Cathead

Best wishes to both of you.

Question: I notice on the flywheel plans that the spokes are mirror-image; there are eight spokes that line up perfectly as if there were just four that magically went all the way through. Whereas on numerous actual paddle wheels I've seen, there are odd numbers of spokes (13 on Bertrand if I recall correctly). Any idea, from an engineering perspective, how or why designers settled on the number and orientation of spokes for flywheels or paddlewheels? Also, at the level of accuracy you're achieving, I'm now expecting those boilers to work by the time you're done!

Thanks for that photo, I can see the structure planking now. And I agree that I like the look of decks done that way, though I'm hardly unbiased. Adding lighting is very neat.

The first photo made me jump, as the paddle was backward, but I let out a sigh of relief when I saw you were just test-fitting it. Good progress. I can't tell from the photo, are those structures already planked, or does that happen next?

Ordered some, will report on results. Travelling right now. Thanks!

I would like to learn to blacken metal properly, and have read through many threads on MWS regarding various blackening agents. A few references have been made, that Bluejacket sells their own version, but I haven't found any reviews or clear experiences stated. How does their product compare to the other options like Casey's or Jax? The Bluejacket website is not very helpful, as it doesn't include any information beyond a title: PN0051 Pewter Blk (blackens Britannia) $8.50 PN0052 Brass Black (copper,too) $8.50 It says "directions included", but I wouldn't mind knowing what I'm getting into before ordering blind. Are these for soaking or brushing on? How toxic or fume-producing? I do my modelling in my living room, so would like to minimize the nastiness used. If there is a thread or clear report on Bluejacket that I missed, I'm sorry. I searched both the Paint and Metal forums for "blacken" and read all the results as far as I know.

Instead of drilling a hole, which sounds scary, what if you filed a groove down the side, so you could set a thin rod into it, and hold it with wood glue? That way, it'd be stronger in the meantime, but wouldn't have a hole in the middle, and you could release the glue when you're ready to remove the rod. And the groove would presumably be hidden once the model's done if you put it on the proper side. Am I crazy?

Well, that explainth the lithp at leatht.

That's delightful!

Huh, somehow I hadn't caught on that this was a waterline model. With steamboats it can be hard to tell! I'm running out of superlatives.

Welp, just shows there's nothing new under the sun. I've somehow managed to not see any of them, or to miss them if I did. Parallel invention and all that.

Hah! I've been thinking about this very idea, and wrote up a whole post explaining the concept, only to find that it's already been suggested. Well, here's my expanded proposal anyway, for whatever it's worth. I also created an index for my steamboat Bertrand log. A proposal for improving build logs: table of contents or index Problem Build logs on MSW serve two very different and somewhat conflicting purposes: a dynamic account of the build and a static reference for later builders. The problem arises when the interactive community and comment thread (that makes a live log such a worthwhile experience) becomes a hindrance to later readers trying to research or learn from the build (after the fact). It can be very frustrating to wade through tens or even hundreds of pages of comments looking for certain information, techniques, or stages of a build, and a search function will only go so far. Solution I propose a partial solution: the introduction of a Table of Contents, or Index, to build logs. A builder can plan ahead and include a nascent Index in a very early post of their log, and use the edit function to add to it as the build progresses. This way, a reader arriving at the build later has some sense right away of where in the build different stages happened, and can jump to them without slogging through the entire comment thread. Now, this will be easier for some builders than others. I don’t propose linking to every post by a builder in the index. My style of logging tends to be a periodic update of specific steps taken, including many photos and discussions in one post, making it easier to produce an Index. Others take a more stream-of-consciousness approach, with many short posts dealing with small steps individually, producing many hundreds (thousands?) of update comments in a long, complex build log. I suggest that builders link to general parts of the build, or any other topic of specific interest; for a very broad example: · Hull framing (link to first post starting this process) · Hull planking (link to first post starting this process) · Decking (link to first post starting this process) · Discussion of a unique way of shaping masts (link to first post starting this process) And so on. There could be many comments within those sections, but at least a reader looking for a certain part of the build will know where to start. And a builder can be as detailed in this index as they care to be; the more detail, the more helpful the build log to later readers. Retrofitting logs For those who like this idea but already have a log started or completed, there are two options. One, just go back to your first post and use the edit function to build in an Index. Two, especially for finished logs, post an Index at the end of the log, then simply link to it prominently by editing your initial post, i.e. “Here is an index of this build (link to post at end of thread)”. I’m certainly not saying this should be required or expected, but for those who like the idea it’s a way to implement it. For example, I had this idea when I was about 2/3 done with my steamboat Bertrand build, and at that point went back through and created a draft index in a Word file that I kept updated from then on. Now that my build is finished, I just posted that index at the end and linked to it in the beginning. On my next build, I’ll leave space at the beginning, or create a separate comment just for the index, making it easy to maintain as I go. Feedback I’m curious what you all think. Is this crazy? Worthwhile? Discuss.

