leclaire

Funny you say that, as I was studying photos and such yesterday I was looking at that as well and wondering what it was for, given that it seems to serve no functional purpose controlling the pole itself. All the accounts of grasshoppering I've read mention of only the bar-hopping purpose of the setup, but that omissions doesn't mean the poles weren't also used for something else. One question I can't answer, though, is what happened to the actual spars if you did that. They seem rather large, heavy, and awkward to leave hanging from the pole while you were swinging cargo or some kind of landing platform around, yet taking them off would be a major task. I've always seem them presented as left rigged and ready (hanging at the sides of the bow for immediate use), so it would seem really awkward to derig them every time you made a landing somewhere. See the St. Louis photo, where all the spars are hanging in place.
 
Note that in the second Mary McDonald photo, she has a stage/platform out to the bank on the port side but the grasshopper poles are still rigged, and there's no sign of the port pole being rigged to the platform or otherwise in action (it's in the same position as the starboard one). I'm also not convinced that I can see the secondary rigging on the poles that's so clear on the Far West, just the main rigging for the spars.
 
The real answer is I just don't know. Anyone else have info or perspective? There's so much to know, and there are so few details as most contemporary people took stuff like this for granted, weren't interested in documenting it, or weren't capable of doing so. I'd love to have another life as a historian to just dig up and read every contemporary account of steamboat travel to try and find nuggets like this, but they're really hard to search for from an amateur setting.

Eric,
This is just steamboat lore.  No bearing on the wonderful model that you are building.  It does apply to our understanding of steamboat head rigging.
 
I did some research and learned that the lock and dam system required to control water levels and navigation depths on the Ohio River was not functional until the late 1920’s.  These improvements were the responsibility of the Federal Government, and subject to uncertain Congressional appropriations.
 
On the other hand, work on the Ohio River tributaries was done much earlier, particularly on the Kentucky side as these were funded by the state or by private river improvement companies that either charged tolls or gained a monopoly on a particular trade route.
 
Of particular interest is the Green River that flows from Bowling Green Ky and emptied into the Ohio near Evansville Indiana.  This was improved by various investors from the mid 1800’s with some at different times squeezing all other competitors from the River.  In the late 1800’s the state of Kentucky took over and built a series of publicly funded locks and dams.  This work was completed in 1906 and the first boat traveling up the river was the Chaperone.  This route from Evansville up the Green River to Mammoth Cave was popular with tourists.
 
Now the head rigging-  I have a picture of the Chaperone on the Green River.  She does not have grasshopper spars, or the two masts aside the cabin, and her gangway is suspended from a single mast on the centerline in classic steamboat fashion.  Since most of trip was on an improved river she had no need of shallow water gear.
 
On May 12, 2019 I posted an old photo of the steamboat Car of Commerce, at the Cincinnati landing in the 1850’s.  There are actually two other sidewheel steamers in this same photo.  All are rigged with shallow water gear- grasshopper spars suspended from masts on either side of the cabin, needed for the unimproved Ohio River.
 
Roger
 
 

Rereading Alan Bates' Steamboat Cyclopedium in preparation for setting up the grasshopper spars, I noticed a detail that may explain some of the uncertainty about the use of spars on the Missouri vs. other rivers like the upper Ohio. Bates gives a drawing of "the manner of using a spar to lift a steamboat off a shallow place". He assumes that the steamboat has a central derrick (like that used for stages or cargo, as on Chaperon) that is used to drop a loose spar in place along the side of the bow. This is then rigged to the capstan, which hauls on the spar uses it to lift the boat over the bar. He shows a very short spar that would presumably only be set up when needed. This couldn't have been a permanent setup as the derrick had other uses, so must only have been done occasionally.
 
This is very different from what I think of as the Missouri River design, in which boats have two permanently rigged spars (one on each side), with their own dedicated infrastucture, that are ready to use at a moment's notice and often. Here are proper grasshopper spars on the Far West (image from a model in the Smithsonian). Note the dedicated boom and permanent rigging for each spar, but no central derrick for cargo or a stage:
 

This doesn't mean such a system couldn't have been used on the Ohio or other rivers, but I've always seen this described as a Missouri River feature. It makes sense to me that when bars were not a permanent and constant feature of the system, boats might have used Bates' temporary system instead. In other words, "sparring" over bars happened anywhere shallow water occurred, but a permanent infrastucture dedicated to routinely hauling boats over bars may have been relatively specific to the Missouri (and possibly similar rivers like the Red and Arkansas). Just a theory, as I can't seem to confirm this, but it makes sense to me.
 
