Topic: "Northumbrian" (Read 122096 times)

Bryan Young · « **on:** August 19, 2008, 05:17:21 pm »

This is a bit of an unexpected bonus for me. Around 10 years ago I built a glass hull of the old Tyne ferry "Northumbrian" for a fellow club member. The idea at the time was to build 2 of the old ferries (different, but on the same hull) and have them trotting across the lake passing each other in the middle. The other chap died not long after the 1st hull was done and the hull and mould sort of disappeared with him. It recently re-emerged and has been returned to me. Its condition is exactly how it was when it came out of the mould. Never been cleaned up or touched in any way. My then "partner" wanted the pair of them to be built at 1:24 (0.5" /ft) as he wished to have a couple of "Double Tens" installed, whereas I was going the electric route. After his death I discovered that he had destroyed the mould, but kept the hull...thereby preventing the 2nd hull being built. So I lost interest in the project. Now that I have the hull back, I am re-kindling my original interest. I have never been interested in having 2 projects on the go at the same time, but I may make an exception in this case.
In the first 2 pics the hull is sitting on one of those council recycling boxes, and I'm sure most of us know how big they are. The hull is 58" x 17" x 7" and will have a draught of around 2.5", which will give an all-up weight of around 87lb (gulp). That probably means somewhere in the region of 50lb ballast. I really do choose the simple options!

polobeer · « **Reply #1 on:** August 19, 2008, 06:30:57 pm »

That's going to be one very interesting model there Bryan! Keep us posted with developments.

All the best
Simon

Bryan Young · « **Reply #2 on:** August 19, 2008, 06:53:19 pm »

Thanks, but I still think it looks like a turtle!. A question for you Londoners...does it resemble any of the old Woolwich ferries? I haven't done much research on this as yet, but I know she was built far away to the south of Geordieland in a strange country of which we know little but probably ends in "sex" as do most of these foreign lands.

Barry · « **Reply #3 on:** August 24, 2008, 02:28:12 am »

The Northumbrian was built in 1930 by Hawthorn, Leslie and Co., of Hebburn. for thr Tyne Improvement Commission. Last heard of as a floating restaurant in Gateshead in 1976. The Tyne and Wear archives have her plans. GA drawing is DS/HL/230/7.

Bryan Young · « **Reply #4 on:** August 25, 2008, 05:26:58 pm »

Quote from: Barry on August 24, 2008, 02:28:12 am

The Northumbrian was built in 1930 by Hawthorn, Leslie and Co., of Hebburn. for thr Tyne Improvement Commission. Last heard of as a floating restaurant in Gateshead in 1976. The Tyne and Wear archives have her plans. GA drawing is DS/HL/230/7.

Just got a more or less complete set of the drawings. But there is still a bit of a debate. My drawings sort of indicate the boat is "Tynemouth" and not "Northumbrian". It would appear that sometime during the lifespan of both ferries the vehicle "run-around" was removed and the foot passenger area enlarged. The funnel of "Tynemouth" was also shorter and squatter than my early drawings of "Northumbrian" show. So I guess the final model may well be a bit of a half-breed. Not to worry. There is still enough there to keep me happy for a while. I also think I made a dit of a horlix with regard to the final weight. The draught is not 2.5" but nearer 4" which puts the AUW nearer 110lb. Ah, well..... BY.

Bryan Young · « **Reply #5 on:** August 30, 2008, 10:19:11 pm »

Those of you who read my "bit" on the rudder layout of the "General Havelock" may recall that she was a single screw ship, and so had a "transom" of full height and therefore not all that difficult as far as fitting the rudder was concerned. This ferry is twin screw with a single rudder. Basically it is an early version of a modern "hanging" rudder. Common now, but in 1929 it must have been a bit of a novelty.
It would be pretty easy to make and fit a non-removable rudder, but accidents happen so this one has to be detachable. The first drawback was the "bent" rudder stock and the "L" shape at the bottom of the transom. So I cut off the "L" and made the rudder stock straight. In pic 1 the "red" is how it is, and the "green" is how it was. As yet I haven't attached the stiffening straps.
Some while ago someone was asking about cutting slots into a tube. Pic 2 should show my way. I jam a tight fitting dowel up the tube to prevent distortion and drill small guide holes at the end of the slots.Then using a hand held drill with the cutter fitted carefully cut the slots. The solder fills up the odd gaps!.
Pic 3 shows the main components, most of which are of 5mm "Lexan" or "Perspex" that I scavenge from wherever. No glue is used, it is all bolted together...just "in case...."
Pic 4 just shows how it all fits together. The angle brackets fit inside the hull so the outside stays smooth. All sealed in of course. More pics when fitted, sealed and painted.

