Roger Pellett

The rear side is ready for painting
Painted, some painted parts could be better. But that is for later..
With the general shape seems to be ok. The fore castle is on hold for a while.
First I will continue with the gun deck.
(And i forgot to drill the holes for the swivel cannons. I see now....

 
Current status

If one assumes, in line with the results of the investigation so far and with the present, general state of knowledge, that the Mediterranean methods together with its multi-arc frame construction (usually three) were only widely implemented in England at the times of Mathew Baker, i.e. in the second half of the 16th century, and that until then only the frame construction appropriate to the Northern European tradition, that is sporting just one arc (not counting reconciling or bilge sweep), but of variable radius, was employed, as shown in this presentation using the Mary Rose as an example, then this circumstance can be used to interpret perhaps more rationally and confidently other archaeological finds from this early period in a poorer state of preservation than the Mary Rose.
 
For instance, in the first volume of the Mary Rose monograph (Peter Marsden, Sealed by Time. The Loss and Recovery of the Mary Rose, 2003), on page 141, there is an interesting juxtaposition of cross-sections of two important wrecks dating from the “pre-Mediterranean” period in England on an equal scale — the Mary Rose 1511 and the so-called Woolwich ship (possibly Sovereign 1487). The assumption of design homogeneity in this early period, specifically the single-arc frame design, allows the breadth and its height of the Sovereign to be determined quite accurately solely on the basis of the modest surviving fragment of the bottom section of the hull (subject, of course, to its minimal geometric distortion), as demonstrated illustratively in the diagram below.
 

 

To show graphically what Martes had in mind, here is another diagram showing the possibility of girdling/furring, hopefully in a more realistic way, nevertheless, like the previous one laden with dimensional uncertainty so it should rather be taken as an illustration. As a reminder, as the draught of a ship increases (e.g. proves to be too great after launching and fitting out, which is particularly the case for warships), broadening the hull by girdling/furring should also raise the greatest breadth of the hull accordingly, so as to maintain the desired distance, usually 2–3 feet.
 
 

 
 

Did the Mary Rose have to capsize?
 
Apart from a better, or more prudent, vertical distribution of weights on the ship, a very effective and often used way to improve the lateral stability of ships sporting tumblehome was to increase their breadth. However, this does not mean increasing the breadth of the hull per se or by any means, but ideally this had to be done in such a way as to “maximise” the breadth above the draught line (typically 2–3 feet) while keeping it as intact as possible at the water level itself. This is shown in the diagram below (dashed lines). In this way, a dramatic improvement in so-called shape stability (as opposed to ballast stability) can be achieved. This procedure was called furring or girdling, depending on the structural way it was performed (for more on this see, for example, Cate Wagstaffe, Furring in the Light of 16th Century Ship Design, 2010).
 
In an archaeological context, such a case is exemplified by the so-called Gresham ship of the 16th century (for more on this see Jens Auer, Thijs J. Maarleveld, The Gresham Ship Project. A 16th-Century Merchantman Wrecked in the Princes Channel, Thames Estuary, 2014) and a graphic from this report specifically illustrates the essence of this commonly used solution for unstable ships on a concrete extant shipwreck. It is no coincidence that the Gresham ship also features a round hull section having a very narrow bottom, precisely as the Mary Rose 1511.
 

 

Remaining conceptual  frames (bottom & reconciling curves)
 
In the final stage of forming the conceptual frames, the botttom curves are joined to the lower breadth sweeps by reconciling sweeps (red), tangentially at both ends, with the reconciling sweeps starting from points on the line of the floor. Where needed, the straight bottom lines are completed by arcs, here all with a radius of 10 feet, the same as for the arcs of the bottom of both quarter frames. This, with the exception of the first frame, where this arc is also tangent to the vertical line of “keel”, and its resulting radius is about 6 feet 11 inches. The diagram also shows the geometric construction used to draw the last frame, which requires special treatment due to its position close to the specific sternpost/fashion frame assembly.
 
