Editing Cutty Sark (section)

==Museum ship==
[[File:Greenwich. - geograph.org.uk - 44193.jpg|thumb|Ship's stern before renovation in 1994. The original dock arrangement can also be seen.]]
In 1953 ''Cutty Sark'' was given to the Cutty Sark Preservation Society{{sfn|Carr|1964|p=6}} and in 1954 she was moved to a custom-built dry dock at Greenwich.<ref name="Radio4-2007-05-22">BBC Radio 4 News, 6 pm, 22 May 2007.</ref> She was stripped of upper masts, yards, deck-houses and ballast to lighten her before being towed from the East India Import Dock to the special dry dock at Greenwich. The skipper on this occasion was 83-year-old Captain C.E. Irving, who had sailed the world three times in her before he was 17. The river pilot was Ernest Coe. Thereafter the entrance tunnel to the dry dock was filled in, the river wall rebuilt and the work of re-rigging began. The foundation stone of the dry dock was laid by The Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the Cutty Sark Preservation Society, in June 1953. The restoration, re-rigging and preparation for public exhibition was estimated to cost £250,000.<ref name=Greenwich-Day-by-Day-December>{{cite web|url=http://www.greenwich-guide.org.uk/december.htm|title=Greenwich-Day-by-Day-December|first=David|last=Male|website=Greenwich Guide|access-date=13 December 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120216031545/http://www.greenwich-guide.org.uk/december.htm|archive-date=16 February 2012|url-status=dead}}</ref>
[[File:Cutty Sark (1987).jpg|thumb|left|''Cutty Sark'', 8 October 1987]]

[[File:Cutty sark October 2003.jpg|thumb|right|''Cutty Sark'' in Greenwich, October 2003]]
''Cutty Sark'' was preserved as a [[museum ship]], and has since become a popular [[tourist]] attraction, and part of the [[National Historic Fleet]]. She is located near the centre of [[Greenwich]], in south-east London, close to the [[National Maritime Museum]], the former [[Greenwich Hospital (London)|Greenwich Hospital]], and [[Greenwich Park]]. She is also a prominent landmark on the route of the [[London Marathon]] and marks the finish of [[The Big Half]]. She usually flies [[signal flag]]s from her [[Ensign (flag)|ensign]] [[halyard]] reading "JKWS", which is the code representing ''Cutty Sark'' in the [[International Code of Signals]], introduced in 1857.

[[File:Cutty Sark 1997frog1.jpg|thumb|''Cutty Sark'' in Greenwich, 1977]]
The ship is in the care of the Cutty Sark Trust, whose president, the then [[Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh|Duke of Edinburgh]], was instrumental in ensuring her preservation, when he set up the Cutty Sark Society in 1951. The Trust replaced the Society in 2000.<ref name="Radio4-2007-05-22"/> She is a [[Grade I listed building|Grade I listed monument]] and was on the [[Heritage at Risk Register|Buildings at Risk Register]] following the 2007 fire. The gallery beneath the ship holds the world's largest collection of ships' figureheads, donated to the Society by [[Sydney Cumbers]] in 1953.<ref name=figure>{{cite web|title=Figureheads|url=http://www.rmg.co.uk/cuttysark/history-and-collections/collections/figureheads|website=[[Royal Museums Greenwich]]|access-date=20 May 2012|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120704082353/http://www.rmg.co.uk/cuttysark/history-and-collections/collections/figureheads|archive-date=4 July 2012}}</ref>

[[Cutty Sark DLR station|Cutty Sark station]] on the [[Docklands Light Railway]] is one minute's walk away, with connections to central London and the [[London Underground]]. [[Greenwich Pier]] is next to the ship, and is served by scheduled river boats from [[pier]]s in central London. A tourist information office stands to the east of the ship.