Bryan Young · « **Reply #6 on:** August 30, 2008, 10:28:35 pm »

Just as I was getting used to the 256k postings it all gets changed again. Try no.3.

Bryan Young · « **Reply #7 on:** August 30, 2008, 10:30:20 pm »

Missed one;

Barry · « **Reply #8 on:** September 04, 2008, 02:02:33 am »

The Shipbuilder of November 1923 has an article on the Tynemouth featuring G.A drawings. It shows smaller upperworks then the Northunbrian. The Tynemouth was built by Messrs. Phillip and Son, Ltd., of Dartmouth.
Attached some rather poor photos of three of the Tyne ferries, you can, hopefully, see the differences in the upperworks. The hulls look similar to each other.

Bryan Young · « **Reply #9 on:** September 07, 2008, 05:03:36 pm »

Quote from: Barry on September 04, 2008, 02:02:33 am

The Shipbuilder of November 1923 has an article on the Tynemouth featuring G.A drawings. It shows smaller upperworks then the Northunbrian. The Tynemouth was built by Messrs. Phillip and Son, Ltd., of Dartmouth.
Attached some rather poor photos of three of the Tyne ferries, you can, hopefully, see the differences in the upperworks. The hulls look similar to each other.

Thanks for the interest Barry. I recently got hold of a more or less complete set of plans....but it only took a cursory glance to realise I had plans for 2 different boats. But, as you say, the hulls are the same and so I can continue with the construction from the main deck downwards. The "wing" deck and bulwarks etc. look to be the same on both boats....in fact the only big difference is in the superstructure. I have some new pics (taken today after the rain stopped and the GP was finished) that I shall play with and post soonest. BY.

Bryan Young · « **Reply #10 on:** September 07, 2008, 06:54:44 pm »

Pics in sequence:-
2321....This is the ply deck with "wings" fitted over the hull in pic 2303 (go back a bit). The marked area is going to be the removeable part. The bits of curved wood are the bearers for the "false deck" to give the deck a camber.
2319.... This only shows how far the "wing deck" projects beyond the hull.
2318....The "false deck" applied and cut to allow the removeable part to fit on to the (black) landing.
2324.... Removeable part inserted just for "fit".
2326....False deck laid over. Area inside broad line is the removeable bit. Or at least, it will be.

Bryan Young · « **Reply #11 on:** September 17, 2008, 08:50:35 pm »

Time for a small update on the build. Still not too sure if it is going to be "Tynemouth" or "Northumbrian" but at this stage, who cares?
For quite a while now I have been scanning the "Proxxon" catalogue and was always sort of tempted by the miniature jig-saw. No, not the sort that 5 year-olds click together...the proper one. Using the "mainstream" sort of saw always struck me as being a bit too "Industrial" if you see what I mean. So I have now bought one, and at £32 is a little gem. Should have bought it ages ago. Check it out. Lovely smooth cuts on 1.5mm ply and so on.
Anyway. After much pondering and metaphorical gnashing of teeth I realised that the build couldn't go ahead without the wing-decks and associated bits being done first...even though the "bits" would have to be removable to allow later fittings to be fitted.
One problem always leads to another. The "wings" are obviously going to take a lot of battering and so needed beefing up a bit for a model. Image 6 shows my solution. The steel angle brackets will (or should) take a lot of punishment and the "notches" are to take the timber bulwark uprights. The steel takes the weight off the more easily smashed timber.
Image 5 may give an idea as to how large the wing-deck overhang is. Take no notice of the painted "waterline"....that is only there for me to mark things on...the old eyesight can no longer differentiate a black mark on a black hull. (Another penalty of ageing!)
Image 4 shows the rough idea of how the timber bulwark uprights fit into the scheme of things.
The wing sheathing will have to be laminated with either 3 or 4 layers of 1.5mm ply to get around the hull contours (I think it will be 4 layers). But also, the sheathing tapers from 2" (model size) amidships ro less than 1" at the ends...thats why the steel brackets need at this stage to removeable...so I can trim them down. I've struggled to make a cardboard template for this and will appear on the next posting....whenever that may be.

