Jaager

Mark,
 
You might could consider using linen thread as is.
 
I bought the following from Colophon Book Arts Supply :
 
Londonderry linen thread
                dia        dia 1/48   circ 1/48    dia 1/60  circ  1/60
100/3    0.009       0.42         1.3            0.53        1.6
80/3      0.01         0.48         1.5            0.48        1.9
50/3      0.012       0.6           1.9            0.75        2.3
 
The price is < $3.00 and delivery was fast.
 
Since it is already 3 strands laid  you can use it straight up. 
 
As for holding the blocks 
I bought some Dritz Quilting Crystal Glass Head Pins,
that are 1 3/4" long and are # 76 wire gauge
that may not be too large a hole for the rope and
if you nip off the bead and mount it on a piece of wood - there is a lot of up/down play before a block would come off the top
The bead could be nipped after even.
 
I don't know how Londonderry does their 100/3 - I have trouble laying up 62/1 yarn - it breaks before I can get long lengths
 

Mark,
 
You might could consider using linen thread as is.
 
I bought the following from Colophon Book Arts Supply :
 
Londonderry linen thread
                dia        dia 1/48   circ 1/48    dia 1/60  circ  1/60
100/3    0.009       0.42         1.3            0.53        1.6
80/3      0.01         0.48         1.5            0.48        1.9
50/3      0.012       0.6           1.9            0.75        2.3
 
The price is < $3.00 and delivery was fast.
 
Since it is already 3 strands laid  you can use it straight up. 
 
As for holding the blocks 
I bought some Dritz Quilting Crystal Glass Head Pins,
that are 1 3/4" long and are # 76 wire gauge
that may not be too large a hole for the rope and
if you nip off the bead and mount it on a piece of wood - there is a lot of up/down play before a block would come off the top
The bead could be nipped after even.
 
I don't know how Londonderry does their 100/3 - I have trouble laying up 62/1 yarn - it breaks before I can get long lengths
 

A blob of Silly Putty or modelers clay - on a stick - or not - to hold or pick up small stuff?

A blob of Silly Putty or modelers clay - on a stick - or not - to hold or pick up small stuff?

A blob of Silly Putty or modelers clay - on a stick - or not - to hold or pick up small stuff?

First, an editorial comment on Net inquiry for the "Best" of anything. I don't know about best, since the best of all poor choices is still poor.
I think "excellent" and "quality" would be better goals.
 
As for a spindle sander, I made my own.  It is not the less expensive option since the motor 
came dear, but to get the features I wanted, it was required.
 
There is no oscillation - but I see no advantage to that action.  The zero bend is the only one where
the table can be used for a finished shape - the bevels require a tilt of the work piece and that
angle changes continuously.  A drum moving up/down would make that more difficult to control.
 
Dayton 1/3 HP,  1700 rpm   - powerful enough and the right speed for sanding.
ball bearing - there is a lot of lateral force on the shaft doing this.
closed case internal cooling fan  -  a lot of wood dust produced  -  but I have mitigated that with a 1/8" hard board barrier right above the motor.
Reversible motor -  the upper ends of frames respond better to pulling sanding than pushing  - figuring out the wiring for the switch was interesting.
The maintained reversible drum switch was not cheap either.
1/2" shaft -- I prefer sleeveless drums - the Norton sheets 9 x 11 are not expensive and are easy to get.  Compressible sleeve drums sometimes get out of round.
The drums are generally 3" high in a variety of diameters -  After I friction melted the rubber substrate on the smallest one - the steel base makes that one ~ 3/8" dia.
The widest diameter is 3", but that one also has 4 1/2" high ( which was a waste - out of round- and not different enough from 3" ) and a 6" high version ( great -
especially for the frames of the 1:60 first rate I am working on.
With a bare 1/2" shaft,  Other tools can be mounted.
 
Another part of the design - the base mounting the motor and holding the table is open on the front and back has large rubber stoppers for feet - both for vibration
mitigation and for air flow since I cut a hole about the diameter of the motor in the bottom piece.  If you work for a while, there is heat with the motor.

