Classic Fast Ferries · classic fast 3ferries S P E C I A L – 2002 3 Seven from Sydney... Miles O P P O S I T E : Passengers enjoying the scenery from the open air deck on PT.50

INCLUDES NEW 7-PAGE ARTICLE

classicf a s tferries

J U N E 2 0 0 2 n S P E C I A L

S C A L EBBB OOO XXX

22 classic fast ferries S P E C I A L – 2002

J U N E 2 0 0 2 n S P E C I A L

c o v e r : A hydrofoil out

of the water always makes

an impressivesight, especially

when viewed from down

under. Curl Curl was the sole RHS

140 in theSydney fleet

(MARTINGRIMM)

The first part of this SPECIALedition of classic fast ferries is areprint of an article by MartinGrimm which appeared in theAugust 2000 c f f (No. 5/2000).Also a 'Special', it was published tocoincide with the 2000 Olympicsin Sydney, Australia,commemorating the long sincedefunct hydrofoil service onSydney harbour which, introducedin January 1965, lasted for almost27 years. As, regrettably, that issue is nolonger available we've found itappropriate to do a rerun, bothfor the sake of new readers andthe author (as well as the goodstory in itself!). The original text was leftuntouched, whereas the article layout has been completely revised,including more and larger orimproved photos. In addition, the present 'SydneySpecial' holds a completely newarticle about hydrofoil modeling

classicf a s tferries

TH

E ON

LY PER

IOD

ICA

L ABO

UT

TH

E HEY

DA

Y O

F PASSEN

GER

HY

DR

OFO

ILS, HO

VER

CR

AFT

& C

AT

AM

AR

AN

S - PLUS R

ELEVA

NT

NEW

S n

ISSUED

IN PD

F FOR

MA

T; PLEA

SE CH

ECK O

UR

SITE O

N T

HE W

EB FOR

NEX

T ISSU

E DET

AILS: H

TT

P://CLA

SSICFA

STFER

RIES.G

O.T

OED

ITO

R/PU

BLISHER

: TIM

TIM

OLEO

N n

ALL A

RT

ICLES, A

RT

WO

RK &

DESIG

NS BY

TH

E EDIT

OR

, EXC

EPT W

HER

E NO

TED

n

SUBM

ITT

ALS O

F MA

NU

SCR

IPTS A

ND

PHO

TO

S, OLD

AN

D N

EW,

AN

D R

ELEVA

NT

NEW

S ITEM

S AR

E ENC

OU

RA

GED

! n

EMA

IL.: c f f @ e m

a i l . d kC

OPY

WR

IGH

T 2000/2002 CLASSIC FAST FERRIES

PHO

TO

ON

CO

VER

: MA

RT

IN G

RIM

M

written by Ian Wrenford, a memberof the Australian Plastic ModellersAssociation. He took a set of plans, numerousphotographs, some good advisefrom friends and strangers, sheets ofstyrene and various artist's materials,etc. and turned it into an excellent1:72 scale static model of theformer Sydney PT.50 hydrofoilFairlight. And in less than threemonths too. Now, there's our two goodmotives for doing another c f fSpecial. We are sure you can thinkof more . . .

elcome aboard the Sydney Hydrofoils !W

the story about another hydrofoil onSydney Harbour – Manu Wai – in theDecember 2001 classic fast ferries.A private venture, this was notrelated to the State Transit hydrofoiloperation and is not included here.

A l s o r e a d . . .

classic fast ferries S P E C I A L – 2002 33

Sevenfrom

Sydney...

Miles

O P P O S I T E : Passengers enjoying the scenery from the open air deck on PT.50 Fairlight (IAN WRENFORD)

B E L O W : Rodriquez RHS 160F Sydney was the last hydrofoil to be introduced on the 7-mile Sydney Circular Quay to Manly run.It operated here for only six years, 1985-1991 (STEPHEN JONES)


And a Thousand or those who have the opportunityto visit Sydney during the 2000Olympics, they will certainly need totake the time out to visit SydneyHarbour and its landmarks such as theHarbour Bridge (also known locally asthe ‘coat hanger’) and the OperaHouse. A ride to Manly on theharbour ferries should also not bemissed. But our visitors will have missed outon the glory days of hydrofoiloperations on Sydney harbour. In fact, part of that history endedvery nearby to the site of the Olympicgames...

T h e E a r l y Y e a r sThe tale all started with the arrival ofthe Supramar A.G. designed PT.20Manly in Sydney late in the evening ofWednesday 30th December 1964 onboard the Japanese freighter Kanto

Maru. She was unloaded the followingday at Glebe Island freight terminal. Manly had been built at the HitachiKanagawa shipyard, Japan. ASupramar licensee, Hitachi had beenbuilding hydrofoils to their designssince 1961and Manly was the eighth ofthe PT.20 type completed by the yard.The Port Jackson and Manly SteamShip Company Limited (PJ&MSC) hadpurchased her at a cost reported to bearound 140,000 Australian Pounds.Manly was the first hydrofoilintroduced in Australia. On New Year's Day in 1965 Manlywas already running foilborne outsidethe heads of Sydney harbour on thefirst of a series of trials. In thefollowing days further demonstrationswere made for the local maritimeauthority. The president of theMaritime Services Board, Captain J. H.

