Model Boat Mayhem

The Shipyard ( Dry Dock ): Builds & Questions => Working vessels R&D: => Topic started by: Bryan Young on June 18, 2008, 09:21:58 pm

Title: s/s "Egham"
Post by: Bryan Young on June 18, 2008, 09:21:58 pm
I think I have decided what to build next.
Thank you to those who have made suggestions (of the clean sort), but for one reason or another I have opted to go for a much smaller ship.....but to be built at a larger scale than I am used to. Ever since I got a copy of "Coastal and Short Sea Liners" by C.V.Waine I was "tickled pink" about the tiny little ship s/s "Egham". Pages 72 and 73 of the book. She has everything I look for in a "period" ship. 1920'ish, quirky, lots of wood and pretty tightly knit. Right up my street.
From the same book I got "General Havelock" which I was able to build at 1:48 scale. In retrospect I think I should have made her larger, but that would not have suited the other ships I have built. But what is done is done.
I have built at other scales. "Bluebird of Chelsea" is at 1:12, and "Bayflower" was at 1:36.
"Egham" was only 150' long (but with a lot of "character"), so at 1:48 the model wouldn't be much over 3'. Too little. So should I go for 1:24? Six feet for a coaster? Or perhaps somewhere in the middle? Quandary. I am seriously tempted to go down the 1:24 scale route.
"Havelock" was the first model I ever attempted to describe during a build...and learned a few lessons on the way. But if there is enough interest "out there" I think I am willing to go from "square one" to completion on this one.
So here we go. Part one. The accompanying drawings are all I have. No section drawings, no nothing. The only drawings I have are on 2 sheets of A4 paper. So I will first of all find a way of drawing up the hull. Eventually it will be a glass fibre one...more mess, stink and waste. Ho-Hum. The details of the ship will be a challenge of a different order. At the moment it all looks a bit daunting, and I am not really looking forward to it at all. But I know from experience that when a bit of enthusiasm kicks in I will carry it through.
So I start a new thread her that will probably go on for a year. Warts and all.
Title: Re: s/s "Egham"
Post by: GaryM on June 18, 2008, 10:42:04 pm
Go for it Bryan O0 
Looks like the type of boat I would aspire to.  Am I right - the length is 6 feet?  If so defiantly go for it - I'll probably follow at a distance!!
Your 'General Havelock' is a master piece, you can't go wrong!

regards
Gary :)
Title: Re: s/s "Egham"
Post by: Colin Bishop on June 18, 2008, 10:47:57 pm
Six feet might be a bit heavy Bryan. With a vessel that shape, 4 feet long would give a decent sized model I'd have thought.
Title: Re: s/s "Egham"
Post by: Roger in France on June 19, 2008, 07:22:16 am
Looking forward to it with eager anticipation, Bryan.

Incidentally, I have a different book "Steam Coasters and Short Sea Traders" from which I was making my recommendation "Havelock" is not in mine.

Roger in France.
Title: Re: s/s "Egham"
Post by: Bunkerbarge on June 19, 2008, 08:10:35 am
If I remember rightly the "General Havelock" was originally the "Leona", which is the name on the drawings Bryan used.  I read the details at Harrogate, which is more than the judges did, who declared that because the hull was fibreglass it must be a kit!!  I put them right.

Cracking choice of build Bryan, as you say, lots of wood detail, right up my street yet again!

By the way I have never heard of "Coastal and Short Sea Liners" by C.V.Waine and I have about 5 of his books.  Time for a google I think!

Just a last note my Ben Ain is just over four feet long and displaces 32 lbs at her marks.  You could be looking at a model that might prove too difficult to handle at that scale.
Title: Re: s/s "Egham"
Post by: Bunkerbarge on June 19, 2008, 08:23:49 am
Ha!!, found a copy and bought it!

Thanks Bryan ;)
Title: Re: s/s "Egham"
Post by: dreadnought72 on June 19, 2008, 09:27:42 am
I'm looking forward to this build very much, Bryan.

The natural "home" between 1/24th and 1/48th is, of course, 1/32nd - 56 inches would be good on the water. And a bit better on the back than six-foot-plus.