I'm not sure when the proper "grasshopper" system was first developed, but this image dated to 1853 clearly shows grasshopper-equipped steamers at the St. Louis landing (image from the Missouri History Museum):

Thus it's easy to assume Arabia (built in 1853) had grasshopper spars by 1856, especially once she was transferred to Missouri River service. Here are two more views of the typical system from the Mary McDonald, one of my references for this build (from the University of Wisconsin collection), which was built in St. Louis in 1866 for the Missouri River trade.
 


 

It certainly makes sense that low-water conditions would occur in various places, especially by late summer. Given that, it's still the case that the Missouri River was unique from the others in being especially shallow and sediment-dominated with multiple narrow channels braiding together (rather than one main channel defined primarily by bedrock, as in the Ohio basin), and especially prone to low-flow conditions given its arid drainage basin. There's a noticeable shift in annual rainfall across roughly the Mississippi River. For example, at a chestnut-growing conference I attended a few years ago, it became very clear that growers east of that line (Ohio, Michigan, Indiana) saw no need to use irrigation in their orchards and everyone west of that line (Kansas, Missouri) was shocked that they didn't.
 
It's also worth noting that Arabia was built before the true "Missouri River" style of steamboat was developed. By the 1870s, when the Ohio and Mississippi were well on their way to being tamed, the Missouri (especially the upper river) was still in its native form and very hard to navigate. So a style of boat developed with a "spoon" bow that was especially good at sliding over sandbars and pulling up onto (and off of) banks, a low superstructure to deal with high winds, and little to no guards extending beyond the hull to make narrow channel navigation easier. Arabia is basically an Ohio River boat taken into a very different and much rougher river. Look at something like the Far West to see what a proper Missouri River boat looked like.
 
As with any such discussion, we're trying to simplify really complex natural and human systems into a few paragraphs. A whole book could be written about the geologic and geomorphic differences between the very diverse basins in the Mississippi system and how that influenced steamboat navigation and design; most steamboat books I've read only touch on the scientific backdrop to all this.

There's a short video on the Arabia museum's site that I hadn't seen before, introducing their search for the Malta (a Missouri River boat that sank way back in 1841). It's interesting in its own right, but it also has a number of still paintings and photographs showing how "gangplanks" were used on the shallow Missouri rather than stages to access the shoreline, with boats just run up against the sand.
 
I also did a bit of reading and found multiple references to sparring being used on the upper Ohio as well. Makes sense, once the water gets shallow enough, that sediment bars would form there too and force a similar need. But I still think it's accurate to say that grasshopper spars were a really diagnostic feature of Missouri River boats.

Beatiful work as always Eric. Nice solution for the post tops. if you wouldn't have said anything I would have thought they actually do extend through the deck.
 
So here is a questions that I though about while reading through your update. I'm really going to show my limited knowledge of steamboats here. 
 
Arabia has a jckstaff that her pilots used for navigation, and she has grasshopper arms for negotiating sand bars, I am going to go under the assumption that on boats like Chaperon that didn't have a jackstaff that the pilots used the landing stage boom as a navigation tool instead. Also, since Chaperon didn't have grasshopper arms I guessing that on the rivers she travelled, sandbars were not as much of a concern so they were not needed.
 
Now here is where I am going with this:
 
In looking at your painting of Arabia that you have at the first of this build, I noticed that with the jackstaff and the grasshopper arms, there is no landing stage or boom. So were the grasshopper arms used as a dual function, to hop sand bars as well as load freight and set the landing stage? or did they use some other method? My first thought was work boats (tinders) or landing barges, but it seems to me that these methods would not be very effecient.
 
Forgive me for the long winded question, I'm just trying to expand on my learning.
 
