USS ST LOUIS by thorn21g - 1:24 - POF - Civil War Ironclad - Gateway Model Shipcrafter's Guild

[Gerhardvienna]

Great job on that boilers! Now I have a clue how they should look like.

All pics saved for further use.................

 

Regards

Gerhard

[johnhoward]

Attached are a few recent photographs of Bill's latest handiwork on our USS St. Louis Ironclad, [l to R: wheel for a coal wheelbarrow next to the previous wheels for the 12-pdr Boat Howitzer carriage, shovels & other tools in the fireroom, and the finished aft end of the boilers] Our modeling effort has been in a slight recess during August for vacations but should pick up again next month.

 

johnhoward

 

[kees de mol]

I really like these all American ships. And your build is impressive

[johnhoward]

Attached are the most recent photos of our Shipcrafter Team's, "USS St  Louis", City Class Ironclad model which primarily consist of a successful "dry-fit" of our partially completed brass paddlewheel with several of its thicker assembly jig boards still attached. When completed, it will include a "birdsnest" of thin rod cross-bracing between the four inner rings and all 17 "buckets". The actual paddle boards ("buckets") are inside of the larger paddlewheel ring (one is attached by its "U-bolts") as shown in the close-up photo. We are now working on framing for the skylight which covers the paddlewheel axle bellcrank and "pittman" arm attachment which penetrate the Hurricane deck. This demonstration allowed us to properly locate the two paddlewheel suppout ramps to achieve the correct paddlewheel axle location fore & aft while simultaneously achieving its proper vertical location which determined the depth of "bucket" penetration into the river water. Note that the paddlewheel is not in the center of its wheelhouse but further aft than center to achieve, in combination with the feed ramp, a smoother water flow to the wheel per "Pooks" original specifications. The starboard side of Hurricane deck houses have been roofed & sided, sliding windows are in place and the structural framing for the small attached sheds are also visible. Our brass models of the wheelbarrows for coal handling are based on late 1800's versions used for iron steamships. The 1:24 scale of this model allows us an exceptional amount of fine detail.

 

johnhoward

[BANYAN]

I am sorry I missed this so much earlier, a truly inspiring build.  I very much like the detail being applied; artisans at work :).

 

cheers

 

Pat

[Chasseur]

Just catching up and I must say this is a very sweet build indeed!

I love the detail you are putting into her.

Outstanding ... Jeff

[johnhoward]

Sorry we haven't posted anything for the last few months (due to computer problems) but we continue to make good progress on our "USS St. Louis" Civil War Ironclad project as evidenced by the attached recent photos. The paddlewheel is nearly complete and we are finishing up the "Hurricane" deck elements and starboard side deck planking; much of the port side will remain un-planked to expose the model sub-structure and internal components. We are now concentrating on the fore, aft, & side casements, after-which the Hurricane deck and its temporary aluminum support frame will be removed for completion of the gun deck.

 I hope to be able to provide more details soon.

 

johnhoward 

[BANYAN]

Nice detail John; that rudder is very solid looking.

 

cheers

 

Pat

[johnhoward]

Pat,

The twin rudders are surprisingly heavy especially in relation to their surprisingly flimsy looking tillers, but are based on their actual remains, recovered with the "USS Cairo" in 1963. Even so, they were reportedly relatively ineffective in controlling the ironclad on the rivers.

 

johnhoward

[BANYAN]

Thanks for the feedback John; that is some very nice 'smithing' on the metal parts. 

 

I am also coordinating a 'club' build but I don't think the quality of our work is up to your efforts.

 

cheers

 

 

[johnhoward]

Attached are a few recent photos depicting further progress on the wheelhouse and the framing for the ironclad starboard and aft casements. We are now starting the initial planning for modeling of the two main steam engines.

 

johnhoward

[BANYAN]

One word says it all - Stunning!

 

cheers

 

Pat

[johnhoward]

Attached are a few photos of our first unfinished brass version of the 42-pdr Rifle and Carriage with elevating screw, of which two were carried on the USS St. Louis ironclad. The other cannon in the proto are the 30-pdr Parrott & 32-pdr Smoothbore using our original 3-D printed barrel prototypes which will soon be replaced by machined brass versions. The USS St. Louis carried two 30-pdr Parrots and six 32-pdr Smoothbores. Not shown are the three 8-inch Smoothbores which will complete the main armament on the gundeck. 

