wefalck

Yes, I noticed this as well and was contemplating in my previous project to use this effect, perhaps by staining the paper a bit to mimic mahagony. However, it is difficult to clean-up sufficiently the scorched edges on small complex parts, so I opted for painting with acrylics in the end. No chance in this project, as on these working boats everything, except the spars, was painted. No fancy varnished woodwork.

I am not a railway expert, but I think all (state) railway companies standardised certain parts and subassemblies to make production cheaper and more efficient. 'Einheits-Lokomotiven' (standardised locomotives) was a programme of the German Reichsbahn to standardise the types of lokomotives and their parts following the nationalisation of the railways in 1920. Before, each German State (e.g. Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony, etc.) had their own system of lokomotives, which were inherited by the Reichsbahn. This legacy made it difficult to run and maintain locomotives across the whole country. I believe British Rail did something similar following its set up after WW2. The bizzarre thing is that following the privatisation craze in the wake of Reagonomics and Thatcherism, that caught on across many countries across Europe, we now have again different private railway companies with different rolling stock on the national networks.

Filling the spaces between the bulkheads After careful checking, the bulkheads were now cemented in place with Acrifix 192®, which is essentially liquid, unpolimerised Plexiglas®. This basically unifies two pieces with the same material, resulting in a virtually indestructible bond. Together with the tight fit in the milled slots, a very rigid framework resulted. In order to facilitate fairing the bulkheads and prevent the very thin and flexible planking with styrene strips from sagging in, the space between them was filled with Rohacell® foam-board (https://history.evonik.com/en/inventions/rohacell), which is an acrylic equivalent to Styrofoam, but much harder and finer grained. I actually used material left over from the first project I built this way back in the early 1980s. It is sufficient to glue the pieces in place with general purpose glue. Spaces between the bulkhead filled with Rohacell® foam-board The bulwark stanchions are actually very fragile and to support them during fairing and being able to turn over the hull, the spaces between them were also filled with Rohacell™, but this unit was not glued down to the rest. Unfortunately, I still managed to snap one stanchion … Grrr. Spaces between the bulkhead filled with Rohacell® foam-board The fillers were ground back to the bulkheads, the edges of which were blackened with a permanent marker to indicate when I touched them. I then progressed to fair the bulkheads. In the meantime, also pieces for the gill and the transom were drawn and laser-cut from Canson-paper and then soaked in zapon-varnish. At time when this ship was built, transoms often had carved elements and false windows, low-relief pilasters etc. as indicated in the original drawing. These were built up in two layers on a backing layer. Carved profiles were imitated with thin wire glued into place. The gill was also built up in three layers. Looking up through the Plexiglas bottom-plate When I offered up the gill piece to the ‘counter timbers’ and checked, how the hull planking would run up against it, I realised that something was wrong. The last bulkhead was too full in the lower part, but completely conformed with the line in the original drawings. After some head-scratching and careful analysis of all the lines in the original drawings, it dawned on me that, while the rearmost frame was projected into the same plane as the other frames, it was in fact the profile of a cant-frame the trace of which was drawn onto the waterline-drawing. Some rough lofting confirmed that suspicion. Extract from the original drawings with the misconceived cant-frames marked There was no way of breaking off the faulty bulkhead due to the strong bond mentioned above. I had to shape the counter as is done in bread-and-butter construction. In fact, it might have been better to build up this area of complex curves from layers of Plexiglas right away. This kind of ships’ counters are not so easy to deduct from the lines drawings and to understand in its complex geometry – at least not, if you are not a trained naval architect. The correctly shaped counter and ornate transom With the help of diamond burrs and files I managed to arrive at reasonable ‘free-form’ representation of the stern and trust that eventually the construction mistake will not be visible. After these corrections the gill-piece and the transom were glued into place. Bow view of the hull ready for the planking layout Admittedly this looks rather rough at this stage … To be continued

Yep, these ladies in the depot in Dugny are friendly and helpful. I met the crew on occasions.