By the way, I know your heart lies in the steam era and Western Rivers, but you ought to take a trip back in time one day and build a fully rigged ship. They are lots of fun and challenging. Very time consuming (not that your Arabia hasnt been) but very fun.   
 
-Brian

Brian, great and insightful question(s). It's going to take an essay to answer them, which I want to get right, so I'll get back to you. Really short answer is that the Missouri had a unique combination of shallow water, variable flow, and a sediment-based channel that meant steamboats couldn't avoid or go around sandbars but had to go right over them, unlike the Ohio or Mississippi Rivers for reasons I want to take the time to explain properly but relate to the unique geology and climate of the Great Plains. I believe such spars would have been necessary on other rivers draining the arid West, like the Arkansas or the Red, but am not 100% certain whether they were used.
 
As for the landing stages, because the Missouri was shallow and sediment-based, boats usually just ran themselves up onto the shoreline and unloaded from a plank ramp set down (think a gangplank on sailing ships) because you couldn't get close enough to dry land to use a stage effectively. Stages were used in the more eastern bedrock rivers where you didn't want to run up onto the shore, or on the lower Mississippi where the water was deep enough that you could just pull up to a bank and offload by a stage. It was also more civilized down there, unlike the much rougher Missouri basin, where a plank would do nicely. Grasshopper spars could not be used as loading booms under normal circumstances, their sole purpose was to drag the boat bodily over a channel-spanning sandbar, often many times a day.  Another factor in loading booms was the kind of freight being carried. Big bales of cotton or other ag products might need a loading boom of some kind, but those crops were restricted to the middle-lower Mississippi and portions of the lower Missouri. Normal everyday cargo like barrels, crates, lumber, etc. were moved by sheer muscle power (sometimes slave, pre-ACW).
 
Arabia was originally built as an Ohio River boat, so may have had a stage at first, but if so that would have been removed once she was shifted by a new owner to Missouri River service and grasshopper spars would have been installed at that time instead. Chaperon didn't have grasshopper spars (a) because she remained in the Ohio basin and (b) because she came along late enough that channel modifications were already happening (like dredging) that ensured boats could navigate freely. Back in 1856, you were entirely at the mercy of the channel, especially far up the Missouri where the water was often only a few feet deep and snags were everywhere. Boats like Arabia quite literally slithered over channel-spanning bars like an otter, their hulls capable of flexing rather dramatically for those used to sailing vessels (one reason for all those hog chains was to allow for a flexible hull; a maritime hull would break its back in no time on the Missouri).
 
This is all simplified and was really more complex. For example, the lower Missouri takes on many characteristics of the middle-lower Mississippi (I don't doubt that boats with stages worked the lower Missouri).
 
Finally, Arabia is particularly unusual because few sidewheelers went up the Missouri beyond roughly modern-day Omaha, because they struggled with the shallow, snag-filled conditions of the upper Missouri. Sternwheelers were far better suited to these conditions. It's amazing to me that Arabia went all the way to Montana, even partway up the Yellowstone, as a sidewheeler.
 
Okay, that wasn't short at all, but there's so much more to say. Hope Kurt, Roger, or anyone else will correct me if I said something mistaken in my enthusiasm. Will try to write a more cogent explanation later.
 
As for fully rigged ships, the closest I've come was my revenue cutter (see link in signature), which was quite interesting. Maybe someday, but I have limited display space and sailing vessels just have so little relevance in the Ozarks. Believe me, I'd love to. I grew up near Lake Ontario and sailed quite a bit as a youngster, but ended up here as an adult so have adopted the maritime tradition of my new home. I do have a someday dream of scratchbuilding the brig Ontario, which sank in Lake Ontario and has had a very nice book (with full drawings) written about it.

I decided to use resin to embed the rudder bottom. Filled the slot half way with an eye dropper, than inserted the rudder slightly below the water surface. Added resin until it totally covered the slot and rudder piece. Seems to have worked out fine, I can't see any signs of the edges where I cut the slot. Next is to finish sanding the water and hull edges.