Index of this build This is an idea I had partway through this build. The idea is to provide an outline of the build so future readers can find information more easily without wading through the entire comment thread or trying to find the right search terms. It's now linked in the opening post of this log. Edit: I wrote up a whole post about this, intending to post it as a new idea, only to find that it had already been proposed last year. But I added my original idea writeup anyway, in case it's of interest to anyone. Laying out hull frames, first attempt Reconsidering hull framing with new information Laying out hull frames, second attempt Hull framing continued, starting on bow & stern Correcting stern framing, continuing stern & bow framing Completing hull framing Adding guard framing Questioning bow planking Adding deck beams Planking the bow (following some excellent suggestions/discussion) Planking, sanding, and painting hull; starting deck planking Building the rudders; continuing deck planking Building the paddle wheel Images & information from re-visiting the Bertrand museum at DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge, Iowa Discussion of steamboat wrecks on the Missouri Engines & drivers Main deck structures, framing in the boiler deck, hog chain braces Boilers, main deck staircase, beginning boiler deck planking Boiler deck completed, building main cabin structure with stateroom interiors Framing & planking the hurricane deck, building the outhouses Discussion of paddlewheel color Pilot house, chimneys, railings, and the nearly completed model Grasshopper spars Final details Final photos, part I Final photos, part II

Looks just right. Nice crisp paint job. It's a great little kit for practicing skills.

David, yes, right now my long-term dream is to scratchbuild the HMS Ontario, was was recently discovered in its eponymous lake not very far from where I grew up. My mother attended a talk by the team who found the ship, and gave me a signed copy of the updated book about its contruction, history, and re-discovery, including sets of plans based on the Admiralty originals. I just need to build up the skills required.

Kurt, I don't know of plans, either. Whenever I decided to get started, I'd just have to contact the museum and see what information I could glean from their archives of the dig, and go from there. It would be a representative, if not accurate, model, as you say. Sorry, Crackers, it'll have to wait a little while. All steamboats and no sailing ships makes Cathead a dull boy. I wouldn't be motivated to do another steamboat right away, I like diversity in my life. wyzwyk, I sure hope you're right! My father didn't make it to 50, so you never know.

I'm setting aside river craft for now, and embarking on a self-designed tutorial in regular ship-building. First the two Model Shipways naval gun kits for a lightweight treat after scratchbuilding (and to learn more about guns), then Chuck's longboat to reimmerse myself in planking, rigging, and other such skills, then tackling the Corel Ranger as Mrs. Cathead really likes the look of topsail schooners and I want to build a real sailing craft. I grew up along the Great Lakes and sailed a lot as a youngster, as well as spending a lot of time along the mid-Atlantic coast, so am looking forward to rediscovering that part of my past and interests. If/when I return to river craft, I want to build the Arabia, the Missouri River sidewheeler that's now the focus of an excellent museum in downtown Kansas City.

Thanks, all. Just to clarify one point, Bertrand won't be living on the layout, it doesn't fit. I don't want it hanging off the edge like that. If I want a steamboat there, I'll either use the Far West or build another one. Someday. It's now proudly on a bookshelf near our front door. Conveniently, it's just lower than the natural height of a normal book. One advantage to steamboats over sailing ships, a better height/width ratio for display! chborgm, I was thinking about starting a "general riverboat discussion" topic, your mention of the same idea encourages me to do so.

