I don't know whether ships count as scenery but I'm wondering whether there is a company which manufactures ships to 1:76 scale. According to Ted Polet on his Craigcorrie and Dunalister website, they are pretty hard to come by but I wondered whether other members had had better luck.
I spent an evening on the web looking for the very same thing, all I could find was
http://www.modelslipway.com/puffer/puffer.htm (http://www.modelslipway.com/puffer/puffer.htm)
Would be very interested if anyone else has any joy.
Langley do a range of kits but sadly none of them is a sailing ship.
Nice one, quite a selection. I had looked at Langley for other stuff but never noticed the boat section, Doh! ;D
Scratch building ships is a most satisfying hobby in itself and there is considerable support out there for bits and pieces and methodology. Go for the subject you wish and make it. PLEASE, NOT another Clyd puffer!
see http://www.009.cd2.com/members/how_to/collier.htm (http://www.009.cd2.com/members/how_to/collier.htm)
(https://forum.009society.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.009.cd2.com%2Fimages43%2F29.jpg&hash=5fbbc542cad4fb420c3e9753629b1c1af86a06d3)
JdF
There is also a modern coaster available from scalescenes http://www.scalescenes.com/products/T030-Cargo-Ship (http://www.scalescenes.com/products/T030-Cargo-Ship)
Charlie
What kind of sailing ship are you after? A coaster or something bigger? If you want a coastal schooner or a ketch you might consider buying a plastic kit for a bigger ship, but to a smaller scale, and modify it using detail parts obtained separately. You don't really need a ship in 4mm scale to start with, but even a three-masted ship in 1:120 or 1:150 could be scaled up to a two-masted schooner, provided you look at photos of suitable prototypes. It's the rigging that would need most attention.
For a small cargo ship, use a ship with a fat hull. The Beagle model by Revell might be a suitable starting point as it's 1:96 scale, although it needs modernising to arrive at an 1880s or later schooner or whatever. Look at the website here: http://www.revell.com/germany/ships/80-5458.html (http://www.revell.com/germany/ships/80-5458.html). Photo here: http://www.revell.com/product-images/80-5458-lg.jpg (http://www.revell.com/product-images/80-5458-lg.jpg)
Study the prototype and modify details accordingly. Late 19th century ships didn't have the elaborate 'gingerbread' ornaments of early 1800s ships - these were replaced by something more austere, or removed. This includes the ornate stern gallery and the 'galleon' or prow below the bowsprit. A rounded bow would be quite typical. The small mizzen mast could be removed and the gaff and boom moved forward to the mainmast which would make it into a suitable two-masted square rigged brig. Also, remove any guns and gunports.
Hope this is a useful idea.
The eventual aim would be a 'Western Ocean Yacht' which was a three-masted schooner which emanated from, among others, shipbuilders in Porthmadog. However it's unlikely at this stage that I would get involved in building one myself. Having only just started on a Parkside Dundas Tralee & Dingle Cattle Van for the first time, it'll be quite a while before I reach that level of ability. However I have to say Ted that I was in part inspired by your use of the paddle steamer Lochalaistair. Apart from being a particularly fine model, it also helps to give a sense of perspective to the railway and the trains. I would hope that the schooner, provisionally named 'Mari Lwyd' would help to serve the same purpose.
I wonder could I also ask you to confirm the arithmetic for me.
The 'MA James', on which 'Mari Lwyd would be based, was 89' 6" LOA. At 00 scale, I make that 358mm. Converting to inches, I make that 14". Does that sound about right?
Well, I confess I'm not familiar with the Western Ocean Yacht as a ship type. Would that be a full rounded hull or a sharpish one?
