SS Xantho, Western Australia's First Steamship - Scratchbuild - 1:100

[Bandsaw Steve]

A Trip to Albany

 

Albany is a small city of about 30,000 inhabitants built around the largest port in the South-Western corner of Australia. Albany is the kind of place where there is an ever-present sense of the influence of both history and the sea and it's just the kind of spot where one might expect to find a chap like Ross Shardlow - Marine artist and historian.

 

Here's the sort of illustration that Ross knocks up when he's not researching convict ships or discussing what the correct length of the Endeavour replica's mizzen mast should be. This particular illustration is his artist's impression of the SS Georgette - Western Australia's second steamship and one with a history just as interesting as Xantho's.

 

 

Anyhow, during a recent family holiday to Albany I hunted Ross down and spent a day with him in his extensive personal studio / library reviewing and discussing all of the evidence gathered to date regarding the SS Xantho. It was a great day made all the better by the catering; pea and ham soup and cheesy scones provided by Ross's charming wife Barbara. Thanks Barbara the hospitality was much appreciated.

 

Now this was a most productive day and I won't bore you with everything that was discussed but will go over the main findings, starting with the biggest items & moving to smaller details The notes below are a rough amalgam of the thoughts I took away from our meeting. 

 

Firstly, Ross has convinced me that Xantho had a quarterdeck. He cites the handwritten note 'break' in the registration papers as evidence (I wasn't sure that the handwritten scrawl said that but he is and he's been looking at these things a lot longer than me).  He also points out that quarterdecks were very common in the day. In addition I have subsequently noted that the written specifications outline the height of both bulwarks and stanchions. So there must have been both. Stanchions are really only needed where the deck is at the same level as the edge of the ship, whereas bulwarks are typically needed when the deck is below the edge, so there most likely was a step in the deck somewhere. We are guessing just ahead of the front of the boiler. Ross agrees with my interpretation that a forepeak is likely.

 

Secondly, he had no significant issue with the interpreted hull form, including the flat bottom and slab sides. He agrees with @Dave Swindell with regard to block coefficients (and was impressed with your analysis Dave). Ross did point out however that there was little restriction on the position of the mizzen mast because, although sailing ships almost always stepped the mast into the keel, the introduction of centerline  screw propulsion had rendered that impractical.  Typically, by this point in ship evolution, the shaft passed through a sort of 'tunnel' at the bottom of the ship, running directly between the engine and the propeller. Mizzen masts were keyed onto the topside of the tunnel rather than the keel. This allows us a fair degree of latitude WRT the position of the mizzen. He had numerous structural diagrams to support his case. 

 

Thirdly - he points out that at this time superstructure layout was essentially 'anything goes'. The only standard was no standard at all. Different manufacturers and owners it seems had different ideas about what superstructure should go where. Steamship design had not yet settled down fully into recognized sub-types and varied from layouts with little more than a funnel to distinguish them from a sailing ship to quite extensive structures (say for example as shown on Georgette above).   As a general rule more modern ships had larger superstructures - but the layout varied widely.

 

The presence of two azimuth compasses might imply two steering positions. One used during steaming, such as when entering harbors and probably forward of the funnel for good visibility (as suggested by @Corsairfoxfouruncle above) and one at the rear of the ship and used either during periods of pure sailing on open ocean,  or  possibly reserved for emergency use.

 

At a stretch the ‘tripod compass’ might be pole compass. Pole compasses were compasses mounted on a long vertical brass pole generally mounted somewhere near the centre of the ship. These were used  on early iron hulled ships in an effort to try to hold the compass as far clear of the ships own magnetic influence as possible. As a seagoing ship Xantho may have had one and as it would have stuck up above the water after the sinking it would have been the first thing recovered.

 

A cooking apparatus is mentioned. A ship capable of carrying up to 24 people (say 16 passengers and 8 crew) would need some sort of substantial cooking facility and may  even have employed a cook.  The fact that 'cooking apparatus' was salvaged might indicate that it was mounted on the main deck (where it could be recovered easily) rather than below decks. This implies a small above-deck galley, probably in it's own little cabin.

