly memorable episode happened not so many years ago when the RAF's "Vintage Pair," a Meteor and a 2-seat Vampire (if I remember right), collided in midair during a public display, destroying both airplanes and killing one of the three occupants.  Yes, there's nothing like watching - and hearing - a Spitfire or a B-17 fly by.  But whenever I read the latest issue of Flypast or Aeroplane Monthly I find myself wondering how many of those wonderful old machines will still be around for my great-grandchildren to see. 

Some years back some enthusiasts built a fine replica of a Baltimore clipper called the Pride of Baltimore.  They managed, somehow or other, to get around at least some of the normal U.S. Coast Guard safety regulations and build the ship in a reasonably authentic, early-nineteenth-century manner.  She looked quite impressive - especially when she got caught in a sudden windburst in the Caribbean and, with her uncompartmented hull, sank in a most authentic manner in a few minutes.  Several people drowned, also authentically.  The replacement vessel, the Pride of Baltimore II, features all sorts of compromises, including effective compartmentation, in the name of safety.  Do we really want either of those fates for the Cutty Sark?

I'm just as susceptible as anybody else to the sight of a great ship under sail, and I do indeed get a little wistful when I look at a ship like the Victory (or, for that matter, the North Carolina) and meditate on the fact that this noble vessel will never feel the sea again.  I get a similar feeling when I go to an aviation museum and gaze upon the wonderful airplanes that will never fly again.  But the first responsibility of a professional preservationist is not to my imagination or emotions, but to the integrity of the artifact. 

The U.S.S. Constitution made a lot of American spines tingle a few years ago when, after her latest multi-million-dollar, multi-year restoration, she got under way and sailed under her own power for a few miles.  I was just as impressed and moved by the photographs of that memorable occasion as anybody else was.  Shortly after, however, Capt. Tyrone Martin (Ret.), who was her commanding officer during the 1970s and probably knows more about her than anybody else (his book, A Most Fortunate Ship, is generally regarded as the definitive work on the subject) publicly urged the Navy to quit sailing her, on the grounds that it was just too risky.  (I believe he used the phrase, "The old lady's out of her wheelchair, but she's not ready for rollerblades.")  I have to agree.  Neither is the Cutty Sark - and she never will be.

When I was working as a museum curator I sometimes found myself in the middle of arguments over the issue of the building of full-size "replica" ships.  People who work in "conventional" museums, or are involved in the preservation of genuine historic ships, tend to hold "the replicators" in contempt.  The arguments are that (a) the "replica" ships generally make so many compromises that they're just caricatures of the real things, and (b) there's so little money available in the world of maritime preservation (and cultural resource management in general, for that matter) that the available funds ought to go into saving the real things rather than building fakes.  Our descendants, it's argued, will always be able to build replicas, but if we don't save the real artifacts they'll be gone forever.

Nowadays (in part, maybe, because my salary no longer depends on the allocation of said money) I don't entirely agree with those people.  In the years that I've been involved in the field I've seen a dramatic improvement in the general quality of ship replicas; the current "Jamestown ships," for instance, are light years ahead of their predecessors (which were built in the 1950s) in terms of accuracy.  (Even the Susan Constant's diesel engine is effectively camouflaged.)  It's also been established that replica ships can be invaluable sources of information.  (The Greek trireme replica Olympias has caused a major revision of scholarship about ancient galley warfare.)  And there is indeed nothing quite like the sight of a sailing vessel under sail.  It's a sight our children and grandchildren ought to be able to see, and in that context a full-size replica is as good (well, almost) as the real thing.

If somebody can find the money to build a full-size replica of a clipper ship and sail it, without diverting money from the preservation of real ships or the operations of conventional maritime museums, I'll be a hundred percent supportive.  But please leave the Cutty Sark in her drydock.

Equally important, the legal authorities would demand lots of compromises with authenticity. (Do we really want a ship like that sailing around with modern radio antennas, modern life-saving apparatus, watertight compartmentation, and all the other features that would make the modern governmental authorities - not to mention the insurance company executives - happy?)

 I remember going up to South Bristol, Me., on weekends to see the progress of Pete Seeger's Hudson River Sloop Clearwater being built. The U.S. Coast Guard required that an engine be installed, and that her mainsail area be reduced, in the name of safety. I can forgive the need for an engine, but the extreme sail area of the hudson river sloop, was what allowed her to jibe safely, something which her sailing environment made necessary. It's not just ships, ask anyone who maintains, and runs steam locomotives, about "government regulation".