 

 
 
 
* * *
 
Reasons for the disaster of the Mary Rose 
 
Diverse, sometimes quite conspiracy-oriented reasons have been put forward as to what may have led to the ship's disaster in 1545. It is difficult to argue with theses for which there is no hard evidence in fact, however, it can be said with certainty that the very shape of the Mary Rose's hull is already quite unfavourable from the point of view of lateral stability. Without going into complicated explanations of a theoretical nature, this shape can be compared to a circular in cross-section beam floating in water, which, when set in motion, easily rotates around its axis.
 
In terms of Mary Rose's specific round cross-section, as long as the ship's centre of gravity was relatively low and the line of greatest breadth was sufficiently high above the water (seemingly 3 feet by design, which is quite a standard value), there was little danger, and the ship could even have excellent seaworthiness. However, with the reconfiguration of the artillery armament to be much heavier than the original, and in addition the embarkation of a battle crew of several hundred, together with heavy combat equipment, there must inevitably have been a significant raising of the centre of gravity of the entire ship, and worse, a simultaneous lowering of the greatest breadth of the hull to water level, which already ultimately devastated the lateral stability of the ship. Actually, it probably no longer matters how the gun ports on the Mary Rose were closed, directly by the gun crews or by someone else, for example on the upper deck. Vasa 1628 had the gun ports operated directly by gun crews, and still did not avoid disaster for the same reason.
 
Over time, the relationship between stability and the cross shape of the hull was better realised, and in 1643 George Fournier was able to state in his Hydrographie:
 
Although the practice [of employing round hull sections], which I described in the previous chapter, has long been and is still widely followed, quite a number of brave workmen, whether French, English or Dutch, depart from it for two reasons. The first, that such ships, being almost round, heel too much in the water. Secondly, because they usually have too narrow a bottom [which is precisely the particularity of Mary Rose – WG].
 
Below, a round hull cross-section from Fournier's Hydrographie according to the old manner on the left and on the right the shape according to the new manner sporting a wide bottom, laterally more stable.
 

 

A very strong El Niño has given us a record winter; much above average temperatures and almost no snow. As a result, the SOO locks intend to open several days earlier than planned. Noteworthy this past month was the recent announcement of the discovery of the SS Arlington sunk in 600ft of water off Lake Superior’s  Kweanee Penninsula.  Arlington, sunk in 1940 shares several similarities with Benjamin Noble.  Both were close to the same size and were designed for the pulp wood trade.  Both were built by the same yard (five years apart). Arlington was loaded down with a late season grain cargo.  Heavy seas washed off hatch bars, tarpaulins, and la least one hatch failed entirely flooding her hold.
 
Work since my last post involved assembling the hatch covers on a backing piece of 1/64” plywood and fabrication of the hatch bars.  Wooden hatches float, so hatch bars were fastened atop to restrain them.  These were pieces of 3” steel angle bolted at the ends to padeyes attached to the deck.  For the model I used 1/32” square brass wire.  At each tip, I soldered a short piece of I/16” brass tubing.  A #75 hole through the top of the tube will accept the simulated hold down bolt.  A fussy detail requiring a frustrating amount of time.
 
Roger
 

A wonderful job at a challenging scale, and the picture of the ship’s cat is priceless.
 
I see that you live in Wageningen.  Are you involved with the Hydrodynamics Lab (Towing Tank) there?
 
Corticine:  Someday, I intend to build a 1:32 scale model of a Royal Navy steam picket boat similar to those carried by Hood.  I have been aboard and photographed the boat operated by the Royal Navy Museum. As I expected, her deck is entirely exposed wood planking.  
 
Describing these boats, late Norman Ough has written, “The decks were usually covered with Corticine.”  There are, of course numerous photos of these boats on the web.  At least one shows lines running perpendicular from the steel deckhouse outboard to the rail.  This is where the crew’s feet would land when sitting on the wooden benches along the deckhouse top.
 
I would be interested in your thoughts and research concerning this.
 
Roger

Congratulations Craig and Keith! 😀
 
John

Lucky man. It's our 50th aniversary in later this year (December). Must remember the present or I may not make 51.

To John and both Keiths, my thanks for your thoughtful compliments.  I have been very fortunate to have had her support and interest for over a half century.
And for those folks who also checked in, we do really appreciate your endorsements. They serve to inspire the work and for me try to make the photos useful (and entertaining).
Craig (and Vicky!)

