Cathead

I'm not sure about the initial aspects of the procedure, but as far as removing the hot material safely from the boat, many boats had a special ash trough that allowed the hot coals & such to be swept/washed away from the boilers, either over the side or through an opening in the guards. Here is a picture of the brick-lined ash trough from my Bertrand build.
 

 
As for boiler explosions, they were quite common on western riverboats, due to a combination of high-pressure boilers, limited or no safety equipment (such as dial pressure gauges), limited knowledge/training of the engineers running the boilers, and a commercial (and passenger) culture which favored speed and power over safety and caution.
 
For a long time, the only safety valve on riverboat boilers was a simple weighted lever, which was very easy for an ambitious engineer to over-weight or even tie down, increasing the pressure in the boilers. With no clear testing or standards, no one really knew what pressure boilers could hold, and there was no calibrated way to measure pressure. Water levels in the boiler also couldn't be measured easily (again, no gauges), so this too was guesswork and instinct. Thus, if water levels got too low, or levels fluctuated as suggested for Sultana, boom with no warning.
 
All of this was made much more likely by the river culture of the time, in which the fastest boats received premium rates and reputations, regardless of safety concerns. In addition, river conditions could lead to explosions, as when boats attempted to force a bar or round a bend under high-water conditions, needing every ounce of steam in the attempt. One particularly deadly explosion in central Missouri happened after a boat repeatedly tried to round a bend in front of a towns-worth of onlooker, failing over and over and being swept back downstream in embarrassment, before the engineer apparently tied down the pressure valve and went for it all. The boat blew up mid-bend, sending debris into the onlookers on the bluff and killing many passengers.
 
Glenn, I'm curious how you know the Heroine had four boilers. The number varied from boat to boat; I was surprised to learn that Bertrand only had two. Also, do you know what kind of pump the water supply used?

I've just been catching up on this log, especially interesting as friends of ours just spent 3 months in Sydney on sabbatical. I enjoy learning more about Australian history, it's a fascinating place. Thanks for this really unique and beautiful build.
 
Forgive this question if it's been answered and I missed it, but what is the design purpose behind the rudder being angled like that, and curved in at the bottom rather than flat-bottomed? It looks very different from the (admittedly few) ship's rudders I can recall.
 
Merry Christmas to you.

I've just been catching up on this log, especially interesting as friends of ours just spent 3 months in Sydney on sabbatical. I enjoy learning more about Australian history, it's a fascinating place. Thanks for this really unique and beautiful build.
 
Forgive this question if it's been answered and I missed it, but what is the design purpose behind the rudder being angled like that, and curved in at the bottom rather than flat-bottomed? It looks very different from the (admittedly few) ship's rudders I can recall.
 
Merry Christmas to you.

Thanks for the good wishes and thanks to all who have pressed the 'like' button.
 
Cathead - not sure about the shape of the rudder, except that 'that's the way they built 'em'.    It may have had something to do with the fact that they dried out with the tide while at T.I. and, because of their deep hull shape, lay over quite heavily as in the photo below - but then it could be that it was the way the first one was built and everyone simply followed suit.
 
John
 

I've just been catching up on this log, especially interesting as friends of ours just spent 3 months in Sydney on sabbatical. I enjoy learning more about Australian history, it's a fascinating place. Thanks for this really unique and beautiful build.
 
Forgive this question if it's been answered and I missed it, but what is the design purpose behind the rudder being angled like that, and curved in at the bottom rather than flat-bottomed? It looks very different from the (admittedly few) ship's rudders I can recall.
 
Merry Christmas to you.

A Christmas update.  The 'Pritt' continues to move ahead slowly.  The pin rails are now fitted (although I now realise I forgot to photograph the model with them fitted - next time).  The belaying pins on these vessels were, generally, simple iron or steel bars fixed through the rails - nothing fancy on a pearl sheller!  The rudder has now also been fitted and the tiller made, but only temporarily in place for the photographs - it still needs painting and the steering blocks fitted before it's finally permanently fitted.  The end of the tiller kicks up like that at the end so that it's about hip height on a man standing to steer, although steering was generally done using the tiller ropes.
 
You will notice the unusual fittings for securing the rudder.  This type of rudder fitting is typical of T.I. pearl shellers - the upper gudgeon is simply a plate that is passed through a slot in the rudder abaft the rudder post and the lower gudgeon is a round fitting into which the lower end of the rudder post fits.
 