As is often the case, what I thought I'd do next wasn't what I ended up doing next. Instead of the capstan and grasshopper spars, I focused on other details. For example, I added strips of wood sealing in the edge of the main deck. For the curves around the bow and stern, these were soaked, bent, and dried, then painted while held in a jig so the paint's moisture wouldn't undo the bend. Worked pretty well. It's hard to tell the difference in photos, but they really clean up the deck's edges in person.
 

I added other bow details, such as the jackstaff and the curved bit of wood extending above the deck around the bow (no idea what this is called). The latter was tricky and took several tries.
 

I consulted various photos and drawings of different jackstaffs, then went within a design I liked. This would have been attached to an extention of the stem (coming out through the deck). Some were strapped on with iron; I chose to "bolt" mine on instead.
 
The jackstaff was not a flagpole but a navigation aid. The pilot could use this to as a reference point when sighting against faraway landmarks like ridges, bluffs, trees, and islands. The relative motion of the boat and jackstaff helped him judge the boat's actual movement in difficult navigational conditions. The red ball, called a "nighthawk", was placed roughly at the pilot's eye level as an additional reference point. Based on photos, some boats had rigging bracing the jackstaff and some did not. I added a bit, both for visual interest and for reasons explained after the next photo.
 

I also added support lines to the engine steam vents. As far as I can tell, like the jackstaff rigging, some boats did this and some didn't. I decided that Arabia, which navigated far up the Missouri River into the windy Great Plains (deep into Montana), would want the extra bracing in both cases. For similar reasons, I added "iron" bars bracing the vulnerable pilothouse.
 

Finally, I rectified an early mistake. The lower posts supporting the boiler deck should extend through the deck just a little. I didn't do that early on, so cut a series of short "post" stubs and glued them on top. Looks pretty convincing.
 
Pretty soon I'm going to need to build the final stand, as I'll want to attach her permanently to that before doing the most delicate work (like the grasshopper spars). I have a lot of well-cured cherry lumber in my barn that I cut here years ago, and think I'll try to put something together with that.
 
I ordered a few last details from Model Expo (like a bell and two boat kits), so whenever those arrive they'll help add some more details. That order also included my next project, which I'm already looking forward to. Having it in hand will encourage me to finish this model.
 
Thanks for reading. The end is now in sight, though it's weeks away yet.

Hi all,
   Final pours done. The draft ended up about 3/4", and the total depth about 1-1/4". I ended up using the whole gallon, about seven pours total. To facilitate handling the boat, I removed most of the furniture and cannons. I was lucky... the Tyvek and Vaseline trick worked, the only moderate resistance when I removed the boat was some suction (probably the Vaseline). As the final coat set, I poked and prodded it to simulate ripples and swells. After the resin finally sets (about 72 hours) I'll start with the gloss ModPodge to detail out the ripples and edges of the resin where it meets the boat. After that, I'll add the soil, foliage, trees and grass and touch up where the water meets the shore.
   Now that the hull is finally fitted to the base, I can start completing the boat. All the furniture, masts, fittings and cargo are done, and just need attaching. After that, I'll start rigging. I'm so happy to have achieved this milestone, I was so afraid the boat would be permanently stuck to the base... that would have been very bad...
 
Here's some pics... I like the sun reflections off the water on the hull.








 

Hey all,
The pours have begun!!!
   First, I put the resin in a sink full of hot water and let it sit for about an hour. I attached the dams, and Tyvek'ed the boat and dam sides. Then I put the base out in the sun to get good and warm. After everything was nice and toasty, I got all the stuff ready for the pours. I attached the boat to the base with three screws to keep it stable. Don't want it to float away!!!

 
   I started at 9 AM, hoping to get at least three to four 1/8" deep pours done. Most 1:1 epoxies (if it's a warm day, it's 80 deg F here, and sunny) can be re-coated in about 2 hours, so I hoped I could pour to the bottom of the rudder today.
 
   The rudder is a separate challenge, as I will have to cut off and embed the part of it that will be under water. I'll drill locating pins in the resin and also the upper part of the rudder so everything will align properly when the final pours are done tomorrow.
   
