Cutty sark disaster

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. 

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'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.

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

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 

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."

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 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

http://www.dailymail.co.uk

Go to the news section.

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!

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. 

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

The hull tends to hog

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!

I think several points that have been brought up in this thread are worthy of some discussion.

It is, of course, hard to argue with Shipwreck's and RedCorvette's observations that, in the grand scheme of things, what's happened to the Cutty Sark is a relatively minor event.  I can easily understand why, for instance, somebody who lost a family member in Iraq that day doesn't think a fire on board an 1869 clipper ship was a matter of much importance.  Thank heaven nobody was killed or injured in the fire. 

In the field of artifact preservation (which is, in essence, what we're talking about here) the distinction between a genuine artifact and a reproduction is more than sentimental.  The artifact itself is a representative of the time and circumstances in which it was made, and of the people who made it.  Replicas have their uses - invaluable uses in some cases - but they just aren't the same as the real thing.  And when an artifact (e.g., Grampa's hatchet, which has had two new handles and three new head since he carried it at the Battle of Lexington) undergoes restoration and conservation, it's almost inevitable that the people restoring it will inject something of their own time and circumstances into it. 

An excellent example is H.M.S. Victory.  The planking on her hull doesn't look much like it did in 1805.  The species of wood is different (I think; maybe I'm wrong about that).  The method of fitting the planks together is different.  (The old "anchor stock" pattern is nowhere to be seen, and the modern shipwrights apparently didn't use traditional caulking methods.)  The wales, which originally were huge timbers fastened directly to the frames, are now thin layers of timber fastened to the outside of the planking.  The lower masts are steel tubes, supported by steel rods that penetrate the hull bottom and are embedded in the concrete of the drydock.  The list goes on and on.  The Victory is a priceless artifact, and the various deviations from her 1805 configuration were made for perfectly legitimate - indeed, in many cases, unavoidable - reasons.  (The expenses of materials and labor really make an absolutely accurate reproduction of a ship like that impracticable.)  I intend no criticism of the people responsible; they've done an outstanding, conscientious job within the parameters that reality has imposed on them. 

But the Cutty Sark, until recently, was, with some obvious exceptions (e.g., the airports that were added to the 'tween deck spaces by the Portuguese), the "real" Cutty Sark.  I gather some criticism of the people who maintained her over the years has been offered recently, but generally speaking I think they did a fine job.  The original hull planking, for the most part, lasted almost 120 years.  That's about as long as can reasonably be expected.

It was inevitable that, if the ship was not to fall apart, much of her fabric was going to require replacement eventually.  As I understand it, the present restoration project was scheduled to replace many major components of her - even before the fire.  That was regrettable, but it was bound to happen eventually.  How much additional replication of original parts will be required because of the tragedy remains to be seen.  I have the impression, though, that the people responsible for the research and restoration know precisely what they're doing; I'm confident that the Cutty Sark that eventually goes back on public exhibition will be as "accurate" as scholarship and technology will permit - tempered, undoubtedly, by the realities of money.

As I understand it, the possibility of floating her and sending her to sea again was considered early in the restoration planning - and rejected, for good reason.  Experience has established that floating an historic ship, especially in salt water, is one of the worst ways to preserve it.  The hull tends to hog, leaks inevitably develop over time, and all sorts of corrosion and other processes take place faster than they would if the ship was on dry land.  (A couple of weeks ago I had a conversation with two of the curators of the U.S.S. North Carolina.  She appears to be afloat, but in fact sits in the mud across from downtown Wilmington.  She's old enough now that leakage and various sorts of corrosion are becoming significant problems.  I don't know what, if anything, will be done about them; the possibility of hauling her into a permanent drydock seems remote.) 

Furthermore, to send an old ship out to sea in this day and age requires all sorts of compromises in order to comply with the law.  The Coast Guard (or its foreign equivalent) requires that such a ship carry numerous devices related to safety and navigation.  (Imagine the Cutty Sark with a radar screen at her main masthead and a couple of diesel-powered lifeboats hanging from her davits.)  The requirements get stricter if the ship is going to carry passengers.  And some further compromises with authenticity are almost unavoidable in the name of good sense, even if the law doesn't mandate them.  (The first Pride of Baltimore might well still be around if she'd had modern hull compartmentation.  Do we really want that for the Cutty Sark?)  And operating a ship on the high seas inevitably involves a certain amount of risk.  It seems like we hear about vintage, flying historic aircraft crashing every few months.  (Remember when the RAF's Meteor and Vampire ran into each other?)  I personally do not want to read that the Cutty Sark or the Charles W. Morgan has gotten sunk, like the first Pride of Baltimore. 

