FlyingFish

Well its seems along time since I last posted - very busy time around Christmas, visiting relatives, and then our two children flew in to stay over. We also had an unexpected guest, a Mr Covid who tried to take the limelight, but we saw him off eventually. Hopefully getting back into the swing now, so here's a short update, and I wish all of you a very peaceful, happy and creative New Year! Timber. I am using timber from trees we planted in the early ‘80’s thinned and felled to make room for a new driveway to our property. This is mostly field maple, acer campestris which is super hard and stable; and a faster growing poplar (aspen) where the grain is not so important. Also some boughs of Holly, Ilex aquifolium; which was seasoned outside for about four years and then inside for 12 months. During seasoning it takes on a (fungal?) stain which is grey/blue, but in fact this is what I want when looking for a base colour that can be dyed to look like weathered oak, using Jacobean & Tudor oak stains and oil paint tints. For some of the parts will also be stained to match mahogany and pitch pine. I have some tulip and idigbo which may find their way into the boat. Selecting seasoned timber for the project – checking moisture levels and evidence of any live insect activity. The curved sections will be for frames. Stock is roughly dimensioned on a 45-year-old band saw, then hand planed and finally sanded to size with my d.i.y. belt sander thicknesser. I keep meaning to build a smarter version, but it’s consistently accurate to a tenth of a millimetre, can plane parallel or to a set taper, so I don’t bother. Planking will be 1.9 mm (75 thou) thick by about 4mm (160 thou) wide at this scale. For the stock sizes I make a spacer-blocks for the ‘thicknesser’ which holds the throat at the right size for each stock dimension and ensures consistency. The maple and holly are quite tough on the hand plane blade, and I sharpen regularly to a very fine edge. I don’t have table saws, thicknessers or suchlike, so progress is slow, but I don’t mind that. Field maple, poplar and holly in 5” (3.9mm) 6” 4.75mm) and 8” (6.35mm) Finished dimensioned stock for framing; this is 5 year seasoned holly showing the grey staining. It should weather up to represent oak well. I also have a piece of the original timber from Vigilance which I was kindly permitted to take from the skip at the Yard. It is the very base of a frame that has sat next to ballast and bilge water for a century, so it’s not very pretty but I intend to return a section into the boat somewhere if I can salvage a piece.

On that basis Mr S, do hope your wife enjoys the CNC laser cutter and the Lie Neilson palm plane.

When researching my current build I came accross several photographs of sailing trawlers being towed out of harbour to sea by steam tugs, both at Brixham and Lowestoft. Their skippers must have been doing the maths by then I guess!

Maybe this is an early example of 'range anxiety'!

Hey george, great choice and well done on securing such lovely looking plans - this will be a treat!

Just catching up - great progress! I'm taken by the similarities to the sailing trawlers that predated these steam ships - you can see the evolution in the hull design clearly.

You don't need that match any more - we believe you! Lovely soldering - and those parts are tiny!

Thanks Keith. I'm feeling guilty that I've hardly picked up a pencil yet. Seen from the front she is almost aquiline!

Great news - either that or you've been taking the wrong tablets. There's a pixture of my father stuck on my bathroom mirror. Take my advice, don't look.

Thanks Gary - its rare to have the opportunity to study a boat as it is taken apart and rebuilt like this, so I'm making the most of it! I'm on a steep learning curve with the terminology - let me know if I get it wrong!