==={{anchor|Fire}}<!-- [[Cutty Sark fire]] redirects here-->Conservation and fire===
[[File:Cutty Sark being restored.jpg|thumb|right|The ship one week before the fire. Most of the upper sections had already been dismantled for renovation.]]
[[File:Cutty Sark fire.jpg|thumb|right|''Cutty Sark'' on fire, in May 2007]]
By the early 2000s, there were serious concerns about corrosion of the iron internal structure, and the hull was also becoming distorted because more weight was being carried on the [[keel]] than if the ship was afloat, when it would be evenly supported over the whole area below the waterline. An extensive conservation project was planned to overcome this, including repair and anti-[[corrosion]] painting of the framework, the addition of steel ribs to add strength, and a new method of supporting the ship.

On the morning of 21 May 2007, ''Cutty Sark'', which had been closed and partly dismantled for conservation work, caught fire, and burned for several hours before the [[London Fire Brigade]] could bring the fire under control. Initial reports indicated that the damage was extensive, with most of the wooden structure in the centre having been lost.<ref name=BBC_News_Story1>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6675381.stm|title=Blaze ravages historic Cutty Sark|publisher=[[BBC News]]|date=21 May 2007}}</ref>

In an interview the next day, Richard Doughty, the chief executive of the Cutty Sark Trust, revealed that at least half of the "fabric" (timbers, etc.) of the ship had not been on site as it had been removed during the preservation work. Doughty stated that the trust was most worried about the state of iron framework to which the fabric was attached.<ref name=BBC_News_Story1/> He did not know how much more the ship would cost to restore, but estimated it at an additional £5–10 million, bringing the total cost of the ship's restoration to £30–35 million.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/22/nsark22.xml|title=Police launch Cutty Sark arson investigation|newspaper=[[The Daily Telegraph]]|location=London|date=22 May 2007|first1=Amy|last1=Iggulden|first2=Martin|last2=Beckford|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070526194452/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2007%2F05%2F22%2Fnsark22.xml|archive-date=26 May 2007|url-status=dead}}</ref>

In initial investigations, the possibility was covered that the fire might have been started deliberately.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6675381.stm|title=Blaze ravages historic Cutty Sark – A fire which swept through the famous 19th Century ship Cutty Sark may have been started deliberately, police say.|publisher=[[BBC News]]|date=21 May 2007|access-date=17 April 2019}}</ref> The fire was later found to have most likely been caused by an industrial vacuum cleaner which had been left running over the weekend,<ref>{{cite news|title=Cutty Sark deck damaged in blaze|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-29680243|publisher=BBC News|date=19 October 2014}}</ref> compounded by the absence of the overnight fire watchers.<ref name="vacuum">{{cite news|last=Davenport|first=Justin|date=30 September 2008|title=Vacuum cleaner caused £10m Cutty Sark fire as guard slept|work=Evening Standard|location=London|url=https://www.standard.co.uk/news/vacuum-cleaner-caused-10m-cutty-sark-fire-as-guard-slept-6872360.html}}</ref>

In a second incident on the morning of 19 October 2014, another fire broke out on the deck of the ''Cutty Sark''. A small part of deck three and the hull timbers were damaged in the blaze. The London Fire Brigade managed to contain the blaze within an hour and she was reopened to the public shortly after.<ref name=FireOnDeck/>

====Damage====
[[File:The Cutty Sark, burnt out - geograph.org.uk - 445455.jpg|thumb|right|The day after the fire, 22 May 2007]]
Aerial video footage showed extensive damage, but seemed to indicate that the ship had not been destroyed in her entirety by the 2007 fire. A fire officer present at the scene said in a BBC interview that when they arrived, there had been "a well-developed fire throughout the ship". The bow section looked to be relatively unscathed and the [[stern]] also appeared to have survived without major damage; the fire seemed to have been concentrated in the centre of the ship. The chairman of Cutty Sark Enterprises said after inspecting the site: "The decks are unsalvageable but around 50% of the planking had already been removed; however, the damage is not as bad as originally expected."{{citation needed|date=April 2010}}