B Y

M

A R

T I

N

G R

I M

M

F

T h i s p a g e : Hitachi PT.20 Manly as delivered passes the easily recognizable Harbour Bridge, alsonick-named 'The Coat Hanger' (HITACHI)

O p p o s i t e : Sydney's first Rodriquez PT.50, Fairlight, during pre-delivery trials in the Straits ofMessina in 1966 (RODRIQUEZ)


Miles from CareSimpson, said that Sydney had to“keep up with the times” and as suchhe wanted to witness the vessel’scapabilities before deciding whetherany operating restrictions would benecessary. Due to initial concerns about themanoeuvrability of the hydrofoil in thecrowded waters of Sydney harbourduring weekends, Manly was initiallyrestricted to hullborne operations inthe main harbour area during theweekends. This restriction was liftedwithin three months. A public demonstration run withVIPs on board followed and on themorning of Thursday January 7th thehydrofoil commenced its scheduledcommuter service between thenorthern Sydney coastal suburb ofManly and Circular Quay at the heartof the city. With a speed of 34 knots,Manly could complete the sevennautical mile journey from Manly toCircular Quay in 17 minutes. She hadseating for 72 passengers. Tickets forthe first scheduled trip were already onsale the previous day and the luckyfirst passenger on the service was Mr.Alfred Garnett, a Sydney resident.

There was an early hickup in theservice when, only on the morningafter it commenced its scheduledservice, its bow foil nudged the wharfat its depot in Neutral Bay on Sydneyharbour while the hydrofoil was goingastern. But the damage was minor withthe foil ram being torn from itsmounting. The embarrassed newowners hurriedly unpacked thenecessary spare parts from the cratesof spares, which had arrived with thehydrofoil, and it was back in operationa couple of days later. While the passenger wharves atManly and Circular Quay had alreadybeen fitted with overhanging fendersto suit the PT.20, the berthing facilitieswere subsequently also improved atthe depot so that a repeat incidentcould be avoided.

S m a l l N e w K i d O n T h e B l o c kThe hydrofoil was of course a ‘new kidon the block’ as up to that pointPJ&MSC had operated a number oftraditional ferries on the ManlytoCircular Quay route. These ferrieswere already around 40 years old and

The title, Seven Miles from

Sydney And a Thousand Miles from

Care, was adopted from

old Port Jackson & Manly

Steamship Com

pany advertising at a time when M

anly was still a get-away-from-it-all part of greater Sydney. Just

seven miles from

the heart of the city was this resort-like place where you could relax and forget about everyday life.


while they were quite grand in theirtime, had been left in a run down stateby the mid 1960s and were starting tobecome unreliable. Patronage on theManly to Circular Quay ferry servicehad also fallen in the face of improvedroad links. None the less, the ferriesretained their share of devotedcommuters, even after theintroduction of the hydrofoil service.

One sceptical newspaper columnist was quick to

point out that even if the hydrofoils could complete

twice as many trips during the morning peak

period than the conventional ferries, it would still take fourteen PT.20 or seven PT.50

size hydrofoils to match the carrying capacity of

the four much larger conventional ferries which could carry

some 4000 commuters to the city during the

two hour morning peak period. This

was of course a fair observation.

Many commuters indicated they

could not afford the additional expense of the

hydrofoil fare and would continue

to use the conventional

ferries. But despite the additional

fare of 3/ (three Shillings; Australiancurrency prior to 1966 was expressed

as Pounds/Shillings/Pence), Manlywas an attractive alternative for somebusinessmen who arrived at theirdestination around 15 to 20 minutesearlier than with the traditionalalternative which took about half anhour or more to complete the trip. Manly was intended as much asanything to trial the suitability ofoperating hydrofoils on the Sydneyharbour run. But even when she wasintroduced the managing director ofPJ&MSC, Mr. John C Needham,indicated that more and largerhydrofoils would be imported if Manlyproved to be a success. At the timeMr. Needham indicated 150 passengerhydrofoils were already in operationoverseas while designs with apassenger capacity of 300 were on thedrawing boards. In the following years,the hydrofoil service did indeedexpand while the conventional ferryservice slipped into a long period ofdecline.

A b o v e : The brand new PT.50 Fairlight(left) being raced against the still fairly newPT.20 Manly – and a less new traditional

Sydney–Manly ferry. Note differentapproach in the paint schemes on the

hydrofoils

L e f t : Leaflet promoting the newFairlight (PJ&MSC / ESSO, both)

O p p o s i t e : Manly foils past a denslybuilt-up area on the Sydney waterfront in

1969 (PETER CLARK)


The initial schedule for Manly wasfor weekday departures from CircularQuay to Manly at 7:15, 8:10 and 9:00in the morning and 17:05 and 17:55 inthe afternoon. The return tripsdeparting Manly at 7:50, 8:30, 17:30and 18:20. Also during the weekdays touristexcursions through the heads woulddepart from Manly at 9:45, 10:30,11:15, 12:00 and 12:45 and fromCircular Quay at 14:15, 15:00, 15:45and 16:30, sea conditions permitting.While no services would operate onSaturday, 11 excursions werescheduled for Sundays.

O n e S i z e U pWhile Manly continued in service, alarger PT.50 – or PT.50/S as thisvariant was known – was orderedfrom Cantiere Navale LeopoldoRodriquez (Leopoldo RodriquezShipyard) of Messina, Italy at a cost ofA$500,000. This hydrofoil, named Fairlight,arrived in Sydney as deck cargo onboard the freighter Kloosterkerk on theevening of 8th November 1966 andentered scheduled service four dayslater. Fairlight had almost double thepassenger capacity of Manly withseating for 140 passengers. Like hersmaller sister, Fairlight was named afterone of the northern suburbs of Sydney

As delivered, Manly had a two tonegreen paint scheme with a whitesuperstructure. The craft wasconfigured with 44 seats in theforward saloon, 8 in the mid saloonbehind the helm position, and 20 inthe aft saloon. The deeply paddedaircraft style seats finished in a reddishbrown synthetic cloth and individualadjustable air vents brought a newstandard of comfort to the ferry run.The craft also featured a number ofpanoramic windows, with less pillarsthan those of a standard PT.20. None the less, the craft was stillsmall and the headroom was limitedwith a clear height of only about 1.68metres in some places.