April 2, 2025 update:
Prior to permanently closing over the raised portion of the house above the forepeak,  I made provision for the speaker which is used to fool you into thinking this wee craft has a Gardner diesel in it.  A hole was drilled from below for the body of the speaker and a guard bent up to protect the projecting lower portion of the speaker whenever the PH module is removed from the deck.

The cabin top was then planked over with basswood, faired and sealed with 'glass/epoxy.  The next task on my list was to begin the construction of the window framing for the pilot house. Upper and lower plates (head and sill?) were laid out and shaped to lay above the curved vertical face of the pilot house.

The upright window jambs were fashion from some teak and made with tenons top and bottom.  Corresponding mortices were cut into the plates.
This somewhat wobbly construct was then braced up and glued together. 
When set atop it's future location, I realized an oversight on my part: the window framework tilted aft a bit rather than presenting  a vertical face to the elements.  For most of it, the tilt was not a problem but the after jambs had to ultimately be cut free of their tenons and re-aligned to vertical to deal with the doors. A yellow cedar header was laminated up and glued to the head plate, beveled to follow the curve of the overhead plywood from the main cabin.


The door framing was gotten out of some of that lovely Cuban mahogany and they were glued into place, reinforcing the re-positioned after window jambs port and starboard. As mentioned earlier, the whole pilothouse module is removable by lifting it out vertically.

And the next photo gives an idea of basic area of the interior of the pilothouse.  The final picture before I break this post up into two sections to keep it manageable shows the forward curved faces of the PH with a laminated moulding curving around the forward portion.  Then we will visit the interior of the house.

 
More to follow...
 

We also found that heading "uphill" (north) from California or Baja was very rarely an easy passage. We resorted to following the clipper route well offshore to get to Washington or British Columbia when sailing to minimize those tough slogs you mention.  Fortunately, we are now "anchor down" and when the storms come arcing in from the Pacific bringing strong winds and tumultuous seas, we are grateful to tuck into the library, by the fireplace while Ballou, the cat, sleeps atop my sextant case.

Thank you for the compliment.  There is definitely a recognizable "style" to the boats developed through hard-won experiences which must be capable of handling the often not-Pacific conditions. Since we had planned to use this craft for our liveaboard Pacific NW cruising home, the style seemed to make sense to me as her designer and it's also fun to develop for me, the (model) builder.

My Craig you have been busy. The internal detail contuse to impress. Old mahogany is so much better that the stuff on sale today and old furniture is a very cost effective source. I still have over half the mahogany dining table I paid £30 for 10 years ago. My guesses that it will see me out.

March 6, 2025 Update
During the weeks of February, the cabin top of the stern cabin was completed. The "flow coat" of epoxy and sanding filler was applied, scraped down and then block-sanded. 
 
The cover over the steps down into the stern cabin was fabricated, scribed to the curving cabin top, checked for proper angles and bonded in place.  The cabin top was then primed and painted.

The hatch was cut in the cabin top. Corner supports for the hatch were glued to the undersides of the beams and carlins.

A mahogany molding was fitted just below the transition from the cabin sides to the aft cabin top

 
And if you were laying down in the bunk when you took a photo looking forward, here is the current view with the hatch open:

Moving to the bow area, I decided to modify the fore cabin's original arrangement due to possible access requirements to the R/C wiring at the bus bar.  A cabin sole was mocked up with card and then cut from 1/16" birch plywood.  Then, card berth-shaped panels were cut out and temporarily tabbed together (after a fair amount of fiddling). A more thorough card joinery exploration followed and I feel that when the time is right, this will serve satisfactorily for patterning the actual birch ply construction of the V-berth area.
 

So, (finally!) work commenced on the actual pilot house unit.  R/C access drove the decision to build this as a vertically removable unit and a horizontal sole was cut out as the base on which to erect the structure. The forward face of the pilot house has a curved, upright shape, so I laminated a pair of "plates" to support the 1/8" th. vertical basswood staves which would form the face of the curve.  While the lower plate simply glued down in place onto the ply sole, the upper plate needed support while the staving was glued on. Some of this support was derived from the lower cabinetry for the navigation station /steering wheel structure while the after edges of the upper "plate"(carlin?) were supported on a pair of temporary card pylons. The quarter-circle hole will provide the entry down a curving set of steps (not yet built) into the fore cabin.