As part of the restoration work planned before the fire, it was proposed that the ship be raised {{convert|3|m|sigfig=1}}, to allow the construction of a state-of-the-art museum space beneath. This would allow visitors to view her from below.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cuttysark.org.uk/index.cfm?fa=contentGeneric.cchjldrhspzrtmgp|title=The Future|website=Cutty Sark|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090724135706/http://www.cuttysark.org.uk/index.cfm?fa=contentGeneric.cchjldrhspzrtmgp|archive-date=24 July 2009}}</ref>

There was criticism of the policies of the Cutty Sark Trust and its stance that the most important thing was to preserve as much as possible of the original fabric. Proponents of making her fit to go to sea advocated that the fire repairs be done in such a manner to enable her to do so.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bymnews.com/may/cutty-sark.html|title=BYM News May Cutty Sark|website=BYM News & Magazine|access-date=29 October 2009}}</ref>

However, the state of the timbers, especially the keel,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.hnsa.org/conf2004/papers/davies.htm|title=The ''Cutty Sark'', The Trials and Tribulations of a Restoration Project|website=Historic Naval Ships Association|first=Wyn|last=Davies|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090910060330/http://www.hnsa.org/conf2004/papers/davies.htm|archive-date=10 September 2009}}</ref> and the fact that a hole had been cut through the hull in the 1950s for an access door, made this difficult. The Cutty Sark Trust said that less than five percent of the original fabric was lost in the fire, as the decks which were destroyed were additions not present at the original building.

The restoration work was criticised by The Victorian Society saying that the needs of the corporate hospitality market were put ahead of the preservation of the historic fabric of the ship.<ref name=BBC19598868>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19598868|title=Cutty Sark refit 'damaging', says The Victorian Society|publisher=[[BBC News]]|date=14 September 2012}}</ref> ''[[Building Design]]'' magazine awarded the project its [[Carbuncle Cup]] for the worst new building completed in 2012 saying "The scheme's myriad failings stem from one calamitous choice: the decision to hoick the 144-year-old clipper close to three metres into the air on canted steel props."<ref>{{cite magazine|url=http://www.bdonline.co.uk/buildings/carbuncle-cup/carbuncle-cup-winner-2012-ship-in-a-throttle/5042493.article|title=Carbuncle Cup winner 2012: Ship in a throttle|magazine=[[Building Design]]|access-date=26 September 2012}}</ref>

====Fundraising====
[[File:Cutty Sark under restoration after being damaged by fire - geograph.org.uk - 906599.jpg|thumb|left|''Cutty Sark'' during repairs after the fire]]

The design for the renovation project by Grimshaw architects with, during design development stage, newly established Youmeheshe architects and [[Buro Happold]] engineers involved raising the ship out of her dry berth using a [[Kevlar]] web, allowing visitors to pass under the hull to view it. Unfortunately it was discovered that the proposed web would not follow the reverse curves of the ship's hull which would effectively mask the hull's shape from view. An alternate design for the support of the ship had to be developed; this involved installing a deep steel belt around the hull tied by diagonal steel members passing through the hold to a new steel-reinforced keel. Horizontal tubular steel struts passing through the hold brace the diagonals apart while many of the corroded original hull frames have been doubled.

A new steelwork lower deck of contemporary design incorporating an amphitheatre feature was installed in the main hold while a glass-encased lift installed within the ship terminates in a new steel-and-glass housing structure on the weather deck. A second new steel-and-glass box has been installed above the forehold to enclose a new staircase. Access to the ship is through a new opening cut through the hull below the waterline in the ship's starboard quarter. The new access hole has required the addition of new steel framing. Visitors arriving on board the ship now do so via this entrance, which leads to the lower hold. Maldwin Drummond, Chairman of the Cutty Sark Trust, has explained in ''Classic Boat'' magazine's September 2010 issue the need to retain the spirit of the ship and he quotes the ideal that "The visitor should see the ship as though for some unexplained reason the crew had gone ashore". Doubts over the wisdom of Grimshaw's proposals have been raised by many ship conservationists including the Cutty Sark Trust's own engineer Peter Mason.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7173900/Cutty-Sark-restoration-turning-into-a-fiasco.html|archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220112/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7173900/Cutty-Sark-restoration-turning-into-a-fiasco.html|archive-date=12 January 2022|url-access=subscription|url-status=live|title=Cutty Sark restoration turning into a fiasco|newspaper=[[The Daily Telegraph]]|location=London|date=6 February 2010|first=Andrew|last=Gilligan}}{{cbignore}}</ref>