T h e S y d n e y F o i l s A t A G l a n c e , 1 9 6 5 - 1 9 9 1

Manly Hitachi PT.20, 1965Fairlight Rodriquez PT.50, 1966Dee Why Rodriquez PT.50, 1970

Curl Curl Rodriquez RHS 140, 1973Palm Beach Rodriquez PT.50, 1975 (1969)Long Reef Rodriquez PT.50, 1978 (1967)

Manly Rodriquez RHS 160F, 1984Sydney Rodriquez RHS 160F, 1985


and that was a tradition that continuedfor the hydrofoils as was the case withmany of the ferries before them. In February 1967, the companydecided to test the demand for ahydrofoil service on Port Phillip Bayin Victoria. Manly made the coastalvoyage south to Melbourne where shewas operated on this trial service. Thisproved not to be particularlysuccessful and after three monthsManly returned to Sydney again. As originally delivered, Manly wasfitted with a rear foil featuring a singlecentreline rudder and a propellermounted forward of the foil. Themanoeuvrability with the single rudderwas not really satisfactory and thepropeller was frequently damaged bydebris.

In 1970 the rear foil was replaced withone fitted with twin rudders and arevised shaft bearing arrangementwhich allowed the propeller to bemounted aft of the foil.

M o r e C r a f t & T a k e O v e r sThe fleet continued to expand with theintroduction of a further PT.50 builtby Rodriquez, Dee Why, commis-sioned in May 1970. By April 1973, Curl Curl, the firstand only Rodriquez RHS 140 obtainedby PJ&MSC, was introduced on theservice. Given that the route was so shortand operated in relatively shelteredwater, the crew for the hydrofoils waslimited to one Master, one Engineerand one Deckhand. With four hydrofoils now available,the company opened a new commuterrun from the Quay up to Gladesvilleon the inner reaches of Sydneyharbour in 1973. Manly was used forthis service.


Unfortunately, due to the unacceptablelevels of wash and noise the hydrofoilgenerated when running up theParramatta River and also because ofthe need for a backup vessel in theevent of breakdowns of the otherhydrofoils, the service wasdiscontinued after 6 months. From then on the hydrofoilsconcentrated on the run to Manly,with the PT.20 serving as a reservecraft for the other larger hydrofoils inthe fleet. In the intervening years, thePJ&MSC had been strugglingfinancially and it was eventually takenover by Brambles Ltd in 1972, whichpurchased the company for A$2.1million. Brambles had alreadyestablished itself in the transportationbusiness. While continuing to operateboth the hydrofoils and traditionalferries, Brambles had sold thehydrofoils to a finance company andthen leased them back again as a taxminimisation measure.

While the senior management ofBrambles indicated at the time that theferry service would be improved thisproved not to be the case. ByDecember 1974, following publicdemand, the State Government ofNew South Wales took over the Manlyferry service and so bought out theleases on the hydrofoils. In May 1975 the Public TransportCommission of New South Walespurchased a further PT.50 forA$700,000. A second hand hydrofoilthis time, this had originally beendelivered by Rodriquez to Far EastHydrofoil Co. in 1969 as Patane andemployed on the Hong Kong–Macauroute. Modifications were carried out toconfigure the vessel similarly to thosealready in service and she was re-named Palm Beach and commissionedin August 1975.

O p p o s i t e : (B&W photo) Dee Why on builder's trials off Messina in 1970 (RODRIQUEZ) and, of course, passingthe Sydney Opera House. This was the last PT.50 to be built by Rodriquez, the superstructure foreshadowing thelines of the RHS 140, the first of which appeared the following year (POSTCARD)

B e l o w : The sole RHS 140 in the Sydney fleet, Curl Curl, entered service in 1972 (MARTIN GRIMM)


A b o v e : Propeller on RHS 140 Curl Curl (MARTIN GRIMM)

B e l o w : PT.50 Long Reef and RHS 140 Curl Curl at the UTA BalmainDockyard, Sydney (ANDREW GOWANLOCK)

A further three years passed beforeanother hydrofoil was introduced.Again a second hand PT.50 wasobtained, but this time from Italywhere it had operated as Freccia diMergellina, having been built byRodriquez in 1967. This craft was intended as areplacement for Manly and wouldallow the fleet to standardise on acapacity of 140 passenger. Thepurchase price had been more thanA$1 million. The PT.50 arrived inSydney from Naples in April 1978 asdeck cargo, and after having its foilsand engines overhauled finally enteredservice in September 1978 as Long Reef. The same year the Urban TransitAuthority of New South Wales wasestablished to continue to run the stategovernment trains, busses and ferries.