Andy
Title: Re: s/s "Egham"
Post by: Bryan Young on June 19, 2008, 01:31:57 pm
I'm sorry about this, but I was actually "flying a kite" when I suggested I may go for 1:24. The size of the thing wouldn't put me off as 5 of my models are 6ft long plus....as long as they fit the trailer I can handle them. Weight isn't a problem either as I always make sure I have lots of access to the inside, so I can put the batteries and ballast on board when the hull is in the water...and even the largest hull (Gold Ranger) only weighs 20lb or so when "launched". No. The reason for going 1:32 is for the looks of the thing. A 6ft coaster would look both silly and pretentious and totally out of proportion to the other models we get at Tynemouth. Sorry for misleading you, but I got the responses I'd hoped for.
Roger:- "General Havelock" (nee "Leona") is in "Coastal and Short Sea Liners" (not "Traders"). Silly me never thought of checking out Model Shipwright until recently. Issue 35 has an article by PN Thomas on the "Havelock". I changed the name to her later one as General Havelock was a well known figure up here having all sorts of places named after him.
Bunkerbarge:- I'd heard you were at Harrogate. I tend to go to these shows only if I need to buy some "stuff". In truth (really) I only enter any of my models when my arm is severely twisted by that bully Brian Chambers.  This year isn't the first time the Harrogate judges have been wrong about a model of mine....no matter how much info I give them. And all my hulls are glass anyway. Both "Bayflower" and "Discovery" were deemed to be "kits". Is it libel or slander I could do them for? And last year they even refused to judge "Baroda" for some reason! Although, to be honest, I think that the card saing "do not judge" was actually rather maliciously taken from the "museum model" near mine, and put beside "Baroda". But I certainly seem to be not flavour of the month with Harrogate judges for some reason.
But back to "Egham".
Some while ago I guy in the States said he was going to keep a tally of how much a model was going to cost. I advised him against it as the totals can get scary. To prove that, this time ( against my better judgement) I intend to do that and publish all expenditure and frighten you all. I don't think I shall need to buy much in the way of tools etc. as I have collected just about everything I need over the years...this may not be true for everyone.
The first task is to make up a set of working drawings at 1:32 from the 2 A4 sheets I have. I quite enjoy doing this myself rather than getting a printer to do it. This way I can immerse myself and learn more about how I am going to go about things.
Martin:- Do you want to keep this build on "Chit Chat", or bung it somehere else?
As I still have quite a few years still to go on my time in the RFA it looks as if I'm going to be kept pretty busy. Bryan
Title: Re: s/s "Egham"
Post by: Bunkerbarge on June 20, 2008, 04:28:28 pm
Well everyone, I have to mention this, probably not the right place but it was as a result of this thread.

After reading Bryans post yesterday I had a look at Amazon and found a copy of the book: "Coastal and Short Sea Liners" by C.V.Waine.

I ordered it through Amazon but it was actually coming from a bookshop by the name of Harlequin Books.  I ordered it yesterday morning and it arrived today!!  I was absolutely amazed, superb service.

Isn't it nice to be able to tell people about something really good?
Title: Re: s/s "Egham"
Post by: Colin Bishop on June 20, 2008, 04:36:23 pm
Which ships does it feature Bunkerbarge, I have been Googling it without success. Could you mention a few names of British vessels featured so I can get some idea of the contents please? For example, does it feature Melrose Abbey or Macclesfield?
Title: Re: s/s "Egham"
Post by: DickyD on June 20, 2008, 04:57:38 pm
Just had a look on Amazon for that book, which I found and had a chuckle at what was printed under its details, and I quote,

Customers Viewing This Page May Be Interested in These Sponsored Links (What is this?)
Wholesale Pond Liners
www.pondlinersonline.co.uk    Liners for all ponds sizes Direct to you- buy online
Royal Liner - Tank Liners
www.RoyalLiner.com    Linings for almost all tanks. Quick turnaround. Installation available.
Bund and Tank Linings
www.kgcomposites.co.uk    Seamless Fibreglass / GRP Tank Bund and Wall Linings

Makes you wonder what their computer thinks Coastal and Short Seas are, some sort of hole in the ground maybe ?  :-\
Title: Re: s/s "Egham"
Post by: Bunkerbarge on June 20, 2008, 06:11:21 pm
Coiln,

I wouldn't expect you to buy this one, unless you had 175.00 to throw away, but it does have all the details of the book at this link:

 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Coastal-Short-Liners-C-V-Waine/dp/0905184173/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213981528&sr=8-1

As for content there are many dozens of ships but a couple of the included plans are:

SS Derwent
SS Egham (Of course!)
Ousel
Lady Roberts
Rathlin
SS New Pioneer
MS Edina
SS Thelma
SS St Clair
Title: Re: s/s "Egham"
Post by: Colin Bishop on June 20, 2008, 06:19:25 pm
Thanks, some of those names are familiar to me. Some interesting prototypes for working models.

Colin
Title: Re: s/s "Egham"
Post by: Bryan Young on June 20, 2008, 07:44:34 pm
I am already beginning to regret this thing! The hull lines are not as "free and easy" as I first thought. Also, when down to her loaded draught the freeboard at the aft end of the forward well deck will only be about 3/4". Ho Hum. But I said I would..so I will.
So far the expenditure (ink and paper) is 3. (Can I add medicinal sustenance to this bill?) Bryan.
Title: Re: s/s "Egham"
Post by: Bunkerbarge on June 21, 2008, 06:12:13 am
I am already beginning to regret this thing! The hull lines are not as "free and easy" as I first thought. Also, when down to her loaded draught the freeboard at the aft end of the forward well deck will only be about 3/4". Ho Hum. But I said I would..so I will.
So far the expenditure (ink and paper) is 3. (Can I add medicinal sustenance to this bill?) Bryan.