Bryan Young · « **Reply #12 on:** October 02, 2008, 07:48:29 pm »

This is a quite interesting photo of "Northumbrian" taken in the late 60's / early 70's. Not so much for the ferry itself (although that is my prime interest), but for the ships in the background. They are at the old Brigham & Cowan yard at South Shields. The inboard ship seems to be a P&O cargo ship, but the interesting one is the "Sapele Palm". This has got to be one of the very few pics I hav seen of what appears to be joggled plating (expensive to build), but then there is a transition to flush plating around the back end. Very odd. The photo also shows how old some of the "lower order" ships were. Chapmans and Hogarths come to mind. (No reflection on those who sailed in them!).

John W E · « **Reply #13 on:** October 02, 2008, 08:14:55 pm »

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1uRle5CbpWs

Bryan Young · « **Reply #14 on:** October 03, 2008, 07:26:31 pm »

Quote from: Bluebird on October 02, 2008, 08:14:55 pm

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1uRle5CbpWs

Thank you. Interesting stuff. I live and learn. BY.

Bryan Young · « **Reply #15 on:** November 28, 2008, 04:19:40 pm »

It's been awhile since the last update but the assembly of the fendering around the wing deck and the building of the bulwarks has been very time consuming...mainly because of "glue-drying" time. The "real" ferries were pretty crude and more than a little scruffy. Even when they were fresh out of "refit" they looked like they needed another one. So although the model will be as accurate as I can make it I'm not going down the pristine model route. The huge fender strakes around the wing deck is laminated up with 3 layers of 1.5mm ply with the 3rd (outer) layer laid in seperate planks with the edges slightly chamfered to give a bit of contrast, these planks are 3/8" wide, on top of all that there are yet more "doubling" layers placed where "portable" fenders are sited (old tyres / rope things etc.)
I'm still trying to work out a reliable and efficient way of getting the vehicle ramps to work, so these are not yet fitted, but the elongated slots in the deck show the placement.
The 0.25" square (6"in real life) bulwark stays came next. These bulwarks were very high (a good 4') and very substantial. I have continued them down inside the wing deck fender strake and the whole unit is now as solid as the proverbial outhouse. The bulwarks themselves are of seperate 0.25" wide planks. Fortunately I had fitted the running gear before I fitted the bulwark stays as now they are fitted it is a very dodgy procedure turnin the model upside down! Still has to be done though as the volume between the hull proper and the fendering still needs sealing and painting. Unless I do it with the aid of a big mirror...but I don't fancy that.
The aft fairleads are 4 suitable "O" rings and the anchor davit is a spare lifeboat davit left over from "Baroda". Nice change to find an item ready made for once. (Aluminium knitting needle again).
The final pic is really just to show how much access to the interior I have, and to show the handles I use for heaving a bulky boat in / out of the water (Maplins, about a fiver each). The bulkheads and motor mounts are secured in place with "hairy filler"...and the steel ruler on the deck is a 12" item.

Martin (Admin) · « **Reply #16 on:** November 28, 2008, 10:49:20 pm »

WoW, look at the size of that thing!!!!

In the vernacular of da yoots 'o today, "Way to go Brian!"
(I think he's going to need a fork lift truck!)