 

Ross pointed out the presence of a gun in the auction list. I figured it was just a small-arm, a shotgun or rifle for instance, but Ross reckons that small cannons for signaling, saluting and even ship-defense were in common use at that period, and that I should put a small cannon somewhere on or near the fore-peak. 'It might make a nice detail' he added. OK by me...

 

We noted that there was a winch salvaged - despite the fact that one remained on the seabed. This probably indicates that there was a small winch on the mizzen for handling cargo over the rear of the ship and possibly implies a small hold to the rear.  Ross agreed that the main hold was unlikely to have a single opening but would have most likely have had two hatches - and this matches the testimony of the first mate.

 

That's enough for now - next up we might discuss the much more thorny issue of the ship's boats - or boat? 🤔

 

Bandsaw Steve

 

 

[ArnoldAmbrose]

Gidday Steve, was that the SS Georgette that was sent out after the Catalpa? Regards, Jeff.

[Ray S]

Hello Mr Bandsaw, the 'Georgette' looks a fabulous ship from that painting.

 

All the best,

 

Ray

[Bandsaw Steve]

9 hours ago, ArnoldAmbrose said:

Gidday Steve, was that the SS Georgette that was sent out after the Catalpa? Regards, Jeff.

Yes that’s the one. A truely unique moment in history. 

 

6 hours ago, Ray S said:

Hello Mr Bandsaw, the 'Georgette' looks a fabulous ship from that painting.

 

Yep, I think so too.

 

She’s not pretty like Xantho, but is practical and purposeful looking. Ross says he thinks she’s ’horrendous looking’ which seems harsh judgment.

 

Interestingly he’s currently working on drafting a set of general arrangement drawings for Georgette. Drawings that could perhaps, one day, be used for building a model...🤔

[Ray S]

7 hours ago, Bandsaw Steve said:

Yes that’s the one. A truely unique moment in history. 

 

Yep, I think so too.

 

She’s not pretty like Xantho, but is practical and purposeful looking. Ross says he thinks she’s ’horrendous looking’ which seems harsh judgment.

 

Interestingly he’s currently working on drafting a set of general arrangement drawings for Georgette. Drawings that could perhaps, one day, be used for building a model...🤔

 

Is that a hint, Mr Bandsaw?

 

All the best,

 

Ray

 

[stevehnz]

Really enjoying this Steve, bloody frightfully interesting too, your Mr Shardlow sure does a beaut ship painting ( I did some googling being a nosey git.  )  I rather like the sleuthing that is going into this. Keep up the good work.

Steve.

[Bandsaw Steve]

1 hour ago, Ray S said:

 

Is that a hint, Mr Bandsaw?

 

 

Yes - it’s a hint.

But it’s not a promise. 👍

[ArnoldAmbrose]

Gidday Bandsaw, well, at least a hint is a start. 🙂 Regards, Jeff.

[Dave Swindell]

On 18/08/2020 at 14:07, Bandsaw Steve said:

A Trip to Albany

Hi Steve, sounds like you had an interesting and productive trip south. I've been past Albany quite a few times when rounding Cape Leeuwin to and from Fremantle. Always enjoyed a run ashore in Freo, Rosie O'Grady's and Sail & Anchor were a couple of favourite haunts. 

Ross sounds very knowlegable and looks like he's a dab hand with the paintbrush.

A few comments on points he's raised and you're discussing 

"Break" , a term used to indicate a discontinuation. In reference to the deck this would be particularly relevant in reference to the maindeck which is usually a term referencing the uppermost  continuous deck (ie running from stem to stern) With Xantho it's likely that there wasn't a continuous deck, and the annotation "break" would reinforce this, but the break may be no more than a few inches step up (just enough to trip over!) or it could be half deck height or even a full deck step up. If there is one, the likely position I'd agree would be the bulkhead between hold and boiler-room. There is also the possibility of a second break at the forward end of the hold, creating a forecastle of a similar hieght to the quarterdeck. If there were two breaks of reasonable height, then bulwarks between the breaks either side of the hold would be logical, they'd most likely include freeing ports as well. Georgette clearly shows this arrangement with full height decks forward and aft of the hold, with bulwarks along the sides of the hold and stanchions on focsle and upper deck.  