And now the special photos. I initially got started in this whole wooden model adventure because I am also a model railroader. My layout is centered on a Missouri River port town during the Civil War, roughly based on St. Joseph, MO, where the first railroad across Missouri connected the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers in 1859. Abraham Lincoln rode this railroad, the Hannibal & St. Joseph RR, while considering different options for the route of the first American transcontinental route. In any case, I knew I wanted a steamboat at the levee in my railroad town, to capture the feel of many fascinating images of railroads and steamboats interacting during this era. So my first-ever wooden ship/boat model was a primitive scratchbuild of the famous sternwheeler Far West, which among other things carried Custer's troops to and from the Battle of Little Big Horn. To get ready for that project, several years ago, I built a cardboard mockup of Far West to have something three-dimensional to refer to as I built the real model. I enjoyed the project so much, I built two more Missouri River craft from scratch (see my signature) and was so addicted I ordered a kit, and so on. That's about when I found MSW and the infection spread. In any case, I put together a lineup of these three models, to show the evolution of my still-quite-amateur skills. I think it's neat to see them side-by-side; I named the cardboard mockup after my wife, though there really was a steamboat called Arkansas Belle: Today, for the first time, I placed Bertrand on my layout. It's larger than Far West, for which the river portion was designed, so it hangs out over the edge. But it's also period-accurate; Bertrand was built in 1864 and certainly stopped in St. Joseph on its final trip upriver in 1865. Most of the buildings on the layout are scratchbuilt, including several based on real period buildings which remain today. When Bertrand left St. Joseph, her crew and passengers had no way of knowing she'd soon be a wreck, buried beneath the ever-shifting river sediment for over 100 years, until being rediscovered and excavated as a rare time capsule into this pivotal period of American history. At least this model will help preserve her memory in some small way. So here are three photos of Bertrand in her natural habitat, at a Missouri River port town where all period modes of transportation came together. The western-most railhead in the country was here for a short time, wagon trains left from here for the West (including many Mormons), and steamboats lined the levee on their way too and from Montana. Here's one vision of how that scene might have looked: My deepest thanks again to all of you. It's been a pleasure.

Below are final photos of the completed Bertrand. In this post are basic shots from different angles, then another post follows with a few special photos. I am incredibly grateful for the interest and support shown by all of you for this rather obscure project. I don't think I could or would have undertaken this without the motivation and community of a build log to keep me focused. So thank you.

