Cathead

Adding the guards: Part I A quiet holiday weekend finally allowed me to make significant progress. With the hull reasonably faired for planking, the next step involved installing the guards. These are lateral extensions of the main deck that can nearly double the deck's width relative to the hull (see this cross-section for an example). On a sternwheeler, these were often either non-existent or relatively narrow. On a sidewheeler, they were far wider in order to accommodate the wheels themselves. Below is an overhead view of Arabia's hull during excavation, in which you can see the guards curving out from the stern to envelop the port paddle wheel. These guards were supported by timber extensions attached to the main deck timbers (i.e. the main deck was supported by different beams than the guards). Arabia's hull was roughly 30' wide and her paddle wheels were roughly 6.5' wide. Thus the guards need to be at least 8' wide to accommodate the full wheel and support both the outer end of the axle and the wheel housing, adding approximately 50% to the boat’s total width. To check this assumption, I scaled the photo to my 1:64 ruler and confirmed that the guards fit that ratio (allowing for the angle of the photo and distortion of the hull). Another question relates to the vertical angle of the guards. The cross-section linked above shows the guards essentially horizontal, but other references (such as Alan Bates) show guards with a noticeable inward angle (opposite to the natural camber of the deck). This latter style makes sense to me, as it (a) drains any water toward whatever scuppers were used to drain the main deck just outside the hull, and (b) allows an inward cantilever effect that would help support the significant weight carried by the guards (such as the wheels themselves and bulky cargo like cotton or hemp bales). There are no profiles of the Arabia available and the overhead view above doesn’t clarify this, so I invoked artistic license and chose to angle my guards because it’s logical and I think it adds visual interest. Here are a few photos from the preserved stern-most section of the hull that show a bit of the aft-most guards. First, a closeup of how the guard timbers interact with the deck timbers and the hull. The former are attached in parallel with the deck timbers, extending out over the side of the hull as described above. They're notched to fit over the upper strake of hull planking (the gaps between timbers would be filled with short pieces of wood): Below, you can clearly see how the guards extend the deck in a sweeping curve around and beyond the sternpost. The guard timbers only begin to angle away from the deck timbers in the very few aftmost feet. I love how the outer "bumper" of the guards (and thus the deck), a steamboat's equivalent of the wale, is just a series of split logs with bark still attached. How typically frontier! That's going to be an interesting detail to replicate. Looking inside the stern, you can see the slight camber of the deck beams as they curve outward to meet the guard timbers (at right). It's too bad I won't be able to include this log tiller (it'l be buried beneath the deck and the aft superstructure). These photos aren't great, but they show the only part of the hull that was preserved and the only clear show of the stern during excavation (there are no photos or drawings of the bow). So they're all I have to work with. In Part II, I'll build my version of the guards and the Arabia will start looking like a steamboat and not a cut-down battleship.

Hah, Ken, you must be salivating. You're the biggest ACW brownwater navy fan I know!

I've completed the other half of the hull framing and done a preliminary fairing. As one might expect from a hand-cut set of bulkheads, there are places I need to shim or fix, but it's no worse than I've experienced in certain kit models. Below is the hull as it stands; there's an optical illusion making it appear to warp inward toward the center, but that's just because I didn't bother about lining up all the braces between bulkheads. It's actually quite straight along the sides. And views from fore and aft: I need to keep working on the fairing to be sure I've got it right. I'm amused that, as a whole, the hull right now looks quite like I'm building a waterline battleship in a different scale. It's going to change dramatically once the deck framing begins. Apologies for slow progress and updates, other commitments just keep getting in the way. Thanks as always for reading.

Best wishes for your father, yourself, and your family. The model will be there for you when you need it.

John, While I can't speak to whether or not lead-based paints were used, it wouldn't have been to protect from rot or decay. First, only the wheels, and sometimes decks and other parts of the superstructure, were painted red. Hulls were generally white. Rot and decay also wouldn't have been the major concern, both as freshwater is more forgiving and because the lifespan and dangers faced by these boats generally meant that rot and decay weren't likely to be the cause of death (so to speak).

I did some research on American paint history, and came up with this narrative. Commercial paints really didn't come onto the market in a widespread fashion until the late 19th century. Before that, paints were hand-mixed (such as on a farm) or at least made in smaller batches locally using grinders. Red was commonly made from a base of linseed oil (produced from flax, a common farm crop), which had an orange tinge. To this was added milk for texture and iron oxide to deepen the color. As a geologist, I agree with Wefalck that iron tends to produce an orange-red rather than a deep brown-red. Several American paint companies offer "historic" collections that were developed with the help of various preservation trusts and other organizations. For example, this collection from Benjamin Moore is supposedly based on 17th-early 20th century colors (i.e. before modern paint chemistry). I was immediately struck by the fact that all of the red shades in this collection do, indeed, have an orange tinge to my eye that fits the narrative about linseed oil and iron oxide. My guess is that their "Audubon Russet" or "Mayflower Red" might be good matches for steamboat red. Given that the vast majority of riverboats in middle America were built on the upper Ohio River, close to extensive sources of iron in the mountains to the east and south as well as extensive sources of milk and flax in the farmlands to the north and west, it makes sense that steamboat red would have followed this palette. But I'm just theorizing based on internet research here, I'm no expert in this regard. EDIT: Mrs. Cathead just asked what I was researching, and pointed out that we have linseed oil, milk (from our dairy goats), and iron oxide (from our bedrock and soils as well as, you know, farm rust) on hand. I may just have to play with mixing up a small batch of "historic" paint to see what I can produce. It'd be pretty neat to color my Arabia with a historically accurate stain.