From the modelling point of view a forepeak is irrelevant, this is a space inside the hull from the stem to the collision bulkhead, commonly void or used for ballast, sometimes for storage. Chainlockers are often cut into the forepeak. It wouldn't have any influence on the external shape of the ship, it's only an internal division. In reference to Xantho we're assuming some form of crew accommodation forward of the hold, presence of a forepeak would possibly mean this didn't extend all the way to the stem, but it could also refer to the space below the accomodation space deck.

 

Ross's reference to stepping a mast on top of a shaft tunnel (horrible spaces, worked in quite a few, only slightly better than duct keels, they were particularly unpleasant) is sound, but one I'd discounted for Xantho for a few reasons. When Xantho was built screw steam power was relatively new, and she'd have had a lignum vitae lined sterntube and a packed stern gland which would have required regular maintenance. This would require reasonable access, which would have put the top of the shaft tunnel fairly high up in the hull  with little space above, I doubt very much there was a hold above this, but there may have been a small cabin (or even the galley)  aft of the engine room recessed below the main deck level. This is more likely if the break is only a small one, rising only enough to clear the top of the boiler and extending back over the engine room giving enough head  height for a small accommodation space above the shaft. However, if the top of the shaft tunnel was used to step the mast I'd have expected a subtantial  frame arrangement to support this and the drawing of the wreck doesn't appear to show any evidence of this. 

Whilst Xantho was built in the early days of screw propulsion, it was at the zenith of the days of sail, and whilst there may have been some compromises in the rig for practicality I'd expect a reasonably balanced rig to have been fitted, steam not yet being the predominantly main form of propulsion. Xantho would have had limited bunkers, and the engine fitted was not the most efficient, so longer passages would almost certainly have been undertaken at least in part under sail.  The illustrations all seem to show variations on either a Brigantine or gaff topsail schooner rig with a significant gap in the sailplan in the region of the bolier room/funnel, understandable to allow raising steam or shutting down whilst under sail. This means to maintain a balanced sail plan a reasonably large sail area is required on the aft mast. To achieve that with the mast stepped on the shaft tunnel, the boom and gaff are going to extend a substantial distance over the stern, more like a yawl, which would make controlling these sails more difficult. To get the required sail area, keep the spars within the ships length and allow easy control of the sails the mast needs to be further forward.  It wouldn't go over the engine , given the depth of hull, space required for maintenance, operation and ventilation there's not enough height for a supporting deck. Space is required behind the boiler for maintenance and operation, leaving the only logical position for it to be (in  my 'umble opinion)  stepped on the keel immediately in front of the engine. The mast positioning on Georgette looks very similar, I'd put her aft mast keel stepped in front of the engine but with space forward to the boilerfronts as well.

 

Your theory on the tripod compass isn't such a stretch, the Olympic class liners had their main magnetic compass mounted on an elevated platform between the 2nd & 3rd funnels 60 odd years later, and precisely for the reasons you quote.

 

As I've already said, I think a hold aft of the engine room unlikely, the space available isn't really big enough to be useful, more likely accommodation/galley (pity the cooking apparatus was recovered at the time, a galley stove in the wreckage would have given a good indication of it's location in the ship). The large midships hold with hatches fore and aft would have required booms (either dedicated cargo booms or dual purpose sail/cargo booms) and these would have needed two or more winches to operate, typically 3, one to hoist the load, one to luff (lift) the boom or derrick) and one to slew (swing) the boom/derrick. Slewing could be achieved by block and tackle, but hoisting and luffing any substantial load would really require winches. One winch is clearly shown on the wreck drawing in the vicinity of the main mast, given the above I'd have expected at least one more in this general area..