Clean, symmetric planking job 👍🏻, but I think someone mentioned that already ...

To me the right most sample looks the most realistic, a bit greyish weathered. If you wanted to simulate a more recently tarred deck, you could use the second from the right. The other samples seem to go too much into the direction of mahagony. This is how it appears on my screen.

I spray-paint with acrylics and apply acrylic washes to my blocks milled from bakelite-paper and never had a serious problem. One can always ream the holes with a drill. As normally the sheave would be defined in the 3D-printed version, the actual hole is very short.

Plus 3D-printed ones can be painted in any colour and shade thereof you consider (after research) represents the original ...

The book is available from Wikimedia Commons: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Instructions_in_relation_to_the_preparation_of_vessels_of_war_for_battle_-_to_the_officers_and_others_when_at_quarters-_and_to_ordnance_and_ordnance_stores._Pub._by_order_of_the_Navy_Department_(IA_cu31924030896892).pdf

As I said in an early post, it may just a question of lack of commas or use of 'and' instead of a comma: 31 Aug 1798 - "Beat to Quarters and Stow'd our hammocks in the Nettings and in the Tops and fill'd our Lockers with Shot..." If I put it like this: 31 Aug 1798 - "Beat to Quarters, Stow'd our hammocks in the Nettings, in the Tops, and fill'd our Lockers with Shot..." it just becomes a list of consecutive, but unrelated activities and doesn't lead to the (mis)interpretation that hammocks were stowed in the Tops, he then just states, that he has been up in the rigging for an unrecorded purpose.

Could be a reading error on the side of Mr. O'Brian, as in some (type)script a 'long s' is used, which looks like an 'f'. However, the rules were not uniform and whether a long or a round s was used depended on the surroundings of the letter. Normally, however, a 'long s' is confused with an 'f', rather than the other way around.

I thought you would have pictorial evidence for it. Still it somewhat strange, as the spar would hamper the (rapid) deployment of the boats. Whatever one does, they would have to be first removed, before the boats can be swung out. I just don't see the added value of them ...

Very nice work - as usual, of course. I only wonder about the padded bars in this case. They would actually impede the lowering of the boats. Normally, the davits would be turned somewhat to swing the stern of the boat backwards, then the boat passes between the davits bow first, the davits are swung around to bring the boat parallel to the ship, and it then lowered. In situations like this the boats would be secured in their chocks by so-called gripes, straps of canvas with a hook at the end that go over the edge of the boat. At the other end the straps have a bull's eyes with which they can be lashed tight to an eye-bolt on the deck. To my knowledge these padded bar are only used when the boats are hung outside of the ship in their davits. the boats are then pulled against them using cross-wise canvas straps to prevent them from swinging during the ship's movements.

The Stirling Single No. 1 was (as number indicates) the first of a series that evolved during the 1870s. There are many monographs on British locomotives, also on this one: Leech, K.H., Boddy, M.G. (1965): The Stirling Singles.- 160 p., London (David & Charles Ltd.). This and the Dapol-kits are from the 1960s or 70s or so and definitely do not have the amount of detail one would expect to find on a 2020s kit. On the other hand, British steam-locomotives seem to have had much less outside details compared to their continental sisters. Only from the 1960s on, they became similar in appearance. Unfortunately there are not so many early to mid-Victorian era R2R locomotive models or kits around. There may be a few in etched brass, intended to be motorised for running. I didn't start 'No. 1' for lack of time and also it would require a lot of 'kit bashing' to bring the details to it that are possible in 1/76 scale. I would also replace all the parts that would be bright metal with real metal ('only real metal looks like real metal'). Perhaps I would build it from scratch, using the kit as overall guidance, rather than 'destroying' what is essentially an untouched historic kit. Talking about 'real metal', I am curious how you will treat the works of the BR86.

