Paddleducks
Paddler Modelling => Construction => Topic started by: PeeWee on May 21, 2011, 09:48:49 PM
-
Hi PD's
I have decided to delay the build of my MoL and instead start the 1899 Waverley. I have had the hull for awhile whilst deciding what to do. the decision has been confirmed that it must be Steam powered, this will be my first steam powered model. so i will most likely make silly mistakes and hope that the more skilled of you would be gracious in pointing them out. :laugh:
from the limited photos there appears to have been a remodeling of the upper deck houses, would any of you by chance have any pictures of Waverley 1 as i only have a couple to confirm this.
Pictures of the about to be started hull.
(http://i716.photobucket.com/albums/ww169/peacocki/Waverley/DSCF1514.jpg)
(http://i716.photobucket.com/albums/ww169/peacocki/Waverley/DSCF1516.jpg)
(http://i716.photobucket.com/albums/ww169/peacocki/Waverley/DSCF1515.jpg)
Regards
-
Here are the 2 pictures that are confusing me. they both claim to be Waverley 1.
My preferred version
(http://i716.photobucket.com/albums/ww169/peacocki/Waverley/rd310sc_waverley1_funnel.jpg)
post refit??? note the difference in the hull windows
(http://i716.photobucket.com/albums/ww169/peacocki/Waverley/waverleynb.jpg)
-
Hi Ian,
The white funneled paddler is P&A Campbells WAVERLEY, formerly P.S. BARRY...lovely ship. So there were two WAVERLEYS sailing at the one time.
the second pic is the Clyde WAVERLEY of 1899, showing larger deckhouses, in the 1930s.
I don't have any pics to hand at the moment, but ignoring war service, WAVERLEY had three different "looks",
1. 1899 - 1914 Open foredeck, bridge behind funnel, no forward deckhouse.
2. 1918 - early 30s Plated up bow, bridge forward on small deckhouse, small deckhouse aft.
3. early 30s - 1939 Larger deckhouses fore and aft with observation saloons (as your pic shows). 1935 onwards grey/white hull livery.
At some point she got a new funnel, and got a 3rd lifeboat aft, and larger windows aft.
Personally I prefer her with the small deckhouses, I think the larger ones spoiled her profile.
I will be watching with interest as I have the hull too, but will eventually be building P.S. FAIRMAID from it.
regards
Clark
-
AHH!!! :shoot
no wonder i thought i was going totally mad. as it turns out operators were trying to confuse everyone, or at least me. PS Barry does look good but will the Hull take her? possibly at 1/32 maybe if so then this would still be a preference.
on the 1918-early 30's would the picture below be correct?
(http://i716.photobucket.com/albums/ww169/peacocki/Waverley/untitled.jpg)
if so its the one for me, as i can not find anything on the earlier version.
-
Yes that last pic is from 1918 - early 30s, in my opinion she looked her best then.
I don't think two paddlers having the same name happened very often, but there was a Duchess of Fife on the Clyde and I think the south coast of England also.
As for the BARRY, her dimensions - L 225.6' x B 26.6'
against WAVERLEY - L 235' x B 26.1'
so about 10 feet difference or 2 1/2" inches at 1:48 ratio
however BARRY had a significantly different hull shape, more sheer and flair forward and not same stern. Quite different altogether.
-
thats solved then. Waverly 1 version 2 as it were. :D
-
Hi PD's....PeeWee.....here is a snap listed as ......Waverley No3 & whilst not specifically listed, the text implies it is year 1919
The image depicts the helm abaft the funnel which is not shown in any of the earlier images..... :whistle ...not sure ....Derek
-
Hi Derek,
That pic is definetly pre WW1 and I would say the WAVERLEY is very new as in the background is one of the original G&SWR paddlers (VICEROY?) which lasted in that fleet till 1907.
After refit post WW1 (1919?)WAVERLEY retained plated up bow, got new funnel and bridge forward.
As far as I can trace WAVERLEY 1 built 1828
" 2 built 1885
" 3 built 1899, and of course the present one would be 4th, not counting the ex BARRY.
Clark
-
The Waverley, ex Barry seems to be a very popular ship. Hopefully someone's paying attention ;-)
-
... i thought i was going totally mad....
