Vasa Build Log - Billing Boats - Scale 1/75 [COMPLETED BUILD]

[PeterG]

To mgovey, many thanks for your comments and reference. This is a most amazing thesis with over 340 pages of research and reference to blocks and rigging but blocks specifically related to the Vasa. I note that the author submitted this thesis for his Masters degree. I would be interested to know if he went on to study for a doctorate - A resulting thesis would be massive!!

Thanks too for your comments Daniel. For my anchor points at the 'becket' side of the blocks, I have indeed used the rope which attaches around the block itself, rather than fitting some form of hook or eye to the physical block. I guess you are correct that the physics would transfer the force directly back to spar or mast onto which the lower block is secured, whereas in real life it would be through the block itself. I have done it this way simply because I have had to change the lanyard roping to what Fred Hocker had suggested and it was on the deck surface in a confined space so was difficult to get to. I think in reality you would be correct.

Regards,

PeterG

​

 

[PeterG]

One of the things which I had noticed was not detailed in the BB instructions, but which was indicated to be the normal rigging arrangement by R.C. Anderson in the early 1600s, was the use of a lift for installing the topmasts above the lower trees of the main and foremast. These lifts are referred to as 'top-ropes' and required for two eyes to be inserted on the lower surface, one port and one starboard of the mast cap mounted at the top of the lower mast sections. These caps hold the metal hoop which wraps around the topmasts to lock the upper mast sections in place. On the starboard side, a rope was fixed and seized to the eyebolt and then led down through the top and through a sheave let into the heel of the topmast, up the port side, again through the top again, then through the eye block of the mast cap on that side, and then down, through the trees of the top and to the deck level beside the mast. In fact on the Vasa it appears that one of the sheaves of the knights, mounted on the deck was used to secure and allow purchase of this top-rope.

The purpose of this arrangement was to enable the topmast (and top gallant) sections of the masts, to be raised and lowered into place, by threading through the tops of the lower mast sections. Obviously this would be a major job and require yards and rigging of the upper spar sections to be removed to allow the spar section to pass through the opening in the tops. This whole exercise is reasonably well documented and was experimentally trialled at the Riverside campus Conservation Research Laboratory (see below), where Fred Hocker gave guidance as to how this process was achieved. Below is a picture of this being done by Fred Hocker. The link to the website for this is https://nautarch.tamu.edu/model/report6/.



It is a relatively simple thing to install the eyebolts, pulley and rope and so I have done this on the fore and main masts. I will belay the line using the portside inner knight sheave for the top-rope on the deck.



In this picture too, you can see one of the three 'mouse' used on the stays to prevent the seized loop at the stay end to tighten up the stay rope. For the mouse on each of the stays, I simply wound a LOT of windings of black thread around the stay at a specific, measured spot to allow sufficient loop length of the stay before it wraps around the upper mast section within the top. I then secured the mouse with some diluted PVA glue before moving the stay end loop into place.

Elapsed Time: 1780 hours.

Best Regards,

PeterG.

 

[PeterG]

Getting close to tackle and shrouds, so I have done a bit of background reading on them. The tackles should get rigged first according to 'The Rigging of ships In the Days of the Spritsail Topmast'. These are a simple rope around the mast section above the top for all three masts. In the case of the mizzen, the BB instructions have no tackle line, however in both the Vasamuseet plans and the 1/10th model, there is a single tackle rigged in the middle of four shrouds, so I will be having one. The tackles extend from a block on one side of the ship, through the tops, around the mast and then down the other side of the ship for the same distance. at each end of the tackle line is a double block, which are then attached to channel-mounted deadeyes, by a second double block and a lanyard. On the real ship, the tackle is secured and seized at the bottom block and this block uses a steel hook to the channel eyebolt. The picture below shows the lower block, its hook into the ring eyebolt, and a 'granny' knot directly above before its lanyard end is seized above the block.



The lanyard does a simple run of two up to the upper double block and two down, with the final tying off, being done around the securing hook attachment.

For the foremast, there are two tackles, the main has three, and the mizzen, one. They all seem to be the same except the rope used for the mizzen is much less thick and so will be scaled accordingly.