If it is fun, or exciting, Congress will make it illegal, or at the least, regulate it out of existance, and replace it with the "gladitorial Games" of "reality TV"! 

I just took a look at the Cutty Sark's website, http://www.cuttysark.org.uk/index.cfm .  It's been enormously revised since the last time I looked at it.  The home page contains the clearest description of the fire damage I've seen yet.  (It turns out that there was, in fact, scarcely any important damage.  The iron framework has been pronounced intact and safe, and only a few wood components were damaged beyond conservation.)

Elsewhere on the website is an extremely detailed survey of the ship's fabric, including an outstanding collection of photos.  (Click on the links on the right side of the home page.)  Particularly valuable is the intense research done to establish just when, and by whom, every extant component of the ship was installed.  The researchers have done an outstanding job; I had no idea such detailed information was available.

The site also describes what's going to happen in the current restoration project.  I'm not entirely happy about some of the proposed developments; I wonder, for instance, how the "lily pad decks" (whatever on earth that expression may mean) will affect the appearance of the ship.  The descriptions of such things as elevators to carry visitors between decks, and between the ship and the drydock floor, also make me a little nervous.

The bottom line, however, is that these latest additions to the website prove beyond all doubt what I've been saying for some time:  the people in charge of this project know exactly what they're doing, and are proceeding in strict adherence to the standards and ethics of the preservation and conservation professions.  The website suggests that the project may be done sometime in 2008.  That sounds a little optimistic, but there's little room for doubt:  the responsible parties will do this job right, no matter how long it takes.  The old lady is in extremely good hands.  Anybody who doubts that really needs to spend some time on the website. 

Well, as a sailor, not a museum curator, I have to say that I disagree with just about every statement Prof Tilley has made on this subject.  Any ship, regardless of what it is made of, begins to die as soon as it is not in use.  Water is the VERY BEST support for a ship, as the hull receives support over its entire surface.  The same is not true in a dry-dock, even the best ones.  The reason ships like USS Constitution have hogged over the years is because of the excessive weight of their armament on the ends of the ship; just where the flotation is at its weakest.  This has been solved in USS Constitution by removing the incredibly heavy iron 24 Lb cannon from the bows and stern of the vessel, replacing these guns with fiberglass replicas.  Regarding Cutty Sark, no hogging should have been expected when first dry-docked, because she has never had heavy weights placed on her ends for long periods (200 years for Constitution?).  Further, while it is nice to preserve as much woodwork as possible, it should be remembered that in the long life of a well-taken care-of wooden ship, virtually every piece of timber in the ship will have been replaced, sometimes several times!  And this applies to HMS Victory, USS Constitution, and the Cutty Sark as well (and it appears during this current restoration, they will have to replace yet more!).  But as long as the ship is kept whole, as long as the lines are not altered, and as long as the ship is kept working, it's soul remains the same. 

As for the problems of wood and water, it should be noted that wooden ships are not really affected much by salt water (and teak, as in Cutty Sark, is almost completely impervious to it!), but it will rot very quickly in the presence of fresh water (note the remarkable preservation of 'Vasa,' sunk at the bottom of the Baltic for over 300 years).  This is why wooden ships with wooden decks MUST have their decks sluiced with salt water every day; both to keep the wood swelled and the seams tight, and to drive off the harmful effects of freshwater.  This is the source of the marine surveyors comment, 'more ships sink on dry land than ever do at sea.'  Cutty Sark has not seen any salt water on her decks in decades, and the freshwater still flows in from the rain.... A wooden ship in dry-dock for any amount of time must be constantly watched to make sure freshwater is not gathering in her bilge, and while this is possible in a commercial dock with the ship expected soon to be relaunched, the same is not true of a museum dry-dock.  A ship in commission has a full crew, including shipwrights, carpenters, boatswains, mates, riggers, painters and polishers, all of whom are at the top of their trade in constant employment ensuring the ship is in the best condition they can make it, all the time.  Compare that to the very best museum staff in the very best outdoor museum.... the most that can be afforded is a few old, tired men, and well-intentioned, but inexperienced 'younkers' doing their very best, but knowing full-well that it is a losing battle.