The masts have been commenced - the main mast has been shaped and the mizzen is tapered ready for shaping.  The spars are being made from Celery Top Pine, a traditional Tasmanian boat building timber and beautiful to work with.  I got a couple of scraps of it from a boatyard when we were visiting Tasmania a couple of years ago.
 
A happy Christmas to all.
 
John
 

 

 

 

 
 

While working on the remaining spars I also continue preparing the masts by adding blocks, cleats and ringbolts.
The boom saddle on the mainmast is in place and some copper sheathing to protect the mast is also attached.
 
I haven't yet completed the belaying plan but experience says that you never have enough belaying points in those kits and therefore I put 2 additional cleats onto each mast foot.
 
Pickle is fixed on her stand. I used an oak plank from the local wood shop and two Amati brass columns of different heights. Those needed reworking a bit with a file. I opened up the slits to 5mm and adapted the top to the angle of the hull side. All is held together with 2 long screws through base, columns and into holes drilled up through the keel.
 

boom saddle with copper sheathing
 
 

additional cleats on mast feet
 
 

that brass column needs some polish...
 
 

stand
 
 

She swims! (Not actually but somehow virtually - I like the lightness of that stand.)

I'm not a sail expert, but wouldn't it partly depend on the conditions and context? My limited understanding is that topsails were generally used for light maneuverability in square-rigged ships, so in theory would often be the first set from a standstill, but I'm not sure of the procedure on a schooner rig.

Glenn is right, that's the boiler from Arabia. The "flywheel" is part of the water pump, commonly called the Doctor, which is labeled in the image. I included one in my build but it's buried mostly out of view.

I'll go read through Petsche again to see if I recover forgotten hints on boiler layout assumptions. I appreciate your kind words, Glenn, it's an honor to be of any service to a master craftsman.

Ironwork from steamboat wrecks was routinely salvaged, and indeed boilers, engines, and more were re-used on multiple boats. Bertrand's own machinery wasn't original, but was salvaged from another wreck and installed on the newly-built Bertrand.
 
I went back and re-read the academic papers by Dr Crisman dealing with Heroine's excavation, and they did not directly explain the 4-boiler count, other than citing an earlier reference to general practice of the time. However, there's an interesting comparison to be made with reference to my earlier guess about boiler numbers being related to the support structures. Nowhere in the Heroine papers could I find a direct reference to the WIDTH of the boiler supports, though they are described in general. The area of Heroine's hull where the boilers sat was the most damaged, and didn't have any decking remaining to preserve more evidence.
 
On the other hand, the Bertrand wreck did have the boiler-area deck intact, with special cross-timbers and decking in place to support the boilers, so we know for sure how wide that area was: about 10'. That's pretty narrow for a hull that was about 34' wide, not including the guards. As far as I know most steamboat boilers were around 3' in diameter (the papers state that Heroine's were 34"); that means Bertrand couldn't have had more than three boilers, and 2 seems more likely to accommodate the rest of the boiler structure. In comparison, Heroine is a much narrower boat, with a hull width of only around 20' (judging from the published diagrams), so four 34" boilers would have taken up 12'-14' of the total 20' hull width (though she also had guards). I believe Arabia's hull was about 30' wide, and we know she had 3 boilers. Finally, for whatever it's worth, Heroine is especially thin compared to later boats; her hull appears to be about 140' long though only 20' wide, compared to Bertrand's 161'x34'. 
 
This does NOT mean we should jump to conclusions about Heroine's boilers; there's no rule (to my knowledge) saying the boilers on a steamboat should be X% of the total hull width, and Heroine was built very early in the creative process of developing western riverboats, while Bertrand was built over 30 years later in a relatively more standardized age. But it is interesting to consider if/why Heroine had such a large boiler capacity for a small, one-engine boat compared to larger craft like Bertrand or Arabia, and I wonder if she turned out to be at all top-heavy given all that heavy power plant on such a narrow hull. 
 
I don't want to derail Glenn's build log into a longer discussion of other boats, so in general we should direct discussion of the Bertrand to my log instead. But in this case I think the comparison is interesting; I'm really interested in Glenn's thoughts or corrections on my guesswork here.