Lochalastair is a funny model as it was converted from a model of mid-19th century ship. It retains several features from that age, like the elaborate woodwork and the cast-iron funnel, but is supposed to be a turn-of-the century ship:
(https://forum.009society.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.009dutch.nl%2Fcdr%2Fmain%2Ffoto%2Fships%2Fsmall%2F97023.jpg&hash=a6b7b251b779402e96a798a1caece67660771694)
The hull length you have calculated for Mari Llwyd is about right. Exact size is quite unimportant - it's the impression which counts. But hull shape and rig type are paramount.
I have seen too many model 'ships' that don't look like anything. Try to build a model ship of the right shape and rig, which is more important than getting all the details right (ability comes from doing things yourself). If you cannot find a kit of the right shape, make your own hull from balsa, and finish it with detail parts you can find in a model shop. I'm prejudiced, but perhaps I may be forgiven, having been a sailor.... ;)
An illustration of 'MA James', the last of the Western Ocean Yachts to be built can be found at:
http://freespace.virgin.net/r.cadwalader/maritime/era/james.htm#top (I'm sorry, I don't know how to turn this into a proper link.)
I agree totally; it's the impression that counts rather than complete accuracy. One of my difficulties with the P4 philosophy, while admiring the skill and dedication of the modellers involved is that the end result can look rather clinical when attention to impression and atmosphere are overlooked.
Seeing that you were a sailor, I wonder if I may pick your brains further and ask you about the loading and unloading of such ships. Would there have been a dockside crane during that period (1880s-1920s) or would there have been a derrick on board?
I know it is going off topic, but something I was told when trying to date old photos of people is that knowing the location (within the country) helps. In London, "high society" may be wearing the latest fashions, but out in the provinces even newly made clothes are going to be from an earlier age.
Not all ships, etc are going to be the latest design. It is most noticable in dockside photos, the ships do look anachronistic in "steam age" photos. A good number of them are going to be quite elderly.
Quote from: rhobat bryn on September 02, 2011, 00:01
An illustration of 'MA James', the last of the Western Ocean Yachts to be built can be found at:
http://freespace.virgin.net/r.cadwalader/maritime/era/james.htm#top (I'm sorry, I don't know how to turn this into a proper link.)
I suggest you get hold of a copy of Narrow Gauge & Industrial Railway Modelling Review magazine issue no.65. On pages 12 to 18, Nick Welch describes how he built "M A James" in 4mm scale for his Festiniog layout. No 65 is available as a back number from the publisher.
Subsequent to your post, I looked up my copy of Nick Welch's Ffestiniog Odyssey where Chapter 12 deals with the construction of the schooners, 'MA James' and 'Isallt'. Thanks for the reference.
Quote from: rhobat bryn on September 02, 2011, 00:01
An illustration of 'MA James', the last of the Western Ocean Yachts to be built can be found at:
http://freespace.virgin.net/r.cadwalader/maritime/era/james.htm#top (I'm sorry, I don't know how to turn this into a proper link.)
I agree totally; it's the impression that counts rather than complete accuracy. One of my difficulties with the P4 philosophy, while admiring the skill and dedication of the modellers involved is that the end result can look rather clinical when attention to impression and atmosphere are overlooked.
Seeing that you were a sailor, I wonder if I may pick your brains further and ask you about the loading and unloading of such ships. Would there have been a dockside crane during that period (1880s-1920s) or would there have been a derrick on board?
Thanks for the info on MA James - it seems this is a topsail schooner with what looks like a full-lined clipper hull (i.e. with a slightly hollow waterline curve at the bows and stern). Clipper doesn't necessarily mean a fast ship although the well known tea clippers were very fast ships with extremely fine lines.
There is a good photo of Port Dinorwic in the 1870s, showing three two-masted schooners in the harbour, with huge stacks of slates ashore and a train of slate wagons. It is on page 40 of 'the Welsh Narrow Gauge Railway', a 1976 book by DCA Prideaux. The photo comes from the Llyfrgell Genedlaethol Cymru and it may have been published elsewhere. It doesn't show any loading gear, but the caption states that the slates were loaded using wheelbarrows. I think these were run aboard along a gangway. Probably that would have been a very general method of loading cargo. The loads would have been lowered into the hold by a block and tackle rigged over the hold.