First, an editorial comment on Net inquiry for the "Best" of anything. I don't know about best, since the best of all poor choices is still poor.
I think "excellent" and "quality" would be better goals.
 
As for a spindle sander, I made my own.  It is not the less expensive option since the motor 
came dear, but to get the features I wanted, it was required.
 
There is no oscillation - but I see no advantage to that action.  The zero bend is the only one where
the table can be used for a finished shape - the bevels require a tilt of the work piece and that
angle changes continuously.  A drum moving up/down would make that more difficult to control.
 
Dayton 1/3 HP,  1700 rpm   - powerful enough and the right speed for sanding.
ball bearing - there is a lot of lateral force on the shaft doing this.
closed case internal cooling fan  -  a lot of wood dust produced  -  but I have mitigated that with a 1/8" hard board barrier right above the motor.
Reversible motor -  the upper ends of frames respond better to pulling sanding than pushing  - figuring out the wiring for the switch was interesting.
The maintained reversible drum switch was not cheap either.
1/2" shaft -- I prefer sleeveless drums - the Norton sheets 9 x 11 are not expensive and are easy to get.  Compressible sleeve drums sometimes get out of round.
The drums are generally 3" high in a variety of diameters -  After I friction melted the rubber substrate on the smallest one - the steel base makes that one ~ 3/8" dia.
The widest diameter is 3", but that one also has 4 1/2" high ( which was a waste - out of round- and not different enough from 3" ) and a 6" high version ( great -
especially for the frames of the 1:60 first rate I am working on.
With a bare 1/2" shaft,  Other tools can be mounted.
 
Another part of the design - the base mounting the motor and holding the table is open on the front and back has large rubber stoppers for feet - both for vibration
mitigation and for air flow since I cut a hole about the diameter of the motor in the bottom piece.  If you work for a while, there is heat with the motor.

To clarify your data,
when I saw that you were saying that the scale was 1:35 - I thought
"this will be one heck of a plaque- the Great Republic hull being 9.5 feet long."
So, playing with your numbers - I am guessing that  you are at 1" : 35'  or 1:420 for scale?
 
Half hulls are not a frequent subject, but they are certainly a valid subject.
The difference in hull lengths - being displayed in actual 3D - is educational and adds perspective
to the contemporary written comments.
 

I have tried to resist but  can not.
Looking at your "disaster" = the grain looks too coarse for its duty.
A fine straight grain species.  Hard and dense probably plays nicer with a lathe tool.
The theory that I am following - use a froe ( or something that does that function)
to split out stock that is straight grain.
 
Dowels may ot may not have straight grain.  Probably not in most.

I have tried to resist but  can not.
Looking at your "disaster" = the grain looks too coarse for its duty.
A fine straight grain species.  Hard and dense probably plays nicer with a lathe tool.
The theory that I am following - use a froe ( or something that does that function)
to split out stock that is straight grain.
 
Dowels may ot may not have straight grain.  Probably not in most.

Using published dimensions and checking plans can be tricky.
What was meant by length changed constantly over time.
Was it length of keel? Was length of keel "touch"? (17th C.)
Was length on gun deck (or main deck)? (18th C.) Was it
length between perpendiculars?  And where exactly are the perpendiculars placed?
There was a change in the mid 19th C. because I have Chapelle plans with notations
about "old" measurements and two locations at the bow.
 
In your place, I would drop back 10 and punt on the MS plans.
I would start with the plans the John Shedd and Co. probably used to develop theirs.
Howard Chapelle has plans for Phantom in HASS and thus 1/4" scale lines are available
from The Smithsonian.  I did not check, but usually these are builders plans and are inside the planking.
Some of The Smithsonian plans are off absolute scale by ~1% or so - and if you use your 3 in 1 to copy
and a drawing/paint program to scale - your scanner will not give your an accurate copy.  Mind requires
scans to be scaled up 102.5%
 
Given your proposed method - if you intend to fully copper the bottom, and do not wish to plank under it first,
the planking thickness can be added to the lines up to the copper line -if you were doing POF or POB or cross sectional (sliced bread) 
bread and butter.  For waterline bread and butter or solid hull, I do not think I would attempt the complex geometry that
adding the planking thickness would involve and would just plank it.