T w o M o r e – A n d T h e n N o M o r eThe 1980s finally saw a period ofsignificant investment to modernisethe conventional ferry fleet for theManly run. Four modern doubleended ferries seating some 1100passengers were built in shipyardswithin the state and introducedbetween 1982 and 1988. A new generation of larger hydro-foils was also ordered from Rodriquezin the form of the RHS 160F. The first two craft ofthe type built by theyard, the first ofthese, Manly


At the time, it was intended that athird RHS 160F would be built underlicense by Carrington Slipways inNewcastle north of Sydney. Thiscontract never eventuated. Both Australian units were non-standard RHS 160Fs in that they didnot feature the raised wheelhouse oftheir subsequent sisters, and beingemployed on a relatively shortcommuter run they were equippedwith some 25 more seats than on a

(the PT.20 carrying this name hadbeen sold off in 1979), which had beenpurchased for A$8 million, arrived in1984 and commenced service inSeptember 1984. Unfortunately, she was damagedwhen backed into a sea wall in late1986 and was withdrawn for repairsuntil mid-1988 (the extended durationfor the repairs not necessarily being adirect reflection of the severity of thedamage). The second RHS 160F, Sydney, waspurchased for A$8.75 million, andentered service in July 1985.

with some 25 moreseats than on astandardRHS 160F.

A b o v e : PT.50 Long Reefduring major refit at theBalmain workshop inDecember 1988. One of twoacquired from otheroperators between 1975-78,the hydrofoil would return toItaly four years later(MARTIN GRIMM)

L e f t : The non-standard235-seat RHS 160F Manlyarrived in Sydney in 1984(MTU)


NQEA Australia Pty Ltd in Cairns waseventually adopted and three of theseJetCat catamarans were built. The first of these, Blue Fin, wasintroduced into service on 16th July1990 at a cost of around A$5 millionand was followed by Sir David Martinand finally Sea Eagle in March 1991. These catamarans seated 250passengers, around 6% more than thelargest hydrofoils operated. The Urban Transit Authorityconsidered its options for what couldbe done with the hydrofoils,particularly

H y d r o f o i l P h a s e - O u tBy the late 1980s, the strain imposedon the hydrofoils by regularly applyingfull power to become foilborne,running for seven miles then returningto idle power again at the other endwas starting to show. The Urban Transit Authority (whichwas soon to be renamed the StateTransit Authority) thereforeconsidered options for a class of vesselwhich could replace the hydrofoils. A design by InternationalCatamarans of Sydney to be built by

particularly the reasonably new RHS160Fs. This included operatinghydrofoil services linking Sydney withWollongong some 70 km coastalvoyage to the south and possibly also aservice to Newcastle in the north. While these proposals would havelet the hydrofoils ‘stretch their legs’ ona longer run, they never eventuated. For a time, depending onmaintenance schedules, the JetCatsand hydrofoils operated side by side.

Thus, the passenger capacity of theSydney RHS 160Fs was 235, whichwas three and a quarter times that ofthe first hydrofoil on the service,PT.20 Manly. The cruising speed of theRHS 160Fs was around 35 knots. For a period of time the schedule forthe Manly run was such that at peakperiods a hydrofoil departed fromCircular Quay or Manly every 10minutes. A typical run saw the vesselsback out from the Quay, turn through180 degrees before accelerating tobecome foilborne as they passed theOpera House, proceed at foilbornecruising power for around nineminutes before coming off the foilsjust before a straight in hullborne runto berth at Manly. The hydrofoilwould then wait at idlefor 6 minutes beforebacking out for areturn trip tothe Quay.

One of the RHS 160Fsbeing prepared forshipment to the landdown under in Messina(LORENZO BONASERA)


from the Scrap Book

PT.50s Fairlight, Palm Beach and DeeWhy being laid up in Sydney followingwithdrawal from service. Unfortunatelynot awaiting better days . . .

Palm Beach shortly before beingscrapped at Homebush Bay

A l l p h o t o s :A n d r e w G o w a n l o c k

Dee Why looking like a beached whaleat Homebush Bay in 1988 just waitingfor . . .

. . . the contractor to commencethe scrapping with his ruthless

yellow caterpillar


However, towards the end of 1991 thehydrofoils were finally withdrawnfrom the Manly run. The fourhydrofoils that had remained in serviceto that point were then laid uppending their sale. The older PT.50 hydrofoils Fairlight,Dee Why and Palm Beach had alreadybeen withdrawn from service from late1985 to early 1986 and they were latersold and cut up for scrap atHomebush Bay on the ParramattaRiver in 1988. That wasteland area has now beenrejuvenated and is the site for StadiumAustralia, the centre of the SydneyOlympic games this September.

B a c k I n T h e O l d C o u n t r yThe four remaining hydrofoils, Sydney,Manly, Curl Curl and Long Reef, wereoffered for sale by the NSW stategovernment in 1990 and wereeventually purchased in October 1991by Rodriquez’s operating companyAliscafi SNAV for A$3.35 million. On 6th February 1992 they departedSydney for their native country, Italy,on board the merchant ship Regine forrefurbishment before they wereintroduced on various routes in Italyand Egypt. RHS 160F Sydney was renamed FastBlu and entered service in June 1992 inthe country’s north-west betweenmainland Italy and the islands of Elbaand Corsica (France) with Moby Fast,

T o p : NQEA JetCatcatamaran Blue Fin is

one of three introducedin 1990-91 by State

Transit Sydney Ferriesas replacement for the

hydrofoils(MARTIN GRIMM)