Virtually every 'museum ship' in the world is in dire need of serious maintenance, for just this reason; they are not used, and therefore die a little more every year.  Yes, if a ship goes to sea it is in danger from the elements, and people may die along with it.  That is part of going to sea in the first place.  Personally, I would rather hear of a ship sinking at sea in a typhoon than to watch that same ship slowly die at the dockside from rot and neglect.  In the case of 'Pride of Baltimore,' she was hit by a white squall with her hatches open.  It happens!  'Pride of Baltimore II' had her bobstay fail in the Mediterranean a couple years ago and lost both masts as a result (no-one injured), and now has two new masts.  Doubtless Cutty Sark and the other surviving 'opriginal' Tall Ships had many instances of lost spars, masts, etc, etc.  Yet this does not affect therir 'originality.'  HMS Victory has had AT LEAST three major rebuilds, and that was just in the 19th century!  The best solution in the event of such conflict is to build a replica.  And you should know that Cutty Sark is NOT the only existing clipper ship, thoug it is the only 'original.'  The Dutch have built TWO clippers recently, one of which they kept (Stadt Amsterdam), and the other of which they sold to the Brazilian Navy (Cigne Blanco).  The money they received for Cigne actually PAID for the cost of BOTH ships, and the Stadt Amsterdam now runs a very successful charter and sail training business (I have seen her several times in the Grenadines; a very fast ship indeed!).  Her design is a combination of several classic clippers, 'Flying Cloud,' 'Cutty Sark,' and 'Staghound,' and combines the best of each design.  And they also have the latest in modern systems, engines and safety gear, yet with no compromise in either the form or function of a clipper!  In other words, a Holy Relic, is at just as much risk as a fully functioning and commissioned ship, as is proved by this latest, near disasterous fire......

Regarding the "lily pad decks" - the phrase on the ship's website is:  "...Removing the 1950s misleading false deck [i.e., the layer of planking that was laid on top of the original deck at that time], replacing it with more sympathetic 'lily pad' decks with a collapsible auditorium which can accommodate audiences for concerts, performances and seminars and thus create new audiences for Cutty Sark."  I confess I have trouble visualizing just what all that means, but it may well be something along the lines of what ddp59 suggested. 

Regarding searat's comments - there's not much point in getting into an argument here.  One thing we can be sure of is that the people responsible for the ship's restoration are not going to consult either searat or me about it.  I do think it would be difficult to find anyone directly involved in historic ship preservation who'd agree that "water is the VERY BEST support for a ship."  There are too many examples to prove that simply isn't true - for big ships, small boats, and anything between.  Hogging is a natural part of the aging process in a wood hull; it's exacerbated in warships because of their heavy guns, but it happens to any wood hull that isn't supported by some sort of rigid structure designed for the purpose.  (Photos and drawings of the yacht America at various points in her career, for instance, establish that her sheer drooped quite noticeably as she got older.)  The Cutty Sark escaped hogging almost entirely, because she has an iron frame.  (As a matter of fact, it occurs to me that she just may have escaped it completely.  The measurements taken after she went into drydock - in the fifties or early sixties, I think - established that the keel was very, very slightly lower at both ends than amidships.  Did they know for absolute certain that the keel was absolutely straight in 1870?  I rather doubt it.)

Searat does make an extremely valid point about the manpower required to maintain an historic ship.  Well-meaning organizations that take on ship or boat preservation projects frequently have no conception of that problem.  (They generally find out in a hurry.  The people in charge of the U.S.S. North Carolina, for instance, are supremely aware that their fine, hard-working "crew" of a few dozen is trying to do the work that, during the ship's active service, was done by several thousand people.)  That's one of the biggest reasons why so many ship preservation (and, for that matter, replication) projects fail.  (The place where I used to work refused to get involved in that field.  Once in a while we'd get a phone call from some earnest person who thought we should take on the preservation of a ship - usually either the heavy cruiser Newport News or the liner United States.  I got some practice at explaining that the museum's charter and mission statement wouldn't let us do that.  The truth is that the mission statement could have been changed, but we made the conscious decision to leave ship preservation to the people and facilities - e.g., Mystic Seaport - that had the experience, equipment, and funding souces to do it right.)