Ironwork from steamboat wrecks was routinely salvaged, and indeed boilers, engines, and more were re-used on multiple boats. Bertrand's own machinery wasn't original, but was salvaged from another wreck and installed on the newly-built Bertrand.
 
I went back and re-read the academic papers by Dr Crisman dealing with Heroine's excavation, and they did not directly explain the 4-boiler count, other than citing an earlier reference to general practice of the time. However, there's an interesting comparison to be made with reference to my earlier guess about boiler numbers being related to the support structures. Nowhere in the Heroine papers could I find a direct reference to the WIDTH of the boiler supports, though they are described in general. The area of Heroine's hull where the boilers sat was the most damaged, and didn't have any decking remaining to preserve more evidence.
 
On the other hand, the Bertrand wreck did have the boiler-area deck intact, with special cross-timbers and decking in place to support the boilers, so we know for sure how wide that area was: about 10'. That's pretty narrow for a hull that was about 34' wide, not including the guards. As far as I know most steamboat boilers were around 3' in diameter (the papers state that Heroine's were 34"); that means Bertrand couldn't have had more than three boilers, and 2 seems more likely to accommodate the rest of the boiler structure. In comparison, Heroine is a much narrower boat, with a hull width of only around 20' (judging from the published diagrams), so four 34" boilers would have taken up 12'-14' of the total 20' hull width (though she also had guards). I believe Arabia's hull was about 30' wide, and we know she had 3 boilers. Finally, for whatever it's worth, Heroine is especially thin compared to later boats; her hull appears to be about 140' long though only 20' wide, compared to Bertrand's 161'x34'. 
 
This does NOT mean we should jump to conclusions about Heroine's boilers; there's no rule (to my knowledge) saying the boilers on a steamboat should be X% of the total hull width, and Heroine was built very early in the creative process of developing western riverboats, while Bertrand was built over 30 years later in a relatively more standardized age. But it is interesting to consider if/why Heroine had such a large boiler capacity for a small, one-engine boat compared to larger craft like Bertrand or Arabia, and I wonder if she turned out to be at all top-heavy given all that heavy power plant on such a narrow hull. 
 
I don't want to derail Glenn's build log into a longer discussion of other boats, so in general we should direct discussion of the Bertrand to my log instead. But in this case I think the comparison is interesting; I'm really interested in Glenn's thoughts or corrections on my guesswork here.

Hello everybody,
 
I left town this morning to visit the in-laws and just got home to find all this good info. First of all, thank you Cathead for mentioning the correct diameter of the cylinders as 34". In autoCAD I work with radii instead of diameters. I was thinking 2 x 17" is 34" but typed 37" by mistake in an earlier post. Secondly, I'm coming around to the idea of fewer boilers. I think the most convincing evidence as Cathead pointed out is that we only have one engine. As druxey pointed out, we have very little to work with and in a way, that gives me a little freedom. I agree that four boilers seems extreme and I' m leaning toward just two. Fortunately, the drive train is well represented and will take me some time to complete so I have some time to look for more evidence and discuss it with Kevin before committing to anything. I want to thank you Cathead for bringing this up and possibly preventing me from making a pretty big mistake.

Ironwork from steamboat wrecks was routinely salvaged, and indeed boilers, engines, and more were re-used on multiple boats. Bertrand's own machinery wasn't original, but was salvaged from another wreck and installed on the newly-built Bertrand.
 
I went back and re-read the academic papers by Dr Crisman dealing with Heroine's excavation, and they did not directly explain the 4-boiler count, other than citing an earlier reference to general practice of the time. However, there's an interesting comparison to be made with reference to my earlier guess about boiler numbers being related to the support structures. Nowhere in the Heroine papers could I find a direct reference to the WIDTH of the boiler supports, though they are described in general. The area of Heroine's hull where the boilers sat was the most damaged, and didn't have any decking remaining to preserve more evidence.
 
On the other hand, the Bertrand wreck did have the boiler-area deck intact, with special cross-timbers and decking in place to support the boilers, so we know for sure how wide that area was: about 10'. That's pretty narrow for a hull that was about 34' wide, not including the guards. As far as I know most steamboat boilers were around 3' in diameter (the papers state that Heroine's were 34"); that means Bertrand couldn't have had more than three boilers, and 2 seems more likely to accommodate the rest of the boiler structure. In comparison, Heroine is a much narrower boat, with a hull width of only around 20' (judging from the published diagrams), so four 34" boilers would have taken up 12'-14' of the total 20' hull width (though she also had guards). I believe Arabia's hull was about 30' wide, and we know she had 3 boilers. Finally, for whatever it's worth, Heroine is especially thin compared to later boats; her hull appears to be about 140' long though only 20' wide, compared to Bertrand's 161'x34'. 
 