Bryan, Have you got this one?:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/British-Ocean-Tramps-Owners-Merchant/dp/0905184149

There are a lot of very interesting subjects in that book, right up your street and maybe a bit easier to build.
Title: Re: s/s "Egham"
Post by: Bryan Young on June 21, 2008, 06:24:29 pm
As usual I begin a new model with a rush of exorbitant enthusiasm until I meet the first of seemingly insurmountable problems. Then the bare bones of depression kick in and I wonder I I really want to do this. Lie awake, pondering, at 3am. But memory tells me I have been here before.
The actual "profile" of Egham is no problem. In fact it is possibly the easiest part of the entire build. The really important ones are the "station profiles" (NOT FRAMES). This problem has bugged me since last Wednesday. Brainwave!....Look through all Waines books for a "similar" ship. Found one on pages 12 & 13 of "Coasters and Short Sea Liners". The lines are for the s/s "Annaghmore" built in 1924. Close enough to Eghams 1920. Although "Annaghmore" was 164' long as opposed to Eghams 148', the Length / Breadth ratio was the same at 6:1. So then it was just a bit of scaling and a bit of mathematics. Now I can get "up and running" again. Sorry I cannot post much in the way of drawings as they are too big, but I can do a bit on the sections.
Although I may be preaching to some of the converted here, perhaps some may appreciate it.
A universal way of depicting stations is to draw the sections from aft to amidships on the left of the drawing, and from amidships to the front on the right. Generally, the station positions are marked on the longitudinal profile drawing for positioning purposes. Thats why they are of vital importance. All sorts of other lines are drawn on plans that have such esoteric names such as "buttocks" (not going there), but as far as most modellers are concerned these can be ignored. Get the stations cut out accurately and positioned correctly then a pretty reasonable hull should result.
It doesn't matter two hoots what size or scale you do the original scan of the section drawing as long as the original width / depth ratio is maintained. In this particular case I am lucky as at 6:1 it does not need to be changed. But if it does you can use the Image menu and unlock the aspect ratio, change it and re-lock. Now to print it. I go to the "custom" setting and position the "square" (as it most often is) . Make sure the image is cropped to the "exact" dimensions of the image. Enter "width" and the depth will change accordingly. The printer does the rest...all 20 copies or so that you will need. Easy really.
The next one will be the buying of some plywood...and so an update on the running total. BY.
Title: Re: s/s "Egham"
Post by: GaryM on June 21, 2008, 11:46:23 pm
To a noob like me - any one who can decipher and construct a hull frame from that drawing deserves;
"(Can I add medicinal sustenance to this bill?) Bryan."
any amount of sustenance, medical or not!  (tax free)

regards
Gary :)
Title: Re: s/s "Egham"
Post by: Colin Bishop on June 22, 2008, 12:22:29 am
Gary, like many things, it's much easier than it initially looks once you get into it.

A body plan like that allows you to visualize the shape of the hull and there is enough information there to build a complete hull from a single drawing. Otherwise you need both the elevation and the plan view with waterlines. There is another variation, which Bryan alluded to, which shows "buttock" lines which are used less often.

In fact most sets of plans will give you the body plan, elevation and plan which makes things even easier(!)

Up to the 1960's or so these type of plans were used to construct "bread and butter" models. The plan view would show horizontal "slices" of the hull (known as waterlines) at maybe half to three quarters of an inch intervals. You would then trot along to your local woodyard and buy planks of yellow pine (sigh!) planed to that thickness and cut them to the shown waterline shape on the outside and then cut out the middle in such a way that when all the planks were assembled on top of each other the minimum interior/exterior thickness was at least half an inch or so. Then you would glue them all together, remove the "steps" on the outside  with a spokeshave or similar and end up with the desired hull shape. It worked very well as a construction method. The only thing was that you ended up removing around 80% or so of the timber you'd bought - not very environmentally friendly.

A much more economical method is to use the body plan sections as the basis for framing the hull, which is what Bryan is doing to make his GRP plug, and then add planking. The tricky bits at the bow and stern can be made of solid wood while on a model of this type much of the amidships sections and bottom can be made up of straight sections of plywood.

Hull construction can be a lot of fun. It's a shame that many people these days fight shy of it.