Lofting & Division of Frames. Three body plans were drawn. One each for fore, centre, and aft faces of each frame pair. From these, 72 single frames will be lofted, and colour coded. For each the planking width is shown, with rabbet, and the centreline, distance to keel, datum and position of the DWL shown. In addition, the sheer position is marked, as setting these at 6.5 degrees will, I anticipate, need as many reference points as possible. Futtock divisions are marked and vary from frame to frame as in the original. They used the wood they had to the best economic efficiency. I may cut temporary perpendicular frames in ply from the original body plan to allow the use of ribbands to help guide the frame pairs and will probably use a template at the sheer to act as a reference point to fair the sheer line as the proper framing progresses. Each frame pair therefore has a forward, and aft template. The centre template (the midline of the frame pair) is shared by both. Futtock divisions for frames 4-7 are as shown above. Frames 8 – 10 as below have floors of equal arms, and two futtocks; Frames 11 – 25 similar but aft frames have an additional short 3rd futtock. When you see them in the boat, the frames look massive. At 1:32 scale they are quite delicate, just under 4mm square, so vulnerable until held together by the beam shelf, clamp and planking. Lofting sets for fore, aft and centre frames is a very lengthy process. Although CAD allows you to fiddle with lines endlessly at great magnification, I have found that panning out and using the eye to fair more generally keeps a sense of proportion to the job. After all, by the time these are printed, stuck on the timber, cut out and sanded fair any minor imperfection will have long since been smoothed out. Where buttock and waterlines do not appear to match exactly, rather than tweak them endlessly in and out by fractions of an inch I prefer to leave alone. In terms of assembly, There are two choices: the quick way: cut each individual frame out as a whole piece, then knife-score the joint lines, stain futtock sections to visually differentiate them; glue into a pair of frames and drill and glue fixings. No-one will ever know. The more fastidious method is to manufacture the frame from separate futtocks as originally made, in this case 10 components for one frame and assemble in a jig. Hmmm – over 350 components in all, sanding joints exactly; lots of scope for inaccuracies and all that gluing…. I’ll be doing a mixture of both, for sanity’s sake, as I’ll explain later. Other Drawings. As well as the linesplan I have drafted five other plans: 1. Midline layout. 2. Profile sectional of all internal fittings 3. Plan view of deck layout 4. Plan view of beams carlins, stanchions knees, and bitts and other structural features. 5. Counter timbers. These are all related, of course, and keep changing in light of what I’m finding out in conversation with the crew and the shipwrights, and through research. I’ll publish them at the appropriate time. I do intend to model the entire boat, but at this stage not sure how that will be enabled. Planking and rigging plans are down the line a long way. If you are waiting for sawdust, not long now!

My wife says she doesn't want a lathe, so I'm completely stuck now. Would Nicole consider selling her list?

Hmmmm... always a silver lining. Best wishes!

This gives a sense of the size of the model - will you be taking out a ceiling?

Considering how wonderful your work is with cateracts I imagine we are in for a treat afterwards! I remember my father grimacing when he saw me after his op. Never did get over that.

It looks very fine wood indeed - very fine grained. Good choice.

Thanks Keith - hope to see you back at work soon!

Huh? Mango stick, what's that? (I'm a Brit, go gently!)