Using published dimensions and checking plans can be tricky.
What was meant by length changed constantly over time.
Was it length of keel? Was length of keel "touch"? (17th C.)
Was length on gun deck (or main deck)? (18th C.) Was it
length between perpendiculars?  And where exactly are the perpendiculars placed?
There was a change in the mid 19th C. because I have Chapelle plans with notations
about "old" measurements and two locations at the bow.
 
In your place, I would drop back 10 and punt on the MS plans.
I would start with the plans the John Shedd and Co. probably used to develop theirs.
Howard Chapelle has plans for Phantom in HASS and thus 1/4" scale lines are available
from The Smithsonian.  I did not check, but usually these are builders plans and are inside the planking.
Some of The Smithsonian plans are off absolute scale by ~1% or so - and if you use your 3 in 1 to copy
and a drawing/paint program to scale - your scanner will not give your an accurate copy.  Mind requires
scans to be scaled up 102.5%
 
Given your proposed method - if you intend to fully copper the bottom, and do not wish to plank under it first,
the planking thickness can be added to the lines up to the copper line -if you were doing POF or POB or cross sectional (sliced bread) 
bread and butter.  For waterline bread and butter or solid hull, I do not think I would attempt the complex geometry that
adding the planking thickness would involve and would just plank it.

As I understand itL
stain;  essentially a paint-like product that is a surface based material.
It is colored to match a species of wood, but it partially masks the grain
of the wood it is used on.  On raw wood, I think the system chosen is 
a preference with no objective factors favoring any one of them.
 
dye,  penetrates the wood, enhances the grain, does not limit the choice of finish.
Two types in general - alcohol base - less penetration, no effect on the wood,  drys
quickly.
water base- deeper penetration, longer drying time,  first application usually raises the grain
and requires treatment = sanding or use of a scraper.  Pre-treatment with dilute PVA in water
and sanding before dye usually negates the grain problem.
 
If you have quality wood- consider using a dye,  If the wood is not beautiful - a stain can fix that.

Using published dimensions and checking plans can be tricky.
What was meant by length changed constantly over time.
Was it length of keel? Was length of keel "touch"? (17th C.)
Was length on gun deck (or main deck)? (18th C.) Was it
length between perpendiculars?  And where exactly are the perpendiculars placed?
There was a change in the mid 19th C. because I have Chapelle plans with notations
about "old" measurements and two locations at the bow.
 
In your place, I would drop back 10 and punt on the MS plans.
I would start with the plans the John Shedd and Co. probably used to develop theirs.
Howard Chapelle has plans for Phantom in HASS and thus 1/4" scale lines are available
from The Smithsonian.  I did not check, but usually these are builders plans and are inside the planking.
Some of The Smithsonian plans are off absolute scale by ~1% or so - and if you use your 3 in 1 to copy
and a drawing/paint program to scale - your scanner will not give your an accurate copy.  Mind requires
scans to be scaled up 102.5%
 
Given your proposed method - if you intend to fully copper the bottom, and do not wish to plank under it first,
the planking thickness can be added to the lines up to the copper line -if you were doing POF or POB or cross sectional (sliced bread) 
bread and butter.  For waterline bread and butter or solid hull, I do not think I would attempt the complex geometry that
adding the planking thickness would involve and would just plank it.

As I understand itL
stain;  essentially a paint-like product that is a surface based material.
It is colored to match a species of wood, but it partially masks the grain
of the wood it is used on.  On raw wood, I think the system chosen is 
a preference with no objective factors favoring any one of them.
 
dye,  penetrates the wood, enhances the grain, does not limit the choice of finish.
Two types in general - alcohol base - less penetration, no effect on the wood,  drys
quickly.
water base- deeper penetration, longer drying time,  first application usually raises the grain
and requires treatment = sanding or use of a scraper.  Pre-treatment with dilute PVA in water
and sanding before dye usually negates the grain problem.
 
