Line of Z Scale Ships Coming

Here's a view of the stern of the 375' feeder container ship. I've had the railings and stairways custom made from PE brass. I've left off the railings on the poop deck until I install the bitts and other deck details.

Fred,

The Port Welcome looks quite a bit bigger than 110' in length. I'm presuming, since it was built in 1959, the height between decks is 8'. My quick sketches don't work out. I have one shot where it looks like it was built on a tugboat hull, and 110' is a very common tugboat length, but I'm still scratching my head, as the ships looks more like 140' in length to me. I didn't have much time to spend on it, perhaps 1/2 hour, but this one might be just too difficult to scale and draw for the return. It would be only 6" long in Z, and have a lot of styrene forming around sections, in very small increments. I'll consider carving the hull and casting it, then adding the decks, but my experience is that method doesn't work out well.

Question for folks here about the kits:

In the larger ships, I'm using two plys of 0.5 mm (.020") styrene. I'm doing this because my experience with 1.0 mm (.040") styrene has been horrible--it warps, doesn't easily conform to hull curves, and stresses the cutter mightily. Are you folks OK with laminating two sheets together? Some of the parts on the larger ships are two feet long by perhaps 6 inches wide (600 mm x 150 mm), and have to be laminated fairly precisely. I've worked with up to 1.5 mm (.060") material, and it's just miserable to handle and keep flat.

This means that, on the larger ships, the sections and central spine, for example, have to be laminated before assembly. It doesn't take a lot of time, although it does take a lot of glue, and has to be fairly precise.

Any comments appreciated.

Pete- Right again- She was 124 feet long, 106 gross tons, built RTC Shipbuilding, Camden, NJ. Launched Nov 24, 1959, Christened by Maryland's First Lady, and had max draft-10 feet. Overheads were close to 7 feet, wheelhouse raised 3 feet above upper deck, twin screw, and used locomotive engines for power. She is ONE of a KIND so you have lots of builders licence . Just so she looks pretty. I appreciate your efforts so far. A thought here- The hull could be molded with a hollow center core, - nobody will see the bottom, and it would save on material. It would be a BEAR to make out of lots of small pieces of plastic- though she really does not have many complex curves.




Another thought; Most of the modern feeder ships are stem winders. A lot of the bigger containerships have the house midships or favoring the stern, with container stacks abaft the house. Could your model be adjusted to this configuration by the hobbiest?? You have mentioned different lenghts....
Just thinking- a RARE occurence...

Fred

Looks like you've already built a Port Welcome!

At seven feet, and 124' in length, it scales out much better. Still 7' in a 1959 ship is certainly one-of-a-kind. The hull isn't bad for styrene. I think that in Z I'd ignore the camber, or let the modeler sand it in. The sweep makes the bow a four-hands process--you'll need four hands to hold it together while gluing, or two hands and a lot of tape!

Surprised she was rated 106 tons--isn't there a change in crew requirements right around 100 tons? I know my conversations up in Alaska with a captain were that his ship was rated 95 tons for some reason, even if it was probably more like 110 tons.

Yes- as she was over 100 tons- she required "heavy" USCG licences.. Mine was Ocean Master Unlimited. Under 100 tons and restricted waters, inland waters- etc. were much easier exams and requirements.
Then there are several different lesser certificates- 6 pack etc.
Note: "tons" is not a weight factor-- It's a cubic permanent interior measurement. Many boats much larger were under 100 tons as they used a TRICK in design where certain spaces were not counted as permanent- such as doors that can be unbolted.
The hull I made out of wood- easy to sand shear, tumble home, camber, and the bows. I used evergreen plastic for gunwales and fwd bulwarks. This model is crude compared to your models. I would still be interested in another version. There are no small passenger boats in Z.
Alaska-- We have at least two members on Z Central from Alaska- Stony and Karin from Stonebridge Models. What were you doing way up North??
And How did you get interested in model ships??
Fred

Forgot to address your second question. An enterprising modeler could certainly move the stern house forward on the Z scale 375' and 614' container ships. The 375' house would be easy, as its length is less than a container hatch. You'd have to chop the swimming pool off the 614' house to make it fit in the space of a container hatch. That's not too hard to do. I'd suggest moving the hatch walls in the new house location out to the edge of the hull, naturally.