I found that also when I bought 'Paddle Steamers by Bernard Cox' all those years ago and saw pictures of five different Waverleys...
(3 versions of the first one, the re-named PS Barry plus current Waverley)
-
What can you tell us about the interesting looking engine you are going to use? Great to hear it is going to be steam, it is getting easier with all the help around now. Cheers, Ian.
-
mmmmmmmmmm PDs'...& PeeWee says .... :whistle
"the decision has been confirmed that it must be Steam powered, this will be my first steam powered model. so i will most likely make silly mistakes and hope that the more skilled of you would be gracious in pointing them out"
:oops ...could be wrong PeeWee...but that little geared twin wobbler by Bogstandard :respect is I am sure a great engine.....but may be lacking in power for your intended vessel
Engine power is one of the most nonspecific fundamentals offered when applied to paddlers :ranting
model racing cars get it....model helicopter's get it...model fast fuel & electrical boats get it
JMC & Saito are the only two manufacturers that offer any real guidelines......but these are only relative to engine displacement & hull length...& does not consider model displacement or shape .......Derek
-
Hi,
you are correct in that its by Bogstsandard, i had the same thoughts about its poower. see clip below running on 10PSI of air
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSdZ0qcso6s
Bogs and i exchanged a few PM's over on madmodder.net and he thinks it should be fine for waverley though he said definatly not in my MoL. which is where i initially was going to put it. I will keep on the principle of using this engine but also look at making myself a more powefull one if needed. just not sure on which design to look at. this way i would end up with 2 engins and options i hope or :squareone
-
PeeWee,
must say your choice of model is excellent, a real good looking paddler.
Unfortunatly steam power is a problem. My Glasgow has just been de-steamed, not so much a problem with the power plant, but the rules are not always easy. The boiler is less than 3 bar litre but still the local clubs insist on a certificate, but none of them have a tester and witnesser and I am told to get a certificate before I can sail.
The sensible option was to de-steam, leaving the gearing in place to return to steam at a future date, hence a choice of sailing power. The model suffers far less wear and tear when the electric power is used.
-
PeeWee,
must say your choice of model is excellent, a real good looking paddler.
Unfortunatly steam power is a problem. My Glasgow has just been de-steamed, not so much a problem with the power plant, but the rules are not always easy. The boiler is less than 3 bar litre but still the local clubs insist on a certificate, but none of them have a tester and witnesser and I am told to get a certificate before I can sail.
The sensible option was to de-steam, leaving the gearing in place to return to steam at a future date, hence a choice of sailing power. The model suffers far less wear and tear when the electric power is used.
If the local clubs insist on a certificate they should have testers. It is very frustrating when someone says you can't run something because they don't understand it and are too lazy too learn. I was prohibited from running my steam launch at a show once, not because I didn't have a Certificate (I had copies of all the requirements that showed all the exemptions), but because I had a flame on board. The local fire marshal refused to allow me to fire my boiler, but allowed two other exhibitors to use open flames.
Regards,
Gerald.
-
Ian, The engine design is french with modifications made by Bogstandard the original design is for a twin vertical engine. I can dig the plans out if you wish.
Tonyh, i am lucky enough to be a member of the local Model Engineering Society and they have 2 certified boiler testers if required. Never bothered with the Peterborough Model club. not really sure why. i have to agree that electric is simpler and more sensible but there is something about steam and seeing the physical engineering and movement. with the covers off the model :D
Gerald, its totally mad how different organisations from clubs to shows to councils all have different takes on the same dreaded H&S and legal regulations.
-
Well i have actually done some work in the workshop today.
i photocopied parts of the plans and spray mounted them to the hull
(http://i716.photobucket.com/albums/ww169/peacocki/Waverley/DSCF1525.jpg)
clamped to the bench for stability and the masking tape is to remove some of the flex in the hull
(http://i716.photobucket.com/albums/ww169/peacocki/Waverley/DSCF1526.jpg)
then a few hours with files etc i have one side of windows cut out.
