• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About tkay11

  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Kentish Town, London, UK

Recent Profile Visitors

662 profile views
  1. There are some Triton builds with the planking showing joins inside. Some even show the anchor stock planking that is even more correct at particular levels. I don't know if there is an online diagram showing this, but the following is the illustration from David Antscherl's book The Fully Framed Model. I would recommend this book if you want to make future similar models, if you can afford it. Apart from the planking on the upper deck, it's hard to see the planking on the remaining decks unless you light it up. So only you are likely to notice joints between the ceiling or inner planks unless you leave the frames fully exposed without planking on the other side. Tony
  2. Yes, nice progress! I like your method of holding the frames to the keel. Tony
  3. Niklas, I forgot to add a comment in relation to your saying "I`m enjoying the Rochefort even if it´s a little more than I can handle". To my mind that's exactly the reason for taking on a project. I took on my first kit, the Sherbourne, not only because I was intrigued by the idea of wooden model ship building, but also because it was something I thought I'd like to learn -- something that was beyond my skill level. The same was true when I then took on the Triton cross-section -- which was almost entirely an exercise to go beyond what I could handle, although I also much appreciated the beauties of its construction. So I'm definitely looking in my next model for something beyond what I can now handle as I really enjoy the process of learning, exploring and developing new skills. I could of course just settle into a comfort zone and hone existing skills to produce a beautiful model, as I might with a simple construction approach to La Jacinthe (although I could make it as complex as possible with full framing), and I still might do that, but I think I'd prefer the challenge to take me to a level at which I'd then decide to hone existing skills. We'll see! Tony
  4. Yes, you're probably right, Niklas, about the sheer and half-breadth plans. And you're definitely right about using the small scanner for frames. I'm just such a miser that I get irritated to have to pay £10 or £12 per sheet and still have to correct it. I should also mention that I'm also wasting my time on scanning the plans because whilst we're trying to sell the house I can't do any woodwork at all -- every single one of my tools has had to be stowed away and absolutely no sawdust or scraps allowed! So I've deliberately been playing around with the small scanner and software just to see how much accuracy I can achieve with corrections. As you say, it's what you can live with -- and the small levels of distortion when translated to real wood at 1:48 are probably no more than a file cut away from perfection. So like you, I know that when it comes to the crunch I'll be living with at least better distortions than I have at the moment! Tony
  5. That's very funny, Niklas, because your build of Le Rochefort made me go back to have a look at it again as a possibility for my next build. I've been scanning the different ship's plans I have before making CAD tracings as part of the process of deciding which to build first (the others being the Brixham trawler Valerian, the Frigate Naiad, and La Jacinthe). You've seen the interesting discussion about framing the Brixham trawler and I was pleased to work out how to do the framing for that. As I'll be visiting Brixham in June to see the three main trawlers re-built there, I'll have lots of photos to help and that may well help me to finalise the decision. But the step-by-step guide provided by Ed Tosti with the Naiad is very tempting, and Le Rochefort is tempting because the framing is simpler and very clearly presented (as well as being a merchant ship, which I prefer). La Jacinthe is still on my list simply because it's a beautiful ship and I think my wife would prefer it far more than the others! One of the irritating things about scanning from paper (especially if it's been folded) is the fact that the flatbed scanners have complex distortions which don't allow for simple re-sizing and overlapping if you want a really accurate result, so I have to end up making small sections and re-adjusting. In fact it's the same process as re-drafting on to paper as I have to make a grid and use the measurements of each part of the plans to which I can re-size. The errors are approximate 1mm per 100mm, but variable with both barrel and pincushion distortion, so it's much easier when the plans are provided as pdfs (as for the Naiad) when there's no distortion and only errors of drafting. Thanks for appreciating the Triton, though! I much enjoyed doing it. Tony
  6. My message box was full. I have now deleted about half the messages, so if anyone wants to PM me in future that should work. Tony
  7. Hi Tony!


    As you may know, I'm starting the Triton cross section in 1/24 scale:  a scale that introduces a lot of problems in terms of scaling.  For example, the layout lines for the parts and the profile views etc. are about 1/32" thick, leading to a lot of potential error especially in terms of room and space layout of the frames on the keel.  What I'm hoping for is that you can help me out with some pointers in building the jig to construct the model.  How do I size the upper portion, with the cutouts for the frames, given that the frames are curved?  How do I account for the slight curvature of the frames moving aft in the plan view?  How do I keep consistent space bewtween fromes, given the thickness of the layout lines?


    I'm almost thinking of not using the 2 tiered jig you and others have employed. Instead I'd set the first frame on the keel, use a standard precut spacer for the space between it and the second frame, then set the second frame.  Using the standard spacer again, I'd set the third frame and so on.  I would need to make a right angle jig to keep the frames square to the keel and their tops level, but I could avoid the upper tier of the jig.  What do you think?  Any advice or tips?  Thanks so much for any help you can lend!


    PS:  Thanks for your superb build log and model.  I really enjoyed it.

    1. tkay11


      I don't know why you can't access me through PM, unless the box is full or something. I'll have to figure it out.

      Building the jig was easy, I just set the height for the widest part of the cross-section -- i.e. the widest frame at it's widest height. I then measured the widths of all the frames at that height and printed the plan with all the frame markings. I put this on a sheet of plywood and cut out the part that would hold the frame. I then aligned that very carefully with the frame layout on the base, as you should see from my log, and drilled holes for the bolts through both pieces whilst still aligned. I then set the height for the cutout by placing the holding nuts at the right height.

