The theft, discovery and rebuild of a trawler.
Perhaps it’s just me, but I find that the hardest part of writing anything is the “beginning” and the “ending”.
Apart from the pair of Cable Repair ships (“Norseman” and “Recorder”, although 2 entirely different ships) I’ve always tried to build something “different” as a next model. OK, I know and appreciate that some modellers prefer to build particular types of ship. Some build Ferries of one sort or another. Some stick to Fishing Boats, others to RNLI boats and so on. No harm in that. But I prefer having a go at disparate types of ships. Generally speaking this means that I’ve got to learn a lot when the projected model is out of my professional “comfort zone”. Particularly when I decided to build a Trawler. Also, I’m not particularly interested in very modern vessels as I find them less visually appealing than vessels of a past age.
Having recently completed the marathon build of s/s “Hunan” (R.I.P.) in mid 1997, I was casting around for something else to build. Then another of Mr.Pottingers’ plans appeared as a “Modellers Draught” in the December 1977 issue of Model Shipwright. A very traditional Steam Trawler named “Bayflower” that had been built in 1933. Everything about this boat intrigued me. First was the fact that modelling her took me away from the more “mainstream” stuff I’d been building. Then was the realisation that although over the years I’d seen many of these things but still hadn’t much of a clue as to how they went about their business. Of course I knew the basics of trawling, what lights they had and all that. But about their day to day work I was quite ignorant. In fact my experience of trawlers up to then had been more of annoyance and exasperation than anything else. They always seemed to operate with a remarkable disregard for anything else that just happened to be on the same bit of ocean as themselves. Absolutely no regard or adherence to the chiselled in stone “Rules Of The Road”. At times, being a “driver” of perhaps a fully loaded troopship, these things would suddenly alter course to put both ships in imminent danger of collision. Heart attack time. And they never seemed to be operating without others of their ilk meandering haphazardly about the place. It’s all very well saying that “proper” ships should give fishing vessels a wide berth, indeed the “Rules” state that “when possible” that should be done, but the “Rules” also state that a vessel engaged in fishing should not hamper the safe navigation of other vessels in a recognized seaway, But that just isn’t possible all the time. A good example here would be the North Sea. Even in the 1970s the North Sea was laid out (on paper!) with a sort of road map. These “roads” were passage areas that had been swept of WW2 minefields. And very few “deep sea” ships would be willing to risk traversing an unswept area. So from a navigational point of view these vessels could be a major hazard. On the other hand, on a more person to person level we always got along with them…..especially during times when we would just be stooging around in a 30,000ton tanker or ammo ship and the notion of some fresh fish seemed a good idea. Amazing how much fish could be “bought” for a couple of bottles of whisky!
On other occasions when we were just meandering a bit aimlessly off the North coast of N.Ireland local fishing boats would offer to “trade” crabs and lobsters for some fresh vegetables. A sack of potatoes would be swapped for 2 sacks of large crabs. A sack of mixed veg and a bottle of whisky would result in a sack of large lobsters. Happy days.
But none of that would ever excuse their utter disregard for others. Even when they weren’t actually fishing they would invariably show the lights or day signals that said they were, honestly, fishing. Mind you, this was a mind-set on their part. Even in port their navigation lights and fishing signals would be left on and showing. A law unto themselves.
So “Bayflower” caught my interest.
I’d love to be able to reproduce Mr.Pottingers’ article and description here, but I’m not going to push my luck against any copyright legislation!
“Bayflower” was just over 150ft long, and Mr.Pottingers’ plans, if adhered to, would result in a model of around 30”, which is basically around 1:50 scale. And that scale is what I generally use for “proper” ships. But 30” was just too small, so I decided on 1:36 scale (about 50% larger). So somewhere in the region of 4ft. The plans published in Model Shipwright are actually pretty good if 1:50 scale is what the builder wants. I built the hull (GRP) directly from these plans using my invaluable proportional dividers. But to build at the larger scale, more information was needed. Very conveniently the photo accompanying the article was sourced as being supplied by the Hull Maritime Museum. It didn’t take me long to buy (remarkably cheaply) copies of the original builders plans….and what a wealth of detail they showed. Perfect. Or was it? All the details gleaned from both sets of plans only went to show how little I knew about the actual operation of these ships.
More learning required!
Fortunately for me, within Tynemouth Model Boat Club we had 2 ex-trawlermen. One was a guy called Jimmy Cullen (more on him later) who’d actually been the Ch.Engineer on this class of ship, and Brian Chambers (Brian_c on this forum).
What a wealth of information these 2 supplied. Brian loaned me all sorts of books that were mainly about the people, but every photo had little details of the boat somewhere in the background….more than useful. Another little “oddball” was the use of cow-hides strung up around the working areas. This all got stranger and stranger. In fact the only thing I could find in common with my sort of sea-going life was that we both used the sea to float on.
