# When did two masts become law?



## Peter4447 (Jan 26, 2006)

A strange question perhaps but I seem to remember that not all steam and motor ships that were built with two masts. I also seem to remember that around 1952 it became compulsary for all ships to be fitted with two masts so that both masthead lights would be visible at night. 
Can any member please confirm that this was the case and also the year when the legislation was introduced that mainmasts had to be fitted to all vessels.
Many thanks
Peter4447


----------



## fred henderson (Jun 13, 2005)

The requirement is that all ships must have two masthead lights, but there is no requirement for two masts. Many passenger ships use the funnel and a small mast over the bridge to carry the lights. Orient Line's Orsova (1954) was famous for not having any masts.

Fred (Thumb)


----------



## awateah2 (Feb 12, 2005)

I thought it was only mandatory for vessel over 150 ft in length as per the Regulations for prevention of collisions at sea Rule 2 as was ?????


----------



## Klaatu83 (Jan 22, 2009)

The international rules that stipulate that all steam and motor vessels over 150 feet in length display a masthead and range light date actually back to the 19th Century. There is no requirement about the number of masts, that depends on the number of cargo holds and the amount of cargo gear. The Liberty and Victory Ships built during World War II all had three masts.


----------



## Billieboy (May 18, 2009)

I think that the rule dates to Plimsole and the load line act that would be about 1840-50


----------



## Peter4447 (Jan 26, 2006)

Thanks for your replies Gents.
It is possible that I was given false information as my question was based on the old Trinity House vessel 'Patricia' that is now a floating restaurant in Sweden. I was told that she had originally been built with 2 masts but that the mainmast had been removed during the course of the 1939-45 War. This was replaced in (I think) 1952 and I was told that this was to comply with new navigation legislation which, clearly, was not the case and the new mainmast was only replacing what had been there originally!
Thanks again
Peter(Thumb)


----------



## K urgess (Aug 14, 2006)

As far as I can make out the "Regulations for preventing Collisions at Sea" were changed in 1952.


> (a) A power driven vessel when under way shall carry :-
> (i) On or in front of the foremast, or if a vessel without a foremast then in the forepart of the vessel, a white light so constructed as to show an unbroken light over an arc........at least 5 miles
> (ii) Either forward of or abaft the white light prescribed in sub-section (i) a second white light similar in construction and character to that light. Vessels of less than 150 feet in length shall not be required to carry this second light but may do so.
> (iii) These two white lights shall be so placed in a line with and over the keel that one shall be at least 15 feet higher than the other and in such a position that the forward light shall always be shown lower than the after one. *The horizontal distance between the two white lights shall be at least three times the vertical distance*. The lower of these two white lights or, if only one is carried, then that light, shall be placed at a height above the hull of not less than 20 feet, and, if the breadth of the vessel exceed 20 feet, then at a height above the hull not less than such breadth, so however that the light need not be placed at a greater height above the hull than 40 feet. In all cir***stances the light or lights, as the case may be, shall be so placed as to be clear of and above all other lights and obstructing superstructure.


It may have been necessary to fit a second mast in 1952 to comply with part (iii), Peter.
Cheers
Kris


----------



## sidsal (Nov 13, 2007)

During ww2 the topmast of the main mast was often removed because an U-boat could make out if a ship altered course by the two masts opening or closing !


----------



## Jim S (Jan 21, 2006)

If you look at many wartime built ships it can be seen that there is a foremast and a signal mast above the bridge. I believe this was a requirement for wartime built tonnage.


----------



## Peter4447 (Jan 26, 2006)

Thanks for the additional information Kris. From this it rather looks like there was a grain of truth in what I was told as the dear old 'Pat' was the Trinity House 'flagship' and, as such, I imagine Trinity House would have ensured that she complied fully with all regulations.
Many thanks
Peter


----------



## Dave Edge (May 18, 2005)

Plenty of large ships had/have only one mast with the forward steaming light rigged from the forestay.


----------



## K urgess (Aug 14, 2006)

Dave Edge said:


> Plenty of large ships had/have only one mast with the forward steaming light rigged from the forestay.


Yes, as long as it was 40 feet or more above the hull and the aft light was 15 feet higher and more than 45 feet behind the forward one. (Thumb)


----------



## Nick Balls (Apr 5, 2008)

The positioning of Navigation lights on British Flagged vessels has always been a complete mystery to me!!!! On more than one occasion I have come across the problem of interpretation of the rules causing problems on New builds !!! Why this is so is quite beyond me!!! For many years Norwegian supply vessels avoided the expense and problems of a foremast , simply fitting the 'forward mast light' on the forward part of the monkey island. Apparently we could not do this over in the UK !!!! God knows why! You also frequently come across the situation where more recently built ships have the lights fitted in places where it is impossible or dangerous to access them. I blame the older surveyors who seem intent on keeping with tradition !!!! Should get them out to change a lamp once in a while !!!


----------



## charles henry (May 18, 2008)

I always thought the only reason for the masts on a motor driven vessel was to support the antenna........ oh well, live and learn.

de chas


----------



## Ron Stringer (Mar 15, 2005)

Nick Balls said:


> Apparently we could not do this over in the UK !!!!