The faces of the pilot house joinery were paneled with 1/16" Cuban mahogany, a chunk of which was kindly gifted to me during my visit last summer with Roger Pellet. It apparently came from an antique bit of furniture which Roger collected many years ago and it has a lovely grain and color. My thanks to Roger!

At the forward end of the pilot house structure is a lower portion of the house for deck access, ventilation and light to the fore cabin below.  The curving face of this extension was built up with staving similar to the main portion of the pilot house and the sides fair back into the line of the pilot house sides just forward of the location for the (future) pilot house doors P&S. 
 
Along about this time, while making up a card template for these PH doors, I noticed an error by the designer:  The doors, as drawn would have been all of 5'-6" tall. (I had a few choices thoughts for the designer's ineptitude) .
So the boatbuilder conferred with the designer and *we* agreed to a solution:  Raise the height of the pilot house sufficiently to provide for 6'-3" (scale) doors.  While this modification was ongoing, hanging knees of AYC were glued in place to support the 1/16" ply extensions as well as the the sub-ceiling above. The vertical panel at the upper aft end of the pilot house was glued in to tie the raised cabin sides together with the correct rake.
(The designer slunk off, mumbling about, "nobody is perfect! ...Sniff...)
Onward.  Rummaging through my parts bin, I located the ship's steering wheel and temporarily mounted it in place to check for sufficient clearances from the joinery.

To finish up this post today, here is an image from just forward of the future pilot house windows, looking aft into the as-yet un-built main cabin. 
Apologies about the various wires photo-bombing the picture.

Thanks for looking in.  I do appreciate your support and comments.
 
Until again,
 
Craig
 
 
 
 

I had NO idea this mini-project would spark such interest in the esoterica of grain elevators! And it's sparked me to read up more on the subject than I ever thought I would for what's nominally a minor background structure in a much larger project. But this also shows why people get drawn into model railroading; it encompasses such a wide area of intellectual interest that there's something for almost anyone.
 
Yep, that's the Katy Trail all right. Glad to bring back memories!
 
Yep, we hardy pioneer stock have frontier innovations like basements and spare bedrooms! Wait until I share the full track plan, this is about 20% of it.
 
I would guess steam. We had steam-powered mills and other industries by the mid-1800s, so it's easy to imagine even a small-town elevator in 1900 having a simple power plant running a coal-fired boiler or some such. The interesting thing is I don't see direct evidence of it in the photos I have, but it must be there somewhere. Maybe hidden behind the hay barn? (more on that in a minute)
 
My initial impression was that grain was still handled and delivered locally in bulk, but I can't prove it. Obviously grain could be shipped in sacks, as seen in the photos of Peerless loaded down with grain sacks, but it wasn't done this way on railroads in 1900. So I can't say whether the steamboat-borne grain was sacked and farm and brought to the vessel, or brought to a central receiving point and sacked there before being loaded on the vessel. So the same would apply to this elevator; maybe local farms were sacking grain for local transport and the sacks were just getting emptied into a chute at the base of the elevator. Most resources I can find online "start" well after this era, with more modern technology, and I'm having difficulty finding details for earlier periods. As for the ramp, it's possible, but a close look at its geometry suggests that it doesn't reach the full second level until well behind the elevator (look closely at the image without a ramp roof), so it'd be an awkward delivery point to shuttle the grain (sacked or otherwise) from there back to the elevator. And why would they bother, when ground-level (or below) delivery was ubiquitous in most elevators?
 
This leads to a broader point. My impression is that the elevator was built first, then the hay barn tacked on shortly thereafter. My main argument for this is how the two parts of the structure have very different siding; they LOOK like two different buildings, rather than one unified structure. The elevator has very smooth siding, like plain boards, while the hay barn has what looks like a coarser board-and-batten pattern. That's certainly what I did on the model, to recreate the effect of the two looking different. But I can't prove their relationship. The relevance here is that if the elevator was built first, it may have had to rejigger its receiving area (which would likely be on the back side of the structure based on normal American practice), where the hay barn ended up. But no inspection of either photos has turned up anything I can clearly identify as the steam plant (e.g. a smokestack) or a clear delivery point for wagons. 
 