R i g h t : A journey inreverse. . . PT.50 Long

Reef, RHS 140 CurlCurl and RHS 160F

Manly on the deck ofRegine in Sydney in

February 1992, about tobe shipped back to the

Old Country (ANDREWGOWANLOCK)


a joint venture between Aliscafi SNAVand Navarma Lines, which alreadyoperated conventional ferries in thearea. This seasonal service ended inSeptember and was resumed in June1993. However, the following year,and also in 1995, Fast Blu was insteadleased to Ustica Lines, a new operatorwhich had entered the scene only in1993, and operated on considerablylonger routes linking Naples andKelibia, Tunisia with Sicily and theisland of Ustica. The other RHS160F, Manly, wasrenamed Sinai and as such was, first,briefly operated by SNAV out ofNaples before being transferred toAliscafi Egypt, an associate operatingcompany of the former, towards theend of 1992 and put into service in theRed Sea between Sharm El Sheik atthe base of the Sinai peninsula andHurgada. This was a rather short-livedoperation, and the hydrofoil was backwith SNAV in Italy the following year. PT.50 Long Reef remained withSNAV but reportedly saw little or noservice (being built in 1967 it was atthis point already twenty-five yearsold), whereas RHS 140 Curl Curl waseventually purchased by Ustica Linesin 1995 and, renamed Spargi, is now tobe found on this operator’s Trapani–Egadi Islands route, off north-westSicily.

G o o d O l d M a n l yBut what became of the originalPT.20 Manly? After being withdrawnfrom the service on Sydney harbour,she was purchased by HydrofoilSeaflight Services Pty Ltd in 1979 forservice off the North Queenslandcoast to ferry tourists betweenRosslyn Bay and Great Keppel Island.She had been renamed Enterprise bythe company. Eventually in the 1980s thehydrofoil was also withdrawn fromthat service and since then has beenowned by a number of individuals,each with different plans for her. After the first private owner, anemployee of HSS, had removed thefoils, shafting and engine at RosslynBay, the hull lay idle for a number ofyears. Enterprise was then obtained by anew owner and transported to theVictorian town of Mildura in 1991

where she was intended to beconverted to a floating seafoodrestaurant. When those plans fellthrough, the hydrofoil was again forsale in the mid 1990s. She once morefound a new owner and was again onthe move by road to Sydney and laterto a property North of Sydney. Therethe hydrofoil is slowly beingtransformed to a private cruise boat,minus its foils and original drivetrain.n

WHAT HAPPENED TORELIABILITY AND COST-EFFECTIVE ?

After the reign of the hydrofoils, theJetCats have not had a trouble free lifeeither. Blue Fin required an enginereplacement at an early stage in her trialsand also attracted adverse comment onthe waves that she generated. The fuel costs were also greater than forthe largest of the hydrofoils and theJetCats also didn’t demonstrate areliability better than the hydrofoils. Littleunder a decade since the first JetCat wasintroduced, plan were under way toreplace these craft by newer but slowervessels.

A b o v e : Stripped of itsfoils, fenders and just about

everything that made it ahydrofoil, the former PT.20

Enterprise (ex-Manly) issitting on dry land in

Mildura, Victoria in April1992 (MARTIN GRIMM)

B e l o w : Eight years later,in May 2000, the vessel has

been moved to a newlocation north of Sydney.Note the modified stem,

additional keel andshortened fairing

(ANDREW GOWANLOCK)


the o

ld c

ount

ry

Three of the ex-Sydney hydrofoils (Nos. 2+4+5 from left), plus a few other nice items, back in Italy in 1992 (TIM TIMOLEON)

RHS 160F FastBlu (ex-Sydney)was the first ofthe quartet fromOz to re-enterservice in Italy. Inthis view thevessel is idling inMessina a fewyears back(LORENZOBONASERA)

The other RHS160F was

renamed Sinai(ex-Manly) andas such initially

operated inEgypt. Here it isseen arriving at

Napoli'sMergellina

marina in July2001 (MATS

FINNSON)


S C A L EBBB OOO XXX

A hydrofoil is borne

any Sydney residents would be familiar withthe sight of the ‘Manly Hydrofoils’ whichoperated from 1965 through to 1991 – themodelling of one of which, PT50/S Fairlight, isthe subject of this article.

B a c k g r o u n d

The first hydrofoil would appear to date back to1908 with models and experiments by AlexanderGraham Bell (and others) which resulted in theHD4 launched in 1918. More serious effortswere evident in the 1950s with thecommercialisation of the concept clearly movinginto vogue in the 1960s and 70s. Their role islargely filled these days by the high speed andhigh capacity catamarans, wave piercers andthe like. But, whilst less common these days, theycontinue operation around the world, includingCanada, Russia, The Netherlands and aroundthe Mediterranean as well as in other, usuallyenclosed, waters. Additionally, various Navieshave operated hydrofoil patrol boats – offering astable platform for missiles and other explodingdevices as well as offering a significant turn ofspeed. The hydrofoil concept has beenextended to speedboats, sailing boats,windsurfers and waterskiing – none of whichappears to have really caught on. The Rodriquez PT50 hydrofoils wereconstructed largely of welded aluminium for bothstrength and weight reasons. The foilsthemselves were specifically steel for strength.

Engines were mid-mounted for weightdistribution reasons. These had long drive shaftsreaching back to propellers mounted near thebase of the foils, initially in front, then shiftedbehind when they kept getting damaged byharbour debris. There was seating for approximately 120passengers below deck – around 2/3 of thesebehind the engines, and 1/3 in a separate cabinin the bow. A further 20 odd passengers couldbe accommodated in the upstairs (main deck)saloon and on the ‘back verandah’. Limitationson both passenger numbers and theirdistribution were necessary – the process ofgetting foilborne was difficult and whilst thehydrofoils were not necessarily underpoweredthere were defined boundaries. The similaritiesbetween aircraft and hydrofoil operations are ofnote and I make further mention of this below. Many of the books which cover the hydrofoilssuggest that the inner harbour Circular Quay toManly run was never really optimal for hydrofoiloperation. The demands on the mechanicals inbecoming foilborne, the short 9 minute time onfoils, the short 6 minute turn-around time at eachend all combined to require high levels ofpreventative (and non-preventative!)maintenance. A perhaps not dissimilar positionto the wear and tear and maintenance issuesfaced by short-haul airlines – except thathydrofoils have a 1 metre cruising altitude. An additional issue was the passengercapacity which at around 140 was significantlyless than the 1000 or so carried by the largeferries of the day.