Frames – and a salutary tale! There are 34 double frames and five single frames along the centreline. The former are on the keel or deadwoods, and the latter fay to the horn timbers. The general arrangement is in pairs of 5” by 5” oak with a 10” space at approximately 22” centres. Aft-most frames have a floor and two futtocks, foremost frames have two futtocks and a small third futtock in the midships. Frames 8 – 28 notch onto the keel, 1-7 and 29 – 34 fay onto the deadwood. The keelson is 10” square. Every other frames were through bolted to the keel. Their condition when the boat came into the slip was poor, with evidence that some futtocks had been replaced. The floors had been encased in concrete ballast and some of the heels were badly rotted. The frames cant timbers and stanchions in the counter section had been replaced and repaired many times, and were in the worst condition. As mentioned previously, work started with redrawing the profile and plan of the key dimensions to the new raised sheer line and correcting the LOA. Then adding the midline - reduced keel depth; including the aft deadwood which was original; redrawing the stem to better match the original in drawings and adding the fore deadwoods and stemson. The adding construction points for the height of the keelson; adding the positions of the clamp and shelf. Then marking the centre of the mast steps and the assumed rabbet line When I did this Vigilance was in plank, with the deck intact and I was only able to see the frames by crawling about inside. Edgar March suggests the keels were laid on a slip with a fall of ½” to 1” to the foot, stern down, and the frames plumbed to the keel at each position. This would give a fall of 1.2 – 1.5 degrees to horizontal. One would expect therefore that a plumbed frame would be at a similar angle to the keel, raked forward. Underhill’s plans of Valarian have a keel angle of 1.2 degrees to datum, as did the sheer drawing from the naval architect, so I set this up in the linesplan with the frames vertical on the plan, in the usual way. The original stations were erased, the frames positions drawn in and a happy few days of originating a new body plan followed. Here’s the result of that plan. I was very pleased with this and feeling well on my way to lofting the frame parts ready for assembly. Then on my next visit to Vigilance to see the progress of replacing the frames and standing next to this …. … talking to the Yard’s manager Richard Shilling that I was told the frames were at 6.5 degrees aft of datum. Yes, aft. “It really throws your eye and makes everything else look off” he later said. Back to the drawing board. All including me are at a complete loss as to why she would have been built like this. It would have meant offsetting a plumb line from the line marked on the keel a set distance – no real deal, but then all the other angles become compound. Not to mention that the frames are no longer perpendicular to the waterlines. The only credible explanation I’ve heard is from Peter Brown, one of the Vigilant’s Crew and Grandson of the man who had Valarian built in 1923. He knows from experience that these boats under full sail on a tack down tide whilst pulling a one-ton beam on the port side in a fresh breeze have enormous forces on them. They were known to twist under strain. He sailed Vigilance back from the Isle of man when she returned to Brixham in a force 6/7. A passenger, an expert in these things calculated that the sail area was generating 720 HP. Peter thinks that maybe the aft rake is an attempt to move the point of effort forward and help reduce twist. He believes that another ship built at that time also had the same arrangement. There is no doubt that the owners were attempting to get every ounce of efficiency out of the boats. Maybe they could see that the new-fangled steamboats were hot on their heels. This new discovery makes lofting the frames very time-consuming, at least for someone like me with limited CAD skills. This is how I overcame the problem. I had two options: either rotate the profile by 6.5 degrees and draw new waterlines perpendicular to the frames, and use the bodyplan from the perpendicular frames with the buttock lines to re-originate the water lines on the half breadth plan… ..or keep the original waterlines and simply rotate the profile by 6.5 degrees, and use an intersection line to align the body plan with the profile. At each frame move the profile in the y axis to realign the waterlines. Yes, that’s what I thought too. I did the latter. Of course, rotating the profile slightly widens the waterlines and that has to be corrected on the body plan, It also shortens the boat by 6” and this effectively tilts the plan view, so I shortened that by 6” in the x axis only to effectively create a parallax correction. George Foster owes me a pint for this. So here’s the set-up: Looks odd, but it does work. You end up with a frame that should fit inside the planking at 6.5 degrees to the datum. I could have simply used the perpendicular frames and covered everything up with planks and decking so that know-one will ever know, right? But it’s meant to be accurate, and if you followed my last build you’ll maybe guess why the internals need to be tidy. All for now. I am indebted to the 'Friends of Vigilance' CIO for their help with this project. Further details of the work being undertaken to restore Vigilance can be found on the Friends of Vigilance's facebook page here, including a great chronology of photographs, and on their website here.

Indeed so Roger - it seems trawler skippers then, as now, were highly competitive - the first to the grounds and the first back to market made the money. More evidence of this to follow!

Thanks for your interest Tony. If you do decide to build Valerian I may be able to offer some research information. I have been talking with the owners Grandson about Vigilance.

