Funnel rigging

I know a wire connected to the first funnel, but what supported that? Were 2 wires attached to the bridge? Did it go out like this? / \ And why was it needed? The first funnel was already supported by guy wires, why did it need a extra and the other funnels didn't?
It's hard to follow that description. Each funnel had 12 supporting 'shrouds' - there were no extra supports for the first funnel. Maybe you mean the signal stay, which ran forward and slightly upwards from the top of the first funnel to the foremast? This was used for flying signal flags.
Where are the shrouds? Yes, it was connected the to foremast and went over the bridge and connected to the 1st funnel. So the signal stay would have no other wires on bridge or something? Good to know. I would like to see the shrouds please.
Nothing was attached to the signal stay except the halyards for hoisting the signal flags. There were two of these and they ran down to the bridge. It was also possible to rig an extra halyard for hoisting an arc lamp above the well deck, if required when loading or unloading cargo in port. This wasn't a permanent fixture, but if fitted it ran from the signal stay down to the well deck.

On a ship, 'stays' run fore & aft; 'shrouds' are transverse. In the case of the funnel supports, they were all called shrouds though they ran in various directions. The equivalent term for both on land (for the supporting ropes of a tent, for instance) is 'guy'.
So this rigging plan is correct? View attachment 1151

Or is this correct? images (1).jpg

images (1).jpg
Your first attachment doesn't work. The other image is not very clear and has been cropped at the top so it's not much use at all. You can see the attachment points for the flag halyards on the signal stay (though not the halyards themselves), but what's going on at the fore end of the stay is impossible to define because of the image cropping.

This image on the TRMA site is much better, but not still not big enough for the labeling to be readable.

According to original plans, it seems although you are incorrect. Each signal halyard, according to the original plans, tied up at each bridge wing. It kinda went like / and a little in front of that was another wire like this \

According to original plans, at least.
No, No, I can't guarantee you were incorrect. I was just taking a look at the plans and guessing. It's just that you might a tad bit incorrect that the 2 signal halyards connected to the roof of the bridge, no offense. However, I may be wrong as I am still looking in to this.

Mark Baber

Moderator's hat on:

TitanicNerd, please think twice (or more) before declaring that someone else (especially someone like Bob Godfrey, who has has proven himself to be quite knowledgeable in his 11+ years here) is "incorrect" based on a "guess" on your part about a subject that you're "still looking in to." Something more than a "guess" is needed.
>>Blueprints is my proof. All blueprints. Blueprints, most of the time, equals truth.<<

Thanks for the laugh. I've been involved in new construction on ships as well as two complex overhauls involving aircraft carriers. Blueprints tell you what us SUPPOSED to be there or what was originally INTENDED to be there. They don't always accurately record what actually IS there.

Would you care to try again?


Before this turns into a show-me-your-degree fest, I think TitanicNerd is in the right here. He is asking questions and submitting statements with evidence (of one kind or another). He is doing so in good faith in order to learn what you gentlemen already know. He is perfectly correct to question authority when he asks for proof, especially when that authority appears to contradict other evidence he has seen. He is not as experienced or knowledgeable as some older forum members, and not having been here for the past 11 years, probably isn't as aware of Mr. Godfrey's level of expertise on the subject.

His statement was "According to original plans, it seems although you are incorrect.", which is a perfectly acceptable and respectful way of challenging someone else's read of the facts and asking them "Well buddy, what the #[email protected]!% do you think is going on?".

TitanicNerd, I think you should probably post your original source or a link to it lest you be accused of making things up. Specifically, which document numbers in which set of original plans are you looking at? A large size scan can help.