M

B Y i a n w r e n f o r d

A l l P h o t o s i n A

r t i c l e b y t h e A u t h o r


The hydrofoils were only ever going to servicea niche market – those who could afford thehigher fare, and with no inclination to savourthe usually relaxing trip on the ferry. There isperhaps an analogy here to a Concorde vs747 decision on the London to New York trip –cost vs time vs capacity.

M o d e l R e s e a r c h

The hydrofoil is a modelling subject that Iguess has always been of latent interest. Theywere operating on the harbour in my youth (it’sa relative term), and I recall having a ride justonce in the early 70s. In fact, I still have thesouvenir postcard from that trip which is thecolour scheme I selected for modellingpurposes. This has been supplemented overtime with photocopies from various librarybooks of the Manly hydrofoils in action. The shift from ‘just an idea’ to workbenchtook a significant step forward with my usualsource of knowledge – the internet. I starteddoing some research on the Manly hydrofoils,wanting to establish the manufacturer, somehistory and the ultimate goal – a set of plans.As I always find with the internet – one thingleads to another and you end up following atrail which either flourishes or peters out. Inthis case it was the former. There is an organisation called TheInternational Hydrofoil Society, the membersof which appear to be a collection ofengineers, old sea dogs, radio control shipmodellers, and a couple of dangerousindividuals (usually Americans for somereason) with a speedboat, a welder and adeath wish! The site has copious informationon the history of the hydrofoil, historicalphotos, modelling photos and notes (usuallyradio control) and details on currentoperations. I entered into the foray by leaving amessage on their message board – whichbore almost immediate fruit. Predictably, thereare a few Aussies amongst the membershipand it was one of those, Martin Grimm, whokindly emailed me scans of a number of setsof plans.


Another source of information on the internetis the Classic Fast Ferries magazine whichdeals certainly with hydrofoils, but alsocatamarans, hovercraft and the like. The e-zine is free and can be downloaded in PDFformat – around 3-4MB each. Past issues,certain of which are available, have featuredsome specific articles on the Manly hydrofoilsand their ultimate demise.

T h e M o d e l

With a set of plans in hand, I then had to makea decision on scale. Not being a seasonedship modeller, I haven’t actually arrived at apreferred ship scale and was leaning in thiscase towards either 1:72 or 1:144 in keepingwith the similarly sized PT & Torpedo boats. Iproduced plans in both scales and through aprocess I’m still not entirely sure of ended updeciding on 1:72. This was going to be a bigproject. The logical construction sequence wasdetermined to be the basic hull, to which thesuperstructure would be then added, followedby the foils, deck details and fittings. I commenced construction of the hull usingthe ‘skeleton’ technique. This consists of asingle central (vertical) spine, with 4 crosssection ‘ribs’ roughly equidistantly placedalong this spine. The skeleton was thenskinned with thin sheet styrene of around1mm. These were cut to size and laid down in3 planes on each side, to complete the hull –and a single plane for the deck itself. Theplane into which the hull windows were to gowas fitted with a full length clear styrene sheetrather than white styrene – the intent being tomask off the windows later when painting. It would be obvious from the above, thatthere has been no interior detail installedbelow deck. The prospect of scratchbuilding120 odd individual seats with armrests was notthe sort of thing I was going to get a kick out offor starters. The interior detail would onlycomplicate the construction, and besides,none of it would be visible from the outside in1:72 scale anyway. To make absolutely sure itwasn’t visible, I painted all the internal parts ofthe skeleton black prior to fitting the skin. Notethat in later steps of construction, I did in factend up opening up sections of the deck underthe superstructure and did include some basicinternals at that point. The resultant hull was cleaned up withMilliput and sandpaper. Mounting holes weredrilled out for exhausts, fenders, anchors andthe other do-dads. And the various buffer orreinforcing strips along the length of the hulladded using strip plastic.

S a n d w i c h e dThe superstructure required a level ofplanning. Its basic shape is a simple box,however there are curved windows at thefront, a curved roof and of course the largepicture windows. I elected to construct portand starboard walls as a ‘sandwich’. The innersurface being 1mm styrene with the windowsand positions cut out. The outer surface being0.5mm clear styrene laid over the completeinner surface. This technique provided somestructural rigidity as well as a bit of depth.


The front of the wheelhouse is curved and Imoulded this from clear butyrate usingtechniques that I have previously documentedin various articles in the Australian PlasticModellers Association's club magazine. Theroof is sheet styrene – lightly bent and sandedto get the right curvature. The upper deck interior is visible in 1:72 andneeded to carry the light, airy feel visible inphotos. There are some 24 seats inside forwhich I was able to modify the seats from twoItaleri’s civilian JU52 kits. One of these JU52sI had previously modified for another project –and I guess I’ll now have to do the same withthe remains of the second one! These seats were painted two shades ofblue per the reference photos I had beenprovided. Also fitted inside were the twostairwells down to the forward and aft cabinsrespectively. The interior I painted morbid greyand fitted various placards warning of thedangers of smoking, blocking stairwells, notstanding up for adults, eating, drinking, sittingand standing and other misdemeanours.