Colin

Title: Re: s/s "Egham"
Post by: GaryM on June 22, 2008, 12:48:57 am
Thanks Colin. :)
Gary
Title: Re: s/s "Egham"
Post by: Bryan Young on June 22, 2008, 07:41:41 pm
To a noob like me - any one who can decipher and construct a hull frame from that drawing deserves;
"(Can I add medicinal sustenance to this bill?) Bryan."
any amount of sustenance, medical or not!  (tax free)

regards
Gary :)
Gary. A swift guide to the drawing...with thanks to Colin....
1....Forget the "fashion plate" at the top of the right-hand side. This has nothing to do with the hull, and can be added (much) later.
2....Forget where it says "Rail". This is an odd expression, but on measuring up it is where the "rail" fits into the deck....i.e, the deck level rather than the top of the rail. That one threw me for a bit.
3....Forget anything that begins with "FR". These are frames and not stations, and stations are really what modellers should work to. Frames are traditionally only 22" apart. Doing that will give nervous breakdowns to any model builder.
4....Forget the "Line of WT Flat" and "Line of Panting Stringer". Panting only means that the ship can "pant" (like your lungs) when going into a head sea. So some strengthening is required. For a model, forget it.
5....Note the 7" camber on the decks. That is 7" over a beam of 25'. Very noticeable. Many modellers just lay the decks "flat" and then wonder why it looks "wrong". I shal use about 3/16ths" on the model.
6....You will notice a "rise of floor" of 4". That just means that the bottom of the ship isn't flat by 4" per side. As near as dammit flat. So I have chopped 1/8" off the bottom to let the eventual model sit flat instead of "wobbling".
My eventual waterline will be somewhere around the "8" above the 12' waterline mark.
I have now printed off 12 copies of the section drawings at the size I want. 23cm wide and 20.5 cm deep. Now I can work out how much 3/16" ply I need for the sections, plus a 60" x 12" bit for the longitudinal profile.
Making sense so far? BY.
Title: Re: s/s "Egham"
Post by: GaryM on June 22, 2008, 10:17:58 pm
It's slowly sinking in - I think that by "doing it" will get it fixed in this brain of mine. :)
Thanks Bryan :)

Gary :)
Title: Re: s/s "Egham"
Post by: Bryan Young on June 23, 2008, 06:12:52 pm
Bought the 1/4" ply for the stations and the 1/2" ply for the "backbone". That was 11-11.
Building board ply (3/4") was 7.70.
Total expenditure so far 21.81.
And not cut a bit of wood yet.
Title: Re: s/s "Egham"
Post by: Bryan Young on June 26, 2008, 05:16:07 pm
I am already beginning to regret this thing! The hull lines are not as "free and easy" as I first thought. Also, when down to her loaded draught the freeboard at the aft end of the forward well deck will only be about 3/4". Ho Hum. But I said I would..so I will.
So far the expenditure (ink and paper) is 3. (Can I add medicinal sustenance to this bill?) Bryan.

Bryan, Have you got this one?:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/British-Ocean-Tramps-Owners-Merchant/dp/0905184149

There are a lot of very interesting subjects in that book, right up your street and maybe a bit easier to build.
Sorry I am a bit late responding. I checked the amazon site and noted that the book is by P.N.Thomas. So it should be good. Still debating it.But it would be an interesting addition to my "library". What puts me off though is the "sameness" of early "tramps". Go to any museum that has ship models and cargo ships "of an age" could really have their names swapped around and no-one would notice. And you must admit, they do look a bit bland.
You quoted a price of 175 for your book. True? or was it 17.50?
I think at a rough guess Egham may well turn out quite heavy when ballasted. 55" long x 9" beam =495 sq."
 Draught 4.3" so the "block" will be 2130 cu". "Assume" a CoE of 0.8..=1,700"cu. Water at 62.5 lb cu ft. brings the displacement to a rough estimate of 60lb. That compares with my trawler that comes in at 56lb...so maybe I'm not that far out as a proposition. Bryan.
Title: Re: s/s "Egham"
Post by: GaryM on June 26, 2008, 06:28:55 pm
If it's any help Brian, my Marie Felling is 43 x 11 and in the instructions says that the ballasted weight should be 40lb to 45lb.  As your boat has larger dimensions I would guess your about right.

regards
Gary :)
Title: Re: s/s "Egham"
Post by: Bryan Young on June 26, 2008, 06:33:17 pm
If it's any help Brian, my Marie Felling is 43 x 11 and in the instructions says that the ballasted weight should be 40lb to 45lb.  As your boat has larger dimensions I would guess your about right.

