# Obscure Furness Withy Passenger Liner



## Shipbuilder (Jun 30, 2005)

Started 14th July last - Completed 30th August last. Furness Withy's FORT AMHERST - Newfoundland - New York - West Indies run. About 250 passengers. 3,489 gross tons, 315 feet long, 45 feet beam. 
Even when I was sailing in the group in 1962-65, I had never heard of this one, although she was still operating in the company.

Nice little ship though. 25'=1".

Bob


----------



## gretaston (Jan 7, 2011)

Another outstanding model, well done shipbuilder.


----------



## jerome morris (May 27, 2008)

Bob, Simply a beautiful little ship.


----------



## Shipbuilder (Jun 30, 2005)

Thanks for replies. I like this one so much, I am going to keep it!
Bob


----------



## R58484956 (Apr 19, 2004)

Wonder if the passenger accomodation was a little cramped, 250 on a 3000 tonner. Once again Bob a superb model, well done.


----------



## Shipbuilder (Jun 30, 2005)

Thanks,
I am now beginning to wonder about the 250 passengers. Today, I counted the berths on the original builders plan. There were 17 first class berths on the promenade deck, mostly single occupancy, but with four doubles. Below, on B deck there wer 92 2nd class berths, with a mixture of 2,3 and 4 occupancy - most with 3. I was given the 250 figure by a colleague who had sailed in FORT AMHERST in the late 1940s and he told me they had 250. He was quite sure on this, but I have never seen it do***ented that extra berths were fitted later. The Lloyds registers do not give passenger capacity.

Captain, mates & R/Os were in the bridge section. Purser on the prom. deck. stewards & stewardesses port side 'midships on C deck. Seamen/engineroom ratings in forecastle and engineers on C deck on the starboard side opposite the stewards. Chief engineer's cabin was pretty poor - single cabin with bunk, desk, wardrobe, but not even a wash basin. 

Maybe someone remembers the ship and can confirm passenger figures. The sister ship FORT TOWNSHEND eventually became cruise ship ROMANTICA and sank not long about following fire and there was great controversy about the disaster.

Bob


----------



## R58484956 (Apr 19, 2004)

Bob goto http://www.historicalrfa.org/rfa-amherst a little bit of history of the ship.


----------



## Shipbuilder (Jun 30, 2005)

Thanks for link that was most interesting. When my colleague sailed in the ship, the hull was white as in the link. Looking in my Lloyds Registers, I have now found the AMHERST ex FORT AMHERST in the 1958-59 volume. But there is a gap in my collection and before 1958-59, the next earliest register I have is 1948-49!

As far as the FORT TOWNSHEND is concerned, I always thought she sank after a fire quite recently as ROMANTICA. Maybe did not sink but was so badly damaged she was scrapped (As stated in link). I will look further into this.

Cannot confirm this with my ex-colleague as he has disappeared from the Christmas Card scene a couple of years ago and I can only assume he has "crossed the bar!" We were shipmates in S. A. ORANGE (ex PRETORIA CASTLE) during most of 1968.

Bob


----------



## PJG1412 (Apr 3, 2008)

Hi Bob, My first interest was to your title "Furness Withy" (ex Pacific Envoy)and was admiring your lastest fine model when I realised I was looking at the old RFA Amherst which we refuelled at sea in 1961 (see my thread June 2008 "Wave Chief refuelling RFA Amherst"). I then saw the link of the ships log and was pleased to see confirmation that she had been carrying the nuclear reactor. As I state in the thread I was pantry boy, and I had to put up with all sort of stories including when blackout curtains was put up when in the Irish Sea on submarine exercise, the Donkeyman told me it was because "to stop the IRA boarding us" I don't think I believed him !!!
Anyway Thanks for your thread and a waterline photo of her would be nice to compare with my poor black and white 1x2 INCH 
Regards Pete