   Here's the procedure I followed (from the brand I used, but the method is similar for most 1:1 resins). First, I mixed up 4+4 oz. of resin to use as a seal coat. Measure by volume, and stir until the mixture is no longer milky. I then used a disposable brush to apply the seal coat over all the base that would be under water. I did find one small leak in the lower front corner, easily fixed by a toothpick pushed into the gap. When the seal coat was tacky but not sticky (use a cotton swab... if it tacks but doesn't pull cotton away it's OK for the next pour). For my first flood pour, I mixed 8 oz. of resin and tinted it a tiny amount with some green and brown mica powder. I poured some resin in all four corners of the river bed, and evened it all out with a craft stick and toothpick. I was lucky, the seal coat worked well and because all the materials were quite warm, I didn't have any major bubble trouble. The ones that did pop up were easily removed with a heat gun. 
   
   Doing four more 8 oz. pours, I was able to pour up to the bottom of the rudder (total pour depth so far about 5/8", or half way there). The resin is hardening nicely, even and smooth. The base did get pretty hot as the resin set, but it's cooled off with no apparent damage to the boat. The part I'm apprehensive about is the boat sticking to the base. In a few hours, I'll attempt to remove the boat, we'll see if all my precautions worked... (fingers and all appendages crossed...).
 
   Here's some shots after today's pours:




 

FINALLY!
   The base is done, and ready for the resin water pours. Two more sunny Florida days and it'll be dry enough for the resin. The trees, grass and foliage will be done after the water. I've got the dams cut for the front, left side and creek areas, and will be using Tyvek tape on the inner faces of the dams (resin doesn't stick to Tyvek, and if the tape is applied without wrinkles, will leave a nice, smooth clear surface). After the dams are in place (and securely sealed from resin leakage), I'll apply a "wet coat" of resin over the whole area that will be underwater. That way I hope I can catch any errant bubbles that are guaranteed to come out of the river bed and stone work, and get a feel for how this brand of resin works (Dr. Crafty from Amazon).
 
   After the wet coat, I'll be pouring to a final depth of about 1.25" I'm going to do about 3 to 4 pours, with the first ones tinted with a bit of green and brown mica dyes. That will add some murkiness and depth, with the rest of the pours clear. To simulate ripples atop the final pour, I'll use ModPodge gloss medium, worked with a brush and by blowing on it through a straw. There's tons of good videos on YouTube on how to do this.
 
   The tricky part is when the pours reach the bottom of the hull. The plan is to have the boat removable after the pours are done, so I'll have to "resin-proof" the hull. I'm going to use Tyvek tape and maybe some Pam cooking spray or Vaseline to make sure the boat will come out cleanly. I left myself a "get out of jail free" option by drilling three 5/8" holes in the black boat support piece on the base. That way if the hull sticks, I'll at least be able to push (tap...pound...I hope not) up from under the base at the bow, amidships, and stern to free it. When I do my wet coat, I'll experiment with different ways to resin proof the hull. I've never embedded anything this big, should be a real adventure....
 
Here's some shots of the Philly gently run up on shore... The final waterline will be about 3/4" up from the bottom.
 



 
Here's three shots of the base with all terrain forming and paint completed (I can't wait to get the water done, I'm so over working on this base...)

 

No, I based my detail on a combination of all the other Philly build logs on the forum and this awesome video I found on YouTube. (for some reason, the video starts in the middle...)
Video Tour of Philly II
It was recorded as a local cable show on WGOH in Plattsburgh in 1992. It's over an hour long and is painfully amateurish in a likable way. TONS of informative deck shots and a tour by one of the guys who built her.
Here's an idea for a crate (stole from a Tiger Tank kit) for the bar shot, and possibly I could drape the chain shot (if I use it) over a chest (suitably disguised as a chain shot holder).
 

I have tried three different ways of scratchbuilding scale boats and none have worked. Feeling rather frustrated. I just can't get them to form right using pieces small enough to look in-scale; my skills just can't seem to handle detail work at that level and I don't have a feel for the natural shape of a hull. Even a simple john boat is escaping me.
 
I did make some other progress by installing some more details along the superstructure and setting up the rigging for the main chimneys (below). The two small chimneys down the centerline would lead to wood stoves. The two taller stacks are the steam vents from the engines.

