Ray S Posted March 8, 2020 Posted March 8, 2020 Oh Crumbs! Good luck on that one Steve! I think there will be some great help though, BM rarely lets us down. All the best, Ray 1
ArnoldAmbrose Posted March 8, 2020 Posted March 8, 2020 Gidday Steve, with the three comprehensive line drawings that you displayed above what more could you possibly need? Any chance you'll have it done by WASMEx? Regards, Jeff. 4
JohnWS Posted March 8, 2020 Posted March 8, 2020 57 minutes ago, Bandsaw Steve said: I am going to have to make intelligent, defensible speculations made based on knowledge of the technology and similar ships of the age. Hi Steve; Based on my experience, you've hit the nail on the head, e.g. 45 years ago, I scratch built my Fairmile D. I only had 2 B&W photos & 1 small line drawing. No internet & no John Lambert books existed at the time. I proceeded with the build just like you said ... making a lot of assumptions & educated guesses using information about other similar boats from the same era, & finally just making it look right to my eye. When I rebuilt the model thirty years later with help of the Internet & John Lambert, I was surprised just how close my original model was to the actual boat. One important thing I realized about that build (you'd never know it today ) was not to sweat the small & unknown details. Even if I made a mistake, few people could have criticized me because there just wasn't enough detailed information available at the time. My 2 cents if you initially focus on the making the drawings, don't get caught up in sweating too many unknown details or the model may never be built. John 7 1
Ray S Posted March 8, 2020 Posted March 8, 2020 2 hours ago, Bandsaw Steve said: Up for a Challenge? At the start of the meeting with Mac I was fully aware of the complete lack of any contemporary photographs or technical drawings of the vessel but was quite surprised that after 35 years of intensive study no-one had attempted to draught even a speculative set of schematic drawings. It seems that the profile at the start of this thread is the furthest anyone has gone in that direction, but Mac seems to think I can do better. So now it’s up to me, and my rather shakey knowledge of maritime matters to come up with a set of schematic drawings that are consistent with all known primary sources regarding the ship including: written records (we have the original builders specifications) the artworks above archaeological evidence In addition I am going to have to make intelligent, defensible speculations made based on knowledge of the technology and similar ships of the age. For me this is quite daunting and I’m going to need some expert help. Hello Britmodellers! Anyone up for a Challenge? Bandsaw Steve Hello Steve, it was a forlorn hope, but I have checked through my books about ships, and Xantho is not mentioned at all. Sorry! I wonder if Bob @ShipbuilderMN may be able to point the way, he is probably the best we have for this type of subject (well, definitely the best!). As mentioned above, don't get too fixated on accuracy, try and get something that looks right with the guidance you have. I do like the image in the first post, it should be a great starting point. All the best, Ray 1
ArnoldAmbrose Posted March 8, 2020 Posted March 8, 2020 (edited) Gidday, John you've hit the nail pretty square yourself. I think most of us like to be accurate with our models, but if the required info isn't available to us it probably won't be to others either. Steve, you may not be sure you're right on some aspects of the vessel but there won't be very many that can say you're wrong. I noticed some (very) minor discrepancies in the indigenous line drawings so even eye witnesses can't always agree. 😁 When the model is finally completed and taken pride of place in the museum if you're still concerned about authenticity you can title the model as an Artist's impression of the ship or similar. That lets you off the hook. HTH. Regards, Jeff. Edited March 8, 2020 by ArnoldAmbrose 1
Bandsaw Steve Posted March 8, 2020 Author Posted March 8, 2020 Yes. In fact Mac and I discussed exactly that. It can only ever be called an artist’s impression and not a scale model. But I would like to make something that’s at least feasible and can’t be easily proven wrong. For example I don’t want to accidentally put a fitting on the ship that wasn’t invented or in common use by 1870. I also want everything on the ship that would be necessary to make it work. 3
Bandsaw Steve Posted March 8, 2020 Author Posted March 8, 2020 22 hours ago, Ray S said: I wonder if Bob @ShipbuilderMN may be able to point the way, he is probably the best we have for this type of subject (well, definitely the best) Yes any advice from Shipbuilder - or anyone else - will be most welcome but I know in the past Shipbuilder has mentioned that he’s tired of folks approaching him with demands for information. With this in mind I’m just throwing out an invitation to everyone to chip in if possible (and of course if you want to). I’m sort of hoping for a communal chat followed by me posting some provisional drawings, followed by a communal critique followed by new drawings etc etc until I have a set of drawings to present to the museum for their OK. Once that’s done I can move to the easier stage of actually building the thing. 2
