Last month, I finished the most angst-ridden part of my
project to date - cutting two seemingly miniscule 1.5 mm wide grooves along the
length of the keel and stem of my model. These v-shaped notches, known as rabbets,
provide a seat for the edges of the hull planking where they meet the
centreline timbers of the ship. On a plank and bulkhead model, it represents a critical
reference point around which the hull architecture is based.
My trepidation was rooted in the fact that the rabbet position
isn’t shown in Terror’s 1836 draughts [1] (the 1839 draughts [2] only show the
rabbet position for Erebus). Normally this wouldn’t be an issue, as Terror’s
1812 [3] profile plan clearly shows the position of the rabbet. However, the
1836 plans show that Terror’s bow, and in particular her upper deck and
bulwarks, were extended forward approximately 12.5 inches (why this was
necessary is still a mystery to me). This implied that her rabbet position must
have been moved forward as well, to accommodate a smooth run of planking along
the bow.
 |
The rabbet carved into the model’s keel. Like the merchant ships which were the basis for Terror’s
design, the 1812 draught shows the rabbet was taken out of the centre of the keel
(incidentally, this position probably contributed to her poor sailing qualities). |
I had originally assumed that Terror’s cant frames, hawse
pieces, and bollard timbers may have been modified to accommodate this
lengthening of the deck. This wasn’t an unwarranted assumption, because Terror’s
1836 profile plan shows that Terror’s upper stem piece was extensively
remodeled, suggesting a significant refit of the bow timbers.
However, after further consideration, I’ve come to the
conclusion that such extensive modifications were very unlikely. We know
that Terror’s original top-timbers and bulwarks were entirely levelled when she
was caught in a hurricane near Lisbon in 1828 [4]. This means that replacement
bulwark stanchions needed to be installed when the ship was repaired. The upper
deck may have been expanded at this time, but I suspect this occurred in the
1836 refit as the solid chock channels provided an opportunity (and platform)
to most effectively hide this shift forward. In either case, because her
bulwarks had been levelled, the modifications could have been made without
extensive reworking of the bow timbers.
Therefore, my solution is to leave the rabbet position
precisely as shown in Terror’s original 1812 draughts and to rely on modified
bulwark stanchions to account for the lengthened deck. This permits me to move
forward with the project with the least amount of conjecture, because the only
speculation I need to make is about the construction of the most forward
bulwark stanchions.
 |
| The port stem rabbet . |
 |
Another view of the rabbet - note how it "opens" slightly closer to the heel of
the stempost. |
 |
A dummy section of planking dry-fitted into the rabbet, showing how it interacts
with one of the station bulkheads. |
Settling on a final position of the rabbet allows me to
finally assemble the bulkheads and begin planking the model. This decision also
permitted me to finally draft a plan of Terror’s complete bow architecture.
 |
Profile of the Terror’s bow architecture, showing the manner the bow was
strengthened for polar exploration service. To accommodate the
lengthening of the deck, I added a conjectural 12 inch chock fayed to
the fore edge of the bollard timbers and cant frames, against which
the bulwark stanchions would have been bolted. |
 |
Plan of Terror’s lower deck, detailing the layers of planking and
metal sheathing added to the ship |
The plans expose the effort the Admiralty placed on
strengthening the ship’s bow at the waterline. More than 55 inches (4.5 feet) of
iron reinforced oak separated the stores on Terror’s orlop deck from the water.
Near the foremast step, that distance multiplied to nearly 12 linear feet.
James Clark Ross [5] tested these reinforcements in a most daring fashion during
his Antarctic Expedition. By January 5th, 1841, Ross had spotted what he
thought was open water south of the Ross Sea but found his way to it blocked by
a ring of thick pack ice. Confident in his ships, he sailed along the barrier
until he saw a “favourable point” and, under sail, rammed the Erebus and Terror
into it for an hour, eventually fracturing the ice and punching his way
through. He discovered the Ross Ice Shelf six days later.
Footnotes:
[1] National Maritime Museum Object ID: ZAZ5672,
ZAZ5663
[2] National Maritime Museum Object ID: ZAZ5673
[3] National Maritime Museum Object ID: ZAZ5615
[4] 1835. Narrative of the Wreck of H.M.S. Terror. United
Service Journal and Naval and Military Magazine 1. Pages 229-236.
[5] Ross, Sir James Clark. 1847a. A Voyage of Discovery and
Research in the Southern and Antarctic Regions, During the Years 1839-1843:
Volume I. John Murray, London. Page 176.