Two shots of the chimney rigging (below). I used a basic braided line left over from some kit. To make the attachments on the chimneys, I glued some old parrel beads from my revenue schooner. To make the attachments on the deck, I made thin wooden "clamps" (these would have mirrored similar planks below the deck, clamping together over the beams) and drilled small eyebolts into them (also left over from my revenue schooner). The line was white, so once it was tied and glued in place, I painted it black, hoping that would help stabilize it.


The knots came out a little coarser than I intended, but they match the overall quality of the build (don't look too closely). I know these are supposed to have turnbuckles but I couldn't come up with a way to simulate these at scale that looked better than leaving them out. I think the next step will be to start placing various details on the bow, such as the steam capstan and the "grasshopper" spars used to haul the boat over sandbars. Then she'll be getting pretty close to finished, other than those danged boats.

Bob, with the skills and imagination you have shown on this build, the rigging on the Philadelphia will be a piece of cake.
 
Bob

Bob, with the skills and imagination you have shown on this build, the rigging on the Philadelphia will be a piece of cake.
 
Bob

Take all the time you want with the base - I am enjoying this as much as the Philly itself.
Kurt

Thanks, Ken. I'm just about done, I've got enough extra for at least two more similar scale projects.
Yeah, the bones don't fall far from the tree, do they?
 
I made an EPIC SCREW-UP trying to use real rock on the base. Sure, it looks like rock (it is rock!) but "in scale" the rocks just don't cut it. Way too big and not fine enough detail. Also I had to "work around" the real rocks; compromising the overall layout of the base. My original idea was to cast the rocks using some Woodland Scenics silicone rock molds I have. I should have stuck with the original plan.
   So, out came the chisel and hammer. After about an hour of messy and curse filled pounding, I got the basic proportions back to my original concept. I cast up about four mold sheets (6 to 12 rocks per sheet) of layered rock that is typical of the area Philly sailed in. The rocks are universal scale, and the molds are really cut well with great detail. I used casting plaster for the rocks, and FastMache to attach them and blend everything together. I also decided to widen the feeder stream and provide a place for the gangway from the starboard bow to rest on the shore, and a path leading off the base. The above water part is now about done, it just needs to bake out a few days and then I can start adding color and detail. The riverbed is the last thing to finish. I still need to raise the elevation under the bow of the boat  some more and add shore rocks around the area where the riverbed meets the shore. I included a pic of the shore rock castings, it's pretty slick how they designed them to be run in various different courses.
 
   Here's some really ugly shots of the newly modified base, drying mache and plaster. I think this will look TONS better than before. Oh well, only wasted some mache, styrofoam and time so I consider myself lucky...
(BTW, I left one small real rock as a memento).




In process pics from a few hours later. I still have to raise the riverbed under the bow about 1/4" so the stem will appear to be run slightly aground. Added some shore and bottom rocks and did some more blending. The black rectangle in the center is the base of the boat, and the three 5/8" holes are to push the hull out after casting the resin water. More on that later. A couple of days in the sun,
and it'll be ready for finishing. Back to work on the boat.



 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Eric,
 
I don't think the Model Expo boats come in scales, just lengths. They leave it to the builder to get the correct size in relation to the scale of their build. One option you could go with if the scaling of features isn't right is to cover the boat with a tarp. I've seen this on several builds and it looks great.  The boat I used on my build I wasn't real happy with the way the insides looked so I just turned it upside down and mounted it keel up.
 
Just  a couple of suggestions. I'm sure with your expertise and inventiveness you'll come up with something that will definitely look great.
 
-Brian

Mark, I meant the scale of the craft overall. I can know that I need a boat that's X long in inches, but depending on how the parts are scaled it may or may not look right. For example, a boat with parts scaled for 1:48 just won't look right in 1:64 even if it's the right "length". And I can't find any info on scaling from MS; need to check out MK. The scanner idea is interesting but then I have a boat kit I don't otherwise need. For the moment I'm going to keep stubbornly experimenting for myself but I'll keep your idea as a backup.