It's also certainly true that most historic wood ships have had much, if not most, of their fabric replaced during their careers.  (The hull planking of the Charles W. Morgan has been replaced at least four times during the forty years or so that I've been visiting her.)  Quite a bit of the internal structure and deck planking of the Victory are original, but the exterior hull planking is all relatively new - and in some ways decidedly un-authentic.  The Cutty Sark, however, is to a large extent an exception to the rule.  As the detailed information now on that website demonstrates, a quite surprising percentage of her original fabric is still extant.  I'm not quite clear on just how much of it is going to be replaced during the current restoration, but I have the impression that quite a bit of the original hull planking is going to be put back in place.

The Wasa, by the way, is not a good example of any allegedly preservative effects of water.  Several people from the joint where I work just got back from Stockholm, where they took part in a major study that's trying desperately to figure out just what needs to be done to keep her  from falling apart within the next few years.  The original application of polyethylene glycol back in the fifties and sixties doesn't seem to have worked in the long term.  If the ship had been left completely submerged in water she probably would have disintegrated by now; raising her and treating her probably slowed down the aging process, but the effects of exposure to the air have not been entirely reversed.  I'm confident that the scientists will work out a solution (she's the biggest tourist attraction in Sweden, as I understand it, so the government is intensely interested), but sending the old ship out into the Baltic certainly won't be it. 

Historical artifact conservation is an extremely complex combination of science (including physics, organic chemistry, biology, and heaven only knows what else), art, judgment, elbow grease, and, unfortunately, money; it goes far beyond sluicing decks daily with saltwater.  The Cutty Sark website should make it clear that the current restoration is being done in accordance with the very most recent policies, theories, and ethical practices agreed upon by the profession - and it's being done by people who know far more about it than either searat or I do.  They clearly understand the value and importance of what they're preserving, and are applying the collective knowledge of the various conservation-related professions to do it right.  That, rather than any of our personal opinions, is what counts.

Well, one thing is true, the curators are going to do what they are going to do, and are not likely to take any advice.  You might also note that 'Vasa's' current problems relate to the fact that she was taken OUT of SALT water (not fresh), where she had been sitting quietly on the bottom for over 300 years.  SALT water has many preservative qualities, while FRESH water promotes the growth of mold, fungus, dry and wet rot (in fact, it is a very old technique when taking an old wooden boat out of the salt water for an extended period of time to literally fill the bilges with salt, to prevent the evil effects of fresh water from rain, but God help you if the hull is bronze-fastened!).  A number of Viking ships have also been found on the bottom of the Danish Fjiord of Roskilde, and are also in quite good shape (and were in salt water for a thousand years).  Hogging, when not caused by excessive weights in the ends (as in  USS Constitution), is more often caused by a boat being OUT of the water, not in the water (i.e. badly blocked in a boatyard for an extended period), and simply being unused.  Sometimes hogging can be caused by structural faults, usually the result of misplaced enthusiasm in moving bulkheads, combined with the squeezing that can be exerted by the shrouds, and or unequalized presure of stays and other rigging, which WILL happen, if the riggining is not checked fairly regularly, and this is especially true if the standing rigging is manilla, or some other natural rope fiber which stretches and contracts dramatically with rain and sun (and this checking just doesn't happen at a museum).  In other words, hogging is not really a 'natural aging process for a wood hull,' but IS a very un-natural process brought about by simple neglect.  The 'Charles W. Morgan' in Mystic Seaport is afloat at present.  When I was a kid back in the '60's, the Morgan was essentially hard aground on land, with everything inside below the waterline essentially filled with gravel and the tide literally running in and out.  There was a lot of rot setting into the upper part of the hull, but she still looked wonderful to me as a boy.....  A major effort was launched to get her out of her hard berth, and when they removed all the shingle from her hold, it turned out that the planking that had been completely underwater all that time was in quite good condition, while the planking above the waterline essentially all needed to be replaced!

As for 'America,' her troubles didn't start until she had been through several modifications for both war, and 'yachtie' purposes and then ended in the hands of the Naval Academy at Annapolis.  They didn't want her, didn't maintain her, left her tied up to the same dock for years on end, charging a pittance for the few that were interested to go aboard for a lark.  After decades of this, they hauled the poor old schooner ashore, put her in a shed with some half-assed ideas of a possible restoration after the war, and guess what?  A big snow storm collapsed the roof of the shed, completely crushing 'America' like matchwood.  So much for 'safety and preservation ashore!'  They'd have been better off if they had just sunk her in the Bay (as had been done to her for a while during the Civil War).