Elapsed time: 1795 Hrs

Regards,

PeterG

 

[PeterG]

Am preparing the mounting of the shrouds now. However, I have done a bit of research using R.C Anderson's 'Rigging of Ships In the Days of the Spritsail Topmast'. He describes the rigging of the Fore and Mainmasts and the shrouds in particular, in pages 92-95. However, I have noted a problem in the book's description and would like comment from members about this (if only to confirm if I am correct or not).

On the Vasa, the shrouds are Hawser-Laid (that is, right handed laid as per previous post and actual photos). The shroud arrangement is described on page 94 of the book for the time and the problem I have is the figures used to illustrate which direction the loose end of a shroud goes (forward or aft) as it goes around the upper deadeye. See below:



Note from the above, Figs 85 and 86 and the routing of the shroud around the deadeye is clear and no problem. As the shrouds are right-handed, then as he says 'with right-handed rope the end goes from left to right and comes up on the left hand side of the shroud. The result of this is that with cable-laid shrouds the ends lie forward on the starboard side and aft on the port; with ordinary (that is, right handed, as on the Vasa), the opposite is the case (that is, on the Vasa, aft on the starboard side and forward on the port side).

Well, that is all OK and makes sense, until we get to Fig. 87 (see above). In this figure the rope is LEFT HANDED. Therefore, the shroud comes down, and as the Fig. 85, should come around the deadeye and return upwards on the right side as you look at it from outside the ship. This, however is not as he has it drawn, as the shroud in Fig. 87 rises up on the left side, yet is left-handed rope. This to me is incorrect, even if Fig.87 were on either side of the ship. In other words, in Fig. 87, the only way this could be correct, is if it were right handed rope, not left handed!!

I think I am correct in this, but I would love others to comment as it impacts on the way I lay out the shrouds for my standing rigging.

Thanks,

PeterG

 

[Dean62]

This is what I have always gone by...

 

[PeterG]

Many thanks Dean.

So, in both your examples, the rope is left-handed (cable) laid, but the difference is the way the rope goes around the deadeye (anticlockwise for your left example and clockwise for the right). The result of your examples is that the loose end is always on the left side (looking from the outside of the ship to the centreline). This means therefore, that for the starboard side the loose end is to the aft of the ship and for the port side, the loose end is forward.

This is entirely consistent with Fig 87 of R.C. Anderson's book, but is inconsistent with Figs. 85 and 86 and with his description where he says 'The result of this is that with cable-laid (left-handed) shrouds the ends lie forward on the starboard side and aft on the port'!!

It's a bit tricky to get your head around.

PeterG

 

[PeterG]

Further to the shroud issue (and whatever is correct or not), on the Vasa (see below), the shrouds are right handed laid, coming down and around the deadeyes anticlockwise (from left around to right), then the loose end crosses over inboard, and faces aft on the starboard side and forward on the port. This photo below is looking forward (with bowsprit in the distance).



This is opposite to Dean62's example as the shrouds on the Vasa are right handed laid (opposite to those of the examples shown), but still with loose end to the aft on starboard side.

PeterG

 

[Dean62]

Further to the shroud issue (and whatever is correct or not), on the Vasa (see below), the shrouds are right handed laid, coming down and around the deadeyes anticlockwise (from left around to right), then the loose end crosses over inboard, and faces aft on the starboard side and forward on the port. This photo below is looking forward (with bowsprit in the distance).

View attachment 229153

This is opposite to Dean62's example as the shrouds on the Vasa are right handed laid (opposite to those of the examples shown), but still with loose end to the aft on starboard side.

PeterG

I’m a little confused, as this picture looks exactly the same as my example on the right (most common worldwide).
Shroud line comes down on the right side and crosses the deadeye to the left and wraps around counterclockwise and ends on the left (short side), and is seized the same way. What am I missing?

 

[dockattner]

Hello Peter,

While I am unqualified to weigh in with anything helpful I would direct interested persons to the following build-log where a similar topic is raised. Of particular interest are the comments made by Ab Hoving. Begin your reading in post 73 and continue through post 93.

Pinnace Papegojan 1627 - 1/48 [COMPLETED BUILD]

Great work Matt!

shipsofscale.com

This isn't precisely the same issue raised by you Peter - but it's in the same ballpark.