Sailing ships in the late 1800s often had a small donkey steam engine for cargo work. Before those times they used a 'whip' or 'runner' rove through a block on a yard-arm or perhaps they topped (hoisted) one of the gaff sail booms for the same purpose. The 'whip' was a single rope worked by either a team of men or a hand powered capstan or winch. The load was hoisted, then the boom was swung inboard over the hatchway.
In steam or motor cargo ships they used derricks up to about 1985. The usual approach was to use one derrick rigged outboard and one inboard, with the runners shackled together. The load then can be transferred from one derrick to another.
Shore cargo cranes (steam or hand powered) were used in some cases, but they would have been difficult to manage amongst the rigging of a sailing ship. They weren't uncommon though - look at the typical railway goods yard crane and you'll have an idea of them. There are plenty of old photos showing them about. Many were mobile steam cranes running on rails, often on standard or broad gauge track.
(https://forum.009society.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.narrowgauge.nl%2Fsite%2Fsumatra%2Fsum59x.jpg&hash=0dbef92a8ecef5450aa2b40061877a153d6a25b9)
Finally I have shown a photo taken in Indonesia in 1974. This shows a steam train on the quay, an early 20th Century overhead bridge crane (only the bridge visible over the tracks), and a cargo ship with the derricks rigged outboard and inboard, for use with coupled runners. The photo might have been taken in 1910 and shows loading gear which is one step advanced from the primitive methods described above, which were still in use up to about 1940.
Hope this helps you along.
Yes, thanks Ted; that's very informative. I believe the Western Ocean Yachts were designed with speed in mind and a crew of about 6 to cut down on costs. In his book 'Ffestiniog Odyssey', Nick Welch quotes from Henry Hughes' 'Immortal Sails' in saying that the MA James sailed from Porthmadog to Cuxhaven in Germany in 4 1/2 days, a journey of about 1000 miles.
Not having seen a dockside crane in any of the photos of the Western ports of Wales suggests that the wheelbarrow and block and tackle method of loading and unloading is the most credible. I shall bear this in mind when I get to the maritime stage of developing the layout. In the meantime, its back to the Tralee & Dingle Cattle Van.
1000 miles in 4 days and a half? That's not bad sailing, it's an average of about 9 knots.
Yes, I think the wheelbarrow and block & tackle method of loading would be widespread. Labour was quite cheap in those days.
I just remember the way they loaded coal in Campbeltown: they had a steam crane on the end of the pier which swung the CMR coal wagons over the hold of a Puffer to discharge through the end door of the wagon. This would indicate steam cranes would have been used for heavy (bulk) loads and certainly not for something as delicate as dressed slates.
Talking of coal, I visited the Kathleen & May today at the Barry Tall Ships Festival, which is a three masted topsail schooner built in 1900 at Connah's Quay. One of the guides on the ship suggested that the coal would have been transported in sacks on this particular vessel. The loading and unloading would have been carried out by men carrying sacks of coal on their backs. I wonder whether the use of cranes would have depended on the type of vessel being used as well as the geographical location. Wales was not renowned for its wealth at this point in its history (and still isn't!) so investment at Welsh ports may well have been kept to a bare minimum. By contrast, the example you cite from Campbeltown sounds like quite an elaborate affair. What sort of vessels would have been used at Campbeltown for the transport of coal?
The coal was transported from Campbeltown in Clyde Puffers, although I expect other small coasters would have been used as well. There was a pier on one side of the harbour which had double track on it. There was a steam crane on the pier which picked up loaded wagons, emptied them over the hold, then put the empty wagons on the other track. As each of the wagons was about 4 tons of coal, this was a substantial load. I expect a Puffer would be able to discharge the coal using its derrick, and some sort of tilting bucket - I have seen this arrangement in use on barges in this country up to a few decades ago.