Jimmy Cullen was very much an old-fashioned trawlerman. Blunt to the point of rudeness without realising it. But when approached he could be a mine of willing information. He knew these things inside out. Any little query I had about fixtures and fittings he would delight in improving my education….in the broadest Geordie accent imaginable, complete with the adjectival epithets without which no seamans’ vocabulary would be complete. But even I was now and again reduced to asking for some “clarification”. These “lessons” were mainly filled with sentences comprising words beginning with an “f”. But remarkably descriptive for all that.
I really don’t know how old he was, but one day he asked me to walk around the lake with him and told me he’d got the “Big C” and as he hadn’t much longer to go, he was going to live with his sister(?) in Scarborough, but could I send him some photos of the model? He got them just before he died. A lovely man….when approached in “his way”.
And so my education in the ways of trawlermen progressed. I suppose I was getting a feel for both the trawlers and the people who suffered on them by now. In point of fact, I’m not generally sympathetic to the woes of my fellow man, but I did feel a little softening of the heart when (metaphorically) sitting on Cullens knee listening to his tales. He died in 1998, but just now and again, I miss him.
Alas, the various (on film) photos I took of the original build of “Bayflower” have been lost. Not to worry. The fog will clear eventually.
Just after I completed the model (2001?), “Bayflower” was entered into the competition section of the Harrogate show (scratch built section) …the organisers of which immediately stuffed the model into the “Kit Built” section. Shrug shoulders, but inwardly seethe. This began a long running and on-going saga of disagreements between me (and with the support of other TMBC members) and the judging at Harrogate.
But life’s too short for all that.
As I’d had a very pleasant year sailing “Bayflower” it was time to consider another model. So I began building RFA “Gold Ranger”. Not part of this tale.
It was my practise to keep 2 models in my trailer housed within my main garage / workshop. Not attached to the house, but only about 30ft away at the end of the back garden.
Then it was raided. Patently by someone who knew my layout and what I had in there.
Both “Hunan” and “Bayflower” were taken. As were more or less all of my tools and equipment including all my batteries and radio gear. This could not have been done by a casual sneak thief. It was by someone who both knew me and had seen my layout.
The phone call to the police resulted in a casual visit 8 hours later by a “community” policeman who, to his credit, did say that this robbery was more serious than had been assumed. Like a total of £30,000 worth of “stuff”. Of which I got £7,500 back from the insurers.
Ever tried insuring a rather valuable model? I could insure a new BMW car for less.
Then came the CID who first of all tried to imply that I’d done it as an insurance scam. Then came the SOCO who did absolutely nothing but shrug his shoulders and go back whence he came. My faith in Britains Finest took a severe nose dive here.
And so it remained. Many fingers were pointed at a club member who I’d had a serious falling out with some months earlier, but it was all circumstantional.
Until.
About 5 years after the event, another club member saw and recognized “Bayflower” for sale in a rather sleazy “antiques” shop on the south side of the Tyne. I went over there and eyeballed it, sure enough…it was my model. For sale at £600.
Off I went to the local Police HQ and explained the situation. These things take time…and yet more time….Eventually 2 young “officers” appeared and said they would “look into it” and I was to be there when they did. Progress!!
The next few minutes or so were rather bizarre.
When the officers asked for the model to be lifted down off its high shelf it needed 2 people to do so. Odd.
On the counter I was asked if I could prove it was mine. No problem. Although the model was wrecked beyond belief, some little catches and so on were still in place. When I began removing the superstructure the shop “owner” tried to stop me by saying it was all fixed down, and it was only a “kit” anyway.
By the time I’d removed the various bits he was looking as decidedly seedy as his shop. Even more so when I showed the so-called “officers” my signed plaque and wiring diagram inside the boat. Impasse.
The reason it was so heavy was because the idiots hadn’t been able to get at the battery, lead ballast and motor. Even the electronics were still in place and untouched.
Now, between you me and the gatepost, I’d sort of expected the highly trained custodians of the law to be a bit suspicious by now. At least to demand access to wherever more “stock” would be held. Did they? Did they hell.
In fact they went off to report to HQ for an hour and I was left wondering what on earth was going on.
I got “Bayflower” back, the “shop” closed down soon afterwards, but sadly,“Hunan” has long since disappeared.
And so poor “Bayflower” sits, in smashed up bits waiting patiently to be brought back to life.
But at the time I was blowed if I was giving in to these low-lifes….so I decided to rebuild her. I couldn’t really face up to rebuilding “Hunan” as I was (and still am after all these years) a wee bit emotional about her. So “Bayflower” Mk 2 was born. This time re-named “James Cullen” after my original mentor.
And now it’s year 2011. The rebuild of “Norseman” is complete and the “General Havelock” has had its damage repaired. Just in time to be entered into the NE Model Boat Show. From all accounts (that I’ve heard, anyway) this may be the last one. Various reasons I suppose, but a shame nonetheless.
So. In the next couple of weeks I shall begin the rebuild of “Bayflower” Mk.1. and hopefully will get her to take her place alongside the “James Cullen”. I will find that day to be more than satisfying. I’ll still miss the “Hunan” though.
I’ll end this “introduction”/ preface with a photo of “Bayflower” in her “James Cullen” guise. Then I’ll get to the nitty gritty of rebuilding the original…..which I haven’t started as yet.