 

[PeterG]

Dean62, I apologise for this being confusing. From my understanding of the issue, there are two critical variables which determine if the shroud setup is 'right' or 'wrong'. I am using Anderson's book to determine this. The two items are:

1. Is the shroud rope left handed (cable laid, or right hand laid (hawser laid), and
2. Is the 'loose' end of the shroud on the left or right side of the descending shroud (from the tops). Note that THIS item determines if the loose end is towards the aft or forward.

In all cases we are looking from outside the ship towards the centreline. In all cases too, using the above, there are FOUR possibilities and these are shown below, using your (Dean62's) diagram (which I have edited for the four cases:



In the example shown in Dean62, your shroud rope is LEFT HAND laid, with the loose end coming up on the LEFT SIDE. This in the above is CASE 1 and is therefore inconsistent with R.C. Anderson's book and description. It is also inconsistent with the real Vasa ship as examination of the photo for the shroud rigging in Post #187 shows it is RIGHT HAND laid shroud rope and the loose ends are to the LEFT SIDE (to the aft on the starboard side). This is CASE 3 and therefore is CORRECT (again, according to R.C. Anderson).

Now, I am not saying Anderson is right or wrong, nor am I saying Dean62 is right or wrong, but the Vasa is consistent with Anderson. As I am building a model of the Vasa, I will be consistent with the text and the ship. This however is where I again mention the inconsistency of Figs 85 and 86 and Fig 87 in Anderson (where this whole discussion started)!! Please refer back to post #184 where I highlight this inconsistency.

I guess none of this is earth-shattering (sic) and only a few who think about it will be aware of any issue, but it is an interesting discussion. I cannot believe how much I have thought about this!!

PeterG

 

[PeterG]

Dear Paul,

Many thanks for alerting me to the discussion along similar lines regarding shroud orientations posted in

Pinnace Papegojan 1627 - 1/48 ​

I note for their reference they are using the text from Mondfield. The difference here (with Anderson), is that he views the shroud orientation from INSIDE the ship looking OUTSIDE, consequently his description is 'For right-handed ropes short ends of the shrouds seized around the deadeye should be to the right to standing part (looking from inboard).' (Post #74 by Mati.n), which seemingly is opposite to Anderson but is correct when viewed from outside looking to the INSIDE of the ship. Note that in Anderson's Figs 85 and 86 he says 'it is viewed 'Outside of Deadeye'.

Interesting too that in Post #76, there is description of Z laid and S laid rope (that is right handed and left handed respectively). I had not heard of this description of the rope lay direction before but it does make sense (thank you Maarten).

I note too a couple of photos taken from Post #73 and by Uwek, that are useful and worth copying here:





Interestingly, the second picture is inconsistent with R.C. Anderson's Fig 87 (as I suggested, I thought it may be in error). This represents Case 3 of my example (consistent with Anderson) and the same as the Vasa.

PeterG

 

[Dean62]

Dean62, I apologise for this being confusing. From my understanding of the issue, there are two critical variables which determine if the shroud setup is 'right' or 'wrong'. I am using Anderson's book to determine this. The two items are:

1. Is the shroud rope left handed (cable laid, or right hand laid (hawser laid), and
2. Is the 'loose' end of the shroud on the left or right side of the descending shroud (from the tops). Note that THIS item determines if the loose end is towards the aft or forward.

In all cases we are looking from outside the ship towards the centreline. In all cases too, using the above, there are FOUR possibilities and these are shown below, using your (Dean62's) diagram (which I have edited for the four cases:

View attachment 229366

In the example shown in Dean62, your shroud rope is LEFT HAND laid, with the loose end coming up on the LEFT SIDE. This in the above is CASE 1 and is therefore inconsistent with R.C. Anderson's book and description. It is also inconsistent with the real Vasa ship as examination of the photo for the shroud rigging in Post #187 shows it is RIGHT HAND laid shroud rope and the loose ends are to the LEFT SIDE (to the aft on the starboard side). This is CASE 3 and therefore is CORRECT (again, according to R.C. Anderson).