Everything looks good. Glad to see you back at work on this.

Thanks for sharing. I agree that such times can make it hard to focus on a model, even if in theory it seems like a great escape from reality. I hope you'll be able to give thanks for good memories of your brother.

Cool! I hope you'll post that in the Riverboats general thread, too. Also, welcome, Scott! Nice to see another local on here. If you want to try a Missouri River boat, Kurt's link above contains plans for two very good ones, Far West and Bertrand.

That's a great question, don't know the answer off the top of my head. Will do some digging (unless someone else knows for sure).

Here's my understanding. Some of the real experts like Kurt or Roger may well weigh in and correct me if necessary. Red was common in nineteenth-century America because it was one of the cheapest paint colors to produce in the era before modern paint chemistry (along with white). That's one reason it became the standard barn color as well. The fact that most American riverboats were red and white was primarily economic. Red also didn't show staining or dirt as easily as white, which is one reason it was used for decks, wheels, and often for the stern area upon which the wheel threw water and/or the outhouses discharged (such as on Bertrand, below). A white superstructure made the boat look clean and attractive, while a red wheel, stern, and deck were utilitarian. I don't think there was any connotation of danger or warning; there was really no way for a passenger to approach a stern or side wheel, and the boilers were more dangerous anyway.

So, two weeks later, I finally get back to this. I consulted and experimented with both steamschooner's plans above and some I found for the sidewheeler Buckeye State (1850), and was convinced that I wanted a much narrower bow. I'm very happy with the half-hull approach I've been using, pinning each bulkhead temporarily in place, because it's been very easy for me to experiment with different hull shapes. Below is what I've settled on, a long, narrow bow that seems more typical of the era before spoon bows really came into use. I re-read Adam Kane's book and confirmed that the narrow "model" bow was prevalent until around 1870. We'll never know for sure just what Arabia's bow looked like, but this is a reasonable guess. You can compare this to the photos earlier in this log of the broader, more bluff bow I started with. I've also been working on fairing the stern frames, they're at least roughed in. Here's how she currently looks: The background to these photos is one reason my model work has been delayed; I've been replacing the deck outside our kitchen for the past two weeks (when I can find time) and that's both been taking up time and making me a bit less interested in other wood projects. I'm using all fresh-milled cedar from logs we cut last winter, cured through the summer, and milled this fall. It's nice to work with, and even though the color will fade over time, has a very pleasant aroma and look. I still have to build most of the bench-railings, only having done this short section so far. Next step on the model is fairing all the bulkheads to be sure I'm happy with the run of planking, then I'll duplicate these shapes on the other side of the model. Thanks for reading, and for being patient with my slow progress.

That just looks fantastic. Weathered enough to look realistic but not overdone, and lovely detail. This has been really fun to follow.

Two planks a day? You must be retired, you're cruising right along! One thing I realized on my build was that the aesthetic effect was improved by ensuring that the planking on both sides of the stem lined up; it looks especially nice when each line of planking matches its opposite partner. I didn't always get it right, but it helps to keep in mind as you move forward. You're doing great so far.

Hey, John, no worries! For the most part, I assume that others know more than me, and thought maybe these boats had another set of cleats right at the stern or something. Better to ask and potentially correct a problem!

Steamschooner, those are very interesting. I'll get back to you tonight when I have a chance to work on the model. Quick take, those bow lines still have the curves into the keel I would expect, as compared to the perfectly angular lines Bates shows. Jan, I have Kane's book, which includes limited information on bows. I'll try to write up a summary of his and others' comments on the subject in the next evening or two.

Roger, Thanks for your input. I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing or not, so please bear with me. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you; I definitely understand why the hull overall transitions from the very deep forward section to the very shallow, flat stern section. What I meant was, when looking at the run of planking from the transom over the next few frames forward, on the underside of the hull, the third frame (if you count the transom as one) was noticeably shallower than the frame on either side, meaning that the planking either dips in a "U" up into that frame or it needs to be shimmed for a smooth run of planking. I wasn't talking about the shape of the hull overall, but a localized dip in the run of the hull. As I type that, I wonder, maybe you did mean that there's not supposed to be a smooth run from the fuller middle to the flatter stern, but rather a sort of reverse S-curve that transitions more abruptly into the flat stern? This is hard to describe by words. John, In my kit, BlueJacket supplied two cleats for the bow and two that are placed near the stern, roughly opposite the stern rubbing strips. You can see them in black on my model. Were you referring to some additional cleats that should also be at the stern?