No problem today, it's been raining steadily since last night...🌧️
   Because the higher humidity is slowing the base work to dry out, and the base work is delaying further work on the Philly, I went to work on some of the resin deck additions. I still have some touch up to do, and after everything dries I'll shoot them with Krylon matte tomorrow. They'll be scattered about on the deck with the crates, barrels and other stuff I've already completed. I have about 20 more to do, it seems like a lot but all this stuff will also be used on my next build, the 1:24 USN Picket Boat #1 (same scale).
Here's the first batch:

Added pic of stuff on deck (demo only... won't end up this crowded).
 
Slim found another keg of grog... What could possibly go wrong?  ... 
 

No problem with the images - fair use applies.
As to what kind of boat - it's up to you as I have seen photos of just about every type of small boat used on riverboats.  John boats were common as were the type you show.  I have seen photos with a mix of boats carried on the same riverboat.  They were work boats meant to service the big boat.  Some of the more prestigious riverboats certainly had matching boats but the smaller guys used what was available to them.  I don't think you can go wrong with either of the two you show but if I was picking a boat to make that was easy to make I would go with a John Boat - no curves, flat bottom and easy to make.

I managed two more steps this week. First was gluing in the chimneys, which was scary as now there's a much larger delicate feature to bump or snag. No photos of this because it doesn't look any different from past test-fittings. Second, I worked on the main deck stern railings. This was difficult because I needed the railings to hold the full curve around the stern without any other support as the boiler deck doesn't extend out over this. Here's an example of what I'm basing this on.
 
So what I did was build a basic jig that would hold the railings in the right curve while I (a) soaked and bent them and (b) painted them, as I've learned the hard way that painting makes thin strips like this lose a lot of their pre-bent curve.
 

This worked really well. After the initial soaking and drying, I painted them in place. When that was dry, I took them off and painted the small bits covered by the clamps and jig; this wasn't enough to lose the curve. Then I mounted three thick posts on the main deck using small pins, one at each end of the railing and one at the very stern. When these were solid, I mounted the railings, then went back in and added smaller spacing posts. Here's the results:
 


I think it came out nicely. Now I'm terrified of bumping the stern. Oh well.
 
I've also started thinking about the two yawls I'll need. These were a pretty distinct design used on the Western Rivers; there was some good discussion of these over in Brian's Chaperon build, such as here and here. Basically I need to build two 16-18' boats with a flat stern and a hard chine (no rounding between the bottom and the sides). In addition to the photos shared in the second link above, I found two relevant drawings of what these craft might have looked like, but these differ in one important respect and I'd like an opinion from the resident experts (look, I'm asking ahead of time for once!).
 
First, drawings of an Ohio River yawl from Howard Chappelle (sourced from Google Books). This has a fully flat bottom from side to side.

Second, a sketch of a riverboat yawl from Alan Bates (photo from a book in my possession). This has an angled bottom from side to side:
 

I'm not sure about posting these images as it technically may violate copyright, but I'm also not sure how else to explain what I'm trying to work out about these two designs. Happy to take them down in a moderator thinks it's a problem. Meanwhile, I'd like to better understand the difference between the two and which version might be better for me (and/or easier to build). Any advice/input?
 

I got some Woodland Scenics trees today (cool shade #TR3521) and couldn't resist test fitting them... and the Philly...
Pics:

 

Thanks, Ken. I figured Philly needed a "picture frame" to provide context and concept. This is the messy (and fun... like a four old kid type of fun...) part of the build, and Slim and I are both slinging plaster outside. I'm getting tanner, but I think Slim is just bleaching out.
 I've been breaking rocks today, I kinda feel I'm in an old prison movie. I was going to cast all the rocks on the base, but I ran across some rocks that with a little "mechanical excitation" look like they'll work for most of the rock work. I'll still do some rock casting, but not near as many as I originally planned.

Here's the main materials I use to do the terrain work. As mentioned earlier, I used Styrofoam for the coarse elevations. It's cheap, easy to rough form and doesn't add a lot of weight. The next pass is FastMache, kind of a blend of plaster and paper flakes. It works great for forming out the terrain, is light, has a long working time and dries hard. After I did this pass, while the mache was still workable I embedded some rocks and blended them in. I'll be using the casting plaster for some more rocks and detail, and The Durham's for the final pass before adding dirt, gravel, foliage, trees and other stuff. The hot melt glue gun is indispensable!

Here's some shots with the mache and rocks...