A b r e a t h o f f r e s h a i rThe ‘rear verandah’ is a relativelystraightforward construction – with twocurvaceous rails running down almost to thestern, and an assortment of safety equipment,lockers and a few seats. I constructed this asa unit, which was then recessed into the deckto provide the necessary effect. Railings are in real life stainless steel andfairly substantial – probably trying to protectthe public from themselves I guess. I firstlymarked up and pre-drilled holes for all theposts and support stanchions. Multiple postswere then cut to size from Plastruct 0.1mm rodand fitted into position with a dab of superglue.Working in sections, I then fitted the top rail –again using a dab of superglue. Middle andlower rail were made from superfine stretchedsprue. The bowsprit was made from bentfusewire. All the railings were thenhandpainted with silver paint to imitate thestainless steel. Ventilators were scratchbuilt by bendingthick sprue – then cutting/drilling to size. I hadabout a 50% failure rate with these. It isdifficult getting a 180 degree bend in stretchedsprue without it ‘bunching up’ on itself. The usual aerials, navigation lights, foghornsand the like are fitted. Navigation lights weremade using clear sprue, filed and sanded tothe required shape – then painted red or greenusing the Tamiya range of translucent paints.Aerials are from fine stretched sprue.Foghorns are from the tapered bit at the end(or is that the beginning?) of stretched sprue.Rear stairs were constructed from 90 degreeright angle strips for the individual steps, withrailings added from bent fuse wire.

O v e r l y c a u t i o u s ?The life-size Fairlight had 6 liferaft containers(I’m sure they have a technical name!)mounted just outboard of the railing. For mymodel these were scratchbuilt using thicksprue with the ends rounded off, and detailsadded from tape and cut to size plastic. LifePreservers are modified ‘Billings Boats’accessories as is the anchor. The variousbollards and fairleads were mostly modifieditems from other kits.

The deck was also fitted with some ‘floaties’.These are like square donuts roughly 1 metreacross with ropes on the side. Presumably ifthe ship goes down these just float off and allthe survivors grab hold of these until helparrives. The hydrofoils seemed to have been fittedwith extensive levels of safety equipment –everything except seatbelts and airbags itseems. I’m not entirely sure whether thesesafety levels were commensurate with the riskor were just there to satisfy some governmentauthority. There is an article on the IHSwebsite which discusses the effect of ahydrofoil hitting a floating log of wood at speed– very technical, but basically it stops.

O r d i n a r y p e o p l e – w h o n e e d s ' e mAfter much deliberation, I decided that I’d put afew people on the ‘back verandah’ – enjoyingthe scenery – and a captain at the wheel(always a good idea). 1:72 people are easy tocome by from other kits, most of them how-

Is it Ella or is it Memorex? The wake pattern and spray are reproduced inevery detail


ever are either wearing guns, helmets,breathing apparatus, jack boots or similarencumbrances. None of which seemedentirely appropriate on the deck of Fairlight.Cleaning up these 1:72 figures to make youraverage commuter is not an easy task, so Iwas hunting for alternatives. Having browsed through an extensive rangeof 1:72 figures it is surprising just how fewbear any resemblance to your normaleveryday commuter. I ended up resorting tothe model railway range (and the modelrailway prices!) to get some finely detailed,1970s dressed figures in various poses (and afew poseurs as well). Most of these were‘identical quadruplets’ which limited the range Icould realistically use. I ended up puttingabout 6 of these on the deck – although I havenone inside the cabin. Figures is not my forte(in fact I’ve never done a model figure in mylife) but I think they’ll pass muster. Weathering was kept a little constrained.Limited to running a wash of oil paint alongkey joints and around the railing. And someuse of pastels to ‘dirty things up a bit’particularly the trafficable parts of the deck.

T h e B a s e

At an early stage I decided I would constructthe model as a ‘waterline’ model. That is‘foilborne waterline’ rather than ‘broken downwaterline’. The foils themselves are quite largeand really disrupt the voluptuous Italian linesof the hull if not appropriately buried in thewater. I wanted something that would conveyFairlight as most people would probablyremember the hydrofoil operations.

From a construction sequencingperspective, I knew I would not be able tocomplete the base after the model wascompleted – it’d be too hard to access thearea underneath the foilborne hull.Additionally, I had to convincingly ‘bury’ thefoils in the water. This meant I had to beworking with a largely pre-prepared base. Both the front and rear foils have beenconstructed from cut to size styrene sheet.This required some careful marking out tobegin with to get the correct fore-aft width.


The trailing edges were then carefullysanded down with wet & dry sandpaper – andthe various pieces then cut to length. The factthat I was constructing a foilborne modelmeant that I didn't have to model theunderwater flaps, nor most of the ‘fences’. Soit was largely a matter of gluing the componentparts at the correct angle by lining up with thedrawings. The aft foil was set into the base forlater attachment to the model, whereas thebow foil was attached to the model for laterattachment to the base. This approachassisted in getting the correct ‘sit’ of the modelon the base.

I t ' s o n l y w a t e rThe ‘water’ obviously presented somechallenges to get any reasonablerepresentation of the 35 knot speed and theassociated wake patterns and spray.

