leclaire

Keith, great question, and you're correct. Here's the engine layout from way back in this build:
 

Each wheel has its own engine, which could be controlled independently. For really sharp turns, one could even be reversed while the other stayed in forward, almost spinning the vessel in place.
 
This was a major advantage of sidewheelers over sternwheelers. On the other hand, the paddlewheels were a lot more exposed on sidewheelers, so took more damage from debris (sternwheeler hulls were more likely to deflect debris before it reached the paddles). Sidewheels were also less effective at backing the vessels off sandbars (when stern wheels were reversed, they sent a strong wash of water under the hull, helping free it). For these and other reasons, sternwheelers became more common on upper rivers or anywhere the channel was narrow and/or shallow. So it's especially impressive that Arabia made it deep into Montana since its design wasn't optimal for those conditions.

Well, the boats are done; you can read about that journey at the separate build log. Suffice it to say I'll never buy those kits again, but I got a workable result that looks good enough on the Arabia. They're not quite an authentic Ohio River yawl, but they're closer than a bluff-bowed ship's boat or a two-ended whaleboat. Here's one installed with its tie-downs; the davits will be added soon.
 

In order to letter the port wheel housing, I designed a stencil layout and had a friend's tech-savvy teenager make it on a 3D printer. This was a cool mini project and a fun way to involve someone else in the build. Here's the stencil taped on and ready for use:
 

I did some tests first on scrap wood. My initial plan was to use paint, but I couldn't get it to look right, so tried colored pencils and loved the result. So here's the hand-colored final version with red letters and black shading:
 

I think I could have made the lettering a bit larger, it looks too small on the final model although it seemed right during the design process. But I love the way the colored pencil gives an inherently weathered look.
 
Finally, I settled on a stand design after some experiementation. I liked the idea of a sediment-filled base to look like the river bottom, but none of my attempts at sieving natural sediment produced something that looked right to my picky geologist's eye. So I went back to the basic wooden stand idea, based on the one Kurt used for his Chaperon, and came up with what I think is a nice result. This is a Eastern Red Cedar base with Walnut trim, all wood harvested and milled here on-farm. She's now screwed onto the base, awaiting the final details, mostly rigging the davits and grasshopper spars. Really getting close now.
 



 

It floats - it's a nautical vessel.  An important one too.  I wonder just where it was used as most of the canal is cut through solid stone.  Looking at the drawing I think the vertical pole at the stern was a "spud" that could be lowered to hold the dredge in place and as you said it could pivot on the spud.  However spuds could only go up and down.  The piece of equipment that angles down off the stern (from what I can see of the photo) is probably part of the discharge tube for the material picked up by the dredge machinery and pumped to the stern and then deposited ashore or into hopper barges.  Sometimes dredges had discharge tubes that reached several hundred feet.
 
I will follow your build with great interest.   I am very interested in the canal and its history and have been on many tugs, towboats and barges on it.  I have done many models of tugs and towboats that operate on the canal.
 
I have 7 tons of stone from the building of the canal in my fireplace.  There were still piles of flagstone free for the taking n Lemont all the way to Lockport when my Father and uncle built this house in the early 50's.  Also have retaining landscaping walls of the flagstone.
 
Kurt

The first boat is finished. With the hull done, the rest was pretty straightforward. I sanded the outside to a reasonable finish, though the planks are too thin to completely remove the clinker-like artifacts, and painted it white. Inside, I added more ribs (also using the planking shears for a consistent, if not attractive, appearancew). I used the thin planking strips for this, as the 1/16" square stock is way too thick to look realistic and got crimped down to the narrower thickness during bending anyway. I then laid a new floor of three planks to hide the ugly braces they tell you to add along the keel for planking (unnecessary in my opinion), then added various seats and details. I then carved rails from the wider stock supplied in the kit. Internal coloration used careful washes of thinned paint and/or dry rubbed pastels. Final details involved making oarlocks and something for the boat to sit on. I didn't add the rudder or make oars as I'm going to say these were stored out of the weather. See four photos below of the finished boat, including one of its intended final location:




So that's done. But don't change the channel just yet! Coming up next, I build boat #2 using the various lessons I learned from boat #1, to see if I can get a better result and a smoother set of instructions for others. I've already identified several improvements that are working well as I get started on this. When it's done, I'll write up a concise and comprehensive set of suggestions for anyone who decides to tackle one of these despite the warnings.

Hello all! Thank you Bob and Dave for the kind words. This has obviously been a very strange year. Earlier, I was hard pressed to find much time for building, but with the current lockdown I have gotten the shipyard running yet again. Most recently I have just finished cleaning up the cap rails. From here, I'm not entirely sure what I will do next. I think it may finally be time to confront what I have been avoiding for a long time......... staining day . Wish me luck. I've got an airbrush to apply it with, so we'll see how it goes. In any case, I'm glad to be back and I look forward to building the rest of this ship alongside your much appreciated guidance! Here are a couple photos of the cap rail dry fit. It's going to be a challenge to glue it on while keeping the run looking right. Also, I've noticed that some of the holes for components above the cap rail overlap with some of the bulkheads. I hope that doesn't become a problem....

You did a great job, Eric.  I tip my had to you as I think you're one of a very tiny percentage to actually get one of these done and looking good.