This does NOT mean we should jump to conclusions about Heroine's boilers; there's no rule (to my knowledge) saying the boilers on a steamboat should be X% of the total hull width, and Heroine was built very early in the creative process of developing western riverboats, while Bertrand was built over 30 years later in a relatively more standardized age. But it is interesting to consider if/why Heroine had such a large boiler capacity for a small, one-engine boat compared to larger craft like Bertrand or Arabia, and I wonder if she turned out to be at all top-heavy given all that heavy power plant on such a narrow hull. 
 
I don't want to derail Glenn's build log into a longer discussion of other boats, so in general we should direct discussion of the Bertrand to my log instead. But in this case I think the comparison is interesting; I'm really interested in Glenn's thoughts or corrections on my guesswork here.

Glenn is right, that's the boiler from Arabia. The "flywheel" is part of the water pump, commonly called the Doctor, which is labeled in the image. I included one in my build but it's buried mostly out of view.

I'll go read through Petsche again to see if I recover forgotten hints on boiler layout assumptions. I appreciate your kind words, Glenn, it's an honor to be of any service to a master craftsman.

The steam engines power output being dependent on the volume of steam, would also be dependent on the size of the firebox area to generate the steam which is hottest at the fire and the crown sheet, or in the case of a marine boiler like this one the ability of the hot flue gasses to transfer the heat as efficiently as possible without all the heat going up the stack.  More boilers would also create more steam. A larger capacity of steam would allow for the engine to run faster.
A fast fire is not necessarily the hottest so some dampening on the vents and stack to slow the flue gasses would also allow more steam to be generated. a constant trade off would also depend on the wood being burned, Drier the hotter it would burn. 
Seems counter intuitive but but I heat with wood and a fast fire does not put out as much heat it seems as a slow one does. 
 
Michael 

Mark,
 
This image shows a "typical" (if there is such a thing) steamboat boiler, including the mud drum:
 

Ironwork from steamboat wrecks was routinely salvaged, and indeed boilers, engines, and more were re-used on multiple boats. Bertrand's own machinery wasn't original, but was salvaged from another wreck and installed on the newly-built Bertrand.
 
I went back and re-read the academic papers by Dr Crisman dealing with Heroine's excavation, and they did not directly explain the 4-boiler count, other than citing an earlier reference to general practice of the time. However, there's an interesting comparison to be made with reference to my earlier guess about boiler numbers being related to the support structures. Nowhere in the Heroine papers could I find a direct reference to the WIDTH of the boiler supports, though they are described in general. The area of Heroine's hull where the boilers sat was the most damaged, and didn't have any decking remaining to preserve more evidence.
 
On the other hand, the Bertrand wreck did have the boiler-area deck intact, with special cross-timbers and decking in place to support the boilers, so we know for sure how wide that area was: about 10'. That's pretty narrow for a hull that was about 34' wide, not including the guards. As far as I know most steamboat boilers were around 3' in diameter (the papers state that Heroine's were 34"); that means Bertrand couldn't have had more than three boilers, and 2 seems more likely to accommodate the rest of the boiler structure. In comparison, Heroine is a much narrower boat, with a hull width of only around 20' (judging from the published diagrams), so four 34" boilers would have taken up 12'-14' of the total 20' hull width (though she also had guards). I believe Arabia's hull was about 30' wide, and we know she had 3 boilers. Finally, for whatever it's worth, Heroine is especially thin compared to later boats; her hull appears to be about 140' long though only 20' wide, compared to Bertrand's 161'x34'. 
 
This does NOT mean we should jump to conclusions about Heroine's boilers; there's no rule (to my knowledge) saying the boilers on a steamboat should be X% of the total hull width, and Heroine was built very early in the creative process of developing western riverboats, while Bertrand was built over 30 years later in a relatively more standardized age. But it is interesting to consider if/why Heroine had such a large boiler capacity for a small, one-engine boat compared to larger craft like Bertrand or Arabia, and I wonder if she turned out to be at all top-heavy given all that heavy power plant on such a narrow hull. 
 
