Cathead

Yes, in square(ish) hulled riverboats, hogging is defined by the bow and stern sagging relative to the center. That's why it became called hogging, because it resembled the arched back of a hog in an era when everyone knew what a hog looked like. It's less an issue of hull shape than of uneven loading on the hull. This was accentuated in traditional sternwheelers by having the heavy wheel hanging off the far end of the stern while the boilers and engines were up near the forward end. So these vessels needed a robust set of hog chains (actually iron rods despite the name) running longitudinally. In sidewheelers it became especially necessary to use transverse hog chains because the heavy sidewheels hanging off the side would otherwise crack the hull down the middle. Hog chains were an absolutely necessary and extremely distinctive feature of standard North American riverboats until steel hulls came along.
 
In a perfectly rectangular and evenly loaded barge, you wouldn't need hog chains, but weight wasn't distributed evenly in powered riverboats.
 
Early railroad cars had the opposite situation, supported at the ends (by the trucks) and peak loading in the center. But the engineering solution was pretty much the same, because either way trusses help distribute loading across a span.
 
Keith's vessel is smaller than traditional riverboats, and also has a lighter wheel given newer metal technology, while the machinery is more amidships than on a "typical" vessel, but presumably the principle remains. Any wooden hull is subject to hogging and the weight distribution on his vessel is still uneven. And I agree that his photo shows a basic version of a longitudinal hog chain.

I should have added that the hogging problem was exacerbated by most riverboat hulls being built quite lightly, very different from your typical maritime wooden hull. A classic ocean-going hull was built super-strong, of heavy oak with very dense framing and lots of cross-bracing. These hulls were essentially rigid and didn't need additional trussing beyond the hull itself. But that's because they were deep-water vessels. 
 
Classic North American riverboats operated on shallow rivers and in an economic context that required them to be cheaply built, including that fact that their service lives were far shorter than that of a typical maritime vessel. So their framing was much farther apart and built of smaller timbers, their hull sheathing was light and thin, and they couldn't afford much cross-bracing without making the draft too deep. Plus, their hulls had to be flexible because they were highly prone to hitting bottom, where a rigid hull would break. So all of this meant the hulls were lightweight and needed the extra trussing of hog chain systems to keep them in line.
 
Keith's vessel is operating on a reservoir but clearly derives its lines and design from classic North American riverboat design, with a shallow blocky hull made of wood that would require trussing to remain stable.

I should have added that the hogging problem was exacerbated by most riverboat hulls being built quite lightly, very different from your typical maritime wooden hull. A classic ocean-going hull was built super-strong, of heavy oak with very dense framing and lots of cross-bracing. These hulls were essentially rigid and didn't need additional trussing beyond the hull itself. But that's because they were deep-water vessels. 
 
Classic North American riverboats operated on shallow rivers and in an economic context that required them to be cheaply built, including that fact that their service lives were far shorter than that of a typical maritime vessel. So their framing was much farther apart and built of smaller timbers, their hull sheathing was light and thin, and they couldn't afford much cross-bracing without making the draft too deep. Plus, their hulls had to be flexible because they were highly prone to hitting bottom, where a rigid hull would break. So all of this meant the hulls were lightweight and needed the extra trussing of hog chain systems to keep them in line.
 
Keith's vessel is operating on a reservoir but clearly derives its lines and design from classic North American riverboat design, with a shallow blocky hull made of wood that would require trussing to remain stable.

Yes, in square(ish) hulled riverboats, hogging is defined by the bow and stern sagging relative to the center. That's why it became called hogging, because it resembled the arched back of a hog in an era when everyone knew what a hog looked like. It's less an issue of hull shape than of uneven loading on the hull. This was accentuated in traditional sternwheelers by having the heavy wheel hanging off the far end of the stern while the boilers and engines were up near the forward end. So these vessels needed a robust set of hog chains (actually iron rods despite the name) running longitudinally. In sidewheelers it became especially necessary to use transverse hog chains because the heavy sidewheels hanging off the side would otherwise crack the hull down the middle. Hog chains were an absolutely necessary and extremely distinctive feature of standard North American riverboats until steel hulls came along.
 