Now, I am not saying Anderson is right or wrong, nor am I saying Dean62 is right or wrong, but the Vasa is consistent with Anderson. As I am building a model of the Vasa, I will be consistent with the text and the ship. This however is where I again mention the inconsistency of Figs 85 and 86 and Fig 87 in Anderson (where this whole discussion started)!! Please refer back to post #184 where I highlight this inconsistency.

I guess none of this is earth-shattering (sic) and only a few who think about it will be aware of any issue, but it is an interesting discussion. I cannot believe how much I have thought about this!!

PeterG

Ok I understand now, you are not just looking at how the rope is wrapped around the deadeye, you are also determining how the rope is laid. These type of extreme observations tend to take the fun out of model ship building for me...lol. But it’s your ship, so it is obviously up to you to what degree you want it to be historically accurate. I suspect not many people other than you, and a few people on this site will know the difference.

 

[Daniel20]

Dean62, I apologise for this being confusing. From my understanding of the issue, there are two critical variables which determine if the shroud setup is 'right' or 'wrong'. I am using Anderson's book to determine this. The two items are:

1. Is the shroud rope left handed (cable laid, or right hand laid (hawser laid), and
2. Is the 'loose' end of the shroud on the left or right side of the descending shroud (from the tops). Note that THIS item determines if the loose end is towards the aft or forward.

In all cases we are looking from outside the ship towards the centreline. In all cases too, using the above, there are FOUR possibilities and these are shown below, using your (Dean62's) diagram (which I have edited for the four cases:

View attachment 229366

In the example shown in Dean62, your shroud rope is LEFT HAND laid, with the loose end coming up on the LEFT SIDE. This in the above is CASE 1 and is therefore inconsistent with R.C. Anderson's book and description. It is also inconsistent with the real Vasa ship as examination of the photo for the shroud rigging in Post #187 shows it is RIGHT HAND laid shroud rope and the loose ends are to the LEFT SIDE (to the aft on the starboard side). This is CASE 3 and therefore is CORRECT (again, according to R.C. Anderson).

Now, I am not saying Anderson is right or wrong, nor am I saying Dean62 is right or wrong, but the Vasa is consistent with Anderson. As I am building a model of the Vasa, I will be consistent with the text and the ship. This however is where I again mention the inconsistency of Figs 85 and 86 and Fig 87 in Anderson (where this whole discussion started)!! Please refer back to post #184 where I highlight this inconsistency.

I guess none of this is earth-shattering (sic) and only a few who think about it will be aware of any issue, but it is an interesting discussion. I cannot believe how much I have thought about this!!

PeterG

Hi Peter.
What a fascinating discussion! I love the detail and have to wonder why left laid and right laid are treated differently in terms of dead end(loose end) and live end(load bearing). The same forces are applied to the rope weather left or right laid. For me I have to keep it simple to remember, "live end to the left" regardless of twist and always from outside the ship looking in.
Daniel

 

[PeterG]

Dean62, thank you for your reply. You are absolutely correct when you say ‘I suspect not many people other than you, and a few people on this site will know the difference.’
I have probably delved too deeply into the ‘shroud’ issue, but the discussion and the history I find interesting.

Paul, your comments are valid too as to the lay direction of the ropes, but then in your reference and citing of the Pinance, one comment made was from a rope maker who said that the difference relates to the strength of the ropes. Some rope lays are stronger than others when correctly secured. I would think the ship makers and riggers would have known this, even in the days and time of the Vasa.

PeterG

 

[Jimsky]

It is a great discussion, Peter! Thank you for the history lesson.

 

[Dean62]

Dean62, thank you for your reply. You are absolutely correct when you say ‘I suspect not many people other than you, and a few people on this site will know the difference.’
I have probably delved too deeply into the ‘shroud’ issue, but the discussion and the history I find interesting.

Paul, your comments are valid too as to the lay direction of the ropes, but then in your reference and citing of the Pinance, one comment made was from a rope maker who said that the difference relates to the strength of the ropes. Some rope lays are stronger than others when correctly secured. I would think the ship makers and riggers would have known this, even in the days and time of the Vasa.

PeterG

Peter,
You are correct in saying the how’s and why’s can be interesting. That can be true with cannon rigging as well, and many other areas of a ship. And that’s part of the fun for some people. But rigging for me is sometimes intimidating and frustrating...lol. It’s not the part of a ship build I like. But with more knowledge and expertise, I can see it becoming less intimidating and perhaps more enjoyable. So maybe I should take another point of view?