As for Cutty Sark, her wood (other than that burned by the fire) is indeed quite good, simply because it is teakwood.  Teakwood is almost impervious to rot, particularly in salt water.  But there is an inherent problem here that was under quite a bit of discussion back when I lived in the UK during the '90's.  Turns out, the iron framing of the hull was having electrolysis problems from the wood.  Electrolysis does not just happen between metals, but can also happen from certain kinds of wood on certain kinds of metals (like teak on iron, for instance), as well as between different kinds of wood alone!  So when you look at it from just about any angle, the actual construction of Cutty Sark was bound to destroy her in the end.  'That's what they calls ironic!'

There's no point in continuing this argument much further.  I do, however, feel obliged to defend the position of the conservators to this extent.  Professional conservators (and curators; there's a huge difference) most emphatically do take advice - from people who know more about the subject in question than either searat or I do.  The subject of conservation of materials removed from (or kept in) an underwater environment is a complex one, involving science that neither of us is competent to discuss. The positions taken by the profession are constantly changing on the basis of evidence, experience, and experimentation.  Theories about which chemicals and procedures are most effective at preserving wood under particular circumstances are constantly being debated and revised.  Individual circumstances, such as water temperature, depth, and salinity, certainly play significant roles (though I don't think any trained conservator would seriously suggest that the preservative characteristics of immersion in salt water compensate for the damaging ones). 

No conservator worth his/her salt suggests he/she knows all the answers - or that the solutions currently regarded as the best ones will be regarded that way twenty years from now.  What they do agree on, though (assuming that they're competent and properly trained - as the ones working on the Cutty Sark so obviously are), is that (1) their second-most important responsibility is to the current, up-to-date theories and ethics of their profession; and (2) their most important responsibility of all is to the artifacts of which they are the temporary custodians - in this case, the ships. 

Searat and Prof. both make terrific points.  Though I've been interested in ships for many years, I've never been as passionate about them as I have about WWII aircraft.  What a conundrum!  They were made to fly - the are creatures of the sky - but flying destroys them.  When I saw the video of Constitution under way a few years ago, my heart jumped out of my chest.  I can't fault a syllable of what Prof. Tilley says, but neither can I deny the thrill I felt that day.  I almost cry every time I read of a warbird being destroyed, but then I have also brushed tears from my eyes at the sight and sound of one in its element.  Robert E. Lee once said that to be a great commander, one must love the army, and must be willing to risk the destruction of that which he loves.  Even so, eh?

About 20 years ago, I discovered the grave of a Confederate soldier in a little village cemetery at Cubero, NM.  He'd died there of pnuemonia in April of '62.  His grave was marked by a sandstone headstone with his name, rank, unit, and date of death engraved by hand - that is, freehand.  Out of respect and awe, I went over there every few months for the next five years and removed the weeds from the grave.  Then one day I noticed something - the wind-driven sand, no longer blocked by the weeds, had eroded the stone almost to an unreadable state.

Fortunately for the world, the fate of the old ships is not up to me, because sure as shootin', I'd screw it up!  I surely do admire the passion and scholarship evident herein. 

Styrenegyrene, you've neatly summed up several of the fundamental quandaries of artifact conservation.

In my last post, when I was describing the "constituencies" to whom conservators need to feel responsible, I left out one of the most important.  The conservator has a huge responsibility to the next generation of the public.  A major justification for expending time, effort, and money on artifact preservation is that our grandchildren, and their grandchildren, ought to be able to see and appreciate those artifacts.  (There's a rather large literature on the emotional and scholarly value of artifacts, their value as research tools, and the "connections" they let people make with the past.)  Whenever I look at an old airplane preserved in a museum, I remind myself that if the museum does its job right, that airplane will tell its story to many generations.  I certainly wouldn't want to be in the shoes of the guy who'd have to tell my great-great-great grandson, "well, there used to be such a thing as a B-24, and as recently as 2008 quite a few of them still existed.  But they all got wrecked in crashes and collisions at airshows.  Cheer up; your great-great-great grandfather got to watch them fly." 

A few years ago I happened to be in Phoenix, Arizona for a conference.  I'd read that one of the attractions of Phoenix was a "fighter museum" on the outskirts of town.  I spent over an hour - in the July heat, in my little old non-air-conditioned Dodge 024 - driving to the place.  When I discovered that almost all the WWI fighters in its collection were replicas built in the sixties and seventies, I practically demanded my money back.  Nowadays I have a different attitude toward replicas.  I see a real value in building such things as a means of giving enthusiasts and the public a generous taste, at least, of what the real planes looked and sounded like in their intended element.  Go ahead and build, as accurately as is practical, a full-size reproduction of a Fokker D-VII, and fly it at every airshow you can find.  Use it in mock dogfights with somebody else's SPAD replica.  Make movies of it.  Use it in every possible way to demonstrate what such machines looked like in the air - and what sort of people it took to fly them.  But leave the real Fokker D-VII in the Smithsonian - and make sure everybody understands the difference.