regards
Gary :)
As the saying goes Gary, it's all in the girth!. Bryan.
Title: Re: s/s "Egham"
Post by: Bryan Young on July 09, 2008, 07:31:14 pm
Better late than never. But some work has been done. There should be 6 pics to accompany this screed, so by pic numbers:-
2245..
Baseboard of 3/4"ply with a 3" x 4" stiffener underneath that clamps into the Workmate. 2" steel angle brackets bent outwards at the top to slot the backbone in. Section lines drawn.
Also the backbone (profile) of hull in 1/2" ply. Stations, waterline and deck levels marked. These were all originally marked off with fine lines, I have only made them thicker for clarity. Bow area chamfered to accept planking.
I really do appreciate that I am teaching a lot of you "to suck eggs", but there may also be many who would like to build their own hull but have never tried it, for whatever reasons.
2243...
The "backbone" slotted into place but not fastened. The shaded area at the stern will be removed and replaced with a 1/4" thick piece with the prop boss inserted. The section cut-outs are also shown. These shaped out of 1' sq. x 1/4" ply for regularity.
2240...
The stations loosely fitted. The arrow between stations 9 and 10 indicates the fo'c'sle bulkhead. Alas this did not coincide with a true station on my cobbled up drawing...so I had to draw up a new one. I first did this by cutting it out as half way between 9 and 10 and will shave it or use packing pieces as appropriate as planking progresses. Hope it works. The rear section not yet cut off. The "platform" at the stern will be marked with the shape (curve) of the deck.
2248..
No matter what the shape of the hull is I like to build withe the waterline horizontal. Decks and keels can go every which way, but the waterline is a "given". Also, to get a reasonable deck-edge and flange when making the mould I slot the stations to accept a 1/16" ply strip all round. This also defines the hull shape while building the "plug"without having to constantly check things. The rear end has now been amputated and given a the new part. I shan't make the final shape of the counter stern yet as I can never visualise the shape until most of the planking is done.
2249...
Much the same as 2248.
2250..
All is now permanently fastened to the baseboard. A cheap "hot-melt" glue gun is a godsend for this (and the planking). No more tacks etc. How did I ever manage without one! But what you see is now ready for planking. As it will eventually be a glass hull I don't need to be as precise with the planking as I would have to be if it was to be a properly planked wooden hull..but more of that much later. It may seem a bit "odd" to have what appears to be so much wasted space between the deck flanges and the baseboard. 2 reasons for that. The first is because of my desire to have the waterline horizontal, but the second reason is just as important to me. I have found that very often it is necessary to be able to put a hand up into the inside of the planking to glue a strip across 2 planks that need fairing up a bit.
Last purchase was glue sticks @ 3.00....total so far 28.20.
I'm a bit unhappy with either station 5 or 6. Either 5 is a bit narrow or 6 is a bit wide. Have to correct this before planking. Also chamfer some of the end stations to allow a cleaner run and a better glueing surface.
Also, as not everyone has access to a bandsaw, all the cutting up until now has been done with a jig-saw...and we all have one of those (?). That and a Stanley knife. Another great tool is a power file. Cheap as chips these days. With a bit of practice it is amazing what you can do with one of these.
Title: Re: s/s "Egham"
Post by: Bryan Young on July 12, 2008, 05:16:29 pm
Now it's welcome to my world of - to paraphrase a weel known book - "The Art Of Coarse Modelling".
Bought some 1.5mm ply for planking and cut it up into 1/2" strips and when required cut the 1/2" ones into 1/4" ones. But at this stage I have gone as far as I can with that and will have to make some odd shaped pieces to "get back on track" as it were. You will notice the pure artistry that has gone into the alignment of the planks. It may well be incompetence, but in fact I don't need good alignment. a) it will all be filled with "bodge" and rubbed down. b) The whole thing is going to be "plated" anyway and c) it is a plug and not a hull. Apart from the baseboard, all this will eventually be destroyed. That is one of the reasons I use those little metal angle thingies rather than gluing blocks to the baseboard. i.e. I can use the board and angles again. The bow area planks had to be cut off with a "reasonable" degree of accuracy to avoid plank overlaps...the back end less so although they will be trimmed later. I'm not going to clag the more or less vertical sides on just yet....at least until I have got around the turn of the bilge, as I will still need to have room to insert digits and glue in little forming pieces. I think by the end of next week the rough plug should be planked up and I can begin to work out the shape of the stern.
Latest purchase :- 1.5mm ply @ 14.00
Total outlay so far = 42.20. Beginning to mount up.
Title: Re: s/s "Egham"
Post by: Bryan Young on July 15, 2008, 09:41:23 pm
Plodding along with the planking. Lots of 1mm bracing strips between the planks to maintain curvature. Quite a lot of "bodge" will be needed as usual, but will all get sanded down to give me the shape required. Messy (dusty) but not difficult. Probably a mornings work. Still have to sort out the back end though. Think I will do all the sanding down in the garden when my neighbour has put her washing out
Title: Re: s/s "Egham"
Post by: GaryM on July 15, 2008, 10:03:50 pm
That will make you popular! {-)

regards
Gary :)
Title: Re: s/s "Egham"
Post by: Bryan Young on July 16, 2008, 06:02:25 pm
That will make you popular! {-)