Drawing the lines. I like drafting by hand – if I had a table of offsets this is how I would have preferred to start. However for this job CAD was more practical. I started with Underhill’s plans of Valarian by tracing them into CAD (lines in red). I then roughly overlayed the surveyed and corrected sheerplan of Vigilance (blue) that had been lifted by 150mm by the naval architect. It was obvious that Underhill’s plans were very different from what we were seeing on the slip. In addition the turn of the stem had been altered in the 1950’s – it needed to fair more gradually into the keel. There were other minor dissimilarities with the few remaining photographs of Vigilance. It also meant that the Underhill’s lines plan would be inaccurate, at least for the stern. Although Vigilance is described as a sister ship to Valarian, and the same plans may well have been used for both, I suspect that some alterations to Vigilance were made at George Foster’s request, as she is shorter than the plan, less severe in the sheer, and there is one other very significant difference we shall come to later. I spent a great deal of time trying to correct and fair the lines to the new sheer. For a simple hull this may have been sufficient, but for a curved counter stern this would be little better than guesswork. I was resigned at this stage to doing my best to fair the hull by eye. As the ship is being restored frame by frame, the Yard are using the boat as their ‘plan’ fairing as they go so they were not relying on a set of lines. However the Trust very kindly agreed to me seeing the surveyed and corrected lines plan and this really enabled me to get the measurements I had been guessing up till then. I traced these into CAD, which now matched the revised sheer plan. Their station lines are arbitrary. This is as close as one can get to the original lines unless further information comes to hand. Next some cross checking was done to try and lock down key dimensions. In research Vigilance’s length is variously stated from 76’ to 78’, and with the bowsprit up to 112’. It seems that her LOA is actually 76.35’ and maximum beam 19’ In addition to taking measurements from the new lines plans, I visited Vigilance and took what major measurements I could, being very mindful to keep out of the way of the shipwrights who at this stage were busy taking her apart. It was a rare opportunity to get some accurate data for a ship that by rights was well past her ‘use by’ date. Note that these are of original timbers - I ignored those clearly added or changed latterly. A summary is recorded here, and I have pages more in my notes. Vigilance major dimensions. LOA (Taffrail to Stem Foreside) 916.25” (76.35’) LWL 798.8” (66.57’) Sheer (To stem Foreside) 881.8 (73.49’) Sheer (To For’ward rabbet Line) 873.75” (72.81’) Max Beam (at Frame 19C) 228.2” (19.01’) Frames (in pairs to Frame 34) 5” sided 5” moulded at 21.5” centres, 10” space Keel 12.75” by 8” (an estimate -the original had been cut down by 3-4") Keelson 10” by 10” Stem 8” sided 19” to 12” moulded at forefoot. Shelf Clamp Beams Carlins 7” by 6” 8” by 3” 6” sided 61/2” to 7” moulded, 7” partners. 5” sided 3” to 5” moulded Sternpost Post/Horn timbers Knees Ceilings Linings 8” sided 15” moulded (at keel) 10” at head 6” by 6” to 18” where fayed to deadwood. 6” 1 ½” Pitch pine 2” Oak Planks 2 3/8” Oak (21 No.) incl Topsides and bilges 3” oak Decking 5” by 2 1/2” Deadwoods & stemson In oak and elm, 8” sided. The next step is to survey the frame positions to replace the station lines and start the process of drawing a lofting plan. I am indebted to the 'Friends of Vigilance' CIO for their help with this project. Further details of the work being undertaken to restore Vigilance can be found on the Friends of Vigilance's facebook page here, including a great chronology of photographs, and on their website here.

Hey Gary, thanks for the encouragement! I thought a good old English dragger would catch your attention! Yes, as you'll see the research for the level of detail I'm planning is taking a great deal of time, but I'm getting there. Looking forward to your next steps with Pelican!

