Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

'Nelson' British 1st rate, 126 Guns 1814 (With Plans)


Ned Loe

Recommended Posts

7P9pj3x.jpg

HMS Nelson was a 126-gun first rate ship of the line of the Royal Navy, launched on 4 July 1814 at Woolwich Dockyard, but then laid up incomplete at Portsmouth until 1854, when work began with a view to commissioning her for service in the Crimean War, but this ended before much work had been done, and the ship returned to reserve.

She was converted into a screw ship in 1860, being cut down to a two-decker and fitted with an engine of 2,102 indicated horsepower (1,567 kW) for a speed of 10.5 knots (19.4 km/h; 12.1 mph).

In 1865, Nelson was given to the colony of Victoria as a training ship, and she was finally outfitted and rigged for £42,000 and sailed for Australia in October 1867. Travelling via the Cape of Good Hope, she arrived in February 1868. She was the first ship to dock in the newly constructed Alfred Graving Dock. Her armament in 1874 was listed as two 7-in RML, twenty 64-lb guns, twenty 32-lb guns and six 12-lb howitzers.

During 1879-82, Nelson was further cut down to a single deck and her rig reduced to the main mast only, the ship being reclassified as a frigate. Her old armament was partly replaced by modern breech-loaders. She was laid up at Willamstown in 1891, her boilers being removed in 1893. On 28 April 1898 she was put up for auction and sold to Bernard Einerson of Sydney for £2,400.

In 1900. Nelson was cut down yet again to create a coal lighter that kept the name Nelson, the upper timbers being used to build a drogher named Oceanic.

In 1908 "Nelson" was sold to the Union Steamship Co. of New Zealand, and in July was towed from Sydney to Beauty Point on the Tamar River, Tasmania, for use as a coal storage hulk. She later foundered there with 1,400 tons of coal on board and remained submerged for forty days until finally refloated.

In January 1915 she was towed to Hobart for further service as a coal hulk, until sold in August 1920 to Mr. H Gray for £500 and towed an up river to Shag Bay for gradual breaking up, work continuing into the 1930s, although some of her timbers still survive.


Guns from HMS Nelson in gardens at Ballarat.
The ship's figurehead was preserved by the NSW Naval Brigade, then the Royal Australian Navy, before it was presented to the Australian National Maritime Museum for display.

Armament:    
126 guns:
Gundeck: 32 × 32 pdrs
Middle gundeck: 34 × 24 pdrs
Upper gundeck: 34 × 18 pdrs
Quarterdeck: 6 × 12 pdrs, 10 × 32 pdr carronades
Forecastle: 2 × 32 pdr carronades

dM19MkC.jpg

YXRdvVG.jpg

OoD78Bl.jpg

AophhfB.jpg

 

Edited by Ned Loe
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Makes you think, doesn't it?

Laid down in December 1809 says Wikipedia. My history isn't too good but 1809 was a rather perilous year for Britain, wasn't it? Were we winning in Spain by then? The war with America just over two years later was probably unthought of.

Launched 4 July 1814, after Napoleon's abdication.

It occurs to me how similar the timeline is for this ship to Trincomalee. Ordered in 1812, completed in 1817 and, like HMS Nelson, laid up in ordinary. Not so long though, as Trincomalee was re-commissioned in 1847. I can't help thinking it must have pained the mid-eighteenth century Royal Navy that the new boats they were given were 30- or 40-year old obsolete ships, even then of a bygone age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Remus said:

Makes you think, doesn't it?

Laid down in December 1809 says Wikipedia. My history isn't too good but 1809 was a rather perilous year for Britain, wasn't it? Were we winning in Spain by then? The war with America just over two years later was probably unthought of.

Launched 4 July 1814, after Napoleon's abdication.

It occurs to me how similar the timeline is for this ship to Trincomalee. Ordered in 1812, completed in 1817 and, like HMS Nelson, laid up in ordinary. Not so long though, as Trincomalee was re-commissioned in 1847. I can't help thinking it must have pained the mid-eighteenth century Royal Navy that the new boats they were given were 30- or 40-year old obsolete ships, even then of a bygone age.

Nelson was modified from the design of Caledonia as the 1st rate equivalent to the 74-gun Surveyor class (the infamous Forty Thieves). Like the 74s, they were bad sailors and also were some of the first ships to incorporate Seppings' diagonal bracing. Essentially they were a compromise design between the different Surveyors. They were the first 1st rates ordered in a decade and there was a large need to fill the gap in the battle line. They were only converted to steam battleships because they were cheaper than building new hulls. In the 1840s-50s, they were some of the most powerful ships in the world (the type I mean, not specifically the Nelsons). After these three ships, all future British three-deckers were based on near-copies of Caledonia instead.

 

Trincomalee was a frigate, far cheaper to comission. She had been stored after the war to preserve her, wearing out both the older and softwood ships in peacetime instead. Ultimately it was all a money-saving thing. When she comissioned in 1847, there was nothing obsolete about her for a sailing frigate.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Talos said:

Like the 74s, they were bad sailors and also were some of the first ships to incorporate Seppings' diagonal bracing.

Who said they were poor sailers, as opposed to being poorly built?

Gardiner argues that much of their reputation was undeserved, but I don't have that book anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, maturin said:

Who said they were poor sailers, as opposed to being poorly built?

Gardiner argues that much of their reputation was undeserved, but I don't have that book anymore.

True, I think I was just connecting it with the Nelson's poor sailing (they were very crank), since they were equivalent classes. Nelson had to get a "Very Large Repair" and her sides doubled to increase her beam after her one voyage in 1814. The greatest failing the Armadas had (besides the poor construction you mentioned) is that they were small 74s of the Common size in a time when ships were growing in size and rate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...