My spine tingles as much as anybody else's at the sight of a great sailing ship under sail.  But I share the feelings of Captain Tyrone Martin, former commanding officer of, and reigning expert on, the U.S.S. Constitution.  When she got under way under sail for a few miles some years ago, he expressed decidedly mixed reactions - and urged the Navy not to sail her on a regular basis.  I believe the phrase he used was:  "The old lady isn't ready for rollerblades."  Neither is the Cutty Sark - and she never will be.

Some people in the historic ship community don't believe in full-size replicas.  Those people argue that the pool of money for such projects is severely limited, and that the available funds ought to be spent on preserving the real things.  My personal opinion is that ship replicas, if they're well-researched and well-built, serve some very worthwhile purposes.  I don't think the Cutty Sark, or the Constitution, or the Morgan, or any of a couple of dozen other historic vessels, should ever go to sea again.  They're priceless, irreplaceable artifacts, and they deserve to be restored as accurately as possible to their historic configurations - and exhibited to the public in the most stable environments possible.  But I also greatly enjoy going on board, and watching, well-done replicas like the three Jamestown ships, the Mayflower II, the Elizabeth II, the new Endeavour, and the Batavia.  They offer their own forms of education: the guys who've sailed the Susan Constant know a great deal more about seventeenth-century seamanship than could ever be learned from contemporary documents, and the reconstructed Greek trireme Olympias has generated a major scholarly rethinking of galley warfare.  And they provide modern ship lovers with at least a glimpse of what the old ladies must have looked like.  If somebody wants to build a replica of the Flying Cloud, and can fund the project without taking money away from any historic ship preservation projects, he'll have my enthusiastic support.  But please keep the Cutty Sark in drydock.

Sorry to go on so long, but I think this is a pretty important topic.  There's my two cents' worth.

sumpter250 wrote:

If this fire was deliberately set, she most assuredly should be rebuilt, and taken to sea, where the perpetrator can be properly keelhauled.

Great idea!  Just have to let the barnacles build up for a while first...;)

   The Sea is a dangerous place, and many good ships are lost there, in spite of their crew's efforts. For a great ship, however, there are more dangerous places than the sea. Places where she is out of her element, and at the hands of those who look on her as just another "job", and fail to understand her soul. A shipyard can be one of these places, I have taken enough ships through overhaul to appreciate this, and the fire could easily have been an unfortunate accident. If this fire was deliberately set, she most assuredly should be rebuilt, and taken to sea, where the perpetrator can be properly keelhauled.

   "Just an old boat" indeed! No one who has ever put to sea, could make so callous a remark about any vessel, especially one of the majesty of a clipper. Kind of like calling the Pyramids "an old pile of stones". Those who do not appreciate history, deserve to have none.

kapudan_emir_effendi wrote:

More than anything else, seeing some people commenting as "come on, it's just an old boat" in the BBC website makes me sick. What kind of a society did we become ? Cutty Sark is a technological marvel, a feat of marine engineering that unites old and new. She is the witness of a better world, times of the last great seamen who traveled the seven seas; without those fg GPS, wireless etc. like junk which distorted and corrupted seamanship to a kind of office work. In this sense, Jayman is quite right, Cutty Sark fairly surpasses being a british national treasure but is an heirloom to all humanity. My mind refuses to believe that the fire was the work of arsonists; what kind of a patological brain can think about vandalising a world culture heritage ??  I say again, whatever the cost the old lady must be restored to her former glory and we must do whatever we can to help her .

I can imagine that there were those who lamented when the "technological marvel" Cutty Sark appeared with her steel and wire components - not like the "good old days" when ships were made entirely of wood...

I also think it's insulting to modern day sailors to refer to their tasks as "office work".  Would you be happier if sailors were still falling to their death from the yardarms on a regular basis? Maybe you ought to catch a couple of episodes of "Deadliest Catch" to see that life at sea is still no picnic, even with computers, radar and GPS.  Life at sea is always going to be challenging and dangerous, no matter how much technology you have in tow.

And for all who are proselytizing about what a treasure the Cutty Sark is, just how many cared enough to call for donations to the restoration fund before the fire?

Don't get me wrong, I'm sorry about the fire also, but stuff happens in life.  It can still be restored, though the fire has no doubt now made that task somewhat more difficult (& expensive).  At least there's a well-organized trust in place working to bring her back.  I get more upset thinking about the fate of the City of Adelaide.

I'd be a lot more impressed if the plans were to put the Cutty Sark back in the water and sail her, rather than just being dressed up as a glorified museum relic.  Kind of like looking at the stuffed bears and lions in a museum instead of going to the zoo (or into the wild) to see some real ones.

My $0.02

Mark

I think the national lottery in this country should folk out most of the money for her, and the government should as well, it surprises me as it's always done that my country that has a wealth of maritime history, will let most of our heritage rot!!!. last year in a news letter which came through the door, it was said a glass roof would be partly put over her to protect the ship once it had be restored.

ian.