(http://i716.photobucket.com/albums/ww169/peacocki/Waverley/DSCF1530.jpg)
(http://i716.photobucket.com/albums/ww169/peacocki/Waverley/DSCF1531.jpg)
(http://i716.photobucket.com/albums/ww169/peacocki/Waverley/DSCF1528.jpg)
next side tomorrow ;D
-
I like the idea of spray mounting the plans onto the hull Ian.... Saves an aweful lot of time marking everything out!
Regards
Eddy
-
certainly does, i remember spending 2 days on the MoL windows just measuring and redoing as i invariably make mistakes.
Just not sure if i should drill out the lower portholes or not.
-
A copy of the engine plans uploaded on to Paddleducks would be good or I am happy to pay for a set on disc or a hard copy posted. I do not have facilities to machine an engine from scratch but a friend does have and he has just offered to build me one if I find plans. His first attempt at building a paddler engine was not very successful so he is saying he will only do another if I find him a proven design. Cheers, Ian
-
Hi,
here is a link to the original plans http://jpduval.free.fr/Moteurs_vapeur_simples/MV%20deo%2010x20.pdf some some mods were made by Bogs to convert it to a horizonal engine.
here is a build log of a vertical version http://madmodder.net/index.php?topic=3429.0
-
Well PD's
I have finally cut out the 94 windows in the waverly :D , they will most likely need tidying once the paper is removed from the hull. the next stage is the portholes and th eholes for the shaft. once th eshaft holes are in then i will be able to see the engine position and just how much (or should that be how little) space i have for the boiler and asociated sundries.
(http://i716.photobucket.com/albums/ww169/peacocki/Waverley/th_DSCF1534.jpg) (http://s716.photobucket.com/albums/ww169/peacocki/Waverley/?action=view¤t=DSCF1534.jpg)
(http://i716.photobucket.com/albums/ww169/peacocki/Waverley/th_DSCF1533.jpg) (http://s716.photobucket.com/albums/ww169/peacocki/Waverley/?action=view¤t=DSCF1533.jpg)
(http://i716.photobucket.com/albums/ww169/peacocki/Waverley/th_DSCF1535.jpg) (http://s716.photobucket.com/albums/ww169/peacocki/Waverley/?action=view¤t=DSCF1535.jpg)
-
Nice, bet you are glad that task is over.....didn't realise she had so many windows, and I was complaining about 60 something on my MoL :-X
On bigger hulls, I usually put some stiffening in before drilling shaft holes, maybe deck edge supports and some cross pieces, just so the hull is locked in shape before marking & drilling for shaft bushes.
Clark
-
Hi All,
A question, if a plan is drawn and then drawn or put directly on to a hull side as I, Ian and i'm sure others have done does this not raise a question on how plans are drawn.
From my nautical background we have plans drawn in Mercator projection and the other type which off the top of my head i can't remember the name of..
What I'm trying, rather inarticulately trying to say, is should we pin all our hopes on the plan's accuracy rather than making our models 'look right'
Now there is a point for discussion between the rivet counters.
Another thing that 'chucks' a spanner in the works is when builders drawing don't correspond to what was actually built.
After recently working with some professional modelers i have asked myself the same questions several times.... especially after hearing their answers....
Don't get me wrong I'm all for accuracy but i do wonder sometimes....
Regards,
Kim
-
I'd have thought it likely that the 'side view/elevation' would be a little short due to the curvature of the hull - though using sections of it (such as just the windows) probably wouldn't make too much difference..... or would it?
-
I agree that on the overall length the plans would come up short if stuck on the entire length. although i have cheated a little here (read as engineering solution) when copying the rear windows they were copied 1:1 as the hull is predominately straight. at the front i increased the copy to 102% to compensate for the curvature of the hull.
On Kims point, not all fittings etc look right at the correct scale to the original and some items are at times enlarged or even missed off a model. i always used to make WT doors on 1/96 scale warships thicker. so they stand out a little. and i know some people who make model liners use an off white paint instead of full white for a more realistic look.
-
Hi All,
Waverley will be re-started soon, i was reviewing which of the 3 fits to build, still like no. 2. i was wondering if anyone has any pictures in her wartime service? i keep pulling up pictures of HMS Snaefell which is the barry/waverley and not this one.
regards