Since Victorian times, the UK has *always *believed that it knows better than everyone else and is *always *resistant to anything NIH (not invented here). For some reason we could not manage with an AC supply unless one leg was referred to ground - a balanced, isolated supply wouldn't have worked here. Houses built of timber, or with timber frames supporting cladding of other material are not safe or to be trusted - most mortgage providers will not lend on them and many insurance companies will not entertain them. (This despite the fact that many Tudor houses have stood here for several hundred years). 

We don't build houses with basements because ''you can't keep the damp out''. We have only recently discovered the advantages of insulating houses against heat loss and houses are still built with only single glazing despite most of the country being on the same latitude as Hudson Bay. In other countries only 50kms away on the other side of the Channel, things are very different but after all, they are only occupied by foreigners, so what would they know about anything?


----------



## China hand (Sep 11, 2008)

Dave Edge said:


> Plenty of large ships had/have only one mast with the forward steaming light rigged from the forestay.


Yup, half of Blue Star; certainly the four Blood Boats on the BsAs run.


----------



## Cisco (Jan 29, 2007)

Dave Edge said:


> Plenty of large ships had/have only one mast with the forward steaming light rigged from the forestay.


So how did you stop it swinging in the breeze?

I recall the two wire guides set up under the steaming lights so you could send your oil lamps aloft in the correct alignment but I have never seen any hanging from a forestay.


----------



## Cisco (Jan 29, 2007)

Well I'll be... I've just looked at a few photos of Argentina Star. That is the strangest thing.... 
Still don't see how you could restrain the light sufficiently.. a wire span behaving the way wire spans do and all.
Certainly shows that two masts of any form were not a requirement.


----------



## Binnacle (Jul 22, 2005)

Cisco said:


> So how did you stop it swinging in the breeze?
> 
> I recall the two wire guides set up under the steaming lights so you could send your oil lamps aloft in the correct alignment but I have never seen any hanging from a forestay.


Often the for'd anchor light was attached to a halyard on the forestay. It was visible all round so swinging had no effect.


----------



## Cisco (Jan 29, 2007)

Binnacle said:


> Often the for'd anchor light was attached to a halyard on the forestay. It was visible all round so swinging had no effect.


Oh yes , seen and sailed with that often enough, restraining a steaming light within its sector is a bit different.


----------



## Dave Edge (May 18, 2005)

Some of the Lowland Tanker Company's ships had the forward light rigged on the forestay. It was long ago but from what I can recall there was a fitting clamped on the forestay with two guide wires down to the deck, the light having a fitting either side that ran up these wires as it was hoisted into position.


----------



## Cisco (Jan 29, 2007)

Dave Edge said:


> Some of the Lowland Tanker Company's ships had the forward light rigged on the forestay. It was long ago but from what I can recall there was a fitting clamped on the forestay with two guide wires down to the deck, the light having a fitting either side that ran up these wires as it was hoisted into position.


Golly ...amazing what drops out when you give the memory a good shake... I recall seeing an early Lowland tanker anchored at Bandar Shapur in 1967 with more standing rigging than Cutty Sark... she had a frd steaming light set up that way.. I remember thinking it was odd and assumed it was a temporary arrangement. 

Sounds as if the arrangement was similar to the guide wire setup I mentioned earlier for running an oil lamp up under a mast mounted steaming light.


----------



## joebuckham (Apr 1, 2005)

old ship photo website shows a number of border boats with this arrangement fusilier, laird, land, reiver, sentinel(captioned regiment), terrier


----------



## Spence B (Jun 18, 2009)

Sorry-made a mess of that -will try again 
The wording of the Collision Regulations prior to 1952 regarding masthead lights was:-
ART 2. A steam vessel when under way shall carry-
(a) On or in front of the foremast...........a bright white light..........
(b) (c) & (d) refer to sidelights
(e)A steam vessel when under way may carry an additional white light similar to the light in (a)

The additional light became mandatory only in the 1952 Regs hence the necessity of the additonal mast where the required spacing of the lights could not be achieved between the foremast and the forestay.
Hope this helps !!
Iain


----------



## JimC (Nov 8, 2007)

Actually the requirement to carry a second light was not always mandatory.

The Titanic had only one such light, Look what happened to her!

you missed out the bit about each of these white lights being seen abaft the beam 2 points on either side. That rule was in place many years before WW2.
Only vessels over 150 feet were required to carry a second white light but smaller vessel could carry 2 if they wished. The lower - forward light was to be not less than 20 feet above the hull - not the sea. These two light together were termed 'range lights' since they gave a good indication of how a vessel was heading when the coloured side-lights were out of range - perhaps below the observer's horizon.


----------



## China hand (Sep 11, 2008)

After the forestay went up, the steaming light was sent up on a "traveller"; pre-set stops and all that. Then the guys were set up taut and the whole set-up was pretty stable. ***bersome maybe, but not all that uncommon for single mast ships built around the 40's and 50's. Not only U.K. ships, I've seen it a few times on other vessels. First time I sailed with it I took an interest, 'cos I "knew" it could never work. Lord, but I was wise in those days......(?HUH)


----------