Basically all this is a shrug, as interesting as it is, because I can recreate the physical appearance of the trackside part of the building pretty accurately based on the two photos, and the rest is fun esoterica but doesn't affect the actual model. What matters most is that it looks right in the background and acts as a place for local freights to spot boxcar traffic.
 

While I'm most known on MSW for my scratch-built Missouri River steamboats (see signature links), my interest in transportation along the Missouri River extends to that great rival of river traffic, railroads. So I'm taking a break from steamboat modeling to build at least one module of a possibly larger model railroad depicting the route of the Missouri, Kansas, & Texas railroad along the Missouri River valley in central Missouri, ca. 1900, complete with at least one river scene featuring a contemporary steamboat.
 
MK&T passenger train along the Missouri River, ca. 1900 (State Historical Society of Missouri):

This will be a typical build for me in that it'll be laced with details of local history and geography that set a context for the models. As a former model railroader who transitioned to shipbuilding for a while, I'm finding that I miss the ability to set models in their full context. Most ship models end up sitting passively on a shelf, while a model railroad allows one to actually operate the model realistically through an entire landscape. As a geologist and naturalist who's lived in this area for almost 20 years, I have a strong connection to the Missouri River valley, having extensive experience hiking among its hills, birding within its floodplain, biking along its corridor, and paddling beneath its bluffs.
 
Mrs. Cathead on a shared river trip; these are the same bluffs shown in the next photo below:

 
The Missouri River's route through central Missouri is far more scenic than outsiders with a "flatland" view of the Midwest might suspect. The river follows a 1-2 mile wide gorge lined by limestone and dolomite bluffs towering up to 300 feet over the floodplain. Rail lines built along this corridor were forced to hug the valley walls by the huge river's constant meandering, making their routes often look like overdone model railroads with straight bluffs absolutely dwarfing the trains below. The Missouri Pacific built up the valley's south side in the mid-19th century, while the MK&T (more commonly called the Katy) built down the north side in the 1890s.
 
MK&T main line squeezed between tall limestone bluffs and the Missouri River, ca. 1912, same bluffs as above (State Historical Society of Missouri):

This project has been in the planning stage for several years, and directly influenced my last steamboat build, the Peerless, a small steamboat that operated on the lower Missouri River between St. Louis and the small central Missouri town of Rocheport. I built that model at the common model railroading scale of 1:87 (HO) to allow for its possible future inclusion on a diorama or layout depicting this region.
 
Historic photo of Peerless (State Historical Society of Missouri) and model version for comparison:


The immediate focus of this build is the scenic river town of Rocheport, framed to west and east by some of the most dramatic bluffs anywhere along the lower Missouri, and home of the only tunnel anywhere on the Katy system. This was a major river port in the pre-Civil-War era, and was the upriver home port for Peerless during its 1893-1903 operations on the river. The Katy built through Rocheport in the mid-1890s, meaning the two co-existed for nearly a decade, the perfect hook for a steamboat-and-railroad enthusiast.
 
Rocheport in the early 1900s, as seen from bluff tops to east and west (State Historical Society of Missouri):


Today, Rocheport is a popular tourist town, known for its B&Bs and nearby vineyards, and brought to prominence by its central location along the 240-mile Katy Trail. This is Missouri's cross-state rail trail that follows the old MK&T line (abandoned in the 1980s), and is the longest continuous rail trail in the country. I've cycled the entire length, but like many people, am always drawn back to Rocheport's incomparable scenic setting. The trail also makes modeling the MK&T in this area particularly attractive, since the right-of-way is unusually accessible!
 
Rocheport tunnel and river bluffs (same bluffs as other photos) along the modern Katy Trail:

There's a lot more background information to share, and construction has already started, so this log will work to catch up on past progress while continuing to explain the design, purpose, and context of the project. It's going to be wordy for a while but there's also lots of neat imagery to share. I didn't initially intend to track this with a build log, looking forward to being freed from the tyranny of photography, writing, and reporting. But I'm finding that I miss the community that develops around a build, and I think there's a really neat historical story to tell. And writing about one's work can sometimes help clarify or altering thinking about a project in ways that being too lone-wolf can miss. So welcome aboard!
 
One more historic photo, and three shots of the layout underway.
 

