Cathead

I work as an editor helping non-native-speaking scientists improve their scientific writing and get their research published in international journals, most of which are in English these days. I've helped papers get published in over 100 peer-reviewed journals from major publishing houses, so have a fair amount of experience with this aspect of the publishing world. It can cost thousands of dollars for a scientist to get a research paper published, whether or not the journal is open-access. And if it isn't, it can still cost the public a quite high fee to access that research unless they have a subscription, which usually means they're part of a major research institution themselves as the cost is way above what individuals are likely to pay. Which usually means that journalists and the public are mostly locked out of what's actually happening in science. I find this extremely problematic. That being said, it also really does cost money to publish a journal. Journals get inundated with submissions, all of which have to be reviewed and responded to. Much of this gets sloughed off onto unpaid peer reviewers (another abuse in the system) but there's still a lot of in-house work. Expecting anything to be free requires defining where you expect the money to come from, because there is no such thing as free. If it's not publishing and subscription fees, then where? Donations or sponsorships? That puts you in conflict-of-interest territory. Government funding? Kind of the same thing. There's no one clear answer in a world where people increasingly expect information to be free online but either aren't willing to pay for it or haven't figured out the right model for paying for it. I do tend toward thinking the current journal publishing model is on the scam side of the spectrum, especially where some of the big corporate publishers are involved, but it's a very complex system overall without easy answers.

Finally reached the halfway mark in oar-making, so decided to go ahead and finish them. I've seen other models with multi-colored oars, and while I didn't want to paint mine fancily as it wouldn't quite fit what I was going for, I did like the way that different shading brought out the oars' structure and broke up what's otherwise a pretty bland linear feature. So I stained them with the same color I used for the mast and yards (to achieve a color that fits with the model overall), then lightly sanded them smooth again. I then further sanded the area gripped by rowers (not sure of the right terminology here) to remove most of the stain, as I figured the wood here would be discolored due to use and skin-oil patina. Finally I rubbed dark pastel onto the oars, focusing on the grip areas and blades (in the latter case, figuring these would be discolored by mud and such). I like the way they came out. Broader view: A couple full-ship views: These are just set in place right now, so they're not even or consistent. Still trying to decide if I'm going to glue them in, somehow support them in an unobtrusive manner, or just let them be a little chaotic. Time to get up the courage to face 30 more of these things. Finally, I believe this will be my 2,000th post here on MSW. It's become a valued part of my life and identity, and many thanks are owed to all who have helped me along the way.

I like the upper-left color pattern as well. It took me several tries to develop a chest style I liked and could make without messing up.

Looking good so far. One question, are you ensuring that the deadeyes are oriented correctly? In a given pair of deadeyes, the "top" of the triangular set of holes should always point toward the permanent part of the rigging with the two at the "base" toward lanyards connecting the pair. In the first photo (in the jig) these look backward, while the next two photos look closer to correct. For example: Forgive me if you knew this and I was just misled by a photo. It's a little thing that's easy to miss but makes a difference in the accurate appearance of the model.

Paul, It looks like the link in your signature isn't actually a link, or is a mis-formatted link. When you edit your signature, make sure you select the text you want to serve as the link (such as "Revell container ship Colombo Express", click the link tool (looks like a pair of handcuffs to me and is next to the quotes), and enter the actual link (https://modelshipworld.com/topic/28943-revell-container-ship-colombo-express-scale-1700/) in the URL box. That should result in this: Revell container ship Colombo Express, which is what I think you want. Have fun with your project!

Nice work so far. I've never used a magnifying lamp (yet, I'm only 41), so can't help you there.

The Midwestern US was also hit very hard by freezes this year. We lost all our pears, apples, cherries, and peaches, and took damage to blueberries and grapes. Welcome back to the build!

You've got a nice display & conversation piece there! Congrats on finishing. I also like your tool display photo, a nice idea for others.

Excellent! This will make a nice companion for your Syren. Glad to be in from the beginning. Adding the rigging yourself sounds like a fun extra challenge.

I had the same thought as Justin in wanting to encourage you to enter the photo contest. Here's the official link: https://thenrg.org/contests Don't know what I can add to the existing plaudits, beyond my personal gratitude for taking the time to share this build and for taking such excellent photographs to document your work.

Cool, that's what I wanted to know. Thanks!

Thanks, Roger. I was especially referring to the original ship; was there any engineering reason to lay the plates out in a certain way, i.e. to ensure that the In or Out plate was at the sheer or garboard?

Fascinating and good-looking. Would there have been any reason to ensure that the upper- or lower-most line of plating was In or Out?

If you feel like studying up on rigging and sail management, you can learn how that was really done. Your method certainly achieves the desired visual effect. I agree that it opens up some nice sightlines.