      For consistent spacing, as you might seen from my log, my cutout was such that it had indents for each frame, so the indents acted as spacers. In terms of measurement, it's a question of consistency as to where you take the measurements from. In general I think the safest is to use the outside of the line, but that varies with the situation. Sometimes I use the middle -- e.g. between planks.

      The other method you propose of having a movable jig with set squares is possibly the more common method, and is one that is also used when making longer models of the full ship. It looks good to me, but for my particular purpose with the cross-section, I thought the jig method would be simplest.

      I'm always happy to help, so don't worry about pestering me!


    2. DocBlake


      Thanks, Tony!  That helps a lot.  Let me think about this a bit more.  I really did enjoy your build, and it will be a huge help to me going forward with mine.  Thanks again!



    3. tkay11


      That's OK. I've emptied out my mail box now. It was full, so that should fix the problem with sending me PMs.



  8. Just as an update on my experimentation, I have another illustration of the Brixham trawler Masterhand which shows the vertical framing -- at least in essence: So I went ahead and rotated my Valerian sheer plan so that the waterline is horizontal. In order to mimic the simultaneous rotation of the half breadth plan, I shortened the half breadth plan so that the points of reference to the sheer plan were the same as before. I then re-drew the station lines, using the central station line as the 'flat', and then re-drew the body plan for station 7. I had thought that the difference between the frames would be small because of the rather elementary geometry I had used before to estimate the change in height. In fact both the shape and the height of the frame that would be at that position would be considerably different from that calculated using the original plans by Underhill. I include these drawings and method so that others may correct me if I've made a series of elementary mistakes about this and before I go any further in drawing up plans! Tony
  9. Thanks, B.E. As one of the people from whom I continue to learn, much appreciated as well! Tony
  10. Thanks, Al. You seemed to be getting on just fine with your build when last I looked! But I'm glad if I've acted as a stimulus! Tony
  11. Thanks. I'll look for HESPER. As to whom I contacted, it wasn't Malcolm Darch, but the Ashley Butler Shipyard. I have just done a search on "building frames at angle to keel" and there's been a lot of discussion about this on various sites, including: Model Ship Builder forum: and also a discussion there on the building of the 'Sir Edward Hawke' where they talk about 'declivity compensation' A discussion on slipway angles and the text of McKay's book at There are many pictures of such builds, but, alas, nothing yet as to how to draw the frames. It's probably a really simple exercise, but I have to admit I haven't yet put my brain to it! Tony
  12. Thanks for the statement about the rake of the timber frames, and it's also easy just to peg them on afterwards. Is the Ronnberg article " 32-2 – 4, 33-3 & 4, 34-1 Fishing Schooner Elsie, 1910: Research and Plans for Ship, Model Construction by Erik A. R. Ronnberg, Jr."? If so I'll get it. I don't think I was confusing station lines with framing, but it's interesting that on the Valerian plans the body sections clearly reflect the sheer and half breadth plans -- with the hint that the resulting lines would be used for drawing the frames. Similarly the lines I showed above for the Provident have the same inter-dependence. In Chapelle's book on the American Fishing Schooners, there are again lots of drawings with the station lines at right angles to the waterline, and with the same level of inter-dependence. It is one of the points made several times about these trawlers that paper plans were not used and that lines were taken from the half models, but there must be lots of evidence from those who have studied ship architecture as well as from wrecks and repairs. When I'm in Brixham in June I'll see if I can visit some of the shipyards and ask around. They've re-built at least two of those old Brixham trawlers and have had them in for repair quite a bit, so they must have knowledge and possibly plans. When I emailed one of the shipyards about plans, I received no reply, but a visit is worth a try. Tony
  13. Thanks again, Druxey. Good idea. I had already thought of inclining the base for building. What had been puzzling me was how to draw the frames when the half-breadth plan would also have to be foreshortened in order to have the same spacing as on the sheer plan. However ... I think I've made a mountain out of a molehill. When I measured the differences in frame height between verticals to keel and waterline at any station, they were very small in terms of model making. So on a 1:32 plan the maximum difference for the tallest frame would be 0.25 mm, and for the smallest it is 0.1mm difference -- and of course on a 1:64 model that would be halved. Anyway, I think I'm on the right track now, thanks to all the help -- as has so often been the case! Tony
  14. That's very interesting, Roger. It's also interesting that Greenhill's illustrations of shipbuilding along the river banks show in some instances the height of the brick supports under the keel gradually rising towards the stem, even though his plans show the frames are vertical to the keel. In the case of the Valerian, if I position the waterline horizontally, the angle of the waterline to the ground is 2.17 degrees -- which is near the 3 degrees you mention. In a small booklet called 'PROVIDENT and the story of the Brixham Smacks' there's a small set of plans which show the station lines at right angles to the waterline. If the frames were to be laid vertically to the keel, then the timberheads (if that's the correct term for the extensions of some of the frames above the deck) would have a pronounced rake -- which they don't seem to have in the photos and drawings I've seen of the trawlers. I'll be experimenting with the geometry and the algebra to understand the relation of frame size to the plans. It shouldn't be too hard, but I can see that fitting frames at angles other than 90 to the keel might be tricky for my level of competence. In other words something that might best be left to a later model until I have the hang of framing another model such as Le Rochefort. I'll also dig a little more into the American fishing schooners. I have Chapelle's book, but I have yet to study it. Tony