Model Boat Mayhem - Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length.
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: s/s "Egham"  (Read 10743 times)

Bryan Young

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6,894
  • Location: Whitley Bay
s/s "Egham"
« 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.
Logged
Notes from a simple seaman

GaryM

  • Guest
Re: s/s "Egham"
« Reply #1 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 :)
Logged

Colin Bishop

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,288
  • Location: SW Surrey, UK
Re: s/s "Egham"
« Reply #2 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.
Logged

Roger in France

  • Guest
Re: s/s "Egham"
« Reply #3 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.
Logged

Bunkerbarge

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,359
  • Location: Halifax, UK
Re: s/s "Egham"
« Reply #4 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.
Logged
"Dirty British coaster with a salt-caked smoke stack, Butting through the Channel in the mad March days"

Bunkerbarge

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,359
  • Location: Halifax, UK
Re: s/s "Egham"
« Reply #5 on: June 19, 2008, 08:23:49 AM »

Ha!!, found a copy and bought it!

Thanks Bryan ;)
Logged
"Dirty British coaster with a salt-caked smoke stack, Butting through the Channel in the mad March days"

dreadnought72

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,866
  • Wood butcher with ten thumbs
  • Location: Airdrie, Scotland
Re: s/s "Egham"
« Reply #6 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
Logged
Enjoying every minute sailing W9465 Mertensia

Bryan Young

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6,894
  • Location: Whitley Bay
Re: s/s "Egham"
« Reply #7 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
Logged
Notes from a simple seaman

Bunkerbarge

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,359
  • Location: Halifax, UK
Re: s/s "Egham"
« Reply #8 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?
Logged
"Dirty British coaster with a salt-caked smoke stack, Butting through the Channel in the mad March days"

Colin Bishop

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,288
  • Location: SW Surrey, UK
Re: s/s "Egham"
« Reply #9 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?
Logged

DickyD

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,497
  • www.srcmbc.org.uk
  • Location: Southampton UK
    • SRCMBC
Re: s/s "Egham"
« Reply #10 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 ?  :-\
Logged
Richard Solent Radio Controlled Model Boat Club http://www.srcmbc.org.uk

Bunkerbarge

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,359
  • Location: Halifax, UK
Re: s/s "Egham"
« Reply #11 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
Logged
"Dirty British coaster with a salt-caked smoke stack, Butting through the Channel in the mad March days"

Colin Bishop

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,288
  • Location: SW Surrey, UK
Re: s/s "Egham"
« Reply #12 on: June 20, 2008, 06:19:25 PM »

Thanks, some of those names are familiar to me. Some interesting prototypes for working models.

Colin
Logged

Bryan Young

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6,894
  • Location: Whitley Bay
Re: s/s "Egham"
« Reply #13 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.
Logged
Notes from a simple seaman

Bunkerbarge

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,359
  • Location: Halifax, UK
Re: s/s "Egham"
« Reply #14 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.
Logged
"Dirty British coaster with a salt-caked smoke stack, Butting through the Channel in the mad March days"

Bryan Young

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6,894
  • Location: Whitley Bay
Re: s/s "Egham"
« Reply #15 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.
Logged
Notes from a simple seaman

GaryM

  • Guest
Re: s/s "Egham"
« Reply #16 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 :)
Logged

Colin Bishop

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,288
  • Location: SW Surrey, UK
Re: s/s "Egham"
« Reply #17 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

Logged

GaryM

  • Guest
Re: s/s "Egham"
« Reply #18 on: June 22, 2008, 12:48:57 AM »

Thanks Colin. :)
Gary
Logged

Bryan Young

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6,894
  • Location: Whitley Bay
Re: s/s "Egham"
« Reply #19 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.
Logged
Notes from a simple seaman

GaryM

  • Guest
Re: s/s "Egham"
« Reply #20 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 :)
Logged

Bryan Young

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6,894
  • Location: Whitley Bay
Re: s/s "Egham"
« Reply #21 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.
Logged
Notes from a simple seaman

Bryan Young

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6,894
  • Location: Whitley Bay
Re: s/s "Egham"
« Reply #22 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.
Logged
Notes from a simple seaman

GaryM

  • Guest
Re: s/s "Egham"
« Reply #23 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 :)
Logged

Bryan Young

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6,894
  • Location: Whitley Bay
Re: s/s "Egham"
« Reply #24 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.
Logged
Notes from a simple seaman
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up