The runner of the derrick would have been wound a few turns on a revolving capstan head driven by the steam winch. Pulling on the end would increase the friction so the load would be hoisted. Releasing the runner would cause it to slip on the capstan and cause the load to be lowered, often in a rush.... This was a dangerous, though common practice which was forbidden in more recent times.
EDIT: I seem to remember a kind of cableway rigged from the hold of a barge to the top of a derrick slung outboard, with a tilting bucket that tipped over right at the top. This way a bulk cargo of sand, gravel or coal can be discharged very efficiently. Shovel the bucket full in the hold, then run it up the derrick and tip it over, afterwards drop the empty bucket down the cable into the hold again. The bucket had a squarish shape but was asymmetrical so the load would spill out to one side. Rather like a wedge. It's at least 40 or 50 years ago.
On sailing ships without steam power, having narrow hatchways unsuitable for bulk loading, manhandling cargo from shore to ship would have been widespread, either by carrying or using wheelbarrows. Casks for instance can be rolled over a gangway. Somewhere I have a photo of bunker coal being run aboard with a wheelbarrow over a gangway plank. The practice you describe of bags of coal being carried on men's backs was probably a very common sight. I remember coal merchants bringing bagged coal round the back of the house this way, emptying the bags into the coal locker in the shed.
That's fascinating, Ted. Many thanks for that very detailed insight. I think I'm clear now on how I will model this when the time comes to build the maritime section of the layout. Thanks again.
I hope that, at least, Ted Polet is reading this but anyone with any knowledge of this subject is most welcome to offer their advice.
When a sailing ship entered harbour, and before the days of engines, it would have needed a gentle momentum to do this. A comment made to me by a member of the Katherine and May team was that once engines came in, topsails were done away with. Can I infer from this, that a ship was rigged showing topsails only in order to manoeuvre towards the dockside?
That is possible, but I have a feeling that ships could also be manovered using the capstan and ropes fixed to a point, either an anchor on the bottom or a bollard on the dockside. Equally, a ship could be moved in the same way but with the capstan on the quayside and the rope tied to the ship, though this may be more likely when moving a ship towards the mouth of the harbour on departure at somewhere like Pentewan, which had a long narrow entrance.
I think that the correct term is 'warping' and was probably more widely used as it means a ship could be moved independently of any wind direction in a confined space. Also possible is that as labour was cheaper then such maovering could be done by teels of men in rowing boats towing the ship.
Don't forget that it took some time for shipping to become fully steam (or i.c.) powered, with sail lasting quite some time (well into the 20th century judging by shots of Baltic timber carriers at Weymouth) but with the addition of a small steam plant for a maneuvering engine and / or winches (and capstans) or a small internal combustion engine(s), along with electric motors(?) to do much the same job. It would have been much cheeper to fit smaller plant like this to 'help' than building a whole new 'non-sail' vessel from scratch or fitting a sail powered hull with a big enough power plant to drive the ship on its own.
The Airfix "Bounty" is H0 but is near enough. I have made a waterline model out of it. Doing the rigging was a challenge.
Do Langley still stock the Artitec range of resin boats? Artitec are on the Web artitec.nl.
There's that Russian kit maker that was in the NEWS - OK it's a small boat. Darn! senior moment - It was Railway Modeller March 2011 p 223
Aritec boats are still on the market and in the UK are sold by (among others) Langley. They are very much European designs though and are of course in H0
I had a look at Ayrey's Web site - they are the agents for Zvezda models. There are an interesting variety of model ships (in 1/72) from this manufacturer (You have to go to the last page of the Zvezda section).
Quote from: Rhobat Bryn on September 09, 2011, 10:51...When a sailing ship entered harbour, and before the days of engines, it would have needed a gentle momentum to do this. A comment made to me by a member of the Katherine and May team was that once engines came in, topsails were done away with. Can I infer from this, that a ship was rigged showing topsails only in order to manoeuvre towards the dockside?