In a perfectly rectangular and evenly loaded barge, you wouldn't need hog chains, but weight wasn't distributed evenly in powered riverboats.
 
Early railroad cars had the opposite situation, supported at the ends (by the trucks) and peak loading in the center. But the engineering solution was pretty much the same, because either way trusses help distribute loading across a span.
 
Keith's vessel is smaller than traditional riverboats, and also has a lighter wheel given newer metal technology, while the machinery is more amidships than on a "typical" vessel, but presumably the principle remains. Any wooden hull is subject to hogging and the weight distribution on his vessel is still uneven. And I agree that his photo shows a basic version of a longitudinal hog chain.

I did my painting freehand, for better or for worse.
 

I should have added that the hogging problem was exacerbated by most riverboat hulls being built quite lightly, very different from your typical maritime wooden hull. A classic ocean-going hull was built super-strong, of heavy oak with very dense framing and lots of cross-bracing. These hulls were essentially rigid and didn't need additional trussing beyond the hull itself. But that's because they were deep-water vessels. 
 
Classic North American riverboats operated on shallow rivers and in an economic context that required them to be cheaply built, including that fact that their service lives were far shorter than that of a typical maritime vessel. So their framing was much farther apart and built of smaller timbers, their hull sheathing was light and thin, and they couldn't afford much cross-bracing without making the draft too deep. Plus, their hulls had to be flexible because they were highly prone to hitting bottom, where a rigid hull would break. So all of this meant the hulls were lightweight and needed the extra trussing of hog chain systems to keep them in line.
 
Keith's vessel is operating on a reservoir but clearly derives its lines and design from classic North American riverboat design, with a shallow blocky hull made of wood that would require trussing to remain stable.

Yes, in square(ish) hulled riverboats, hogging is defined by the bow and stern sagging relative to the center. That's why it became called hogging, because it resembled the arched back of a hog in an era when everyone knew what a hog looked like. It's less an issue of hull shape than of uneven loading on the hull. This was accentuated in traditional sternwheelers by having the heavy wheel hanging off the far end of the stern while the boilers and engines were up near the forward end. So these vessels needed a robust set of hog chains (actually iron rods despite the name) running longitudinally. In sidewheelers it became especially necessary to use transverse hog chains because the heavy sidewheels hanging off the side would otherwise crack the hull down the middle. Hog chains were an absolutely necessary and extremely distinctive feature of standard North American riverboats until steel hulls came along.
 
In a perfectly rectangular and evenly loaded barge, you wouldn't need hog chains, but weight wasn't distributed evenly in powered riverboats.
 
Early railroad cars had the opposite situation, supported at the ends (by the trucks) and peak loading in the center. But the engineering solution was pretty much the same, because either way trusses help distribute loading across a span.
 
Keith's vessel is smaller than traditional riverboats, and also has a lighter wheel given newer metal technology, while the machinery is more amidships than on a "typical" vessel, but presumably the principle remains. Any wooden hull is subject to hogging and the weight distribution on his vessel is still uneven. And I agree that his photo shows a basic version of a longitudinal hog chain.

I should have added that the hogging problem was exacerbated by most riverboat hulls being built quite lightly, very different from your typical maritime wooden hull. A classic ocean-going hull was built super-strong, of heavy oak with very dense framing and lots of cross-bracing. These hulls were essentially rigid and didn't need additional trussing beyond the hull itself. But that's because they were deep-water vessels. 
 
Classic North American riverboats operated on shallow rivers and in an economic context that required them to be cheaply built, including that fact that their service lives were far shorter than that of a typical maritime vessel. So their framing was much farther apart and built of smaller timbers, their hull sheathing was light and thin, and they couldn't afford much cross-bracing without making the draft too deep. Plus, their hulls had to be flexible because they were highly prone to hitting bottom, where a rigid hull would break. So all of this meant the hulls were lightweight and needed the extra trussing of hog chain systems to keep them in line.
 