Corsairfoxfouruncle Posted March 8, 2020 Posted March 8, 2020 Hello Steve ... I may be talking out my backside here but wouldn't there be a set of drawings on file in the U.K. ? I would think both when the original ship was built and again during the refit there would be some blueprints made and filed. I remember reading once a few years back that the U.K. Government had something like an Admiralty office ? That dealt with everything that floats, or something along those lines. Basically from what I read and remember it was both a storehouse and approving office for all ship designs, Is my memory faulty here if something like that exists I would think they should/would have a copy deep in there files of your ship ? Dennis 1
longshanks Posted March 8, 2020 Posted March 8, 2020 I've never tried to build a replica with a blindfold and both arms tied behind my back Can you post what technical info you have. Essentials will be length,breadth. draft and build date. If you have the builders name it might be worth approaching the museums in the locale Kev 1 2
Ray S Posted March 8, 2020 Posted March 8, 2020 Steve, sadly no images, but this page from Clydeships website gives a bit more detail on Xantho's history http://clydeships.co.uk/view.php?year_built=&builder=&ref=5217&vessel=XANTHO Interesting that Denny Brothers also built the Cutty Sark. All the best, Ray 1 1
Bandsaw Steve Posted March 8, 2020 Author Posted March 8, 2020 On 09/03/2020 at 02:29, Corsairfoxfouruncle said: wouldn't there be a set of drawings on file in the U.K. ? I would think both when the original ship was built and again during the refit there would be some blueprints made and filed. I remember reading once a few years back that the U.K. Government had something like an Admiralty office ? That dealt with everything that floats, or something along those lines. Hi Dennis, My understanding is that the W.A. museum staff have visited the UK on several occasions and have conducted very thorough searches. If there is an office of this nature (and I guess there is) I’m confident it will have been searched. In addition, in academic circles at least, this ship is very well known, so it’s unlikely any significant public collections remain un-searched. On 09/03/2020 at 02:39, longshanks said: Can you post what technical info you have. Essentials will be length,breadth. draft and build date. If you have the builders name it might be worth approaching the museums in the locale Yes I will post the specifications soon. The builders were Denny Brothers. I know their Records have been searched. On 09/03/2020 at 02:51, Ray S said: Steve, sadly no images, but this page from Clydeships website gives a bit more detail on Xantho's history http://clydeships.co.uk/view.php?year_built=&builder=&ref=5217&vessel=XANTHO Interesting that Denny Brothers also built the Cutty Sark. All the best, Ray Yes, I have seen that website thanks. I note that it shows that Xantho’s ownership transferred several times. I think now she may have been home-based at Wick and Scarborough for some time. I guess it’s possible she could be in photographs -probably in the background- from those areas. In terms of finding images I think the best chance is that someone will have something in a private collection somewhere , or somehow the ship will be identified in the background of a photo - perhaps during her long journey to W.A. 2
Bandsaw Steve Posted March 8, 2020 Author Posted March 8, 2020 I should add that I guess it is also possible that ‘something’ exists in a major public collection somewhere but has been mis-filed and now cannot be found. That seems feasible, but on the other hand, not many ships get filed under ‘X’ so it seems unlikely. 😀 1
Murdo Posted March 8, 2020 Posted March 8, 2020 Builder Yard: Alexander Denny, Dumbarton. About 6 miles from where I live. Once the yard took up most of the Clyde around Dumbarton, employing thousands and producing some very famous ships. Now a single museum building... Progress, eh! 2
Bandsaw Steve Posted March 8, 2020 Author Posted March 8, 2020 4 minutes ago, Murdo said: Now a single museum building... Progress, eh! Don’t get me started. I think it’s very sad that so many countries that used to be wealthy because they made things are now ‘wealthy’ because they consume things. Don’t get me started! 3
bar side Posted March 8, 2020 Posted March 8, 2020 5 hours ago, Ray S said: Steve, sadly no images, but this page from Clydeships website gives a bit more detail on Xantho's history http://clydeships.co.uk/view.php?year_built=&builder=&ref=5217&vessel=XANTHO Interesting that Denny Brothers also built the Cutty Sark. All the best, Ray Interesting. She started out on the east coast at Anstruther north of Edinburgh. Took a trip down the coast from St Andrews & this is St Monans probably not looking a lot different to her days there 4