[[File:Cutty Sark 2012 landscaping.JPG|thumb|right|''Cutty Sark'' in February 2012, repairs nearing completion. The temporary cover which surrounded the ship during repair has been removed although workmen can still be seen on deck and in the rigging where not all yards have been replaced. Work was underway around the dock to lay new paving.]]
The project was costed at £25 million when it commenced in 2006 with £11.75 million of this total being provided by a grant from the Heritage Lottery Fund.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cuttysark.org.uk/index.cfm?fa=contentGeneric.rbxheocunmwyxdyg&pageId=2369|title=Press & Publicity> 23 Sept 06 Heritage Lottery Fund backs Cutty Sark scheme with an £11.75m grant|website=Cutty Sark|access-date=5 January 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090724132335/http://www.cuttysark.org.uk/index.cfm?fa=contentGeneric.rbxheocunmwyxdyg&pageId=2369|archive-date=24 July 2009}}</ref>

Oscar-winning film producer [[Jerry Bruckheimer]] aided in the repair and restoration of ''Cutty Sark''. A collection of photos taken by Bruckheimer went on display in London in November 2007 to help raise money for the Cutty Sark Conservation Project. The exhibition featured more than thirty pictures taken on set during the filming of ''[[Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End]]''.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cuttysark.org.uk/index.cfm?fa=contentGeneric.rbxheocunmwyxdyg&pageId=146682|title=Press & Publicity > 23 November 2007 Cutty Sark's Hollywood photo exhibition|website=Cutty Sark|access-date=29 October 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090724132709/http://www.cuttysark.org.uk/index.cfm?fa=contentGeneric.rbxheocunmwyxdyg&pageId=146682|archive-date=24 July 2009}}</ref>

In January 2008, the [[Heritage Lottery Fund]] awarded the Cutty Sark Trust another £10 million towards the restoration of the ship, meaning that the Trust had now achieved £30 million of the £35 million needed for the completion of the project. In June 2008, Israeli shipping magnate [[Sammy Ofer]] donated the outstanding £3.3 million needed to fully restore the ship{{citation needed|date=May 2020}} although by January 2009 the ''London Evening Standard'' reported that the cost had risen further to £40 million creating a new shortfall.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23615647-cost-of-saving-cutty-sark-soars-to-40m-as-rust-eats-into-hull.do|archive-url=https://archive.today/20130505151351/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23615647-cost-of-saving-cutty-sark-soars-to-40m-as-rust-eats-into-hull.do|url-status=dead|archive-date=5 May 2013|title=Cost of Saving Cutty Sark soars to £40m as rust eats into hull|first=Robert|last=Mendick|newspaper=[[Evening Standard]]|location=London|date=9 January 2009}}</ref>

In February 2010, ''The Daily Telegraph'' reported the project cost had risen to £46 million with public money now being made available by London Borough of Greenwich to fill the funding gap.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/olympics/news/7158084/Cutty-Sark-to-be-restored-in-time-for-London-2012-Olympics-after-devastating-blaze.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101010180621/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/olympics/news/7158084/Cutty-Sark-to-be-restored-in-time-for-London-2012-Olympics-after-devastating-blaze.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=10 October 2010|title=Cutty Sark to be restored in time for London 2012 Olympics after devastating blaze|newspaper=[[The Daily Telegraph]]|location=London|date=5 February 2010|first=Heidi|last=Blake}}</ref>