Quote from: JulienW on September 09, 2011, 11:13...I think that the correct term is 'warping' and was probably more widely used as it means a ship could be moved independently of any wind direction in a confined space. Also possible is that as labour was cheaper then such maovering could be done by teels of men in rowing boats towing the ship...
Warping is indeed the correct term. Sailing a square rigged ship in a confined area like a harbour is almost impossible, unless a light wind is with you and you have a stern anchor ready to let go as a brake. Perhaps a small schooner or a cutter can be sailed in harbour, but only with the greatest amount of care and under certain conditions. Remember these were all heavy long-keeled vessels that cannot turn very quickly. In dockyard and harbour areas there were many shore-based capstans used to warp ships in and out.
There were many ways to move a ship without steam power. On a roadstead they would lower boats and tow the ship where possible. The tide must have been used as well, where available. Using a spring rope spliced on a long anchor cable it is possible to sheer the ship across the tidal current, by angling it to the flow. In canals they used horses on a towpath. This is all very labour-intensive, so with the advent of steam, tugs were used from about 1840.
Doing away with topsails isn't something I know about. Topsails in a square rigger are the main working sails in confined areas, in stronger winds, or for manoeuvring like when coming to anchor. The courses (lower sails) were used mainly at sea. They were the first to go in mid-1800s steamships with auxiliary sails, but the topsails stayed for some time.
Smaller square rigged ships often lacked topgallants and royals (the third and fourth tier of sails). In full-rigged ships of the final generation (like the steel grain and guano carriers that sailed up to WW2) the topsails and topgallants became so big they had to be divided, making rigs with 5 or 6 tiers of sails, each on their individual yards. They sailed with small crews that wouldn't have been able to handle bigger sails.
The auxiliary engines Julien refers to would mainly have been used to power a windlass or a capstan for heavier work. They were called 'donkey' engines and would have been a great help in warping operations. Sailing ships with an auxiliary engine for propulsion were never a great success due to the weight, the additional drag of the propeller and the loss of cargo space. Only with the advent of compact diesel engines, small coastal traders were fitted with a propulsion engine. On long-distance seagoing ships like the 4,000 ton grain and guano carriers they were deemed inefficient.
I wonder if I can approach this topic from a different angle. What has fired my imagination and curiousity on this subject is how one would model a moving sailing ship coming into harbour, using the R
I think the answer has to be to do whatever (part of the procedure) you want or are able to. It is an accepted part of the "fudge" of model railways that some things move and some don't and yet it appears not to destroy the overall illusion.
It is strange. A part of the model obviously out of scale or place grates, but certain random articles moving when all else is still doesn't.
(It must be so ingrained in those of us brought up on clunky animated cartoons!) I believe it is because we "see" in our heads not with our eyes. The bandwidth requirements to do so would be enormous. Our eyes pick up certain visual clues and our brains fill in the (real world) model for us. We are all living in our own little Matrix.
Thank you, Graeme. That's very sage advice.
Rhobat,
No ships as far as I know but there are some fascinating animations here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/scoopmmr (http://www.youtube.com/user/scoopmmr)
Thanks Graeme for the reference to the animations. They were indeed fascinating and I agree with the modeller on the video when he says it isn't just the locos that have to be the the only moving element on the layout. There is the danger of including too many moving items that provide for a very distracting layout but I think his basic point is a good one. It's actually opened another idea for me regarding animation. The models in the video are I believe in 7mm which makes it a little easier to produce them than 4mm. But I have wondered for a long time if its possible to have a 4mm guard on the platform who, when you flick the switch, raises his arm with a green flag in his hand and lowers it again once the train has departed.
Rhobart,
I've not seen all the videos but I believe the modeller models US prototypes in H0 predominantly. In one video he said he tried out an animation in 7 mm and then re-did it in H0 when he worked out what needed to be done.