Thanks for commenting, Gary! That's a nice, clean model that makes me realize I forgot to build the bait tank.

Let's see if this illustrates my dilemma a bit more clearly (see photo below). The generic plans from Alan Bates show bow lines that are triangular; no curve to the frames/bulkheads. This is shown by the printed lines shown below. My first version of the half-hull bulkheads followed this design. However, that perfectly triangular version creates a really difficult run of planking that doesn't seem to match any photos I've seen elsewhere of steamboat hulls. For example, every image I've seen shows the first plank belong the deck (is that still called the sheer plank on a steamboat?) essentially vertical (perpendicular to the deck), yet in this triangular-frame design the first plank would be at a near-45° angle to the deck. This makes the planks curve in a really screwy way and doesn't create the nice, easy, mostly parallel run of planking that I would think most steamboat builders would have preferred over complex bends. However, the triangular version was also shown in my plans for Bertrand, and those were taken directly from the archeologists' drawings. In that case, I just "cheated" and planked the way the planks wanted to lie, mostly hiding it with paint, because I didn't understand enough about planking back then to really figure this out. For comparison, I cut a separate set of bulkheads following a more generic rounded form, and set these just behind the triangular bulkheads (below). This version creates a more rounded hull form that immediately produces a smoother, more natural run of planking even without fairing. So I don't know why the Bates plans show the triangular version when it seems to create such a problematic planking run, but I'm strongly tempted to use the curved version instead for practical reasons. Does that help explain the problem better? Any thoughts, anyone?

I've had good results with the blackening solutions sold by BlueJacket.

No, that is helpful; it's closer to what I think Arabia and is definitely not a spoon bow. However, it does look like Chaperon's bow is still much fuller than what I was intending; it looks like the frames even right out at the bow start out near vertical and only gently curve inward. For comparison, on Bertrand and the generalized plans from Alan Bates, the bow frames don't curve at all but form a straight-edged triangle from the deck down to the keelson. This makes for a sharper and more difficult curve to the planking. I think I'll need to mock up or illustrate the difference for this to make any sense. I probably should have dealt with this issue in the planning/design thread, but I was excited to get going on the real thing.

Kurt, I've been spending time browsing and searching that excellent collection, but darned if I can find a clear shot of a bow (or any part of the hull) out of water. The few construction photos are all from far away, surrounded by scaffolding, and in any case are all from much later periods (early 20th century). I've been able to find a few isolated examples in general Google searches, but it's just plain hard to find a clear image of an 1850s steamboat hull from beneath. One major factor, too, is that (in my understanding) the design of bows changed over time. Early boats mostly had very pointed bows (like a fast ship), but over time builders started adopting the spoon bow, which is much blunter and more rounded (like a collier), because this design made it easier to handle sandbars and levees. But that wasn't common practice in the 1850s, so it's very likely Arabia had a sharp bow. I can't be sure because even the museum's excavation photos show the bow still covered in soil. Most of the steamboat bow photos I can find use something closer to the spoon shape, making them likely less relevant as a model. I may just have to guess and try to follow a practice that would have made sense at the time (i.e. no extreme bending or overly fancy work). Do you (or anyone else) have other thoughts on how the planking transition might have been handled at the bow? Even in Bob's photo above, I can't tell what happens at the turn of the bilge, or whether/how the planks are tapered or formed to account for the rise in the bow.

I'm an idiot. That's so obvious once you pointed it out. I stared and stared at that and never saw it.

Is it that the slots at upper and lower left don't extend to the edge of the surface?

These boats generally carried no ballast other than cargo, and were stable even when unloaded. The center of mass is provided by the very heavy machinery (boilers, engines) on the main deck and the fact that the superstructures were generally very lightly built. The hull framing was generally oak (as opposed to superstructure of pine) which also adds to the lower center of mass. They would be very unstable in any real open water, but even the widest stretch of the Mississippi didn't have a long enough fetch to really generate significant waves (and any real waves would break their back anyway, as these boats lacked a true keel and were designed to flex longitudinally). A heavily-loaded riverboat could have its deck a few inches above the water and be safe to operate. That being said, a good severe windstorm or tornado could flip one of these, but by that point the wind had probably torn the lightweight superstructure apart anyway. It was an operational hazard. On the color, the real things were certainly painted, but there's definitely nothing wrong with the varnished look from an artistic perspective. I think it looks good on models, too. And it's especially appropriate for a kit like this, which doesn't exactly strive for historical accuracy, so there's no loss in making it look really nice.