Eric,  
 
I feel your pain on these. Several years ago I built these particular “lifeboats” for my Flying Fish. More than once I was ready to launch them into the never while trying to get the ribs formed around the formers. What I ended up doing was taking three strips of thin stock, soaking them in warm water for an hour or so and applying three layers around the former to “laminate” them. This worked perfectly to get the right shape. After making four of these for this build, I swore I wouldn’t make another one. For my Chaperon I built the MS  kits that have the stackable layers that you sand to shape. These worked better and with less frustration. The only drawback to these is the seats are thin and susceptible to breaking. That’s why I mounted mine keel up. The overall look is good, the layers give the look of planking. 
 
-Brian 

This is the kit that just keeps on giving. Here’s how I overcame the latest challenges

Build board assembly

This boat is meant to be built upside-down, with the tops of the formers glued to a build board to hold the ribs and keel stable while planking. This is sensible, and matches other small-boat kits I’ve built, but once again poor design and instructions get in the way.

The instructions tell you to glue four sets of square stock to the build board, 1” apart, between which the rib formers will sit. Problem is, they use the same instructions for all different size boats, so odds are 1” isn’t the right spacing. Luckily, I was forewarned by a previous build and probably would have checked that anyway, but it would be an easy mistake to make. This an example of poor design, because you need the formers to be spaced exactly as they are on the keel to keep the ribs straight, and any filing you might have done to widen the slots in the keel could change that spacing. Also, you're better off gluing on the formers first, then adding the stock, rather than the stock first and hoping the formers fit. This is especially true as the ribs change shape and width during bending, so they're not the same width as the formers by the time you're ready to do this. Therefore, I decided to glue on the #1 former, add stock around it, then measure the rest physically using the actual keel.

This let me discover another problem: the stem is too tall for the assembly! When you try to invert the keel and slide it down onto the rib, you find that the stem hits the build board well before the rib enters the notch! Also, the solid bow former that they told you to glue in place right away is also too high, and hits the square stock before the keel notch can settle onto the rib. Thank goodness I started with only #1 and didn't follow the instructions. Both problems can be seen below:


 
I gave up on the build board at this point and decided to put the rest of the rib formers in by eye. At that point, I found that I had to refile the slots in the keel, because the ribs had widened from soaking (and possible crimping while bending), so the slots were once again too narrow. Of course, despite being very careful and doing this with gentle pressure on a solid surface, I broke the keel at slot #2:


 

I decided that glue alone wouldn’t fit such a delicate break, so figured that maybe gluing it together with the rib would be better. So I set up a temporary “build board” on a metal square using clamps, and glued formers #2-4 into their slots (while regluing the broken keel). I aligned these by eye, which I think worked pretty well under the circumstances:

I decided to leave out former #1 (it should be where the foremost clamp is) because (a) it’s glued to the build board now and (b) it creates a really sharp turn in the planking at the bow, which I’m suspicious of. I want a narrower bow, both to avoid planking problems with delicate materials and because that would look a bit more like the boat I want (a riverboat yawl rather than a maritime ship’s boat). I then glued frames #2-4 to the original build board, leaving #1 in place on its own until I bother to chip it off:

This, at least, gives me a sensible place to start from. There's some really delicate fairing to do and I'll probably add more bracing between various formers. We'll see what new excitement comes in the next chapter.
 
Thanks for the various comments from folks who've tried these. I hope you'll stick around as I struggle through. I already have several ideas for how to adapt the second one to be easier and better and will log that too.

If there's one rule about Western River steamboats, it's probably "never say something didn't happen".
 
I also found a drawing in an old Time Life book of the Far West that shows her grasshopper spars being hooked onto the rigging from the poles (rather than actually rigged together), implying easy potential for removal if necessary. That's a detail I haven't seen anywhere else due to photo resolution, etc. I think I'm going to copy that for Arabia as it's a nice touch and also makes the rigging a little easier!

Roger, I assume you're referring to this post? I can see the spars on the main vessel but the others seem cut off. Is there a wider version of the photo? Certainly good evidence that the practice was used wherever necessary. 
 
As for the lock/dam building, thanks for looking that up. Very interesting and quite different from the situation on the Missouri, where the first dam wasn't completed until 1940 (primarily for flood control) and serious channel modifications commenced from there. However, prior to that, there was an ongoing effort to improve the channel by pulling snags and so on; do you know how early efforts like that happened on the Ohio? I would assume that things like dredging and channel modification started well before actual lock/dam construction, which would reduce the problems with bars to a certain extent. Just theorizing, though. I can easily believe that all upper tributaries along the Ohio remained shallow-water rivers requiring some use of sparring until navigation was either improved or abandoned (which I'd bet happened earlier than along the Missouri given the relative pace of development for competing things like railroads).
 
So much to know, so little time.

Eric,  
 
Very interesting information. I’m looking at the photos of your last post, they almost confirm my initial thoughts that the grasshopper rigs served a dual purpose.
 
I look at the riggings on the Far West and see that there are one set of blocks and tackle attached to the sparring poles for hopping sandbars and possibly assisting with pushing away from shore. Just down from that there is a second block and tackle rig that looks like it could be used to manipulate cargo as well as set the landing stage stretched across her bow. The Mary McDonald has a similar rig set up on her as well. Again, this is just my limited knowledge speaking. I love to delve into things that fascinate me but I know little about. 
 
What would really be interesting is to actually see these rigs in action. I’d love to take a short trip back in time to take a ride up/down river on one of these boats and see how they actually operated (hopping sandbars and all). I’ve ridden on several modern day steamboats (Natchez, Samuel Clemens and Delta Queen), but they are not much different than taking a River cruise in a regular boat with the exception of the thumping of the paddle wheel. Just the smell of the burning coal (or wood depending on the time and location) and the ruggedness of the expanding western frontier. Ahh to be born a hundred years earlier. 
 
-Brian

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.