It is a whole different slant on modelling and can end up being kitsch if overdone. When the animations are constant and appear to be on a very short loop it destroys the whole effect. Some of the best I've seen you spot out of the corner of your eye, then have to wait for them to occur again and when your eye moves on the animation is not so distracting that it stops you enjoying other parts of the model.
I must have missed the reference to HO when mentioned so thanks for the correction on that. Still its good to know that it's possible. I shall have to get working on my 4mm guard with his green flag!
I agree with you totally when you say that the danger is of its looking kitsch and you're spot on in describing the best use of animation. So finding that I'm in complete agreement with you, it only remains for me to wish you a Merry Christmas.
Rhobat
Quote from: GraemeD on September 18, 2011, 16:23I've not seen all the videos but I believe the modeller models US prototypes in H0 predominantly. In one video he said he tried out an animation in 7 mm and then re-did it in H0 when he worked out what needed to be done
Yes, Laurie McLean models US prototype in HOn3. It's not so different from OO9, the rails are 1.5mm further apart, and of course the horses, bulls, people, etc, are (in theory) smaller than if they were in 4mm scale.
There are some interesting Dutch layouts that incorporate animation. One I know is on YouTube somewhere that has a bicycle but the one I saw "in the flesh" at the Glasgow exhibition was called something like "Petershausen" (except that's German, not Dutch and I can't recall the proper name). Depending on your point of view it was way, way OTT (something approaching 100 animations on quite a small layout).
Some were definitely silly (priest/monk going up and down on the church bell rope) but the overall standard of modelling was high and you really had to look hard for some of the animations (the priest was only just visible through the open church door) that nothing dominated the overall scene. In broken Dutch/English we established that the builder hand-scribed all the building stonework on "gypsum" (plaster board with one paper surface removed) so the attention to detail was excellent throughout. Other animations included a pile-driver and JCB lowering/raising a pipe into/out of a trench. I think it is accepted that "what goes up must come down" as part of the animation conceit, but if there is sufficient pause then it does not look like aimless repetition.
Some people definitely "have it" and even grouping static figures can tell a story so the scene looks animated even though it isn't. The obvious one is the wedding party, but some modellers seem to find the right pairing or grouping of figures that look like they are interacting or have some common purpose and not in random snapshot positions.
Generally speaking I find animation pretty awful. Several layouts seen in Dortman were covered in them (along with hundreds of LED lights). Jerky and worse than Victorian automata. In many ways, some automation highlights the fact that other parts of the layout are 'frozen'.
That said, I have a small cameo of automated figures planned on Cliffhanger and the effort to make it look real is considerable. In the Cliffhanger case, the effect is intended to raise a smile.
One 009 layout had the Viessmann 'horizontal jogging' scene inside a house. Despite the fact that it was not visible unless a light was switched on, personally, I found it in bad taste in public exhibition.
Some of the best animations are to be found on a layout by Chelmsford MRC. These include swans swimming in a pond.
The automation of the docking of a sailing ship would be hard IMO and TedP describes the procedure very well. I think it would be easier to automate the docking of a steam/motor ship. If real water was desired, the bottom of the 'pond' would be best modelled using glass, (painted, of course). Beneath the glass, a guided magnet could be used to move the ship above. With real water, the movement would be less jerky, BTW as the water would act as a lubricant.
JdF
Animation needs to be used judiciously and your point about freezing the rest of the layout is particularly apt.
I wanted to upload and post an animation I came across on Youtube but am not sure how to go about it. Could somebody please advise?
You can just post the link inside the internet icon. Rhobat, I am enjoying your fresh views on 009 BTW.
I came across this animation on Youtube in my travels; I think it comes into the raising a smile category.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5adv8PgrJww (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5adv8PgrJww)
That is remarkably well done. One guy some time ago was animating horses for his trams. I never saw an animation of it though.
Then there is this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDPLoJv3tTo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDPLoJv3tTo)
I saw it at Glasgow. I think the maker said there are 90 odd animations on it!