Murdo Posted March 9, 2020 Posted March 9, 2020 Denny's yard was quite innovative: "William Denny and Brothers built Sir Walter Scott as a "knock-down" ship; that is, it was assembled with bolts and nuts at Denny's shipyard at Dumbarton on the River Leven, the pieces numbered and dismantled again, transported in pieces by barge up Loch Lomond and overland by horse-drawn cart to Stronachlachar pier on Loch Katrine and there rebuilt with rivets and launched.[1] Denny's assembled Sir Walter Scott at their yard in 1899 and completed its reassembly and launch on the loch in 1900." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Sir_Walter_Scott 1
JohnWS Posted March 9, 2020 Posted March 9, 2020 My grandfather worked at the John Brown shipyard in Clydebank prior to emigrating to Canada. Recently, a friend gave me a copy of 'Giants of the Clyde' by Robert Jeffrey. It's an easy read about the large & small yards on the Clyde from their beginnings to recent times, including interviews with some of the people who worked there, & descriptions of some of the more famous ships they built (but, unfortunately not SS Xantho). John 1
Bandsaw Steve Posted April 9, 2020 Author Posted April 9, 2020 Back into it Sorry about the recent inactivity on this thread, I'm still dead keen on this project but I've just gone through a small lull. There are several reasons for this, the main one that I have been finishing my Avro 504 which is now complete and in the RFI section. Have a look here if you want a peek. Following the completion of that I rather cheekily started another project – one which needs much less research than Xantho - a 1/24 scale self propelled gun that you can see here if you so choose. In addition, now that I am working full time from home and spend all day in this study on a computer I have not been as highly motivated to come in here in the evening and type up notes as one might hope. But I did make a promise to @longshanks (and the rest of you) to post what technical information I have, so that you can at least see what we are working with and, if you like, contribute to with interpretations, drawings comments – whatever really. Anything is welcome. Here are the copies of the three sets of documents that the museum gave me. Top left is the registration papers for the ship. Top right is the original builders specifications (there are three more pages you cannot see underneath) and at the bottom is the transcript from the court of inquiry. In addition the museum gave me some basic archeological survey notes and an isometric drawing of the wreck. Once this COVID business is abated I think I'll go back and get some more archeology stuff, but for now - this is what we have... Summary of original Builders Specifications. Please note that there is a lot more detailed information in these specifications than shown here but I have tried to pick out the main pertinent points for the initial interpretive work. Tonnage: 157 tonnes O.M. Length between perpendiculars: 101.3 feet Fore Rake: 6 Length overall: 121 Breadth of Beam: 17.6 Depth molded: 8.6 Depth of hold: 8.4 Depth of Bulwarks : 3.9 Keel of Bar iron: 3 x 1in with 12in scarphs. 4 rivets in each Stem and Stern Posts of ‘Do’ 3 x 1 in: to turn in 3 ft and scarphed to keel to have flange plates on each sited to receive hull plates. Floors of plates: 9 in deep by 3/16 thick with 2 ½ x 2 ½ x 3/16 in an iorn, rivetted on top edge with extra strength of floors for fastening engine. Plates: Bottom to 2 ft waterline 5/16 from 2 to 5 ft ¼ in. 5 to gunwale 3/16 to be overlapped longitudinally with flush butts and rivets. Rudder: Of Iron stock 3in: diameter. To where back starts from, below that 3 x 1 in, and to be plated on each side with 3/16 in plate and to be secured to stern post with 2 malleable iron bands and a cast iron one on deck. Boats: Ship is to have ‘one Boat or Boats and oars complete according to act. Wheel Gearing: To be fitted on top of Engine house, similar to “Premier” or “Loch Lomond” My Commentary.... (Feel free to disagree as much as you like). The mention of ‘Premier and Loch Lomond’ is arguably, quite important as it refers to two other vessels of similar age that are at least in one regard (wheel gearing) similar to the Xantho. The line drawings below are for 'Premier' and might (or might not) give a useful insight into the basic geometry of the hull. The fact that the builder’s contract specifies a building period of just four months suggests to me that Xantho was probably a very conventional vessel as the builders were obviously anticipating a rapid construction phase. In the builder’s specifications, the phrase ‘in the usual fashion’ is frequently used. PS Premiere in ferry service. Pretty isn't she! Summary of Registration details (post refit / rebuild). Please note that these details are hand written in a sometimes difficult to read script. Text that I am unsure of I have marked with a question mark. These details outline the configuration of the ship following her refit and describe the ship as used in Western Australia. Registered tonnes: 187? Number of Masts: Two Number of Decks: One and ‘Break?’ Rigged: Schooner Stern: Elliptical? Build: Clinker? Galleries: Nine? Length from fore part of stem, under the bowsprit to the aft side of the head of the stern post: 116 ft and 3 tenths. Main Breadth to outside of plank: 18 ft Depth in hold from tonnage deck to ceiling at midships: 8 feet Length of engine room 23 feet? There is a Forecastle statesroom for officers Quotes that record details regarding the ship’s configuration from the inquiry into the sinking. During the enquiry various statements were made that can give some insight into the fittings and configuration of the ship. ‘The fore hatch was batterned down.’ ‘The swinging doors of the fore castle were closed and the side also’ ‘I went on deck and passed the captain at the wheel’ ‘on going forward, I found the whole of the fore part of the ship under water, it being level with the coamings of the fore hatch.’ ‘It was as near as possible difference of elevation between the stem and the stern of seven feet. Initial notes from surveys on the wreck Her overall length between stern and stem posts is 34.05 metres with a maximum breadth of 5.2 metres at a point 10 metres from the stern. Single iron screw propeller. Hull Construction is of thin iron plate (no more than one centimetre thick) over iron frames. Here is an isometric drawing of the wreck making clear some distinctive characteristics of the vessel, such as the 'clipper’ bow and the rearward position of the boiler, funnel and boiler dome. So - apart from quite a few more detailed points on the fitting out of the vessel in the builder's specifications - that we can look at later - that's about all I have. If anyone wants to have a go at an interpretive set of drawings (since we are all locked up at home now anyway) please feel free to do so. I have already completed one very rough set that I am not happy with. I won't post them here just yet in case I pre-empt any thoughts or interpretations that one of you might have. Very happy to discuss any of this and will happily consider any views, drawings, photos etc that may come forward. Very best Regards, Bandsaw Steve 13
Chewbacca Posted April 9, 2020 Posted April 9, 2020 On 08/03/2020 at 12:49, Bandsaw Steve said: Now at this point I must make clear that as far as anyone knows there are only three contemporary images of Xantho in existence. And I thought my BULOLO build was challenging enough with no plans and only half a dozen photos of her in military guise and about 25 civilian if anyone can do this, you can Steve. We're all behind you 2 1
Bandsaw Steve Posted April 10, 2020 Author Posted April 10, 2020 On 10/04/2020 at 02:56, Chewbacca said: And I thought my BULOLO build was challenging enough with no plans and only half a dozen photos of her in military guise and about 25 civilian if anyone can do this, you can Steve. We're all behind you Thanks Chewie, In a way Bulolo is more challenging since there’s enough evidence to prove you ‘wrong’ but not enough to ensure that you get it ‘right’. At least with Xantho - unless I make something completely unfeasible - no one can really say one way or the other. 👍 1
Bandsaw Steve Posted May 17, 2020 Author Posted May 17, 2020 Some Progress Hello Maritime Folk, Again I must start a post with an apology for letting this lie fallow for so long. As I have mentioned before I am now working from home and spending about 9 hours a day in my study on a computer so once I have some time to myself I tend to not want to come back in here and write up this journel. Today however is Sunday and I was not in my study or on a computer at all yesterday, so I can face a bit of time in here today bringing this thread up to date, and I have some progress to report. Once again I fear this might be another long post… To cut a long story short I have found some potentially useful references and have drawn up a second set of plans (the first were no good) that you can see at the bottom of this post. A while back @JohnWS posted this advice: ‘Don’t get caught up in sweating too many unknown details or the model may never be built.’ I have taken that advice to heart and have limited this set of drawings to the hull and gunwales only and have disregarded anything else. All the stuff that goes on top, masts, boats, superstructure, funnel will have to come later. I am very interested in any feedback you may have on the preliminary set of drawings that I have made. But first, reaseach including searching through libraries, bookshops, my own library and – of course – the internet. My first objective was to find any images at all of any merchant ship that met the following requirements: · Appropriate era · Screw propulsion · Clipper bow · Rear set funnel · Two masts Images of ships that meet all of those requirements are quite rare. One very famous ship – SS John Bowes - cropped up early in the search. John Bowes was the world’s first screw propeller collier and apparently created something of a revolution when it first saw service in 1852 by immediately delivering more coal from Newcastle to London in 5 days than two equivalent sailing vessels could in a month. According to W.A. Baker’s outstanding book From Paddle-steamer to Nuclear Ship (1965) ‘She proved such a success that her design was widely copied’. The image below is from that book and shows that John Bowes met four of the five requirements I had set, only differing in having three masts instead of two. I wonder if the fact that she was ‘widely copied’ and was presumably the very image of a modern merchant ship might- at least indirectly - have had some bearing on Mr Robert Stewart’s decision to reconfigure Xantho in the way he did. From the internet I have found these two images of a model of this important and influential vessel. Apparantly the model is in the South Shields museum - Tyneside. Searching further I found a terrific webpage on channel island shipping: www.channelislandsshipping.je/page42.html Which had images of no less than four vessels of immediate interest. · Metropolis, · Foyle, · Esk, · William Miskin. William Miskin was of particular interest as its funnel was set well to the rear, in a roughly equivalent postion to Xantho’s. Interestingly the Channel Island website’s history of SS William Miskin finished with the vessel being sold to New Zealand interests which led me to investigate this book… Where I found this photograph, which shows the SS William Miskin run aground at Hokitika, a small town on the West Coast of New Zealand. (Miskin is the screw steamer not the paddle steamer in this photo.) This I think is as close as I will ever find to a photograph of Xantho. This ship’s age and fundamental configuration is similar to that of Xantho (albiet William Miskin was built as a screw steamer an not re-configured from a paddle-steamer”). Interestingly – at least to me - further research indicated that the SS William Miskin was wrecked in 1868 near Timaru NZ. By strange co-incidence the site of her destruction is about five km South of my mother’s childhood home and about ten km North of dad’s. So – armed with the outcomes of my research including the very indistinct diagram of the hull lines of PSS Premiere (below)... and this image of what the remnants of Xantho's rudder and propeller would have looked like if ever put on public display... I set about having a go at drawing up a possible set of drawings for the hull. Here is the result at 1/100 scale. I’m reasonably happy with this attempt but there are a few things that I’m not sure about or that might raise some discussion. 1. I have given this ship a completely flat bottom as indicated by Premiere’s line plan. I’m fairly confident that this is correct and is likely to be an artifact of Xantho’s lineage as a paddle-steamer. One of the few advantages with paddle propulsion is that it allows a very shallow draft, an advantage that a flat bottom takes full advantage of. Dr McCarthy says that during the dive on the Xantho wreck the hull shape below the waterline was not clear as the wreck was buried to that level. 2. I have given the vessel a single unbroken gentle sheer curve from bow to stern. I think that this is consistent with the designs of the day. The photo of the SS William Miskin shows a raised poop at the rear but the painting from the Channel islands website shows a single line for the length of the ship. I therefore think that on the William Miskin the poop must have been added later during a refit. The indigenous drawings of Xantho show no sign of a raised poop. I have interpreted the gunwales to be of changing height from very low at the bow to full hegiht at midships and then lowering again toward the stern. Does this seem reasonable? 3. I think that the ‘deck line’ DL (this is the point a which the deck meets the gunwales) on this drawing is incorrect (or at least unconvincing) near the bow. At the point indicated it sort of ‘waists’ inward and I don’t think that this is correct? In this case I drew the cross-sections first and derived the deck line from the sections. I think I might need to do this the other way round. 4. On the cross sections (A, B, C ) the gunwales start by leaning outwards quite markedly then steepen though D until they are vertical at E. I believe that they would have been vertical at E because the hull sides would be vertical where the paddle-wheels would have been mounted (4a). The gunwales then progressively lean outwards again towards the stern though (4b). I am not sure about this. Should the gunwales remain vertical behind the midships point? Any comments are most welcome. Very best regards and thanks for all of the interest shown so far in this – somewhat unusual – project. Bandsaw Steve 14
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now