Steamboat Arabia 1856 by Cathead - FINISHED - Scale 1:64 - sidewheel riverboat from the Missouri River, USA

[Jim Lad]

From odd bits of scrap to believable steam engines - the joy of being a model maker!

 

John

[Cathead]

Thanks for the comments and likes; I certainly agree that I absolutely love the process of turning chaos into order.

 

I'll get back to the machinery (and an explanation of the engine inaccuracies) soon, but this weekend I decided to take a break from that arc of the project and do something quite different. Feeling the need for some motivation/inspiration, I started working out the layout of the main deck superstructure by cutting up an old water-filter cardboard box and using it to make templates for walls and decks.

 

We have no idea what the Arabia really looked like above-decks, as all the superstructure was washed away and there are no drawings or images to my knowledge. The painting at the beginning of this build log is an artists' rendition commissioned by the museum. that is mostly reasonable, so I'm using that as one guide so that my model approximates what people "think" she must have looked like.

 

However, after spending some time browsing the magnificent online collection of steamboat photography hosted by the University of Wisconsin, I've decided to also use the sidewheeler Mary McDonald as another reference. This vessel was built in St. Louis in 1866 and ran primarily on the Missouri River until 1873, long-lived for one of these boats. Although she was built ten years later, she has a very similar hull layout to Arabia and matches the painting pretty closely; everything in her design that I can would be fitting for an 1856 vessel as well. There are four good photographs and a drawing of her, covering many useful angles, making her an excellent reference. You can see all of the available images here; click on each one to get a high-quality zoomable image that really shows good detail. She's also a good match for the preliminary drawings I did of the Arabia's superstructure.

 

So given those resources, below are three shots of how the model looks in mock-up form.

On these boats, the deck above the main deck was confusingly called the boiler deck, although the boilers were on the main deck. The oddly named boiler deck tended to be about twice a person's height above the main deck to account for the very large machinery. Above, I've mocked up main deck walls about 13' (4m) high. The flat piece in front is a mockup of the boiler deck, though it's sitting on the main deck level, showing the outline of the main cabin, where the chimneys poke through coming up from the boilers, and the gaps near the front where the staircases will come up from below. If you look closely, you'll see a mockup person for rough scale standing in front of the port engine.

 

Here's a view from above so you can better see the deck layout. The boilers sit right under the main cabin outline, just behind the chimneys. They're actually drawn in pencil on the cardboard, but you can't see that in the photo (the rest is drawn in pen). As noted once before, the wheel axles would not actually cross the hull, I'm just using a single dowel here to help keep things aligned.

 

Here's a stern view that closely matches the angle of this photo of the Mary McDonald.

 

It all looks a little odd right now without the next set of decks and cabins above, but that's as far as I've gotten. It's exciting to envision the full shape and this was a fun, different exercise for the weekend.

[Cathead]

Roughing out the superstructure got me interested in moving forward on that aspect, so I decided to proceed on the main deck. On the stern half of the vessel, the superstructure follows the curve of the hull where it meets the guards (see photos in last post), whereas roughly forward of the engines there is no proper superstructure on the main deck, just open posts supporting the boiler deck.

 

In reality, the main deck was almost certainly laid before any structure was built onto it. I decided to alter this slightly and lay a thin baseline of wood where I wanted the walls to be, then plank around these. This way I could be sure to align the superstructure with the lines of the hull, which would otherwise be obscured below the planked deck. I used square strips just a hair thicker than the deck planking so they'll be almost invisible when finished. Here's a look at this near the stern:

 

The darker brown strips are the lines of the superstructure. I think the natural color of the wood is too bright, so I "stained" these by dunking them in a solution prepared by dissolving an old piece of steel wool in vinegar. It only takes a momentary immersion, then the wood darkens to this rich, weathered color/texture over the next 10 minutes or so. I love the look of it and will probably use this approach for most of the exposed wood where I don't use white paint. It's a bit subtle in the photo but I think you can pick it out.

 

I also started some deck planking. I used a long metal rule to lay out a perfectly straight line from bow to stern, then laid the first center plank along this line to ensure that I'm starting from a straight orientation. After that it's just the usual slow cut-and-fit method of deck planking, nothing exciting or innovative.  If you notice that the planking seems to curve a little from the internal longitudinal bulkhead, it's the latter that has a curve in it rather than the former. That's why I used the ruler; the slight twist in the hull will be invisible as long as the planking is straight.