 

I'd definitely agree with Ross on the superstructure, that would be particularly hard to pin down unless more evidence surfaces, but it also means you're unlikely to be proved wrong!

 

Enough rambling, time to cook some dinner.

 

 

[Bandsaw Steve]

Hello @Dave Swindell

 

Again thanks very much for posting. I have just read your notes above and greatly appreciate your input. I’m just going to work so cannot discuss in detail right now but will aim to respond fully tonight.

 

The Sail and Anchor in Fremantle is still going strong. A great pub! I’m not sure if Rosie O’Gradies is still there though, there’s been a lot of redevelopment in that area recently. I’ll have a look next time I’m in Freo.

 

Steve

 

 

[Celestialsphere]

Steve,

I wonder if the wreck survey done by the museum could tell you if any galley related items were recovered. And if there were any, where they were located in the wreck.

Cheers Andrew 

[Bandsaw Steve]

Hello, 

 

@Celestialsphere 

I wonder if the wreck survey done by the museum could tell you if any galley related items were recovered. 

 

The museum will be getting another visit from me quite soon to see if I can dredge up some more information / documentation / illustrations regarding the wreck and the archeology that was conducted on it. I'm sure that there must be alot more information available from this source than I have currently had access to. TBH I have held off going back to ask for more until I have some substantial work behind me to demonstrate that I'm serious about this and this model really is going to get built.  There is also the W.A. Maritime Archeology Society that I believe has members who have dived on the wreck and were possibly even involved in the survey and recovery work - so I would be very interested in their opinions.

 

BTW - it's great to hear from someone who actually worked on this project.  I was looking and McCarthy's book on this subject again a few days ago and noted that the list of acknowledgements ran to about 500 people.  Xantho has certainly been a big part of many peoples’ lives here in W.A.

 

@Dave Swindell

 

Once again thanks very much for your expert and valued input.

 

With Xantho it's likely that there wasn't a continuous deck, and the annotation "break" would reinforce this, but the break may be no more than a few inches step up (just enough to trip over!) or it could be half deck height or even a full deck step up.

There is also the possibility of a second break at the forward end of the hold, creating a forecastle of a similar height to the quarterdeck. If there were two breaks of reasonable height,

 

That's exactly my current interpretation the builders specifications state that the 'Depth of Bulwarks' is 3.9 feet - so my current guess is that the main 'Break' was 3.9 feet high and the bulwarks extended along the lower amidships deck between the raised quarterdeck and the raised forecastle. This way, when viewed from the side. the ship would give the appearance of a single continuous sheer.   As you say, if this was the case the stanchions would need to only be on the quarterdeck and forecastle.

 

From the modelling point of view a forepeak is irrelevant, this is a space inside the hull from the stem to the collision bulkhead, commonly void or used for ballast, sometimes for storage.

 

OK. That's just my poor knowledge of nautical terminology showing through. When I said 'Forepeak' I probably mean't 'Raised Forecastle'. 🙂 I hope I've got the terminology right this time.

 

This means to maintain a balanced sail plan a reasonably large sail area is required on the aft mast. To achieve that with the mast stepped on the shaft tunnel, the boom and gaff are going to extend a substantial distance over the stern, more like a yawl, which would make controlling these sails more difficult. To get the required sail area, keep the spars within the ships length and allow easy control of the sails the mast needs to be further forward. 

 

Agreed!  I was considering this quite carefully a few days ago and figured that I had the rear mast too far to the rear. The reason being - as you state - that the sail area was going to be very small. So I have already revised (at least roughly) the rear mast's position to bring it much closer to the funnel , which is essentially as you suggest. Once I have been back to the museum and got the exact dimensions of the shaft and engine and so forth I will be able to position the mast more accurately. The theory behind this is very interesting and is backed up by my observations. I've been looking at a lot of images of steamships of this era and note that more often than not the distance between the funnel and the next rearward mast is very small.  That's what this model will show.