Many thanks, pilotfriend for your comments regarding the movement of ships in real water. I think the idea of using a magnet is an excellent idea especially as you say it would be far less jerky than a direct connection which would destroy the illusion completely. I envisage that it would be possible for a sailing ship to approach the harbour, topsails raised only, and on approaching the dockside, the topsails would be lowered by means of radio electronic trickery. The mooring would have to be left to the imagination of the viewer. Accepting your point about the docking of a steamship, my preference is for sail since it is my third love (after my wife and narrow gauge railways) but it also represents a period when West Welsh ports were at there busiest and most productive. It's the atmosphere of that period which I would like to evoke.
Coming back to your point about the magnet, is there a danger of the power of the magnet and its connection with the ship being lost between the glass and the water?
My only every visit to one of those Disney things was in 1980 at the original where they grubbed up an orange grove I believe. It was decidedly down-trodden and the "boat" ran on wheels on a railway track in shallow water. There is no need for waterproofing, just make sure the motor is above the water line and protected from splashes. The track was visible, but fish pond dye could cure that.
Some years ago I saw a New York rail yard layout that was only connected to the man lines by a "car flat" service. In this case the dock and un-docking of the barge was featured as it formed a necessary part of the operation. I remember reading in one of the late, great C J Freezer's books about the concept of a fiddle yard/ferry built on a tea trolley that could be wheeled up to the dock/end of layout. Great in 7mm coarse scale ~ not so sure about 009?
As a matter of aesthetics, I would say animations per se are in the same category as garden gnomes. One may be a permissible folly, if kept discretely. A quantity makes one think of Parkstone or Frinton and the run screaming for the hills.
I received an e-mail from the Curator of the National Waterfront Museum in Swansea today regarding the loading and unloading of sailing ships in Welsh ports.
Firstly he explains that the reasons for the holds being so small is that it reduced the risk of leakage presented during storms and waves washing across the decks, and that structurally they weakened the integrity of the ship.
With regards the loading of coal, this was done by tipping the wagons so that the coal went into a chute that was directed towards the hatch. Once the coal had been loaded into the hold, men were sent in, called 'trimmers', to distribute the coal more evenly so that it did not move during the voyage. To unload, rigging was attached to the 'discharging gaff', itself attached to the main mast, with a pulley to lift the coal in caskets. This was the swung over the side of the ship onto the quay, as Ted has previously suggested.
Limestone was loaded and unloaded by hand. Slates were loaded by placing a plank from quayside into the hold, the plank would be greased and the slates (about 6 to 8 at a time) were then slid along the plank when they would then be placed in the hold by hand due to their fragility.
I realise that this is one for the sailing ship anoraks (or should that be waterproofs) but I thought it might be of some interest. I have been recommended two books:
The Merchant Schooners by Basil Greenhill; and
Maritime Heritage by J Geraint Jenkins.
So I'm off to the library for a forage.
Rhobat - that steaming lorry is excellent! I tend to feel that some animations are gimmicky but others are quite permissible. Subtlety is the key to this and possibly also the appropriateness to the operation of the railway. A signalman who leans out to hand-flag a train past, for instance. That said, I just loved the animations which Dave and Shirley Rowe built into their layouts. Sounds are another emotive subject. As an exhibitor I have often been consumed with a compelling desire to rip out things from adjacent layouts such as crossing bells or perhaps shoot those damn' seagulls or crows!! Once again subtlety is the secret.
Quote from: Rhobat Bryn on January 31, 2012, 21:35...I realise that this is one for the sailing ship anoraks (or should that be waterproofs) but I thought it might be of some interest. ....
The word is oilskins.
Interesting stuff, Rhobat. Coal trimming is needed to prevent the coal from moving over when the ship heels under sail. The coal has to be levelled as any angle left on the coal will make it go over more easily. They did so on many bulk cargoes including grain. Often a few courses of bags were laid on top to stabilise the surface.