 

As for color, red was a common deck color and I like the look, but pure red looks too bright and false to me whether or not it's realistic. I like my models to have a patina of weathering that dulls the inherently false look of pure colors. So after I pre-painted long strips red, I cut each plank to length and weathered it using the dust from a black pastel stick, rubbing with my finger to get a smooth but variable coverage. Doing this for each plank ensures a subtle variance between plank that looks far more realistic than rubbing a whole finished deck at once (I paint the strips separately for the same reason).  Below is an example of this planking butting up against my stained superstructure guides, followed by a closeup of a pre- and post-weathered planking strip.

 

You may also note that I darkened the edges of each plank to emphasize the seams slightly. Finally, here's an overview of the hull:

 

Doing this will occupy me for some time. While that's going on, I'll be mulling over the engine question. I have to admit, I'm considering starting over on them. It'll take another post to explain why, but the short version is that the out-of-scale aspect that I thought wouldn't be very noticeable becomes a real problem when the assembly is installed on the hull due to tight clearances. They look fine on their own, but basically don't fit where they ought. More on that when I have the heart to photograph and explain it clearly. For now, decking is a salve to my grief.

[michael mott]

Ah the joys of fidelity to design criteria. Reworking these things is as you say difficult to bear sometimes but in the end we all know that it was the right thing to do.

I am enjoying following along on the journey.

 

Michael

[Cathead]

So I have a deck-planking question. The builders of Arabia seem to have adopted a somewhat complicated planking style at the stern. The planking over the hull itself is straight, as one would expect, but that over the guards seems to curve inward toward the stern, with the boundary between the two following the line of the hull. See the image below from the excavation (I'll explain the red highlight in a moment):

I started playing around with how to lay this out, and ran into a dilemma that the missing planking makes harder to answer. There's a big block of planking at a single angle, maybe 20° away from the keel, then a few shorter blocks at more severe angles right at the stern. What stumps me is how that bigger block transitions to straight planking once the guards straighten out. The joint has to fall where I've circled in red (right where some preserved planking would be really useful), but I can't tell how it was done. If the plank ends are staggered, there would be some fairly complex joinery. If they aren't, everything would be butted together along one guard beam, which isn't how most planking is done. So what do I do in this transition area? Below is roughly the same view on the model, with a few loose planks laid out to match the rough angles in the photo above:

 

So, again, how do I make that rightmost (foremost) joint? The other joins seem more straightforward, but I can't decide how to proceed with the area circled in the first photo. Neither quite makes sense; I can't see the builders doing that much fancy joinery in a quick-built riverboat, but it seems unnecessarily weak to place all the butt joints in a single line. I've been browsing archival images and haven't been able to find any clear images of how deck planking was laid out in such areas.

 

Thoughts?

[cog]

Take a logical, straight forward way. We, in our "modern" times, tend to over think, and make things unnecessary complex, whilst simplicity is often the key

[steamschooner]

Eric, Did the missing deck planks straighten out or did they continue at that same angle? Its looks like a short run to the paddle box so keeping the planks angled should not have been much of a deal for the builders.(Just my 2 cents worth)

Steve

[Cathead]

Carl, are you saying make all the butt joints in the same line? The problem here is that the original builders seem to have complicated things!

 

Steve, that's a very interesting idea I hadn't considered. But if there's no transition there, why would they have angled the planks in the first place, creating lots more angled plank ends? At that point, they could have just started them perpendicular to the paddle boxes and had essentially the same angled joints closer to the stern when the planking started taking the curve. Not saying you're wrong, I just wonder why they would have done it that way.

[Roger Pellett]

The reason for staggering joints in planking was of course to avoid a weak spot in the hull girder.  In this case the guards are not longitudinally continuous so do not contribute to the longitudinal hull strength.  Furthermore, the major longitudinal strength member for these river craft were the hogging chains.  I therefore see no reason why joints in the guard planking need to be staggered.  The hull itself is of course a different matter.

 

Roger

[mtaylor]

I think Roger has the right idea and it makes sense.  One question in my mind, is the camera angle deceiving our eyes?  If we look at the bottom of the picture, the planking that can be seen looks... "different".

[Cathead]

Mark, I'm not sure what you mean, can you clarify?

 

Roger, that's logical, though as the guards were still used for carrying heavy cargo I'd think that the planking would provide at least some additional stiffness, given that there's not much structure underneath (unlike deck planking on a hull), even accounting for the additional support from the boiler deck above. Of course, even if that's true, in this case the joint in question is maybe 10 feet from the paddle housing, so there isn't much scope for heavy flexing on that joint (unlike, say, halfway forward from the wheel housing).

 

Maybe I'm just hesitant because it would "look" wrong to have a straight line of butt joints given that almost all nautical planking tends to stagger joints. I suppose I could always partially cover it up with a bit of cargo.