----------



## Shipbuilder (Jun 30, 2005)

Hi Pete,
Thanks. Here is a picture of Fort Amherst:
Bob


----------



## Doctor Robert (Oct 8, 2008)

Hi Bob, A long time admirer, I can never get over the speed with which you produce such consistent accuracy. I know practice makes perfect - and you’ve had plenty, but you must have baffled even the sainted McNarry. From what you say, I’ve probably got more patience than you have, but I can’t get past clumsy. You kindly pointed me to the copper wire you use for rigging and how you work it but look at the mess I made of it. I must try harder.
You’ve said several times that you wish people would talk about their methods so I’ve ventured to explain how not to do it! In my ‘80s now, my sight is reasonably normal but I had a pair of close-up specs made which make modelling a pleasure - imagine what I’d be like without! Further to that, I clip on a jewellers’ 8x glass to one side for extreme detail. 
I’ve got most of the books on scratch modelling (can’t stand kits!) and found Brian King pretty hot stuff. McCaffery I find informative, (a bit of a skite though)
Naturally, McNarry has to be the oracle. I found King’s hints on open boats work well, and actually managed to succeed - springing in fine strips under the gun’ls for the timbers on my 1/144” coaster (cribbed from the ‘Doris Thomas’ of Charles Waine’s book) I’ve never got my head around soldering, so I’ve followed D.McN’s thread principle - very badly. I still have fun, especially if I get something right. Still the overall effect’s ok if you stand back far enough.


----------



## Doctor Robert (Oct 8, 2008)

I forgot to sign off! 
Best regards, Alan.


----------



## Shipbuilder (Jun 30, 2005)

Hi Alan,

That looks excellent to me. Really can't see anything wrong with it.

I have noticed that immediately after I have completed a model, I tend to see all the bad bits, but after a few weeks, when I look again, it looks a lot better.

Best wishes for future modelling.

Bob


----------



## Doctor Robert (Oct 8, 2008)

Thanks for being kind and not zooming-in Bob, it's bound to look goodl from 3,000 feet! At best, I made a decent fist of the hull and superstructure, but the deck and companion rails might well be in plasticine, and the rigging although a bit the worse for wear now, was dog rough which is why it never got any further. God knows how you pull off your full-riggers. If I get one bit right, I keep spoiling that while I do the next.
Alan.


----------



## Stephen J. Card (Nov 5, 2006)

FORT AMHERST

My notes for this vessel indicate that her capacity was 105 passengers, all First Class.

1936:
Completed by Blythwood Shipbuilding, Glasgow. January, delivered to Furness Red Cross Line for service between New York and St Johns.

1939:

Requisitioned for war service. Remained on regular service between New York and Halifax. Due to frequent mechanical problems... laid up. Don't know the exact dates.

1945: Returned to Furness. Refit at New York. 31st August, departed NY on first sailing to Bermuda for Furness Bermuda Line. Captain John Hendrikson in command... 31 passengers! She was used as a stopgap until the MONARCH OF BERMUDA could be released and refitted for peacetime service. When MONARCH burnt out in March 1947 FORT AMHERST was retained on the Bermuda run until QUEEN OF BERMUDA was available. October 1949, FORT AMHERST was then transfered back to Red Coss and used on their West Indies service. From time to time she did come back to the Bermuda run... usually when the QUEEN was beiing drydocked.

1952:

Sold to MOT renamed AMHERST. Converted into Naval Armament Carrier.

1962: Arrived at Plymouth for desstoring. Laid up and later sold to shipbreakers.

Note: Postwar FORT AMHERST wore Furness Bermuda livery = grey hull.

Sistership: FORT TOWNSHEND. The TOWNSHEND also ran on the Bermuda run with the AMHERST. She became ROMANTICA for Chandris Line in 1960 and converted into a cruise ship for 200 passengers. Broken up 1984.

Stephen


----------



## Shipbuilder (Jun 30, 2005)

Thanks for replies.
Merchant Square-riggers - easy peasy - I really don't know why people are so scared of modelling them. Hull generally has one long deck with raised poop & forecastle, occasionally a raised midship deck and VERY LITTLE fancy decoration. Really a pushover when compared to a steamship with multiple decks, miles of rails, ladders, lifeboats, portholes etc. Rigging couldn't be easier on miniatures if you use wire, no messing about with knots of any kind and everything in either straight or slightly curved lines. Sail seams printed on airmail paper with the computer. Shrouds & ratlines wound on a frame and soldered in bulk (20 seconds or so for one side of lower shrouds and ratlines)!

Half (or maybe three-quarters) of the problem is the attitude "I could never do anything like that!" - End of story!

Sailing Naval ships, 74s, etc, horribly complicated, not because of masting and rigging, but because of all that fancy carving, gunports etc.

Click on
Miniature Merchant Ships
below, to see what can be achieved in very little time.

Bob


----------