====Investigation conclusion====

On 30 September 2008, the [[London Fire Brigade]] announced the conclusion of the investigation into the fire at a press conference at [[New Scotland Yard]]. The painstaking investigation was conducted by the Fire Brigade, along with London's [[Metropolitan Police Service]], Forensic Science Services, and electrical examination experts Dr. Burgoyne's & Partners. They said that the most likely cause was the failure of an industrial vacuum cleaner that may have been left switched on over the weekend before the fire started. The report revealed no evidence that the ship was subjected to arson attack and concluded that the fire started accidentally.<ref name="vacuum"/><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.london-fire.gov.uk//CuttySarkFireReport-29Sep08.pdf|title=Report on the investigation into the fire on board the clipper ship Cutty Sark, King William Walk, Greenwich, London SE10 on Monday 21st May 2007|author1=London Fire Brigade|author2-link=Metropolitan Police Service|author2=Metropolitan Police Service|date=29 September 2008|access-date=16 April 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111128063551/http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/CuttySarkFireReport-29Sep08.pdf|archive-date=28 November 2011|url-status=dead|author1-link=London Fire Brigade}}</ref>

Physical evidence and CCTV footage of the fire showed that it probably started towards the stern of the ship on the lower deck. All electrical equipment on board was examined and it was determined that an industrial vacuum cleaner in this area was normally running continuously to suck up dust and particles from work going on to break up concrete within the ship. No one working on the ship had responsibility to ensure all equipment was turned off at the end of each day, and no one recalled switching off the equipment on the Friday in question. The vacuum cleaner has three motors inside and after the fire one was found to be burned out in a manner which suggested it had failed while operating. This was not conclusive evidence, however, because the motor might previously have failed in service without causing a fire, and gone unnoticed because the other two motors had continued to function. Tests on similar cleaners showed they had no thermal cutout devices and while they could run safely indefinitely if filters inside were clear, if the airflow through the cleaner was blocked then it would eventually overheat and could catch fire. This might occur if the cleaner were full of dust and debris. The cleaner had failed previously and two motors had been replaced.

On the basis of witness evidence, the joint investigation team considered it unlikely that the fire was caused by the hot work (welding) that was being carried out as part of the renovation or by carelessly discarded smokers' materials. No one had visited this part of the ship since work stopped on Friday evening, and it was considered unlikely that a fire could have smouldered all weekend before finally breaking out Monday morning. However, it was discovered that although all hot work was supposed to be recorded and someone was supposed to check afterwards to ensure of no fires, there was no record that such checks had ever been made, and on at least one occasion hot work had been conducted with no records made.

The ship was patrolled by two security guards, both of whom were supposed to patrol independently at least once an hour, or once every two hours later in the night, one being primarily responsible for the visitor pavilion and one for the dock. The guards were required to keep a log of their patrols, but after the fire the relevant page was found to be missing from the book. It was later found, already filled in reporting uneventful patrols of the site up to 7 a.m. when the guards would have gone off duty. The alarm was raised when one of the guards called the fire brigade; before this the two reported that they had smelled burning plastic and had been investigating to try to determine its source.

A carpenter had visited the site on Sunday to collect some tools, but after 20 minutes attempting to contact a security guard to let him in, had climbed the fence, collected his tools and climbed out again. The carpenter reported that he had heard machinery operating towards the stern of the ship, but it was not clear whether this might have been the site diesel generator which ran at all times.

The ship was fitted with a temporary fire alarm system but it was unclear whether this had operated. A separate alarm within the pavilion did sound when smoke and heat reached that area, but the guards reported no ringing alarm before the fire was seen. Investigation afterwards discovered a faulty relay in the alarm panel which failed to switch power to the siren circuits when an alarm was triggered. However, the panel also contained a failed fuse in one siren circuit which suggested that the siren had activated but the fire shorted it out, and this might have also caused the relay to fail. The failed relay would have shut off power to the second siren circuit. Statements from workers suggested that weekly tests of the alarm system had not been carried out.