regards
Gary :)
Yeah, we get along really well.
Title: Re: s/s "Egham"
Post by: Bryan Young on July 17, 2008, 07:48:25 pm
Plodding along with the bow. The vertical bits are just to give a "landing" for the future application of "bodge", but there is still room for a couple more planks to be fitted in. This must be horrifying to those who spend forever planking a hull. Sorry. But it will all come out "in the wash" as it were.
Latest costings.
More 1.5mm ply at 6.00            (I am giving up on pences and stick with s) =49.
Card for plating....2                                                                                  51.
Bodge                  8                                                                                 59
Title: Re: s/s "Egham"
Post by: Bryan Young on July 19, 2008, 06:50:07 pm
A bit of a milestone today. It is now 1 month since I started "Egham" with the post that said what I intended to do next. Seems a lot longer than that. Did the hull drawings, bought and cut the wood, done the planking. Honestly, I only spend about 4 hours a day building this thing. Normal life intervenes. Like shoving a supermarket trolley around a store and then eating whatever had been put in it. Reading books and going to the library. Driving down to the river to buy fish, and see what new ships have arrived. All normal day to day stuff. So I do have a bit of a life beyond modelling! It has helped that the weather has been a bit dismal so not much time has been spent enjoying that strange object known as "the sun" (Big thing in the sky, NOT a "newspaper").
Before completing the after end planking I slathered the front end with bodge and left it to harden off for a day. I know it all looks a bit messy but so what. The bodge is only there to let me sand it down and remove any sharp edges in the planking and give a clean curve and base for the plating. (Pic 2263).
Pic 2262 is just of the final bit of planking. The gaps don't matter. (Not to me, anyway).
Pic 2264 is a bit of a new departure for me. I have never done any "bread and butter" construction before, but the odd shape of this ships stern sort of cried out for it. I have used a heavy duty foam (out of a double glazing firms skip). Thats the pink stuff. Takes glue OK.
Pic 2266, As far as I have gone today. The foam is not fixed or shaped as I wish to smooth off the planking first...just to get rid of any sharp edges and give the plates a "clear run".
Title: Re: s/s "Egham"
Post by: Bryan Young on July 23, 2008, 06:29:29 pm
Not all that long ago there was a discussion about useful tools. I totally and utterly forgot about this one. It is a "sort of" file/sanding gizmo that fits into a Bosch Jigsaw. As I haven't got a Bosch, it will not fit my B&D thing. But used as a hand-powered item it is wonderful. Takes off material better than a Gillette Tri-motor. I really don't know if they are still produced, but if you find one (or more) then buy them....and the boxes of spare pads. Absolute magic for shaping a hull.
Title: Re: s/s "Egham"
Post by: Bryan Young on July 28, 2008, 07:03:38 pm
Although I haven't yet totally finished the contours of the stern I thought that I should at least be thinking of the hull plating. "Egham" was a very small ship (only 150' long but quite "beamy"). She was also a "long" raised quarterdeck ship althogh on a ship of this size the use of the word "long" could be open to debate. But whatever the length of the raised section, the level of the uppermost contiinuous deck is still the level of the sheerstrake. The cross-section pic of a raised quartedeck ship may explain this better than words. Also on the cross section you may see that the bottom plates are clinker laid. This was quite common at the time for ships of all sizes from coasters to Mauritania. This can make life difficult for modellers. In "real life" the clinker plates had to be supported against the frames with a wedge shaped filler piece...not really a practical solution for a modeller, and who looks at the bottom plates anyway. Deck plating is another matter, but that is a long way into the future. The 2nd pic (both courtesy of Mr. Waines books) shows the more conventional run of "in and out" plating. You could also find "joggled framing" and "joggled plating" on some ships, but with the more or less standard "in and out" a simple straight filler would suffice.For the modeller it really just means putting in a secondary layer of "plate" between the the run of the "inner" plates. This is better shown shown in the 3D drawing. This will be the method I shall use.
Without having a "shell expansion plan" it is always difficult to decide how many strakes of plating a ship should have. So it was nice to have these 2 drawings to hand. Both of coasters of similar size to "Egham". So once I have finished forming the stern I can begin marking off the hull for the plating.
Title: Re: s/s "Egham"
Post by: Bunkerbarge on July 29, 2008, 01:59:17 pm
That's the very sketch I used to design the bulwark stays on the Ben Ain.