If you have quality wood- consider using a dye,  If the wood is not beautiful - a stain can fix that.

As I understand itL
stain;  essentially a paint-like product that is a surface based material.
It is colored to match a species of wood, but it partially masks the grain
of the wood it is used on.  On raw wood, I think the system chosen is 
a preference with no objective factors favoring any one of them.
 
dye,  penetrates the wood, enhances the grain, does not limit the choice of finish.
Two types in general - alcohol base - less penetration, no effect on the wood,  drys
quickly.
water base- deeper penetration, longer drying time,  first application usually raises the grain
and requires treatment = sanding or use of a scraper.  Pre-treatment with dilute PVA in water
and sanding before dye usually negates the grain problem.
 
If you have quality wood- consider using a dye,  If the wood is not beautiful - a stain can fix that.

Using published dimensions and checking plans can be tricky.
What was meant by length changed constantly over time.
Was it length of keel? Was length of keel "touch"? (17th C.)
Was length on gun deck (or main deck)? (18th C.) Was it
length between perpendiculars?  And where exactly are the perpendiculars placed?
There was a change in the mid 19th C. because I have Chapelle plans with notations
about "old" measurements and two locations at the bow.
 
In your place, I would drop back 10 and punt on the MS plans.
I would start with the plans the John Shedd and Co. probably used to develop theirs.
Howard Chapelle has plans for Phantom in HASS and thus 1/4" scale lines are available
from The Smithsonian.  I did not check, but usually these are builders plans and are inside the planking.
Some of The Smithsonian plans are off absolute scale by ~1% or so - and if you use your 3 in 1 to copy
and a drawing/paint program to scale - your scanner will not give your an accurate copy.  Mind requires
scans to be scaled up 102.5%
 
Given your proposed method - if you intend to fully copper the bottom, and do not wish to plank under it first,
the planking thickness can be added to the lines up to the copper line -if you were doing POF or POB or cross sectional (sliced bread) 
bread and butter.  For waterline bread and butter or solid hull, I do not think I would attempt the complex geometry that
adding the planking thickness would involve and would just plank it.

Using published dimensions and checking plans can be tricky.
What was meant by length changed constantly over time.
Was it length of keel? Was length of keel "touch"? (17th C.)
Was length on gun deck (or main deck)? (18th C.) Was it
length between perpendiculars?  And where exactly are the perpendiculars placed?
There was a change in the mid 19th C. because I have Chapelle plans with notations
about "old" measurements and two locations at the bow.
 
In your place, I would drop back 10 and punt on the MS plans.
I would start with the plans the John Shedd and Co. probably used to develop theirs.
Howard Chapelle has plans for Phantom in HASS and thus 1/4" scale lines are available
from The Smithsonian.  I did not check, but usually these are builders plans and are inside the planking.
Some of The Smithsonian plans are off absolute scale by ~1% or so - and if you use your 3 in 1 to copy
and a drawing/paint program to scale - your scanner will not give your an accurate copy.  Mind requires
scans to be scaled up 102.5%
 
Given your proposed method - if you intend to fully copper the bottom, and do not wish to plank under it first,
the planking thickness can be added to the lines up to the copper line -if you were doing POF or POB or cross sectional (sliced bread) 
bread and butter.  For waterline bread and butter or solid hull, I do not think I would attempt the complex geometry that
adding the planking thickness would involve and would just plank it.

To clarify your data,
when I saw that you were saying that the scale was 1:35 - I thought
"this will be one heck of a plaque- the Great Republic hull being 9.5 feet long."
So, playing with your numbers - I am guessing that  you are at 1" : 35'  or 1:420 for scale?
 
Half hulls are not a frequent subject, but they are certainly a valid subject.
The difference in hull lengths - being displayed in actual 3D - is educational and adds perspective
to the contemporary written comments.
 

To clarify your data,
when I saw that you were saying that the scale was 1:35 - I thought
"this will be one heck of a plaque- the Great Republic hull being 9.5 feet long."
So, playing with your numbers - I am guessing that  you are at 1" : 35'  or 1:420 for scale?
 