 

 

[mtaylor]

In looking at the photo, at the bottom of the picture, some of the deck is visible (not much).  On second look, that may be the deck between the wheels...  or he camera angle.

[Cathead]

Mark, I'm still not sure entirely what you mean, but I'm going to guess. I think you're referring to the straight decking that can be seen along the bottom of the original photo, especially at lower left, which is arranged differently than the angled, splayed-out planking that can be seen along the upper part of the original photo.

 

In that view, the port and starboard sides are essentially inverses of each other. On the starboard side (lower in the photo), you see all the straight deck planking over the hull, but the guards are buried beneath mud so you can't see their angled planking. The hull's centerline is right where the straight planking becomes missing and you can see down into the port side of the hull. On the port side (higher in the photo), all the hull deck planking is missing, but you can see all of the port guard extending beyond the hull with its very different angled planking.

 

On the model photo, the hull's centerline is actually down the middle of the completed planking so far, not at the edge of the planking as in the original shot. But you can still see the line of the hull and how the straight hull planking would inevitably butt into the curve of the variably angled guard planking.

 

I don't know if that's clear, or even what you were referring to. If not, can you clarify your question further?

[druxey]

How very inconvenient of the wreck to have planking missing at the critical juncture. How much structural weakness would a straight line of butts have here?

[Cathead]

Probably not a lot, as noted above, since it's only ten feet or so from the paddle box and the guards rapidly narrow heading aft.

[mtaylor]

Eric, you just explained what I was seeing and wondering. 

[steamschooner]

Eric,  It also looks like the hull is pushed inward at the paddle box making it look like the decking would need to change direction. But if paddle box was pushed back out the remaining decking would line up fairly well. From what I can see in the wreck photo the planking at the stern looks like they used wider planking with narrowed ends with a fan shape.

steve

[Cathead]

Steve, I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean? The guard timbers are perpendicular to the hull until just before the stern. Thus it's clear that the planking on the guard is at an angle to those timbers (and thus to the straight planking over the hull). The paddle box is actually correctly in line with the hull. I cropped the photo to focus on the area of interest, but that may be creating an optical illusion; here's the full view available:

 

Lay a square piece of paper over the screen at the angle between the guard timbers and that planking and you'll see that it's angled. So the options as I see them are to continue that angled layout all the way to the paddle box, which seems unnecessarily fussy, or use a line of butt joints as Roger suggested.

[steamschooner]

Eric, I was thinking the area in blue looks like it has been pushed in somewhat. More so on the right near the paddle box. Planking would still be at a angle on the guard timbers. You are right that it seems to be a unusual way to plank.

 

[Cathead]

Ah, yes, there is some slight deformation there but I don't think it changes the fundamental geometry of the planking.

[michael mott]

Eric A thought occurred to me that what if the planking in this area simply carried on straight like this

 

 

If I were planking it, it would be what I would do in full size, I think that the strength and integrity of the deck up to the wheel would be stronger than turning it.

 

Michael

[kurtvd19]

Eric:

I agree with Michael on this and it makes a lot more sense that this would have been the way it was done rather than a joint - it would be the strongest way to do it.

Kurt

[Cathead]

Thanks to everyone for continuing to chime in; I had no idea this would generate so much discussion. I've prepared a schematic to work through this once and for all.

(A) is what I initially thought needed to happen, but I didn't like its look or structural integrity, though Roger makes a good argument that this may not matter.

(B) is what Michael and Kurt (edit: and Steve, originally) are suggesting, which has the benefit of a clean, strong pattern overall, though I wonder why they would have chosen to make so many angled cuts, when

(C) could also have been the approach, keeping the planking straight for as long as possible and only angling it right at the stern. They could even have kept the planking straight in that middle portion without too much fuss.

 

Obviously (C) isn't how they did it given the visual evidence, but I'd like to understand why they chose (A) or (B) instead. I'm inclined to choose (B) over (A) because it seems more structurally and visually appealing to me. I suppose it has the additional benefit of reducing the number of angled butt joints against other planks.

 

Edit: Keep in mind that I didn't show plank length in this schematic, in all cases any given line would have multiple planks butted up against each other. A downside to B is that those joints would have to fall on a guard timber at an angle, making it harder to attach the ends properly, thoug even in (A) this would be true over most of the area. Another reason I wonder why they did so much angling.

 

Last thoughts?

Edited July 4, 2018 by Cathead

[michael mott]

Eric looking at all three options I would definitely choose option B as the lease complicated and the strongest, since the planks span the largest number of frames in a contiguous manner.