 

Your theory on the tripod compass isn't such a stretch,

 

Yes - I think that it's highly likely that Xantho had a pole compass, especially as she was an ocean-going ship. However whether  a pole compass would be advertised as a 'compass with tripod' I don't know.  That's what I'm going with though. 🤔

 

 

One winch is clearly shown on the wreck drawing in the vicinity of the main mast, given the above I'd have expected at least one more in this general area...

 

OK - Noted. The space on the quarterdeck for another hatch was getting tight anyway.

 

Best Regards,

Steve

 

 

 

 

 

[Dave Swindell]

13 hours ago, Bandsaw Steve said:

A great pub! I’m not sure if Rosie O’Gradies is still there though, there’s been a lot of redevelopment in that area recently. 

Looks like it's the Federal Hotel now. Still looks much the same though. 

[Bandsaw Steve]

3 minutes ago, Dave Swindell said:

Looks like it's the Federal Hotel now. Still looks much the same though. 

Yes - just googled it and I see you are right.

 

Its a disgrace though. As far as I’m concerned there’s only one Federal Hotel in W.A. and it’s in Kalgoorlie! 💋 

[Dave Swindell]

20 minutes ago, Bandsaw Steve said:

TBH I have held off going back to ask for more until I have some substantial work behind me to demonstrate that I'm serious about this and this model really is going to get built

I think everything you've put into this thread more than qualifies you in that department!

[Bandsaw Steve]

Plans and Boats

 

Something I forgot to mention in my previous post 'A Trip to Albany' is that Ross very kindly lent four books to me that are proving absolutely invaluable.  Here are they are...

 

Steam Coasters and Short Sea Traders, by Charles Waine - excellent general arrangement  drawings throughout and rich in technical detail.

British Steam Tugs by PN Thomas - again excellent technical drawings and lots of surprisingly pertinent material, especially since the earliest steam tugs were not highly specialized vessels and shared many features common to smaller coastal vessels of the era.

 

Ships from the Archives of Harland and Wolff by Tom McCluskie.  We all know that Xantho was not built by Harland and Wolff but this book contains numerous large and detailed construction / general arrangement drawings that give a great insight into the deck fittings of contemporary ships.

 

Perhaps best of all 'The Denny List' by the National Maritime Museum at Greenich. A directory of all ships built by Denny Brothers from  1844 (Loch Lomond) to 1886 (Aurora) & including Xantho - but alas with no plans. 

 

Here are just a few of the more relevant drawings from these books...

 

 

 

 

 

So, soon after getting back from Albany, and before @Dave Swindell recent posts I decided to get busy and start drafting my fourth attempt.

 

As there seems to be a reasonable consensus that the hull shape is close to right (although in fact it probably needs to be about 2 feet deeper in the draft as I have overlooked the thickness of the bilge when plotting 'depth molded')  This time my plan was to simply revisit my previous set of drawings, rub out bits that I don't like anymore, and draft in alterations with a red pen.

 

 

As you can see, I have added a substantial break in the deck just ahead of the boiler room, added a (perhaps too tall?) boiler house ahead of which sits the ship’s primary wheel and a pole compass (that looks a bit too tight for easy access ahead of the wheel?) I've added  a small galley immediately behind the funnel. This little galley looks a bit too high perhaps? but would have to be this tall to allow the cook to stand while working. interestingly the ship's original builder's specifications require 'Cooking apparatus to cook for 8 men' . (Note also that the registration papers specify 'Deck Houses' - plural so one housing over the boiler and a seperate galley seems reasonable). I've added a stern wheel and two covered access ways to below deck spaces, one for the ship's crew just behind the forecastle and one for passengers just ahead of the stern wheel.  At this point I was tossing up whether-or-not to squeeze in a small rear cargo hatch (it's included in these drawings) but if it was there, there would have been not much space left for the passengers and it would have meant that the stoker would have had to squeeze past it to get to work. At this point I have not moved the mizzen mast forward - but that needs to happen. I'm now convinced that it's currently in the wrong place, almost all of the drawings in the books above tie in with Dave's comments that the mast would be positioned to maximize sail area and hence must be as close as practical to the funnel. 