 


 

I checked two contemporary sources.  Wilson’s Practial Shipbuilding- 1870 and the 1866 Ordnance  Instructions.  I also checked Arming of the Fleet by Tucker.  Other than a  mention of Deck Circles nothing is said.
 
This lack of information does provide some circumstantial evidence about them.  Wilson’s book discusses bolts securing gun tackles in great detail.  It also includes rules where equipment mounted on deck required mortising of deck structure. These thru hole fasteners and deck modifications were apparently considered to be part of the ship itself and therefore under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Construction and Repair.  Arming of the completed ship was the responsibility of the Bureau of Ordnance.
 
If the deck circles did not require modification of the ship, there was no need to provide information about them in a shipbuilding text.  This leads me to agree with Wefalk that these deck circles were laid on top of the deck and screwed down  with large flat head wood screws.
 
As a practical matter mortises into the decking and thru bolts would have been a source of leaking and rot.
 
I believe that American practice was wrought iron deck circles laid on top of the deck and secured with large flat head deck screws.
 
Roger

Although US Navy aircraft carriers are prominent features of WW II operational histories and battle accounts very little seems to have been written about the nuts and bolts of their construction.  (I don’t have Norman Friedman’s book so maybe I’m overlooking something.). This build really highlights the complexity of these vessels.  Well done!
 
Roger 

Hi Everyone, hope everyone that got big snow is all dug out. Thank you all for your Comments and Likes. I appreciate them very much. Slowly inching towards the bow with the bulkhead supports. The temporary blocks that align the bulkhead former are being replaced with permanent blocks that are glued in place and once dry are screwed to the build board again.
 

 


 

 

 


 

 

 
I picked up some 6-32 brass insert nut from Lee Valley. They are mounted in a block which is made from 3 layers of 1/8” basswood plywood. All together there will be six of these blocks to hold the model to its base. These blocks are also used to temporarily hold the model to the build board again.
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
The last bulkhead that extends up to the cabin deck was squared up and braced.
 


 
Now it’s on to the main deck 
 
 


 

 
Fairing has started but still lots to go.
 

 
Thanks for dropping by and I hope to see you soon.

Austin,
 
Thanks.
 
I would appreciate any photos you want to send. The sort of things I will be researching is the planking on the bow forward of the deck house, any evidence of a bell or flag bag on the aft side of the O1 level deck house forward of the funnel, etc. Anything that looks original. And I would like to see what you have done with the open bridge and pilot house.
 
I can't find anything in the blueprints about wooden pegs in the planking, so that might have been done some time after the ship was built.
 
However, I do have a hypothesis based upon the photos you sent. The hull originally had double layer planking for the entire hull, but it had a third layer of 3/4 inch red oak planking from 11 feet above the base line (about even with the discharge ports right above the waterline) down to the keel. This outer layer, or sheathing, was attached with 1 1/2 inch long No. 16 flat head wood screws spaced on 4 1/2 inch centers. These screws have a shaft about 1/4 inch diameter.
 
In your photos I don't see any of this sheathing aft of the section of horizontal planking on the hull at the bow that provides protection from the anchor when it is being handled. It looks like most of this third layer of sheathing has been removed. If so, the screw holes in the remaining planking might have been filled with wooden pegs.

I enjoy reading the plastic modeling posts on MSW as you guys are real artists when it comes to subtle painting effects.
 
I would like to try your scheme on my current project, the Great Lakes freighter Benjamin Noble .  It has a black hull.  
 
Is the white brush applied? Randomly?  Is the fan in the background serving some paint related purpose?
 
Any tips would be greatly appreciated.
 
Roger

Guy, if you have bought your Byrnes saw or (or any other mini saw with a 1/2 in miter gage slot), by all means buy the NRG’s thin rip fixture.  I just finished cutting 70+ hatch boards with my saw using this little fixture.  These boards are only 1/32” thick (1/2 mm?).  It made the job quick and easy.  Buy directly from the, NRG office.
 
Roger
 
 

Gunstock makers “whisker” the carved stock before applying a finish.  This involves nothing more than wiping down with a wet cloth and letting the stock dry.  The raised grain is then sanded off with fine sandpaper.  The cycle is repeated until whiskers no longer appear.  The same principle could be applied with water based paints on a ship model hull.
 
Roger