 

Michael

[Cathead]

Michael, your comment made me realize I'd omitted an important point about plank length; see the now-edited post above.

[michael mott]

Eric, even with the plank length consideration, I still think that B is the best option, given the skill needed to plank one of these boats in the first place a few angled cuts wouldn't be that much of an issue in my view.

 

Michael

[shipmodel]

Hi Eric - 

 

Just got back from vacation and saw this interesting discussion. 

 

I do see your issue, which is a planking question and not one of internal structure.  Since I have limited experience with river steamboats, but trying to think as a shipwright of the period and location, I would want to know a bit more about the building of the Arabia.  Was she built for luxury travel, or was she more of a rivergoing 'truck.'  If so, she would have been built as quickly and as cheaply as possible.  This points me more towards A, which has the simplest, most economical use of medium length straight planks and wider tapered off-cuts.  A more high-end ship might have had a more decorative planking for the guests to stroll along.     

 

Also really enjoyed reading your research and planning blog.

 

Dan

[cog]

On 1-7-2018 at 11:50 PM, Cathead said:

Carl, are you saying make all the butt joints in the same line? The problem here is that the original builders seem to have complicated things!

 

Steve, that's a very interesting idea I hadn't considered. But if there's no transition there, why would they have angled the planks in the first place, creating lots more angled plank ends? At that point, they could have just started them perpendicular to the paddle boxes and had essentially the same angled joints closer to the stern when the planking started taking the curve. Not saying you're wrong, I just wonder why they would have done it that way.

 

No I would suggest that the joints are made where it is most convenient with the less labour possible. It is not a ship of war, neither does it have to withstand the fury of the oceans. It should be practical to build. As Roger put it so well: "Furthermore, the major longitudinal strength member for these river craft were the hogging chains.  I therefore see no reason why joints in the guard planking need to be staggered" 

 

Looking at you planking ideas I would sooner go for C,  then A, then B, it all depends on the available timber and price thereof, keep in mind the use of the vessel and the cost ... (ROI?  TTL ...)

Edited July 10, 2018 by cog

[Cathead]

Carl, C is probably how I would have done in real life (possibly using even more straight planking), but the visual evidence shows that it wasn't done that way; only B and A fit the available evidence but I can't prove either one with certainty. Thus I've chosen to follow B because it introduces fewer angled butt joints and frankly looks better than a big seam running across the deck. I'll be posting photos by this weekend of the updated planking.

 

Dan, Arabia was most certainly a work boat, very different from the "floating palaces" of the lower Mississippi River. These boats operated in rough, dangerous conditions and had short lifespans; many were wrecked within a year or two. However, one or two trips up the Missouri could pay off the initial investment. Arabia actually made it to Montana, a relatively unusual achievement for a sidewheeler (most "upper river" boats were sternwheelers). As such, she was certainly built quickly and cheaply, the opposite of an ocean-going vessel.

 

As for the decorative side, even rough work boats carried passengers and desired a certain amount of flair, as competition along the rivers was intense. That being said, this area of the deck wouldn't have been frequented by many passengers (especially not higher-end ones) and so appearance wouldn't have been a primary factor. Strength does matter as the main deck guards carried bulky and/or heavy cargo, although there was also extensive bracing from above to distribute the load.

 

So again, I've decided to go with B, as in the absence of definitive evidence it looks nicer than A to my eye (I just don't like having that full joint running across the deck). In any case, this area will be partially hidden behind railings and the boiler deck above. Thanks to everyone for chiming in, it's been a really interesting discussion. Photos coming soon.

[Cathead]

I've finished the stern guard planking and am quite pleased with it. I think it captures the feel of how this area was done nicely. You'll also see that I've started planking in front of the paddle boxes as well.

Here's another view that focuses on the area of earlier discussion at the same angle, with the original photo below it for comparison:

And here's a view forward from the stern, again with a comparable excavation photo below.

 

Things will get easier for a little while here, as I simply progress slowly with filling in the nice, straight hull planking. If you're wondering what happens at the bow, well, there are no photos or records to my knowledge of the Arabia's bow, but other boats I have more evidence for (like Chaperon or Bertrand ) didn't do this sort of angled planking at the bow; everything just ran straight. So that's what I'm going to do. I'll give another update when significant progress has been made.

 

Thanks again for all the input to that lively discussion of how to get the stern right. I hope you're reasonably pleased with the result. EDIT: I meant to thank Steve (steamschooner) specifically for reminding me of that last shot's existence. I had used it in my design thread but forgot that it gave a useful perspective on the stern decking.

 

Edited July 14, 2018 by Cathead