I don't want to derail Glenn's build log into a longer discussion of other boats, so in general we should direct discussion of the Bertrand to my log instead. But in this case I think the comparison is interesting; I'm really interested in Glenn's thoughts or corrections on my guesswork here.

Ironwork from steamboat wrecks was routinely salvaged, and indeed boilers, engines, and more were re-used on multiple boats. Bertrand's own machinery wasn't original, but was salvaged from another wreck and installed on the newly-built Bertrand.
 
I went back and re-read the academic papers by Dr Crisman dealing with Heroine's excavation, and they did not directly explain the 4-boiler count, other than citing an earlier reference to general practice of the time. However, there's an interesting comparison to be made with reference to my earlier guess about boiler numbers being related to the support structures. Nowhere in the Heroine papers could I find a direct reference to the WIDTH of the boiler supports, though they are described in general. The area of Heroine's hull where the boilers sat was the most damaged, and didn't have any decking remaining to preserve more evidence.
 
On the other hand, the Bertrand wreck did have the boiler-area deck intact, with special cross-timbers and decking in place to support the boilers, so we know for sure how wide that area was: about 10'. That's pretty narrow for a hull that was about 34' wide, not including the guards. As far as I know most steamboat boilers were around 3' in diameter (the papers state that Heroine's were 34"); that means Bertrand couldn't have had more than three boilers, and 2 seems more likely to accommodate the rest of the boiler structure. In comparison, Heroine is a much narrower boat, with a hull width of only around 20' (judging from the published diagrams), so four 34" boilers would have taken up 12'-14' of the total 20' hull width (though she also had guards). I believe Arabia's hull was about 30' wide, and we know she had 3 boilers. Finally, for whatever it's worth, Heroine is especially thin compared to later boats; her hull appears to be about 140' long though only 20' wide, compared to Bertrand's 161'x34'. 
 
This does NOT mean we should jump to conclusions about Heroine's boilers; there's no rule (to my knowledge) saying the boilers on a steamboat should be X% of the total hull width, and Heroine was built very early in the creative process of developing western riverboats, while Bertrand was built over 30 years later in a relatively more standardized age. But it is interesting to consider if/why Heroine had such a large boiler capacity for a small, one-engine boat compared to larger craft like Bertrand or Arabia, and I wonder if she turned out to be at all top-heavy given all that heavy power plant on such a narrow hull. 
 
I don't want to derail Glenn's build log into a longer discussion of other boats, so in general we should direct discussion of the Bertrand to my log instead. But in this case I think the comparison is interesting; I'm really interested in Glenn's thoughts or corrections on my guesswork here.

Glenn is right, that's the boiler from Arabia. The "flywheel" is part of the water pump, commonly called the Doctor, which is labeled in the image. I included one in my build but it's buried mostly out of view.

I'll go read through Petsche again to see if I recover forgotten hints on boiler layout assumptions. I appreciate your kind words, Glenn, it's an honor to be of any service to a master craftsman.

Ironwork from steamboat wrecks was routinely salvaged, and indeed boilers, engines, and more were re-used on multiple boats. Bertrand's own machinery wasn't original, but was salvaged from another wreck and installed on the newly-built Bertrand.
 
I went back and re-read the academic papers by Dr Crisman dealing with Heroine's excavation, and they did not directly explain the 4-boiler count, other than citing an earlier reference to general practice of the time. However, there's an interesting comparison to be made with reference to my earlier guess about boiler numbers being related to the support structures. Nowhere in the Heroine papers could I find a direct reference to the WIDTH of the boiler supports, though they are described in general. The area of Heroine's hull where the boilers sat was the most damaged, and didn't have any decking remaining to preserve more evidence.
 
On the other hand, the Bertrand wreck did have the boiler-area deck intact, with special cross-timbers and decking in place to support the boilers, so we know for sure how wide that area was: about 10'. That's pretty narrow for a hull that was about 34' wide, not including the guards. As far as I know most steamboat boilers were around 3' in diameter (the papers state that Heroine's were 34"); that means Bertrand couldn't have had more than three boilers, and 2 seems more likely to accommodate the rest of the boiler structure. In comparison, Heroine is a much narrower boat, with a hull width of only around 20' (judging from the published diagrams), so four 34" boilers would have taken up 12'-14' of the total 20' hull width (though she also had guards). I believe Arabia's hull was about 30' wide, and we know she had 3 boilers. Finally, for whatever it's worth, Heroine is especially thin compared to later boats; her hull appears to be about 140' long though only 20' wide, compared to Bertrand's 161'x34'. 
 