The modelling technique I used for the waterwas one I sourced from the internet (check outthe archives from http://smmlonline.com forthe full detail, I just give a shortened versionbelow). The base board is a piece of 10mm ply cutto a 600mm by 300mm rectangle. This is bigenough to position the model in a represent-ative bit of wake without the model beingoverwhelmed. I marked out the position of themodel and the ‘swathe’ the foils cut out of thewater for most of its length. The remainder of the board was built up byabout 5mm with white modelling clay. Thiswas built up a little higher aft of the rear foiland also in a reverse V from the front foil (sortof a bow wave I guess). Once dry, I then started further building upwater patterns and wake patterns using ArtistsAcrylic Gel Medium. This (and all the other

Most of the hydrofoil pictures I had werephotogenically front 3 quarter or side viewstaken from the water or harbour foreshores. Again, via the trusty internet, I was able tosource some aerial shots of Dee Why atspeed, presumably taken from the HarbourBridge if not a helicopter. The hydrofoilproduces a complex wake pattern – the natureof which has no doubt produced a number ofPhD theses! Obviously from the photos thereis much evidence of froth and stirred up water,varying amounts of spray (actually very littlewhen properly trimmed in smoothish water).

materials mentioned here) can be sourcedfrom any reasonable artists supply store. TheGel Medium is normally used by artistswanting to ‘texture’ their paintings to createcertain 3D effects. It looks a little like gluggyPVA glue, its texture is a little like toothpasteand it dries crystal clear. You apply it usingeither a flat brush, a spatula or anythingyou’ve got handy. You then work it, usuallywith smaller brushes, to achieve particulareffects – such as a ‘curling’ wavelet. Most of the base was the largely undisturbedwater in front of the hydrofoil, for which I used


a loosely scrunched up plastic bagwhich I randomly dabbed all over thesurface. This ‘pulls up’ the gel andleaves a noticeably mottled effect on thesurface. The water colour itself I’ve used bybuilding up and blending three colours.These are good quality Artists Acrylicswhich you can buy in a small tube. Notcheap – but they last forever.Phthalocyanine Blue, PhthalocyanineGreen and White. The extremes ofusage here are from undisturbed waterwhich is largely 3 parts Blue, 1 partGreen; the prop wash which is probably1 part Green, 3 parts white.Measurement and precision is notimportant. The scrunched up plastic bag againcomes in handy for blending andtexturing – noting that the effect hereturns out to be far more subtle than youget with the gel. Finishing off with somedry brushed white picks up some of thespray effect. The final effect I applied (and I’m stillnot 100% on its effectiveness) was toapply behind the foils some ‘fluff’ –being much stretched out polyestercushion fillings (looks a bit like cottonwool only not nearly so clumpy).

P a i n t i n g

From a colour scheme perspective, theSydney PT.50s and sole RHS 140 atleast carried a variety of schemes. Eachof these hydrofoils appears to have hadthree or more ‘major’ makeovers in theirlives, supplemented by numerouschanges in details of colour or fittings. The extent of this is such that despitehaving numerous photos of Fairlight, I’mpretty sure that no two are alike! Thedrawings presented are of Fairlight atsome point in the 1970-73 period but Icannot be more precise than that. The colour scheme was overall white,with light grey deck and roof. Hullunderside is medium blue (almost aFrench Blue), with a bright red stripedown the side of the hull. There is a thick black stripe mid-hullwhich runs from the engine exhauststhrough to the stern – presumably tocover exhaust marks?

P o s t s c r i p t

All in all, this has been a challenging butinteresting project. I’ve picked up a fewmore techniques and knocked off one ofthose subjects I’ve always wanted to do. The logical follow-on is I guess aManly Ferry – something like the SouthSteyne – although I’m quite sure I won’tdo t h a t in 1:72. n

f a i r l yf o i l sp o p u l a r

Australia seemingly harbours its fair share of model enthusiasts whowill indulge in building the ocassional Sydney– Manly hydrofoil.

Aside from Ian Wrenford, Martin Grimm, the author of the otherarticle in this issue, is building a 1: 20 scale operating model of RHS 140

Curl Curl since some time. Two other scratch-built models of former Sydney vessels are PT.20Manly and PT.50 Long Reef , the latter of which built by Scott Rawling.

And of course Garry Fry, whos life-long dream of having andoperating a full size hydrofoil of his own featured in the December

2001 c f f. Like Ian his preferred model is PT.50 Fairlight – of which hehas built two (or should that be 1.5). These were described in our

November 2001 issue. Now, who's going to embark on recreating PT.50s Dee Why and Palm

Beach – or one of the RHS 160Fs?M

AR

TIN

GR

IMM

pho

to

SC

OT

T R

AW

LIN

G p

hoto


classic sh tso

The HongKongCon

When Palm Beach arrived in Sydney from Hong Kong in 1975,the only six year old PT.50 was quickly dubbed 'The HongKong Con'. Unofficially, of course. The hull proved to be in very poor condition, and also thehydrofoil wouldn't take off with passengers in the bow cabin.Reportedly, the solution was to fill the aft void spaces with -bricks. In the action-filled shot above Palm Beach is crossing theSydney Heads in big seas, something which does not seem toprevent passengers from gathering on quarterdeck to enjoythe thrill of the wind and sea spray (and the bumpy ride). Incidentally, the ocassionally upset Sydney waters hasproved somewhat of a problem to the present day medium-speed SuperCat catamarans and thus the State TransitAuthority. These vessels were supposed to replace the JetCatclass catamarans, which will now be retained. Which is a whole other story, not to be told here.

LORENZO BONASERA PHOTO

R. NEEDHAM photo

Documents

Classic Fast Ferries · classic fast 3ferries S P E C I A L – 2002 3 Seven from Sydney... Miles O P P O S I T E : Passengers enjoying the scenery from the open air deck on PT.50