Bryan Young · « **Reply #17 on:** November 29, 2008, 02:49:18 pm »

Martin, I presume you are joking about the fork-lift (?)!
Although I anticipate the all-up-weight to be between 100 and 115lb it shouldn't be too difficult to handle...the beam is the most awkward bit. The main reason I like having so much access to the interior is so I can place / remove the heavy bits (Battery clump. ballast boxes and so on while the boat is in the water...thereby leaving me with only about 30lb or so to actually heave about. The "Baroda" is 87lb auw, and "Gold Ranger" is around the 115lb mark and I have no bother with them.
The only downside I can find with a model at this scale (and I should really have remembered this from building "Bluebird" at 1:12 scale) is the amount of small detail that has to be included that can generally be left off at 1:48 or 1:96. What comes to mind is probably having to make hundreds of little "rings" in the deck planking to simulate the bolt covers. I think I shall just sharpen up the end of a brass tube and just lightly tap the marks in. Doing all the rivets on the superstructure is going to be another long and boring job. I intend using small round-head brass pins here. But that's all in the future. BY.

Bryan Young · « **Reply #18 on:** February 24, 2009, 05:19:25 pm »

Just to prove that I haven't totally wasted the winter, this is how "Northumbrian" looks as of today.Take no notice of the "boot-topping" line, that will be done correctly in the fullness of time. I had a mega disaster in mid January when I took advantage of an seasonably warm day and sprayed the deck with matt laquer...only for the temp to go below freezing that night and totally ruin the finish. Stupid of me really, but there you go. 5 days with a "mouse" sander (which always gives me "white finger"), and then start again. Ah, the joys of modelling when one is mentally breaking the wind in a breeze. Another snag I've found is that for someone of my limited stature (5'7") is that I cannot reach around the hull to turn it upside down. As one of my neighbours makes prosthetic limbs I've been wondering if he would knock me up a couple of arm extensions.
I struggled for weeks trying to devise and build a foolproof ramp operating system, but in the end decided life is too short. So at least for now the ramps will be fixed (shut, obviously!) but as the structure is removable I may change my mind. The ramp pillars are hollow, timber framed and covered with plasticard, then fastened with ally angles to a perspex base, which is then screwed into the underside of the overhanging deck. The entire unit has to be removeable so I can fit the actual ramps. So I hope all is not lost.
The little white squares are computer reduced versions of the real ones...quite readable.
Pic 2394 is not far off the model size, but the notice is just out of the depth of field area. I think the other pics are self explanatory, but there is a long way to go yet. BY.

chipchase · « **Reply #19 on:** February 24, 2009, 07:42:41 pm »

Looking good bryan, how much are you going to charge for trips around the lake

Edward Pinniger · « **Reply #20 on:** February 25, 2009, 01:09:08 pm »

Very nice work! The deck planking (previous update) looks particularly good, it has a very convincing weathered look to it. Not a subject you often see in R/C model form, it has lots of character and should look great on the water when finished. Will you be adding a deck cargo of 1/24 model cars (as in the photo Bryan Young posted)?

Bryan Young · « **Reply #21 on:** February 25, 2009, 04:43:02 pm »

Thanks for the comments. Yes, I will be "loading it up" with some vehicles from the 60s and early 70s. And loads of foot passengers. So far I have a 1960s VW Camper van, a VW Beetle, Morris Minor van (and a convertible), an early Triumph Bonneville m/c and a couple of others that I can't remember (the penalties of ageing). The idea is to "ring the changes" but the problem is how to prevent them being nicked! BY.

MikeK · « **Reply #22 on:** February 25, 2009, 05:02:46 pm »

Looks like she will be a fine model Bryan. I remember going across in my very first car, a Sunbeam Rapier Coupe'. From the years before that, I think anyone that crossed the Tyne can remember winter time standing outside the engine room to get the warm draught along with that special, special smell !

Mike

Bryan Young · « **Reply #23 on:** February 25, 2009, 07:34:46 pm »

Funny that one. Mine was a Rapier (YAJ 904), Blue and white and went like the wind (for those days). Happy days. Can you imagine the traffic nowadays trying to get on to the ferry? BY.

MikeK · « **Reply #24 on:** February 26, 2009, 11:06:08 am »

Well that's a coincidence - mine was the same colour (maybe that was the only colour ?) It had a windback sunroof providing endless fun for my pals to play variations on tank commanders ! No seat belts then

You must have a good memory (or filing system) my registration number has long since moved to the dead bit of my brain

Mike

News:

Author Topic: "Northumbrian" (Read 122096 times)