 

[PeterG]

Planning ahead with top mast and foremast shrouds, I want to have the stays for each in place so the shrouds do not pull the upper mast sections out of alignment (to the aft). On looking at the plans from BB, the foremast stay is straight forward with a mouse and loop setup around the heel of the top mast, and either side of the loop passing through the top. This is the same as the lower mast sections for both the fore and main masts.

The foremast stay goes to a block arrangement attached to the bowsprit and is easy to set up.

The main mast stay however presents a problem. Below a picture from the BB plans.



In the above you can see the stay going into the top, but where to then? Is it secured there or through a sheave, but where to?

I then turned to the Vasamuseet plans and these are below:


Here the stay goes just above the top and then into what appears to be a block, but then it is not clear if it travels down the mast, but belayed how?

Turning to R.C. Anderson, his description is ‘the main top mast stay was through a block lashed to the foremast head just above the top or to a collar of the fore stay then down abaft the mast. There was a fiddle block at its end and a single block hooked to an eye bolt in the deck with a 4-part tackle’.

I think this is how I shall rig it.

PeterG

 

[mgovey]

Planning ahead with top mast and foremast shrouds, I want to have the stays for each in place so the shrouds do not pull the upper mast sections out of alignment (to the aft). On looking at the plans from BB, the foremast stay is straight forward with a mouse and loop setup around the heel of the top mast, and either side of the loop passing through the top. This is the same as the lower mast sections for both the fore and main masts.

The foremast stay goes to a block arrangement attached to the bowsprit and is easy to set up.

The main mast stay however presents a problem. Below a picture from the BB plans.

View attachment 229478

In the above you can see the stay going into the top, but where to then? Is it secured there or through a sheave, but where to?

I then turned to the Vasamuseet plans and these are below:

View attachment 229479
Here the stay goes just above the top and then into what appears to be a block, but then it is not clear if it travels down the mast, but belayed how?

Turning to R.C. Anderson, his description is ‘the main top mast stay was through a block lashed to the foremast head just above the top or to a collar of the fore stay then down abaft the mast. There was a fiddle block at its end and a single block hooked to an eye bolt in the deck with a 4-part tackle’.

I think this is how I shall rig it.

PeterG

The other instructions that may help are from Artesanía for their wasa but have not looked to see if instructions are correct at this point but may give an idea. They seem to show the most information for rigging but again have not fact checked myself yet as I have many other issues ahead before reaching this stage.

 

[PeterG]

Many thanks mgovey. I have a copy of the Artesania Vasa plans so I will have a look. It may also be worth seeing if I can see some detail in the images of Clayton’s build or the Vasa museum’s 1/10th model.

I would also be interested in reviewing the Corel rigging plans (as I believe these are quite detailed) but these I do not have.

PeterG

 

[PeterG]

Mgovey, I have reviewed the Artesania Latina instructions (they do not seem to have plans available, at least on the internet), only very clean images of most aspects of the build. In their illustrations (see below), they appear to use a small mouse and loop around the top of the fore mast (and at its main mast end), just above the top. While this may be a simple solution in a model, on an actual ship it would probably not be practical as it leaves no possibility of adjustment or tightening.



Clayton's model (although earlier in its building), appears to show the topmast stay coming forward and although not clear at the top, it then appears to travel down to the deck and to a 4 rope fiddle block as Anderson describes (see below from the Clayton model photos). Unfortunately of course the real ship in the museum does not extend its masts above the lower sections, so no topmast stays are present for us as a guide.



You can see in the Clayton photo that on the port, abaft the foremast is a fiddle block with a four tackle arrangement going (presumably) to a fixed point (eye bolt) in the deck.

When it comes to the topgallant stay for the main mast, I did note a reference in the warshipvasa.freeforums.net (under 'Another Rigging Question'), where the question was asked 'would the main topgallant stay terminate at the deck or the fore lower top?' The reply from Fred Hocker was 'Probably in the top'. As there are no surviving upper rigging indications from the Vasa excavation, it is hard to know for certain, but I will take Fred's comment as the way to go.

PeterG