All these books by either Waine or Thomas are worth thier weight in gold for this type of modelling.
Title: Re: s/s "Egham"
Post by: Bryan Young on July 29, 2008, 07:27:08 pm
Bunkerbarge, did you plate your hull or is it smooth? I only ask as I can foresee problems looming. The stern contours are becoming a real pain. Using HD foam has not been the best decision I have ever made. The foam itself is OK, but attempting to do it in layers is something I wouldn't do again. Win some, lose some. The problem arises with sanding down over the adhesive (tape) that really clogs up the sanding medium. I shan't use this method again. Block Balsa is far too expensive to just experiment with, and as I have now got one side done I may as well plod along with the other. With one side "satisfactory" (not perfect), I have sliced the "done" part into vertical sections and transferred the sections to the other side. But I really, really do not like this method. My fault for trying it. seemed like a good idea at the time. I think (operative word being "think") that I might cut the foam section back and put on a 1/8" of bodge and carve that to shape. No complaints yet from next door...
Title: Re: s/s "Egham"
Post by: Stavros on July 29, 2008, 10:42:28 pm
This is going to be one heck of a large Boat interseting though all the same.


stavros
Title: Re: s/s "Egham"
Post by: Bryan Young on August 01, 2008, 07:00:31 pm
Stavros:- thanks for your interest. The model isn't really that large, only 55" long, but a bit "beamy" and with a 4" draught. Without having access to any hull drawings I hope it turns out OK.
Now that I have "done" the counter stern to the best of my ability and failing eyesight plus a bit of boredom/frustration seeping in I decided to change direction a bit and lay the keel plates. These will be "inner" plates and will include the "coffin" and "sole" plates..only got as far as the "coffin" today. (pic 2287). The "cut-out" at the back will eventualy house the stern-frame/rudder post as on "Havelock".  Pic 2887a is just a closer look at the 1st one, but better shows how I get over the "double-thickness" prblem that arises when butts and strakes overlap. As this (keel) strake is an "inner", a second (hidden) strake will have to be laid alongside it before the garboard (outer) strakes can be fitted. (i.e. 2 layers). I'll attempt to show that later, but all that was just really to explain what the 1'8" sq. cutouts on the plates are for. When any "outer" strake is laid it must overlap the seams of the "inner" ones, so having those little cut-outs lets the outer strake lie flush. You may also notice how small and faint the rivet marks are. But these will show up quite well on the final hull. To avoid "clutter" I generally just use a double row of rivet markings on the butts, and a single row on the seams. As I have said before, if you want to mark all the rivets that hold a ship together then you will finish up with a hull suffering from a terminal case of zits.
Pic 2290 shows the incomplete stem bar. I won't finish this off until I know how the plate runs lie. I think a stealer plate may be required. I know the whole thing looks a bit rough, but I don't ming little hollows...as long as there are no humps.
No further expenditure as yet.....
Title: Re: s/s "Egham"
Post by: Bryan Young on August 03, 2008, 07:05:55 pm
After watching the Hungarian GP I thought that I should be doing something constructive. Felt sorry for Massa, but not for Ferrari. Perhaps they "overtweaked" the engine?
But back to the mundane. In the enclosed pic I am attempting to show the various relationships of the "in" and "out" plating. Normally I would do this on a whole length basis, but as this is to just give an idea, I have only done a small area. The "shaded" areas are the "filler" strakes and only serve to stop the "outer" strakes sort of collapsing in on themselves. The plating is also tapered a little to eventually give a clean run to the strakes. I can only hpoe that you can see what I am on about. It will be obvious now why I am not too fussy about having gaps in the wooden sheathing. I suppose there are people around with accurate measuring sticks that will say my hull is 6" wider than it should be. Tough. Prove me wrong. I am only trying to build a model of a long ago and forgotten little ship....not an engineering masterpiece. In the pic it is difficult to see the rivet markings, but they are there and will show up on the final hull. Continue with the plating next week...in a more logical way.
Title: Re: s/s "Egham"
Post by: Martin [Admin] on August 03, 2008, 11:27:10 pm

Posts sorted!  O0            Hic!!

Title: Re: s/s "Egham"
Post by: Bryan Young on August 04, 2008, 05:44:53 pm
I am becoming a little paranoid on this subject of "scale". I really cannot see how 1/32 can be real. As 1/48 is 1/4" to the foot, and 1/24 is 1/2" to the foot it is mathematically certain that 3/8" to the foot has to be 1:36 scale. So where does 1:32 come into it? Or am I missing something really obvious? Working "backwards" I can mathematically come up with a 1:32, but that then becomes a conundrum. Still confused. BY.
Title: Re: s/s "Egham"
Post by: Bunkerbarge on August 04, 2008, 06:45:17 pm
Sorry Bryan, I missed your earlier question.

The Ben Ain hull was ready plated and I added the rivet detail to the edges of the plates in something like what I think would have been an appropriate period arrangement.
Title: Re: s/s "Egham"
Post by: kiwi on August 04, 2008, 08:01:38 pm
Hi Bryan,
1/32 = 3/8"to 1'-0" when I went to school, any way you work it out.
I'm no mathematician but have always worked on there being two scale series which where adhered to in British established countries.
One, going 1/2 (6'), 1/4 (3"), 1/8 (1 1/2"), 1/16 (3/4"), 1/32(3/8"), 1/64 (3/16"), etc.
The other going 1/3 (4"),1/6 (2"), 1/12 (1"), 1/24 (1/2"), 1/48 (1/4"), etc.