Keith's vessel is operating on a reservoir but clearly derives its lines and design from classic North American riverboat design, with a shallow blocky hull made of wood that would require trussing to remain stable.

Yes, in square(ish) hulled riverboats, hogging is defined by the bow and stern sagging relative to the center. That's why it became called hogging, because it resembled the arched back of a hog in an era when everyone knew what a hog looked like. It's less an issue of hull shape than of uneven loading on the hull. This was accentuated in traditional sternwheelers by having the heavy wheel hanging off the far end of the stern while the boilers and engines were up near the forward end. So these vessels needed a robust set of hog chains (actually iron rods despite the name) running longitudinally. In sidewheelers it became especially necessary to use transverse hog chains because the heavy sidewheels hanging off the side would otherwise crack the hull down the middle. Hog chains were an absolutely necessary and extremely distinctive feature of standard North American riverboats until steel hulls came along.
 
In a perfectly rectangular and evenly loaded barge, you wouldn't need hog chains, but weight wasn't distributed evenly in powered riverboats.
 
Early railroad cars had the opposite situation, supported at the ends (by the trucks) and peak loading in the center. But the engineering solution was pretty much the same, because either way trusses help distribute loading across a span.
 
Keith's vessel is smaller than traditional riverboats, and also has a lighter wheel given newer metal technology, while the machinery is more amidships than on a "typical" vessel, but presumably the principle remains. Any wooden hull is subject to hogging and the weight distribution on his vessel is still uneven. And I agree that his photo shows a basic version of a longitudinal hog chain.

I should have added that the hogging problem was exacerbated by most riverboat hulls being built quite lightly, very different from your typical maritime wooden hull. A classic ocean-going hull was built super-strong, of heavy oak with very dense framing and lots of cross-bracing. These hulls were essentially rigid and didn't need additional trussing beyond the hull itself. But that's because they were deep-water vessels. 
 
Classic North American riverboats operated on shallow rivers and in an economic context that required them to be cheaply built, including that fact that their service lives were far shorter than that of a typical maritime vessel. So their framing was much farther apart and built of smaller timbers, their hull sheathing was light and thin, and they couldn't afford much cross-bracing without making the draft too deep. Plus, their hulls had to be flexible because they were highly prone to hitting bottom, where a rigid hull would break. So all of this meant the hulls were lightweight and needed the extra trussing of hog chain systems to keep them in line.
 
Keith's vessel is operating on a reservoir but clearly derives its lines and design from classic North American riverboat design, with a shallow blocky hull made of wood that would require trussing to remain stable.

I have a kind of addiction, and it is buying these plans, at times for no other reason than to stare and admire the lines of them for hours on end. I find them fascinating. 

This is one of my latest, it is a particularly beautiful 48th scale plan of the San Josef of 112 guns (reputed to once belong to Emma Hamilton) – and damn do those headrails look nice and simple to transfer into a kit version!
 
In the same tube, I also had an even bigger plan of Caledonia (120 – but rounded upper bow, so probably never do that one), and 2 for the old Roebuck Class 44 gun 2-deckers. Not sure if I shall ever use them, but I would like display all of them one day, if I can ever sell my house and move to somewhere that has the room in my workshop…
 

I made the aft davits but am waiting to install them so I don't snag them on anything. Then I added the gun port lids. I first made them according to the instructions, using supplied plugs that I planked on both sides. I started installing them but did not like the way they fit and looked on the outside or inside. So I then made them from two planks of basswood each and glued them into the openings horizontally. I then added the hinges and painted them black. The final step was to touch up the white paint around them.
 

 
You may notice that I repainted the fake gun port so it was all black, to match the real gun ports. This is the paint scheme shown in the AOS Beagle book.
 
I am now focusing on adding the details to the bow and stem. I started with the hawse holes which I made from two pieces of basswood each and painted white. I used a large sanding drum by hand to sand in the curve of the hull on the back. I will drill out these holes in the hull when the glue dries.
 

 
I am now working on the head rails and will have photos after I make more progress.