The same goes for ships.  In the past thirty years or so the quality of full-size replica vessels has improved enormously.  (The Elizabeth II, the new Jamestown ships, the Batavia, and the Endeavour come to mind immediately; there are quite a few others.)  Let them give the public a good taste of what a sailing vessel looks like in its element.  But subjecting real, centuries-old ships to the dangers of sea and weather (and, for that matter, vandals and drunken yachtsmen), with the intention of saying, "hey, it's too bad but these things happen" when one of them gets damaged or sunk, would, in the eyes of the preservation profession, simply not be acceptable.   

The big problem with the building of such replicas is that they cost enormous amounts of money - and there's only so much of it around.  Searat slightly exaggerated the seriousness of the manpower problem afflicting historic ships (Mystic Seaport, the Mary Rose, and the Constitution come to mind as examples of organizations that are handling that problem reasonably successfully), but it's certainly true that the vast majority of historic ship restoration projects don't have enough funding and rely too heavily for their own good on inadequately trained volunteer labor.  [Later edit:  I need to add a big qualifier here.  Some of the finest, most conscientious, and most eminently qualified people I've ever met in museums and restoration projects have been volunteers.  They are, in many cases, the backbone of the cultural resources management field - on land and in the air, as well as in the maritime preservation world.]  The people in charge of such projects gnash their teeth when they see great chunks of money getting spent on the construction of a replica.  (I suspect a lot of ship preservationists practically tore their hair out when they saw that the Hollywood movie makers were pouring money by the hundreds of thousands of dollars into the old H.M.S. Rose replica, which as a replica was pretty awful but did a great service in providing the set for "Master and Commander.") 

It is to be hoped that somehow or other, sometime in the not-too-distant future, some sort of financial and ethical equilibrium will be reached in which competently-administered ship preservation projects can co-exist with the building and operation of reasonably accurate replicas, without driving anybody into bankruptcy.  I'm not at all sure it will happen in my lifetime, but I do see some cause for optimism.  The standards being achieved today on a fairly regular basis in both the preservation of ships and the building of replicas are far higher than they were a few decades ago.

Well, as Ronald Reagan used to say, 'there you go again!'  First off, you don't know who I am, or WHAT I know, that is just an assumption on your part, the same sort of assumption that gets curators and conservators in trouble!  I happen to be a yacht broker, that specializes in classic ships of all kinds, and have been to more marine surveys than you can shake a stick at!  Truly, I have seen yachts and ships of all kinds, and all ages and what happens to them over the years, what can be done to repair them, assessing damages, costs and values.  You can have a look at some of the ships I represent at www.yachtworld.com/aib

I have been at this for a number of years, and have myself been a sailor for about thirty five years.  And by sailor, I mean gaff-rigged craft, schooners, ketches, cutters, catboats, Friendship Sloops, you name it!  I have been a member of The Old Gaffers Association since 1995, and have assisted in the restoration of a couple Essex Smacks, and a Falmouth Oyster Boat of my own, sailing and racing in the many 'gaffer' events in the North Sea, the Western Isles of Scotland and in the Netherlands too.  And one thing I have learned after all this, is that conservators, curators, and many other arm-chair experts seem to ask questions of everyone EXCEPT the people that might actually know something on the subject, and that is the folks on the waterfront, the ones who actually own and operate wooden ships, and have been working with them for years (the most notable exception is the Navy folks who had the hogging of USS Constitution repaired with the help of some schooner-builders from Maine and Essex Massachusetts).  The point is that most of the knowledge and information about preserving a wooden ship IS around, and has been for centuries, but for the most part, conservators and curators don't seem to be able to ask the right questions of the right people (mostly they just talk among themselves).

One of the reasons Mystic Seaport is so outstanding, and the preservation of their vessels is at such a high level is that it also contains a WORKING SHIPYARD, which actually BUILDS ships ('Amistad' is one of their products), rather than just a collection of labelled ship-building tools with no real idea how any of this stuff works, or how ships go together (and come apart!), and this brings me to a final point.