A better choice might be the N scale hull (650' in Z) with a Z scale superstructure. The N scale hull already has space for one stack of 40' containers behind the house, and doesn't have a poop deck. I'd have to do a deck with Z scale hatches for it. I might just offer that in styrene only.

It's an interesting possibility. Hulls are mostly scalable. The forecastle break in the N scale hull would be too high, but that could be easily hidden by raising the hatches. The N scale hull is also swept, as a break bulk ship--a nicety that has to be leveled out for a container ship. It's done in N scale, and needs a little thinking for Z.

I'm familiar with ship "tons" and some of the tricks used to avoid ratings and port fees. What a strange game!

I've been in Alaska a lot. Three vacations of at least three weeks each. Early coverage of Prudhomme Bay as a journalist. Business trips for the government for anti-missile programs. I LOVE it up there, at least in the summer.

When I was six years old (1954) I built a model of the Missouri out of a an extra 2 x 4, other scrap wood, and nails for guns. 6d for the 16" guns, finish nails for the 5" guns, and brads for the 40 mm. The heads of the nails absolutely drove me nuts, so I ruined my older brother's wire cutter trying to snip them off. Got hell for cutting up the basement stairs while cutting up wood with a hand saw.

Been hooked ever since. Was also into trains early, with Lionel. And, in my early teens, flying model aircraft. I got into scratchbuilding with N scale trains--most of the structures on my layout (today in storage) are scratchbuilt. Got back into ships in 2002, and never stopped.

Fred,

Give me a guess on the beam?

Already I can see where some people might have a problem assembling one of these beauties from Kit form. As it is, the ship terminology being used might be enough to chase off a lot of old railroaders that have no idea what those skilled in seamanship are talking about here. Terms such as camber, gunwale, bulwark, or even what a swept hull means, might frighten people away from checking out these kits in more detail.

I realize that it’s certainly a lot easier for you guys to discuss these building matters in terms you’re familiar with, but perhaps there should be two distinct forum topics on the subjects. One Pete, to help your future sales, where you’d discuss what you’re thinking of building and ask what people might want. I’d try to keep this topic in line with terms a landlubber might understand. And then a topic where those in the know could discuss just how one might accomplish designing such ships in Z scale.

In the mean time, there’s an OLD free to read, easy to use, online book available from openlibrary.org that might just help the rest of us. "Modern Shipbuilding Terms" [1918, 143 pages, defined and illustrated by F. Forrest Pease (including a series of photographs showing the progressive steps of construction)].

archive.org/stream/modernshipbuildi00peasrich#page/n0/mode/2up

Granted this will have no terminology regarding modern ships, but the first 102 pages or so is a glossary of ship terminology. And because the glossary uses the same type of ship terminology to explain what one might be searching for, one will need to bounce back and forth in the book to actually understand a lot of what they might be seeking. [The first word, “abaft”, mentions “stern”, so one might need to look up “stern”. In describing “stern”, it might lead one to “counter”, which might lead one to “sternpost”… and from “sternpost” to “stern frame”… to… well, you get the idea here.] But it IS free, and although it has nothing on modern ships, it does explain a lot of the ship terminology still used today.

A bit more difficult to use, but a lot more modern is the “Glossary of Shipping Terms” by the U.S. Department of Transportation in .PDF format. Although not devoted to shipbuilding, this .PDF will even carry terminology related to more modern ships (i.e. container ships, bulk carriers, and feeder vessels, etc.) and does list just a few of the “parts” of a ship, but nothing compared to the above listed book "Modern Shipbuilding Terms".

www.marad.dot.gov/documents/Glossary_final.pdf

I’m sure there must be a lot more information out there for us landlubbers, these are just what I had handy.

Joe

Avast- a true mud grubber- abaft in this instance means "Behind"
And Pete- I knew that was coming- I'll try to find out her beam from some of the fotos and interpolation- it Will be a guesstamate. She was a floaing bath tub- maybe a little more slender would make her prettier.

Joe,

Thanks for that timely and warranted advice. I think I'd be better off, on a train forum, not using so many shipbuilding terms! But sometimes it's like rivet counting on Pennsy K4s--we ship (or PRR) guys can't help it.