Micromark appears to host a version of the instructions. Pictorial version here: https://www.micromark.com/Instructions/85648 Mississippi.pdf Written version here: https://www.micromark.com/Instructions/85648 Mississippi Detailed Instructions.pdf Found these with a 30 second Google search. Further digging might turn up other options.

Just found this build of a kit I'm very interested in after reading about its release. Great work so far and a useful early tutorial for later adopters. I second the Caroline Alexander recommendation, by the way.

Brian, that makes a ton of sense. I can easily see how trying to shape actual brass rails in a consistent and parallel shape could be maddening, and how much easier styrene would be. Again, you'll be in my thoughts as we go through a similar period.

Lynn, good start so far, and you're right away (re?)discovering the world of confusing instructions. As an editor, I've contacted multiple model companies offering to work with them to improve the clarity of their instructions, but none have felt it was needed. Shrug. Looking at the final model, I don't think this issue will matter. Whether or not the knee comes all the way up to the top of the lower stern transom doesn't appear to have any structural significance, and that area ends up covered anyway. So I suspect you're fine. Would be far from the first time that instructions developed from a prototype don't match the final commercial product. In fact, I wonder if they changed the part size. Look at the drawing on page 3, which appears to show the stern transom knee being the same size as the bow transom knee (not quite a bit larger as in the kit parts), and neither reach the top of their respective transom. So I wonder if, in final kit development, they made the stern transom knee better (better stability for the model?) but didn't revise the instructions to match?

Lovely work as always. Correct me if I'm wrong, but are those railroad irons just essentially iron rails, and that's why you were looking to source HO-scale track? I wish I'd known, I have a lot of leftover brass track that I would happily have sent you for free. Apologies if I missed that detail early enough to have made a difference. It's been a distracting time here and I maybe haven't been reading as closely as I should? Your approach certainly does and will look great. Condolences on your loss, I've been there recently too and am still working with the aftermath.

Very attractive, a result to be proud of.

Making the rudder was fairly straightforward. It comes in two pieces that need to be carved and sanded from their solid block shape into the rounded form necessary. Here's a look at this in progress: I attached the handle by carving out a socket for it, then drilling a fine hole that let me set a brass nail into the joint: And here's the finished product mounted on the hull after staining: I'm slowly plugging away at oars; I can only handle making ~6 at a time before I get too cramped. Here are the oars so far, loosely mounted for display: I also built four more chests, using a slightly different design but similar method. These are smaller, to add some visual diversity. So here's the cargo so far: And a slightly broader view with the ship in the background: Feels like progress. Really, the oars are the holdup now. But I keep thinking of other details to play with, like a good anchor, and bundles of weapons, and finishing the shields, and so on. This will probably drag on for a while. But it feels close!

I agree, Syren rope is heads and tails above regular kit rope. Things continue to look great here!

Thanks for posting that, Kurt. I was pretty shocked; I had settled in on the couch to watch the program with no expectation whatsoever of needing to have my camera or mic on, and had to scramble when that came up! I couldn't have gotten anywhere on this project without the support and mentorship of so many people here.

Just purchased my version. Won't be getting to it right away (need to finish my current project first), but this gives me incentive to keep moving. I have a bunch of wood that I cut and milled on my rural property (cherry, maple, walnut), and have been curing, as I want to start building with my own materials, and this will be a great early step in that direction. I do have a question, though. In both the PDF and here, you mention the need for a "hobby sized circular saw". In the woodshop parlance I'm familiar with (having grown up with a cabinet-maker stepfather and having a variety of building experience myself), a circular saw is a handheld saw like this: Or sometimes a miter saw like this: However, I'm pretty sure from context you're referring to a table saw, like the popular Byrnes model: That's what's shown on p. 10 of the PDF. Can you clarify what you mean, and perhaps consider changing the wording to say "table saw"? I actually went Googling for a "hobby size circular saw" to see what you were talking about and couldn't find anything, so I doubt I'd be the only person potentially confused by that wording. Thanks for putting together this great project!

CA is nasty stuff. The bottles specifically warn against skin contact or fume breathing. I'm pretty sensitive to most chemical fumes (even things like bug spray and perfume set me off), so use CA as little as possible and only for short periods. Otherwise it gives me a headache very quickly. I find paint to be the same way; I've kept my focus on acrylic paints with little odor because some of the other ones destroy my health and comfort in short order. One of the things I really love about wooden modeling (as opposed to the plastic modeling I did much of my life) is how relatively benign wood glue is compared to most plastic cements and other adhesives. Your figures look great and do add a lot of life. I started painting figures for the first time during my current project and found that I really enjoy both the project itself, and the results.