 

 

So the red pen is stuff that I'm generally pretty happy with. It's the blue pen - stuff to do with the ship's boats that I'm not sure about.

 

Boats... What to say?

 

On the one hand we now know that there was only one boat at the auction - a 13 foot Dingy - and "two boat's davits"  and "two boats covers". 

 

So a straightforward reading of that would indicate that this ship had just one 13 foot Dingy mounted on a single set of two davits with one boat's cover deployed and one cover held as a spare.  If so - all we need to do is make our best guess as to where the Davits were mounted and all is good. 

 

 

On the other hand...

 

Xantho was a vessel capable of long oceanic voyages - she had already completed a half circumnavigation of the globe - and regularly carried up to 16 passengers. She was therefore capable of carrying up to 24 people. This was a period when shipwrecks were quite commonplace and operating in a remote area like Western Australia there would be little chance of assistance in an emergency.  So it could be argued that she would have carried dedicated lifeboats since fitting 24 people in a 13 foot dingy does not seem like a very satisfactory survival strategy. 

 

Ross Shardlow is adamant in his view that she would have carried 'at least' two lifeboats...  When I asked him where they were at the auction - he (quite reasonably) just stated that he did not know but it was irrelevant as this ship would have required them.  Perhaps - as highly desirable items - they were sold prior to auction. Note also that the term "two boat's davits" (note the apostrophe)  could - perhaps - mean 'davits for two boats' rather than two individual davits. So It is possible that Xantho actually had two sets of davits each associated with a lifeboat and a 13 foot dingy for everyday work that was manhandled as required.

 

But then again... after a fair bit of thought here's what I reckon... (note this interpretation is not reflected in the drawings above)

Perhaps since the working dingy would have been handled often and the ship only had a crew of 8 or 9 then wouldn't it make sense for the davits to be used to handle the dingy?  I can understand one lifeboat 'going missing' or being sold prior to the auction - perhaps even sold to the fishermen at Port Gregory? but two being sold in advance seems like 'special pleading'.  One lifeboat does not seem like a good number to carry in such circumstances but as events have shown, Charles Broadhurst was not flush with cash and he was certainly happy to take a calculated risk when needed. Most of Xantho's operations within Western Australia would have been conducted within sight of land, so two lifeboats might have seemed a bit excessive to Charles. Peoples' and governments' attitudes to risk in those days were very different to those of today - it is interesting to note that at no point do the registration papers make any notes regarding safety equipment.

So, I am currently undecided, but at this point I'm thinking of positioning a single lifeboat - centrally mounted on a 'stand' (if that's the correct term) just behind the mizzen mast and positioning a single set of davits on one side of the boiler house with a 13 foot dingy hanging off them.  I'm interested in any thoughts anyone may have on that interpretation.  

 

 

 

Here's draft 4 of the thing (yet to have the boats sorted out) reduced to 1/144 scale. It shows the ship being buzzed by an incomplete 1/144 scale RAAF F/A18 B (Twin seater) Hornet.  Xantho may have been somewhere near Pearce Air Force base at the moment illustrated! 😜

 

Bandsaw Steve

 

 

[Iceman 29]

Good job! 

 

If you photograph your drawing vertically or scan it, I can make a quick 3D sketch for you. 😜

[hendie]

5 hours ago, Bandsaw Steve said:

This little galley looks a bit too high perhaps? but would have to be this tall to allow the cook to stand while working.

 

It's probably not particularly relevant but I was in the "cookhouse" of the Susan Constant (100+ years earlier).  I could barely stand inside the galley - I had to crouch over quite a bit and could hardly turn around in there.  And that was meant to cook for 70+ people

Just to the left of the table was the cooks bunk. I'd doubt if the entire floor area was greater than 7 or 8 feet by about 5 with maybe 5 and a half foot high, maybe less?