Half hulls are not a frequent subject, but they are certainly a valid subject.
The difference in hull lengths - being displayed in actual 3D - is educational and adds perspective
to the contemporary written comments.
 

To clarify your data,
when I saw that you were saying that the scale was 1:35 - I thought
"this will be one heck of a plaque- the Great Republic hull being 9.5 feet long."
So, playing with your numbers - I am guessing that  you are at 1" : 35'  or 1:420 for scale?
 
Half hulls are not a frequent subject, but they are certainly a valid subject.
The difference in hull lengths - being displayed in actual 3D - is educational and adds perspective
to the contemporary written comments.
 

To clarify your data,
when I saw that you were saying that the scale was 1:35 - I thought
"this will be one heck of a plaque- the Great Republic hull being 9.5 feet long."
So, playing with your numbers - I am guessing that  you are at 1" : 35'  or 1:420 for scale?
 
Half hulls are not a frequent subject, but they are certainly a valid subject.
The difference in hull lengths - being displayed in actual 3D - is educational and adds perspective
to the contemporary written comments.
 

I read that one way of holystoning a deck was : the stone was attached to 4 ropes and
4 crewmen moved it back and forth over the deck while spreading sand around it.  This
would essentially be sanding the deck.  Now - I have sanded a lot of species of wood. 
All it did was to return the wood surface to its native color.  Apart from Holy, no species turned white. 
Actual Holy would not be a realistic choice for a deck on a ship.  The holystoning would remove a
sun bleached/oxidized grey and would help remove splinters which would be bad for the bare feet of
the crewmen, as well as any tar stains from foot trafic - but how did this change the color of Pine or Fir or Oak to white? 

First,  now (2/16/18) on Ebay
linen yarn in retail quantity
Nm 26/1  = 40 Lea     3 stand layup result at 1:48 =  dia.  between 0.75-0.9 in.   circ. between 2.4-2.8  in.   ( I have measured 30/1 and 45/1 yarn)
Nm 21/1  =  35 Lea
 
The following are available in wholesale quantities:
from Etsy  seller  StoffGarnConneXion  in Schwalmtal, Germany
The weight per unit is ~ 1 kg cone  shipping to US alone is ~$50 / unit
 
                                closest result @ 1:48 by my measurement
Nm     Lea                A       B     C                  dia.       circ.             spool  
36*    60                62/1    3     0.012           0.6        1.9            $58         
30*    50               45/1     3     0.016           0.75      2.4            $75            
24*    40                                                                                    $32
20*    33               30/1    3      0.019           0.9        2.8            $52
12*    20               14/1    3      0.027           1.3        4               $48 
10*    17               16/1    3      0.04             1.9        6               $43  
15/2   25/2           20/2    3      0.033           1.6        5                $92  
 
A  yarn size in lea
B  # strands turned
C  actual diameter as measured as rotations per inch on a dowel

First,  now (2/16/18) on Ebay
linen yarn in retail quantity
Nm 26/1  = 40 Lea     3 stand layup result at 1:48 =  dia.  between 0.75-0.9 in.   circ. between 2.4-2.8  in.   ( I have measured 30/1 and 45/1 yarn)
Nm 21/1  =  35 Lea
 
The following are available in wholesale quantities:
from Etsy  seller  StoffGarnConneXion  in Schwalmtal, Germany
The weight per unit is ~ 1 kg cone  shipping to US alone is ~$50 / unit
 
                                closest result @ 1:48 by my measurement
Nm     Lea                A       B     C                  dia.       circ.             spool  
36*    60                62/1    3     0.012           0.6        1.9            $58         
30*    50               45/1     3     0.016           0.75      2.4            $75            
24*    40                                                                                    $32
20*    33               30/1    3      0.019           0.9        2.8            $52
12*    20               14/1    3      0.027           1.3        4               $48 
10*    17               16/1    3      0.04             1.9        6               $43  
15/2   25/2           20/2    3      0.033           1.6        5                $92  
 
A  yarn size in lea
B  # strands turned
C  actual diameter as measured as rotations per inch on a dowel