Main top stays in place. Couple of observations here: Making a mouse is an art beyond me. others have tried and they come out a little large. I decided to save time and just use the beads included in the kit:

I was correct that the main top stay can be assembled off the model and installed. No problem there. Can't be done with the preventer stay as it has to pass down through the fore top and won't fit if the fiddle block is on the end of the stay. Found that out the hard way. Anyway, they are both ultimately secured to hooks and eyes at the foot of the foremast. Try and find them in this forest!

As to the main topmast stay and preventer, I'm going to try something different. The plan calls for a double block at the end of the stay where in goes to the deck. My muse (Delf), has substituted that fixture with a fiddle block. I don't know why, but I have about 15 fiddle blocks that I got from Chris way back when, so I don't remember why I bought them. Un any event I thought i would follow Delf's example and use a fiddle block there at the end as well. Also, I think I can assemble the main top stay off the boat and then attach. Maybe a little easier? Main top stay goes first because it runs through a block attached to the foremast below the hounds whereas the preventer stay goes through a block attached above at the doubling. Notice the block with the hook in the upper left. Its lanyard needs rigging through the fiddle block and then the whole assembly can be mounted on the ship.

I also struggled with how to splice smaller lines and what I ended up doing was adding dowels to the end of two alligator clips. The dowels can then be slid through the holes and the second set of clips can then be used on the dowels to hold them the correct distance apart. I made a short one and a long one so I could use one or both of them depending on how much line I needed to serve.
 
This allowed me to serve very small pieces that I needed to have the holding points much closer together. I was looking through my alert album and I don't seem to have a picture of it. I can take a picture later if you really want to see the actual setup, but the below drawing should illustrate it pretty well. The blue is the dowels, the red, the alligator clips and the green the line being served.

 

Thanks for the "likes" and attention. Trying not to bore you! There are many Speedy logs far better than mine. As I mentioned previously, my big challenge was in reconfiguring the hull to accommodate the aft cabin and quarter deck. I think I've done that, and the rest of this is just building out Speedy. Except that in the book there are references to royal sails. Gotta do that too. Anyway, one of my mentors (muses) is Delf from his log back in 2020-2021. One of his concerns is how to load the serving machine without wasting line. He splices extra line onto the end of the stay/shroud he is serving to cut down on the waste. I sympathize, and do it this way:

Just grab the end of the line with an alligator clip, no need to wrap line around the nails! Maybe Chuck designed it that way to sell more line?
Next up, I've gotten the foretop stay and preventer in place:

We're looking at the preventer stay side. It comes down through the bees and ends aft in a double block (see crude arrow!). Then the fun part starts. There's a single block in that forest that has to hook on an eye in the hull. Took a bunch of tries, but I got it. On both sides!

Yes, in square(ish) hulled riverboats, hogging is defined by the bow and stern sagging relative to the center. That's why it became called hogging, because it resembled the arched back of a hog in an era when everyone knew what a hog looked like. It's less an issue of hull shape than of uneven loading on the hull. This was accentuated in traditional sternwheelers by having the heavy wheel hanging off the far end of the stern while the boilers and engines were up near the forward end. So these vessels needed a robust set of hog chains (actually iron rods despite the name) running longitudinally. In sidewheelers it became especially necessary to use transverse hog chains because the heavy sidewheels hanging off the side would otherwise crack the hull down the middle. Hog chains were an absolutely necessary and extremely distinctive feature of standard North American riverboats until steel hulls came along.
 
In a perfectly rectangular and evenly loaded barge, you wouldn't need hog chains, but weight wasn't distributed evenly in powered riverboats.
 
Early railroad cars had the opposite situation, supported at the ends (by the trucks) and peak loading in the center. But the engineering solution was pretty much the same, because either way trusses help distribute loading across a span.
 
Keith's vessel is smaller than traditional riverboats, and also has a lighter wheel given newer metal technology, while the machinery is more amidships than on a "typical" vessel, but presumably the principle remains. Any wooden hull is subject to hogging and the weight distribution on his vessel is still uneven. And I agree that his photo shows a basic version of a longitudinal hog chain.