1/36 is from the odd series 1/9, 1/18, 1/36, 1/72, etc

These where all drummed, over and over, into all us cadet draughties, back when we all used Imperial measure for everthing, and it sort of stuck in a couple of the old grey cells, even though its all metric now with the very odd scales due to iso reductions in sheet sizes.

Anyway, have been following you build with interest, especially your plating technique, as I am about to embark in plating a 1/48th scale hull of a kiwi riverboat from the 1860's, which fortunately for me uses a very simple transverse in-out, & longitudinal butt method. Also find your ship tales from your life facinating, keep them coming.
Hope this helps a little

kiwi
Title: Re: s/s "Egham"
Post by: Bunkerbarge on August 04, 2008, 08:58:14 pm
So why have AFV's for all these years been made in 1/35th scale? ::)
Title: Re: s/s "Egham"
Post by: kiwi on August 04, 2008, 10:48:41 pm
That goes alongside, 'why is the meaning of life 47?'
 {-)
kiwi
Title: Re: s/s "Egham"
Post by: Bryan Young on August 04, 2008, 10:56:34 pm
Hi Bryan,
1/32 = 3/8"to 1'-0" when I went to school, any way you work it out.
I'm no mathematician but have always worked on there being two scale series which where adhered to in British established countries.
One, going 1/2 (6'), 1/4 (3"), 1/8 (1 1/2"), 1/16 (3/4"), 1/32(3/8"), 1/64 (3/16"), etc.
The other going 1/3 (4"),1/6 (2"), 1/12 (1"), 1/24 (1/2"), 1/48 (1/4"), etc.

1/36 is from the odd series 1/9, 1/18, 1/36, 1/72, etc

These where all drummed, over and over, into all us cadet draughties, back when we all used Imperial measure for everthing, and it sort of stuck in a couple of the old grey cells, even though its all metric now with the very odd scales due to iso reductions in sheet sizes.

Anyway, have been following you build with interest, especially your plating technique, as I am about to embark in plating a 1/48th scale hull of a kiwi riverboat from the 1860's, which fortunately for me uses a very simple transverse in-out, & longitudinal butt method. Also find your ship tales from your life facinating, keep them coming.
Hope this helps a little

kiwi
That goes alongside, 'why is the meaning of life 47?'
 {-)
kiwi
But no-one has yet explained why the perfect mid-point between 1/48 and 1/24 should not be 1/36! Surely this is obvious. My brain hurts.
Title: Re: s/s "Egham"
Post by: kiwi on August 05, 2008, 12:46:07 am
Hi Bryan,
javascript:void(0);
To get to 1/36 in an arithmetical progression we have,

1/3, 1/6, 1/9, 1/12, 1/18, 1/24, 1/36, 1/48, 1/72, 1/96, etc

In all the others each is double the preceding one.
In this one you add half the receding one to itself to get the answer. (different formula)
As I'm no mathematician, and my brain now hurts, I'm going to go plate a hull.javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
kiwi
Title: Re: s/s "Egham"
Post by: Bryan Young on August 05, 2008, 05:42:32 pm
Got a bit bored with the plating so decided to fit the prop shaft bossing. Wish I hadn't. Made a right cats backside out of it. Still, can't do much about it now except rub area down until it looks OK, then "plate" over the top. Some days just don't seem to work out.
Paid a visit to "my" model shop just for a chat...seen the new RTR (see, I can learn the idiom if taught!) from Graupner of what I think is a 1960s "Geest" type banana carrier? Only 900. Very nice model, but no building pleasure...and it only proves you have spare cash. "They" have already sold one...in this supposedly depressed area!
Title: Re: s/s "Egham"
Post by: Bob on August 07, 2008, 11:39:48 am
Hello Bryan,    Try this for an explanation of the scale 1:32

Now in a length of 12 inches there are 96 eiights

So if 1/8" reresents 12 inches (96 x 1/8ths) it is said to be a ratio 1:96

so if  1/2" ( 4/8ths ) represents 12inches divide 96 by 4 and it igives a ratio of 1:24

and if 1/4" or 2/8ths represents 12 inches divide 96 by 2 and it is a ratio of 1:48

so therefore if  3/8" is to represent 12 inches divide 96 by 3 which gives a ratio of 1:32

Hope this helps clarify the different expressions of scale

Cheers Bob Ferguson
Title: Re: s/s "Egham"
Post by: Bryan Young on August 08, 2008, 07:54:32 pm
That was my alternative way! Mathematically (to me, anyway) it makes no sense. So 1:36 is a "true scale". But I still don't know why (logically) 1:32 is there. Sorry. Brain freezes up./