 

 

I know it was about 5 deep as there was no way I could fit in the bunk

 

Maybe technology moved on the the hundred years since

 

 

[Courageous]

Nice investigation work so far Steve. Can't fault you on your thought process on the boat numbers, all I can say is, go with gut. Shaping up nicely.

 

Stuart

[Bandsaw Steve]

6 hours ago, Iceman 29 said:

Good job! 

 

If you photograph your drawing vertically or scan it, I can make a quick 3D sketch for you. 😜

Thanks for this great offer! PM sent! 😀

[Bandsaw Steve]

8 hours ago, hendie said:

 

It's probably not particularly relevant but I was in the "cookhouse" of the Susan Constant (100+ years earlier).  I could barely stand inside the galley - I had to crouch over quite a bit and could hardly turn around in there.  And that was meant to cook for 70+ people

Just to the left of the table was the cooks bunk. I'd doubt if the entire floor area was greater than 7 or 8 feet by about 5 with maybe 5 and a half foot high, maybe less?

 

 

I know it was about 5 deep as there was no way I could fit in the bunk

 

Maybe technology moved on the the hundred years since

 

 

Yes it is relevant. Time and time again while working on these plans my land-lubber brain keeps thinking ‘there’s not enough room for that thing to go there’ or ‘nahhh... that space looks too cramped for a person to work in’ etc etc. This is a great reminder of just how compact living and working spaces on these ships really were. On a merchant ship I suppose every cubic yard not carrying goods was lost profit. On a warship every cubic yard not carrying weapons or stores or fighting personnel was lost military capability.

[Dave Swindell]

Ross looks to have an excellent library and looks like he's lent you some valuable research material there. I have most of the Waine Research Publications books, they're excellent.

On 31/08/2020 at 13:56, Bandsaw Steve said:

Ships from the Archives of Harland and Wolff by Tom McCluskie. 

Quick question on this one, I have his book Harland & Wolff Designs form the shipbuilding empire which covers yard nos 1-150, is this a continuation volume do you think?

 

Your modified drawings look very plausible, except I'm not convinced with the small rear cargo hatch - this is directly over the engine, I feel on a vessel of size the engineroom would be full height up to the deck, and if there's anything in this position it would be a skylight.

 

Another point ref @hendie's comments about lack of headroom, we're talking 170 years ago and an average man's height was not what it is today.  One thing that struck me (literally!) a good few years ago when I went round the Japanese icebreaker Soya at the Tokyo maritime museum was the lack of deck height.  Nearly a century later, but even then average height was much less than it is today. Creature comforts for the crew (and passengers) and their expectations of the same would be very different from today's standards.

 

[John_W]

Regarding headroom, the Royal Navy toasts the Queen sitting down because of historical lack of headroom.

[Bandsaw Steve]

5 hours ago, Dave Swindell said:

 

Quick question on this one, I have his book Harland & Wolff Designs form the shipbuilding empire which covers yard nos 1-150, is this a continuation volume do you think?

 

Your modified drawings look very plausible, except I'm not convinced with the small rear cargo hatch 

 

 

Hi Dave,

 

This Harland and Wolff book contains builders GA drawIngs from 31 different H&W ships from yard No 5 (Jane Porter) to yard no 148 (Lord Downshire). It seems to be just a collation of Their most interesting projects. I’m not sure why it stops at number 148 (1882) but there’s no suggestion of this as ‘volume 1’ or any other indication that it’s part of a series.

 

Agree that the rear cargo hatch is looking unlikely, will discuss further in the next post.

[Dave Swindell]

7 hours ago, Bandsaw Steve said:

31 different H&W ships from yard No 5 (Jane Porter) to yard no 148 (Lord Downshire)

Well that's a pity, I was hoping it was a follow on with more drawings, but it looks like its the same content as the one I have but with a different title and cover.