As @mcb noted in post #31 there is evidence of hogging in the original photo. This towboat has 1930's technology so I assume it was built around 1935 but the deckhand is dressed in bluejeans, teeshirt, and baseball cap which didn't come into style until the late 40's early 50's. The quality of the photo and the deckhands dress suggest to me the photo was taken about 1955. That would mean the vessel had been in service for at least 20 years.  

 
In the below photo is what appears to be an anti-hogging system. 
 
 A. Turnbuckle. 
 
 B. Large Clevis joint.
 
 C. Eighteen inch support post were the pipe/rod passed through hole drilled a the top of the post. 
 
 I assume the pipe/rod run below the waterline to the bottom of the hull. 
 
 
 Whether this design was in place when the boat was built or after hogging stated to stop any further hogging is anyone's guess. It's not much of a system compared to the designs we see in other paddlewheel vessels. It's another quirky piece in a likewise quirky boat. 

 
 Any thoughts are appreciated, thank you for following along,
 
   Keith

Thank you to everyone for the comments and likes.
 
 Page #3, post #68 helps to clarify my work in the below photos. 
 
The wheels are now permanently attached. What tedious work it was trying to replicate the piping used to keep the wheel shaft from moving side to side.
I used 24 GA annealed wire to imitate the piping.  
 
 

 
 The white thingies on top of the post are both working lights and stern lights. They're supposed to represent bare lightbulbs. Being fresh out of 1:120 scale lightbulbs I had to use belaying pins and paint accordingly. They are not glued in so I can change them out if I can come up with something that better resembles lightbulbs. It may require a trip to the basement and dig through Maggie's tubs of beads. 

 

 

 
 Work can now start moving forward in earnest.
 
 They used a design to try and prevent hogging. It took me looking at the photos another hundred times () to realize what I was seeing. More on this in the next post.
 
 Thank you so much to everyone for your support.
 
   Keith

I can only sleep in four hour segments. I went to sleep at 8:30 last night and woke up at 12:30 AM. I went upstairs and worked till 3:30 AM, went back to sleep and was up at 7:30 so it was all good. The problem is if I stay up and work until those early morning hours I sleep in late and then I'm unable to take care of Maggie.  

Thanks, Keith
 
 Thank you very much, Paul. 
 
 Thank you, Bob. Guess who was working on their project at three this morning? 
 
 Thank you, Rick. 
 
 Thank you, Glen. Bless Rosanna's heart, I need to send her a big ole bag of Michigan corn silage.
 
 Thank you, John. I thought I did well on Lula's wheel so I was disappointed that the ugly duck's wheels didn't turn out better than they did. But they're now glued in place so all of that is in the rearview mirror. 

Great job Keith, Paddle Wheels have got to be the worst part of building these steam ships. Not looking forward to building the Klondike’s Paddle Wheel. 
 
John

Awesome, Keith!!  I showed your work to Rosanna and it put a big smile on her face!

Thank you to everyone for your kind comments and likes. 
 
 What a taffy pull it was getting the wheels built. For as long as it took I should be dancing a jig but alas, that's not the case. 
 
 The wheels are loosely placed as more work in the stern is required before they are glued into place but this little ugly duck now looks the part. 

 
 I poly coated the wheels to represent being wet.

 
 The buckets are 14 inches to scale but could have been a tad bit wider. 

 
 I did a poor job pairing the Amati ships wheels used for the  framework as evidenced by the port side wheels canted bucket. Not all Amati ships wheels are created equal. 
 

 

 
I'm not staying up until the wee hours of the morning working anymore so the pace it's going to be a little slower going.
 
 Thank you guys for your support by following along and being part of the journey.
 
  Keith

Eberhard, thank you for your kind comment regarding my health.
 
 Regarding the stoking system, I wasn't able to find anything  on this type of system. I had to rely solely on photographic evidence and clues. I detest ambiguities when trying to replicate a thing as it always takes three to four times longer to build rather than the simple monkey see, monkey do.