I would like to know what folks here want in terms of ships, and in what form, i.e., kits or built-ups, and at what price. I think that I will never get into mass producing small boats, but then what's considered small in Z might surprise me. I am just about ready to introduce a line of modern rescue boats (rigid inflatable hull, or RIBs) in N.

I certainly don't want to scare folks off, but ships can be a little more difficult to build than land-based structures. There's a saying that nothing's square on a boat. I am making some compromises to square things up a bit, and make the build easier, but much of the aura of a ship is that graceful line.

Fred wrote: Avast- a true mud grubber- abaft in this instance means "Behind"
And Pete- I knew that was coming- I'll try to find out her beam from some of the fotos and interpolation- it Will be a guesstamate. She was a floaing bath tub- maybe a little more slender would make her prettier.

I've been trying to interpolate myself. I'm guessing 30 feet. Just don't have enough photos.

Frankly, I haven't got a clue what you guys are talking about. But maybe that's because I try to avoid ships, boats and ferries whenever I can

As someone who doesn't really care for much of what's been discussed so far, I'm thinking more in terms of how all of this could enhance layout operation. Car floats have featured in various layout planning articles and books for years, and having one is of course a nice way of getting some cars off the layout and bringing on new ones - just like that.

The picture of the car float looks really good, and modelling something along the lines of NYC's 69th Street Transfer Bridge could be quite a layout feature.

Any project in that direction?

And excuse my land dweller's ignorance, all ye sailors and paddlers...

Adrian--Ever think where all those containers come from that has all your imports, electronics etc- yup- ships.. In the US about 85% of our population lives within 100 miles of some navigable body of water. Even in your land locked home country of Switzerland, I bet you have boats on rivers and lakes, and trains might pass by. There is something peaceful watching a sail boat on a lake, or a tourist boat glide by.. The USA exports grain, oil, cars, machinery,coal, ore, ---most of which goes by train to a port for loading on ships. Z has opened up a wider scenic vista in model railroading. We can do reasonable rail side industries. Even the Miniature World of Trains in Germany has a lot of ships- and an airport. Going to a train show, there are lots of very nice layouts- but most of them have the same theme- a lot of track and trains. Z allows much more scenery, and building a "reason" for a grain consist, or coal- even long container trains, and tank cars. Trains need a starting point and destination. Boating is not your "Thing". OK- But it may make Z modules much more memorable and interesting. Like a 747 taxiing over a bridge while the train goes underneath - or a building on a bridge over the tracks. These are the things I remember from seeing so many "same" layouts. A Lumber train needs trees and a mill---And believe it or not- there are specialized vessels to carry lumber, cars, oil rigs, oil, grain, other ships, even livestock-
Favoring the B&M railroad you must realize there are many ports the B&M services- Boston, New Bedford, Glouscester, Rockport, Quincey, Chelsea, Portland, Providence.. just to name a few. And the one that my Dad said I was named after ----MARBELHEAD!!
Boats can be BIG in Z-- Many N layouts have ships- and it's almost too much for the larger scales though they may try by scaling down vessels.
If this thread does not interest you- I'm sure there are others that will.Thanks for joining in.
Now I'll take my leave of the Quarterdeck- hop down a few ladders, and fall off the Plank.
Fred
P.S. Pete- 30 foot beam- width- sounds about right.

Working loaders and unloaders for the ore, coal, grain, sand, rock, ect. I know modern boats unload themselvs but it would be cool to have these thing sin Z. Not only for ocean and lake going ships but river barges as well.Might be too delicate of an operation in Z, but a string of hoppers going through a rotary dumper and the coal sliding into a barge should be easy, (rotary parts could be made with RP) But those big giant shovels would be a monster project themselves. www.walthers.com/exec/productinfo/933-2966

Fred wrote: ... Z has opened up a wider scenic vista in model railroading.

Fred, has Z opened up a wider scenic vista for our layouts, or has Z allowed many to have an actual layout where they once lacked the space to have anything at all? Z has allowed us to go SMALL. Along the way we have sacrificed detail, we have sacrificed availability, we have sacrificed economically priced items, all for the sake of a SMALLER size.