Working drawings. When Uphams Shipbuilders was sold off in the late 1960’s the paperwork; half models; full models and all their boat plans were thrown onto a bonfire! They would of course have had no idea how important an historical record of nautical history they had destroyed. Although it would have been very much easier to build a facsimile of Vigilance to the closest known plans, I wanted to do it right and scratch build her as she was in 1926, as far as is possible. There are no plans existing of Vigilance, so it was assumed that Harold Underhill’s plans of Valerian, the sister ship to Vigilance was a natural starting point. I traced the lines plan into CAD, and then took rough comparative measurements from photographs of the boat. Immediately there are questions to answer. Firstly the sheer line. This image of Vigilance’s original sheer was taken of her on props on the harbour foreshore. Compare this to her sheer today, shown below and in the stern shot of her on the slip shown above and it’s clear what has happened over the years: Vigilance has clearly hogged over time; the sheer is pretty flat. The stem and stern are different shapes from the pictures we have. Underhill’s drawings were not taken from the boat, but from the original plans. The sheer at the stern is very pronounced, and there are other anomalies which don’t seem right; the centreline planking from the stern post to the counter timbers was typically straight, not curved. The forefoot curved to the keel to at least the fifth or sixth frame, not as in Underhills plans. Underhill’s sheer plan of Valarian portray a very ramped sheer aft, not found in Lowestoft or Brixham boats which are both less pronounced. There are other fundamentals – what was the datum used to set the frames; were they paired and how were they arranged? The exact nature of the keel timbers, forefoot and stem, as well as the set out of the elliptical ‘Rye’ like counter and taffrail timbers. Underhill’s plans do not include structural details, and there is some variance between his sheer/profile; body and half breadth plans. The original deck layout may well be the hardest to discern – even seemingly permanent evidence like the bitts have been replaced, so some detective work will be necessary. However I’m expecting that because so much of the original ship has been changed it may never be possible to get to the truth about her plans. It is evident that Underhill’s plans are of limited value to this build. At this point I must give my thanks and credit to the 'Friends of Vigilance CIO'. I rang their Chairman and he very kindly agreed to ask the Board of Trustees if I could have some access to the boat whilst on the slip, and sight of some of the plans. This the Board agreed, and so I visited Vigilance at Sirling and Son's slip in Devonport dockyard, Plymouth. Readers may be interested in an historical note here. Covered Slip No. 1 is of great importance. Will Stirling who is in charge of the restoration has this note on his website: “No.1 Covered Slip is the oldest remaining covered slipway in the world. Built in 1763 the slip was 250 years old in 2013. The roof was added in 1814. The slipway is 53m (173′) long and the roof is supported by a double line of 23 trussed wooden pillars. At the north end, the roof is apsidal in order to accommodate the bowsprits of ships. Although the slipway was re-laid in 1914 it has undergone comparatively few alterations and is still used as was originally intended. It is now a Scheduled Ancient Monument (the same listing as Stonehenge). Quite incredibly Will Stirling has a family connection to the slip; In 1798 his great, great, great, great grandmother, Eliza Barlow, launched Nelson’s flagship, the Foudroyant (80 guns) on this very slipway. Her husband, Admiral Sir Robert Barlow, was an Admiral in Nelson’s navy and their daughter, Hilare, married Nelson’s brother, William Nelson”. It is quite something that this place is still dedicated to the building of wooden sailing boats, and when you visit the sense of history is palpable. The Vigilance's masts and rigging were removed before the boat was brought to Plymouth, and the internal bulheads ceilings engine and fittings removed. Over several visits I was able to take measurements of her main timbers, the spacings of frames, divisions of frame parts, ceilings, beams and most of the other structural elements. It’s possible to see where replacements have been made, although the chronology is difficult to work out. It was also apparent that the Shipyard’s task is more like a rebuild than a renovation; many of her older timbers are beyond saving, and a new sheer has had to be agreed. Because Vigilance has hogged, a fundamental decision was to agree the sheer line for the renovation. The Trust members were provided with a set of lines from the naval architect from which they decided that lifting the sheer by 150mm (5.9”) at the stern would restore a fair sheer, and hopefully reflect how she was built originally. The Trust very kindly gave me sight of this plan, in profile view including the shape of the keel, forefoot and stem. This along with measurements I made of the deadwood, was invaluable in establishing the midline. One key task was to resize the keel to 12.75” by 8”, ignoring the greenheart keel added by Ken Harris. This simplified the drawing of the key dimensions, using 8” from the base of the keel to the rabbet at the centreline. Several visits to the boat followed, as she was dismantled, and valuable measurements taken - more of which later. What has become apparent - confirmed in converstation with Will and the shipwrights at the slip - there are some oddities in her build which have left us all scratching our heads. I did spend a great deal of time attempting to fit the new sheer and profile to the linesplan I had of Valerian. Underhill only included four buttock lines, and no diagonals. I badly needed her lines measured, but of course it was not reasonable to expect the shipyard to put up with me crawling all over her for hours getting in their way! So I was very grateful when the Trust also agreed to let me have a copy of their surveyed linesplan – they have really been exceptionally helpful all along, and this now gave me a way to finally get a set of frames drawn out to the measurements I took inside the hull. I have not used Underhill’s plans since. Working out what she was like in 1926 would prove to be challenging. Further details of the work being undertaken to restore Vigilance can be found on the Friends of Vigilance's facebook page here, including a great chronolgy of photographs, and on their website here.