This does NOT mean we should jump to conclusions about Heroine's boilers; there's no rule (to my knowledge) saying the boilers on a steamboat should be X% of the total hull width, and Heroine was built very early in the creative process of developing western riverboats, while Bertrand was built over 30 years later in a relatively more standardized age. But it is interesting to consider if/why Heroine had such a large boiler capacity for a small, one-engine boat compared to larger craft like Bertrand or Arabia, and I wonder if she turned out to be at all top-heavy given all that heavy power plant on such a narrow hull. 
 
I don't want to derail Glenn's build log into a longer discussion of other boats, so in general we should direct discussion of the Bertrand to my log instead. But in this case I think the comparison is interesting; I'm really interested in Glenn's thoughts or corrections on my guesswork here.

Ironwork from steamboat wrecks was routinely salvaged, and indeed boilers, engines, and more were re-used on multiple boats. Bertrand's own machinery wasn't original, but was salvaged from another wreck and installed on the newly-built Bertrand.
 
I went back and re-read the academic papers by Dr Crisman dealing with Heroine's excavation, and they did not directly explain the 4-boiler count, other than citing an earlier reference to general practice of the time. However, there's an interesting comparison to be made with reference to my earlier guess about boiler numbers being related to the support structures. Nowhere in the Heroine papers could I find a direct reference to the WIDTH of the boiler supports, though they are described in general. The area of Heroine's hull where the boilers sat was the most damaged, and didn't have any decking remaining to preserve more evidence.
 
On the other hand, the Bertrand wreck did have the boiler-area deck intact, with special cross-timbers and decking in place to support the boilers, so we know for sure how wide that area was: about 10'. That's pretty narrow for a hull that was about 34' wide, not including the guards. As far as I know most steamboat boilers were around 3' in diameter (the papers state that Heroine's were 34"); that means Bertrand couldn't have had more than three boilers, and 2 seems more likely to accommodate the rest of the boiler structure. In comparison, Heroine is a much narrower boat, with a hull width of only around 20' (judging from the published diagrams), so four 34" boilers would have taken up 12'-14' of the total 20' hull width (though she also had guards). I believe Arabia's hull was about 30' wide, and we know she had 3 boilers. Finally, for whatever it's worth, Heroine is especially thin compared to later boats; her hull appears to be about 140' long though only 20' wide, compared to Bertrand's 161'x34'. 
 
This does NOT mean we should jump to conclusions about Heroine's boilers; there's no rule (to my knowledge) saying the boilers on a steamboat should be X% of the total hull width, and Heroine was built very early in the creative process of developing western riverboats, while Bertrand was built over 30 years later in a relatively more standardized age. But it is interesting to consider if/why Heroine had such a large boiler capacity for a small, one-engine boat compared to larger craft like Bertrand or Arabia, and I wonder if she turned out to be at all top-heavy given all that heavy power plant on such a narrow hull. 
 
I don't want to derail Glenn's build log into a longer discussion of other boats, so in general we should direct discussion of the Bertrand to my log instead. But in this case I think the comparison is interesting; I'm really interested in Glenn's thoughts or corrections on my guesswork here.

Ironwork from steamboat wrecks was routinely salvaged, and indeed boilers, engines, and more were re-used on multiple boats. Bertrand's own machinery wasn't original, but was salvaged from another wreck and installed on the newly-built Bertrand.
 
I went back and re-read the academic papers by Dr Crisman dealing with Heroine's excavation, and they did not directly explain the 4-boiler count, other than citing an earlier reference to general practice of the time. However, there's an interesting comparison to be made with reference to my earlier guess about boiler numbers being related to the support structures. Nowhere in the Heroine papers could I find a direct reference to the WIDTH of the boiler supports, though they are described in general. The area of Heroine's hull where the boilers sat was the most damaged, and didn't have any decking remaining to preserve more evidence.
 