Here are the final details added to Bertrand. Yawls Bertrand likely carried two small boats (called yawls in my sources), based on comparable boats of the time. These weren't lifeboats, but served a similar role as in sailing ships, like a small car towed behind a recreational vehicle for light-duty use. My understanding is that these weren't lowered from davits, as on a whaling ship, but rather lashed to davits that themselves were lowered. Thus the two white spars seen here were actually hinged at the bottom; to lower the boat, the crew loosened the lines holding the davits to the deck and rotated them 180 degrees until the yawl hit the water. The length and position of these davits matches this procedure perfectly. I had considered trying to make these small boats from scratch, but also had two castings in my scrap box that were the perfect size and scale, so just went with that. I painted them white, then gussied them up with hand-carved benches, oars, and rudders. Then I just glued them to the hurricane deck and lashed them to the davits, using the same method to coil the rope ends as described for the grasshopper spars. Pretty straightforward, really. Lettering the name In the previous photo you can see the lettered name on the pilot house; I also had to add the name to the engine room wall. I decided to use a fine-tipped marker to do this, and practiced multiple times on pieces of painted scrap wood. For the pilot house, I just went ahead and made the sign on a separate plank before attaching it, which looks good to me. For the engine room, it was a bit trickier, as the real boat had the name painted on the side, and I wasn't at all sure I was up for that. So, again, I made several practice letterings on painted scrap, reasoning that I would choose the best one and glue it in place, sacrificing a bit of realism for a better overall look. Then Mrs Cathead pointed out that, if I was going to glue something over the place anyway, I might as well give a shot to lettering it in place, since if I messed up it could be covered anyway with my initial plan. So that's what I did. In the photo above, you see my best lettering attempt on a separate plank (better wrist angle and control) and my attempt actually on the model. The separate one is definitely a bit better, but the in-place version does have a more authentic feel. I'm not thrilled with any of them, they're all a bit shaky in a really close-up view, but as with so many things, when you step back just a little it blends right in. So I'm going to leave the on-model version, and save the plank version in case I change my mind. This is a case where photography really highlights flaws which don't really show up in an overall view. You can judge for yourselves when I post photos of the finished model. Firewood Western river boats were voracious users of fuel, burning anywhere from twelve to 75 cords of firewood DAILY. Wood was plentiful along the rivers, and quickly became a cash crop for farmers or dedicated woodcutters who stocked landing places with piles of firewood for sale. Boats took on fuel once or even twice daily, sometimes having to stop and cut their own if no sale point could be found. I wanted to display firewood on Bertrand, but wasn't up for hand-cutting and splitting 75 cords of 1:87 firewood. So I settled on just a few small stacks to give the idea; apparently Bertrand is actively looking for wood to buy! To make these, I just rummaged in the kindling box next to my wood stove and selected a variety of straight, smooth twigs that looked about right for scale tree trunks. I cut them to length with a small saw, then split them with a hobby knife. I laid out piece of double-sided tape and put down a first layer of wood, then a layer of wood glue, then a layer of wood, and so on until I'd built up a proper pile. Two of these line the area next to the boilers nicely and get the idea across. Stanchions Just how Bertrand's boiler deck was supported from the main deck is apparently an issue of slight disagreement. The archeology reports clearly document finding sockets along the outer edge of the main deck guards, into which stanchions would have been placed, leading up to the boiler deck. They also found one of these iron stanchions during the dig. Yet the large-scale model the museum, and several other illustrations, show Bertrand without stanchions, but with knee-like braces curving outward from interior posts; see photos here. I decided to follow the archeologists' reconstruction, and installed stanchions all along the outer guards. These are wooden strips, painted black and rubbed with pastels to hint at a little rust, making them more metal-like. I saved this detail until the very end, to ensure access into the deck in case I needed it. Cargo Bertrand was loaded heavily with cargo, probably piled to the full height of the main deck along every square foot it could be stored. One successful run to Ft. Benton in western Montana could pay the entire cost of the boat's construction. But I decided to forgo that detail for now, for two reasons. One, I like the open view of the full structure, and two, right now it would be cost- and time-prohibitive to either buy or make the sheer numbers of scale crates, barrels, sacks, and more I'd need to do this. I think at some point, I'd like to go back and add some cargo detail, but right now I actually like the fully open deck really showing the boat's structure and layout. So that's where that stands for now. This evening I hope to post a variety of photos of the now-completed model.

And the Missouri is very different from the upper and lower Mississippi. The Missouri is sediment-dominated for most of its length; hardly any bedrock in channel anywhere. Whereas the Mississippi north of the Ohio has a lot of bedrock; there are (or were) numerous choke points and rock-reef rapids as you go north; one major reef is just north of St. Louis (look up Chain of Rocks). This is one reason why there's a lock-and-dam system on the Mississippi from St. Louis north, to flood the reefs and let river traffic cross them safely. But it also means the upper Mississippi is now effectively a set of lakes, not a river. The Mississippi south of the Ohio is also sediment-dominated, but was so big by that point that it didn't affect river navigation as much, since the channel was generally deep enough year-round, which is why there aren't dams down there. Of course, today the Corps of Engineers has dramatically changed these rivers by constraining them to a single, deep, dredged, sometime dammed (damned?) channel completely different from their natural ecology, but that's another story. People should understand, though, that none of these rivers looks much like they did during the steamboat era.

Is there any mechanical reason it would matter? I assume the flywheels are equally balanced/constructed around their circumference, so in theory it wouldn't matter, but it seems an interesting quirk.

Thanks, Jim. I sure don't know anything about Australian river craft. The most obscure steamboat reference I remember came while reading a history of the Ottoman Empire. The author, in passing, mentioned the British using shallow-draft steamboats both as gunboats and troop transports on the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers during their WWI Mesopotamian campaigns against the Ottomans. Crackers, I've never heard that, and a quick internet search didn't turn up anything, so can neither confirm nor deny.

Kurt, that's a good point, I should probably coat my lines anyway to help them hold up. Redoing them would be...distressing.