Getting to know Vigilance. The history of the ‘Vigilance’ BM 76 is well documented, so I’ll only include a summary here. Built in 1926 by J W & A Upham’s Yard in Brixham, She was worked out of Brixham and the SW coast of Devon and Cornwall until 1937 by Fred Foster, brother of George who commissioned her. She won the George V Perpetual Regatta Cup in 1933 – she was no slouch. By then falls in fish stocks and competition from steam trawlers forced her into retirement. Upham’s Yard bought her back, and still unused she was damaged in 1938 when a NNWesterly drove her port side into Torbay Lass. After a spell serving in the War as a barrage balloon pontoon she was converted into a yacht and sold in 1949 to William Meldrum and shortly after to Harold Owen and moved to Shoreham on the South Coast. Owen sadly drowned in 1952 from another vessel, and Vigilance was set on fire on the day of his cremation - it’s said by his grieving wife to prevent their son going to sea. Another spell as store alongside, before an Australian bought her in 1955, and somewhat recklessly took her to sea intending to make passage to Australia. She was in a parlous state, considered unseaworthy and towed ashore to Littlehampton by the lifeboat. Enter Ken Harris who crewed for the Australian who later skipped the country. Ken bought her for £80 in lieu of depts he was owed. Ken seems to have been an indomitable figure – single-handedly rebuilding Vigilance over the next 16 years, and on a very tight budget. He lived in the deckhouse onboard. Most frames, the deck most beams, bitts and planking were replaced. When Ken Harris took on the boat in 1955, she had been gutted by fire; the decks were sagging and timbers rotting. Dan Houston writing in ‘Classic Boat’ magazine remarked that it looked like she’d ‘crawled into the Arun River to die’. Ken lived on the boat for the next 43 years making a living on building sites and working on Vigilance in his spare time. It must have been an enormous effort – 19 tons of oak were used, and an uncertain tenancy at the berth with a sceptical harbour authority wanting this eyesore gone. It’s a compelling story, related in detail elsewhere, but suffice to say over that time much of the boat was replaced. Perhaps the most remarkable piece of work was the addition of a slab of greenheart to the keel. Ken used a skillsaw to remove 5” depth of the original; then floated the boat above the greenheart on the tide, with a diver under her directing operations as she lowered down onto the new piece. He moved the boat to Cowes, and somehow found enough work to keep her going, even sailing her to Arctic waters in 1986. Without him, Vigilance would surely be but a memory today. By 1997 Ken was chartering her from Peel in the Isle of Man. Under doctors’ orders to take things easy, he reluctantly let her go to a consortium back in Brixham – she was coming home. The charitable Trust who own her now have done a remarkable job raising funds to maintain and restore her, but time and tide have aged her, and she is now on the slip of Will Stirling’s yard in Devonport undergoing a major renovation. Their websites catalogue a remarkable tale of the passion of her owners and volunteers help who are keeping her alive, and I urge readers to visit (link below) and read more of this story of survival. Some models exist of her – but to my knowledge not a fully detailed revision of her in her original 1926 form, and that is my happy task ahead. https://www.facebook.com/people/Vigilance-of-Brixham/100063526150738/