There was the Kitmaster kit of the GNR Stirling Single No. 1 (as preserved in the UK National Railway Museum): https://www.scalemates.com/de/kits/kitmaster-9-stirling-8ft-single--182022. I have one, but these historic kits are rather pricey. The British company Dapol offers various OO plastic kits for British locomotives: https://www.dapol.co.uk/collections/self-assembly-unpainted-oo-kits?srsltid=AfmBOorSykTN6uY7jggiYn6myTihg-CISKiDhw6eQkDOUDl1_UEPoRG-&page=2

The wire-'seams' look like an idea to try out 👍🏻 The problem with (diluted) PVA-glue is probably that its surface tension is still too high and and it does not penetrate well. In general, the penetration is better, when glue/paint is brushed on, but indeed that may disturb the layout of the wires. I worked on the material stretched out on a board covered with clingfilm and then cautiously brushed on a fast-drying solvent-based varnish, that penetrates better.

It doesn't work with plain threads, particularly cotton, but once stiffened with varnish, one can use so-called cutting-tweezer to nip-off rope close to knots etc.. They are used by watchmakers to shorten watch-springs and have very hard cutting edges cut flat on the outside, so are cutting flush. They are also around 30 of the usual currency units. BTW, a major advantage, in my view, are that the Castrovejo-scissors are lightly sprung, so you don't have to put your finger in and can operate them from the tip of your fingers. The light leaf-springs give you a positive feel of what you are cutting. They are available straight and curved.

It depends how thick the 'rope' is. For very thin (fly-tying) threads and ropes made from them I use so-called Castrovejo eye-surgery scissors that come in various sizes. There are traders (e.g. on ebay) who sell 'seconds' that for some reason or another have not made it through the QA procedures that allow them to charge doctors or hospitals 150+ €/US$/£ for them. They still may be in the range of 30 to 50 €/US$/£, but worth their money.

It boils down to the question, whether one wants to build a 'realistic' or 'artisanal' (as most of the museum) models.

Perhaps it is also helpful to look at pictures of the real ship or catalogues of yacht/ship chandlers of the respective times. I think several of the latter are available on the Internet, e.g. archive.org.

I suppose these winches are supposed to be sheet etc. winches for the J-Class yacht? In this case, they don't look to me too bad at all - as a starting point. What would be missing, would be some details. Presumably, there would be some wooden reinforcement on the deck, where the winch is located. They also should have a crank, though these would not be permanently rigged, but only used when needed. There would be a square or hexagonal hole for them on top of the winches. You could fake this by simply drilling a shallow hole. On the other hand you could also make cranks. Such winches would be typically made from steel/cast iron and perhaps chrome-plated. You could get some chemical tinning solution to give the brass a silver metallic colour. For a display model with all-brass fitting, I would just leave them like they are.

Pine-tar was commonly used on European vessels operating North of the Bay of Biscaye, as there - at the time - the risk of attack by Terredo navalis was limited and the phenols in the tar were sufficient to discourage weeds for some time. Going further South or let alone to the tropics needed stronger stuff. This is were the (off-)white concoctions come in. When Marquardt was talking about a pine-tar/sulphur concoction, was he referring to ENDEAVOUR's original configuration as collier by chance ?

These clinker-boats look very nice. I suppose, they will be shown covered?

This is always the dilemma, when we are building 'realistic' (as opposed to 'artisanal') models: how to make it look rough without looking like shoddy workmanship. It can be quite instructive to have a look at what railway- and plastic-modellers do, though some tend to overdo the 'weathering' a bit.

Actually, unless it were one of those modern tourist-dhows, it is unlikely that the deck of dhow ever shone. They were built rough and treated rough in their daily life. Deck and planking of the real thing also would not be too regular, as wood in this part of the world is a precious good. These dhows were built from timber imported from India for important structural parts and cheaper and more crooked wood, such as Mango, was used for other parts. They had to make do with whatever lengths and widths was available.