While a ship in use is in and of itself a good thing that ensures the survival of that vessel, equally, perhaps even MORE important is how the USE of that ship preserves the skills required to operate and maintain it properly.  You can have the very finest display of an old ship, but if there is no-one who knows and understands how it all works, you have lost more than half the science and story of that ship, along with all the social structure, traditions and interactions of her crew with the vessel itself.  One of the best examples of this involves the 'Mayflower,' which was sailed over from the UK to Plymouth by Alan Villiers, now these many years ago.  Villiers had crewed and captained some of the greatest Tall Ships of the age, around Cape Horn and damn near everywhere else.  But he had never sailed an old-fashioned square-rigger like Mayflower, and particularly never a ship that had a spritsail, but no jibs, nor had anyone else still living. 

Until that voyage, it was common 'expert knowledge' that a square rigger with no jibs would have a very hard time sailing to windward, and were mostly considered to be very much 'by the wind sailers.'  What Villiers and the others found out was a very different story indeed.  The spritsail (that small square sail slung below the bowsprit) was not designed to be set 'square' like everyone had previously thought (i.e. parallel with the waterline and only used when the wind was aft), but instead is designed to be twisted at a considerable angle, almost perpendicular to the waterline.  When used in this fashion, the spritsail functions almost exactly like a jib, but since it is quite close to the water, it does not in any way bear heavily on the ship (does not make the ship heel over).  It is in fact a very powerful sail, that allows even an old-fashioned high-pooped ship like Mayflower to sail very well to weather, thank you very much, yet was easy to control, and is the explanation for why such a sail survived for more than a hundred years AFTER the introduction of the jib with all its supposed benefits (even USS Constitution is equipped to carry one!).  Yet this was never discovered or accounted for by conservators, curators, or historians, but by sailors, USING a ship that was equipped with one for the first time in a couple hundred years!  And this is just ONE assumption by 'experts' that had stood for years, but was stood on its head by actual, practical usage.

It would be a wonderful thing if old ships could be effectively and perfectly preserved by museums, and certainly many museums have done as much as they can, but in the end, it is a losing game, and nothing lasts forever......'Nuff said?

...A final note on reproductions.... I agree with Prof Tilley on just about every point, which is why I am so supportive of reporduction ships (and Cutty Sark would be an excellent subject for just this reason!).  Yes, reproductions cost a LOT of money to build, but strangely, they generally cost a lot less than rebuilding or restoring an old ship that is in really bad shape!  This is NOT a good reason to destroy old ships, or to allow them to continue to die, but it is a good reason to consider allocation of resources.  On this point, the best reproductions work for just one reason; they make money!  A ship needs to earn her keep, and whether this is through sail-training programs, charters, or what have you, there is no free lunch!  And this is yet another difference between a museum ship, and a ship in use. 

Museums are for the most part 'non-profit' organizations, which depend upon 'the kindness of strangers' to keep going in the form of donations, grants, etc.  A very tough row to hoe!  While this is usually enough to keep bricks and mortar together, the same is not true for a ship.  Yet a ship in use can be used to generate interest and funding from far-flung sources, bringing in people from all over the world, which is otherwise a challenge for even the best museums.  A few years ago, 'Mayflower' put to sea again, for the first time in decades.  Among her ports of call was Providence, Rhode Island.  When that ship sailed up Narragansett Bay, I can tell you that the ENTIRE BAY was filled with every kind of boat you could imagine, all straining to get a glimpse of the Mayflower (in fact, it was a navigational nightmare, which would have been worse if she had arrived according to schedule!).  This one trip gained more media coverage, more donations and funding for the Plymouth Plantation museum than had been garnered in more than ten years of sitting quietly at the dock.... and in turn, paid for some very important repairs not only to the ship, but to museum infrastructure as well!

Same thing happened for 'Batavia,' when she was shipped to Australia for the Olympics.  Because of historical accuracy, she was (and is) unable to sail in European waters for insurance purposes, and so was placed IN a transport ship to Australia, where she sailed up and down quite happily to the cheers of all.  Money and interest gained from this excusion has in a large part funded the construction of 'Zeven Provincien,' which is still ongoing.....

In other words, figure out how to make it pay, and a ship, even an old one, can be a positive benefit to a museum, rather than 'a hole in the water into which one pours money!'