Large ships need large water. Few of us have the luxury of that kind of space, well, unless our layouts were based on water (ship), as opposed to being based on land (railroad). A lumber train no more needs a forest, than a train of oil tankers needs a refinery… no more than a train with a string of well cars needs a port. Sure, it would be great if we all had basements, or even a complete spare room we could use for a project large enough to accommodate large water, but I doubt as many do as you might like to believe.

Since this is a model railroad website… its land based, with the possibility of ships. A shipping website might be the opposite… water based, with the possibility of railroads. Look at the majority of the railroad layouts you’ve seen. Are these built for land simply because Z lacked the watercraft to warrant adding large water to the layout, or were they designed that way because railroads run on the land and that’s what we’ve come to produce? Yes, there are a few railroaders, Fred, that might also be into ships, and in the past they made the best of it by building their own. But is there really a large enough market for large ships in Z scale (or N scale for that matter, or even model railroading as a whole?)

Most small layouts have added water as almost an afterthought. A small stream here or there. A lake, that in reality measures out to little more than a pond. Canoes and row boats are mostly the ships of the day in Z scale, where small is what it’s all about. Now with the possibility of larger ships being available in Z, are we going to change our building strategies? I’m sure that those of us with the space will definitely give it some hard thought, but I doubt this will affect the majority of Z scale model railroaders where size is their chief concern.

Now, with my recent house purchase, and freshly gutted basement, and a layout still in the planning/designing stages… where adding large water would be a very easy task, and where I would really love a large container ship… will I sacrifice the space to add the water/dock space to do so? I don’t think so. I may add a small container dock area but that would be related more to the trains as opposed to the water, and the “water” will drop off the edge of the layout abruptly. And because I’m not much of a seafaring person, and because I love trains, I’m planning on using “extra space” on another leg of the layout for the addition of some HO and N scale in the foreground of the Z. This is not to say that others, in the same position as I, wouldn’t go the other direction and use the space for large ships, but I wonder just how many railroaders that would total out to be?

The same way we railroaders save space by using large building flats on the back wall of the layout, one thing that hasn’t been discussed is someone designing a “container ship flat” where the ship is “cut in half” lengthwise and used in the back of a layout. If the ship/layout is designed properly this could DRAMATICALLY reduce the size of the needed layout area, and yet still allow for one to have the same operation going on as if it were in front of a layout.

I feel you’re pointing in the right direction with suggesting the Port Welcome Fred, but even smaller ships/boats are needed to fall in line with the smallness of Z scale. As Kelly says, river barges are always a good idea, and even a very small car float (4 cars) and a small auto ferry would be a great thing for Z. If I could find a small 4 car, car float, I’d make sure find room on the layout for it.

Pete, as for what Z might be looking for. I’d have to say kit form for sure. We in Z are used to getting hands on and making our own stuff (probably more so in Z than any other scale). A model with instructions should be no problem. But don’t rule out a few prebuilt models either, if only for those that are not as adept, or whose eyesight or fingers may no longer be up to the task.

Joe

Fred - I think you got me wrong, but I'm sure it's my poor wording. I was just trying to say that as someone with no special interest in ships (which doesn't mean I can't understand that one can find ships interesting) I was trying to get through lots of technical details in this thread to try and see what this might, at the core of things, bring to my railroad modelling.

Sure I can see the scenic aspect - but will I build a seaport extension to get that? No, I'd rather use the space for some rail served inland industry to beef up my wayfreight operation. Containers? Unless my memory fails me completely, I just don't recall seeing that many in the 1980s. Sure the B&M served lots of ports, but my memories are based around Millers Falls (and East Deerfield), so I can model the B&M without a single ship and not feel I'm missing something. Now Marblehead, of course, would be an entirely different story...

But you're absolutely right - it's that special feature that doesn't pop up on every second layout that gets your attention. My favourite is still the layout with the Santa Fe passing a dinosaur dig sight... but I'm sure a container seaport terminal with ships could do the same thing - show how much innovative thought can do to add a little (or more) extra modelling "wow". All the better if modellers can combine various interests and knowledge!

I was just trying to look at it from the rail operational side, and I still think a car float would be very interesting in that respect. I don't think I'd buy a kit, but a ready made model, who knows...

Adrian

PS. Fred, if you take a 100 mile radius, 100% of the Swiss population is close to just about anything - except the sea.