On the other hand, the Bertrand wreck did have the boiler-area deck intact, with special cross-timbers and decking in place to support the boilers, so we know for sure how wide that area was: about 10'. That's pretty narrow for a hull that was about 34' wide, not including the guards. As far as I know most steamboat boilers were around 3' in diameter (the papers state that Heroine's were 34"); that means Bertrand couldn't have had more than three boilers, and 2 seems more likely to accommodate the rest of the boiler structure. In comparison, Heroine is a much narrower boat, with a hull width of only around 20' (judging from the published diagrams), so four 34" boilers would have taken up 12'-14' of the total 20' hull width (though she also had guards). I believe Arabia's hull was about 30' wide, and we know she had 3 boilers. Finally, for whatever it's worth, Heroine is especially thin compared to later boats; her hull appears to be about 140' long though only 20' wide, compared to Bertrand's 161'x34'. 
 
This does NOT mean we should jump to conclusions about Heroine's boilers; there's no rule (to my knowledge) saying the boilers on a steamboat should be X% of the total hull width, and Heroine was built very early in the creative process of developing western riverboats, while Bertrand was built over 30 years later in a relatively more standardized age. But it is interesting to consider if/why Heroine had such a large boiler capacity for a small, one-engine boat compared to larger craft like Bertrand or Arabia, and I wonder if she turned out to be at all top-heavy given all that heavy power plant on such a narrow hull. 
 
I don't want to derail Glenn's build log into a longer discussion of other boats, so in general we should direct discussion of the Bertrand to my log instead. But in this case I think the comparison is interesting; I'm really interested in Glenn's thoughts or corrections on my guesswork here.

Ironwork from steamboat wrecks was routinely salvaged, and indeed boilers, engines, and more were re-used on multiple boats. Bertrand's own machinery wasn't original, but was salvaged from another wreck and installed on the newly-built Bertrand.
 
I went back and re-read the academic papers by Dr Crisman dealing with Heroine's excavation, and they did not directly explain the 4-boiler count, other than citing an earlier reference to general practice of the time. However, there's an interesting comparison to be made with reference to my earlier guess about boiler numbers being related to the support structures. Nowhere in the Heroine papers could I find a direct reference to the WIDTH of the boiler supports, though they are described in general. The area of Heroine's hull where the boilers sat was the most damaged, and didn't have any decking remaining to preserve more evidence.
 
On the other hand, the Bertrand wreck did have the boiler-area deck intact, with special cross-timbers and decking in place to support the boilers, so we know for sure how wide that area was: about 10'. That's pretty narrow for a hull that was about 34' wide, not including the guards. As far as I know most steamboat boilers were around 3' in diameter (the papers state that Heroine's were 34"); that means Bertrand couldn't have had more than three boilers, and 2 seems more likely to accommodate the rest of the boiler structure. In comparison, Heroine is a much narrower boat, with a hull width of only around 20' (judging from the published diagrams), so four 34" boilers would have taken up 12'-14' of the total 20' hull width (though she also had guards). I believe Arabia's hull was about 30' wide, and we know she had 3 boilers. Finally, for whatever it's worth, Heroine is especially thin compared to later boats; her hull appears to be about 140' long though only 20' wide, compared to Bertrand's 161'x34'. 
 
This does NOT mean we should jump to conclusions about Heroine's boilers; there's no rule (to my knowledge) saying the boilers on a steamboat should be X% of the total hull width, and Heroine was built very early in the creative process of developing western riverboats, while Bertrand was built over 30 years later in a relatively more standardized age. But it is interesting to consider if/why Heroine had such a large boiler capacity for a small, one-engine boat compared to larger craft like Bertrand or Arabia, and I wonder if she turned out to be at all top-heavy given all that heavy power plant on such a narrow hull. 
 
I don't want to derail Glenn's build log into a longer discussion of other boats, so in general we should direct discussion of the Bertrand to my log instead. But in this case I think the comparison is interesting; I'm really interested in Glenn's thoughts or corrections on my guesswork here.

What a great thread this is.  Being a riverboat buff myself I'm really enjoying it.  My first model so long ago was the Shawnee, a pool boat working the locks at Pittsburg.  From what I have learned here I may have to rebuild her.
 
Bob

Glenn is right, that's the boiler from Arabia. The "flywheel" is part of the water pump, commonly called the Doctor, which is labeled in the image. I included one in my build but it's buried mostly out of view.

I'll go read through Petsche again to see if I recover forgotten hints on boiler layout assumptions. I appreciate your kind words, Glenn, it's an honor to be of any service to a master craftsman.