 

johnhoward

[johnhoward]

Model Enthusiasts,

While building our detailed model of the "USS St. Louis" ironclad, two problems about its basic design have consistently bothered us: 1) How did a crew of 175 access the upper (Hurricane) deck ?,  and 2) How were stores, equipment and  provisions loaded into the cramped spaces of the lower hull?.  Attached are a few contemporary photographs of "City Class" Ironclads and comparable photos of our model which better illustrate this issue. The existing drawings of "City Class" ironclads only show a single hatchway in the Hurricane deck with a ladder down to the gun deck but it is inside of the pilothouse which has no exit onto the deck itself. There are several "so-called skylights" on the Hurricane deck but only the 4' x 6' opening at the front of this deck is usable, but it is directly above the center bow casement cannon. The large "skylight" over the boilers is really an iron grate covered exhaust ventilator, and the other 2 openings are over the "Pittman" Arms and paddle wheel bellcranks. None of them have ladders or stairways. The most obvious access to the Hurricane deck would be thru open gunports onto the fore & aft decks and then up ladders on the fore & aft casements. The Captains access from his quarters on the gun deck to the Hurricane deck would evidently be thru a stern casement open gunport onto the stern deck and up a ladder on the stern casement! You can imagine the difficulty frequent coaling resupply operations with these limitations. Obviously the Hurricane deck is only an unarmored wood beam structure which could be modified for better access but since none of it survived the USS Cairo recovery in 1963, we have no idea what it may have contained.

We have unsuccessfully researched this issue including the USS St. Louis log book (quasi-diary) for a better understanding and would appreciate any feedback you can provide.

 

johnhoward

 

[mtaylor]

John,

I'd almost bet that access to the hurricane dig was tp exit the hull via one of the gunports and then use the ladders.   

 

As for provisions... possibly via the gunports in the bow?   

 

Are there any scuttles over the coal storage area?  That would seem logical for the coaling.

 

I vaguely remember something about these boats were built pretty fast (quick and dirty) for armor protection and firepower so a lot of man power was needed for things like re-provisioning.  Even replacement of cannons required decking, armor, etc. to be removed.

[Cathead]

That's a fascinating question. Mark's answer makes some sense, but was there enough interior room to allow a gun to be withdrawn far enough to allow anything big to pass through a gunport? I was thinking back to my last visit in summer 2017, and found this comparable photo of the interior. You could certainly pull one of those guns all the way in, but estimating the barrel length, you'd still barely have room to manhandle a barrel or sack or something through one of those ports.

 

Is it possible those metal gratings were removable for bulk loading? Given how much fuel even a regular steamboat burned (much less an ironclad), I'd sure like to believe they had a better coaling system than through the gunports, even accounting for cheap labor.

[johnhoward]

Mark,

Thanks for your thoughts. The ironclads had only one 2-foot square scuttle on the gun deck over each of the 3 coal bins, and although they were not very close to a gun port , I agree this makes the most sense for coaling and manpower was not an issue. We have been assuming that they burned what was called "Steamboat" coal in the mid-1800's, which was about the size of today's Barbecue brickets, but not sure if it was pre-sized before loading. The "City Class" Ironclads were built in 6-months and commissioned in about a year. They were originally under Army command and had trouble finding (drafting) hearty enough crews to man them until transferring to the Navy in late 1862. We have elected to open up the forward "egg-crate" skylight sub-framing of our model's 'Hurricane" deck for loading provisions however there is still only a 2 x 2 scuttle on the gun deck, over the lower hull Commissary room, to navigate. Re-arming was done by special crews at major city stations along the river but coaling and re-provisioning had to be done more quickly every few days at "makeshift" river side landings. These ironclads consumed about a ton of coal per hour. The "Cairo" was sunk unexpectedly by a mine in about 12 minutes without losing a man, so evacuation must have been pretty efficient.

 

johnhoward

[johnhoward]

Eric,

Thanks,

You are correct that the 8 port and starboard cannons couldn't be retracted very far but the carriages could be rotated 90-degrees to the side as they normally were for reloading, since the lateral spacing between guns was fairly generous. Regarding the iron grate, I'm sure it could be removed, however that only gives you access to the top of the boilers, inside a room which also contains the longitudinal steam exhaust pipes from the two main engines to the funnels and other mechanical equipment such as pressure relief valves, and still no apparent exits to the gun deck. These are the kinds of things that building our large scale (1:24) detailed model have been revealing to us. 

 

johnhoward

[mtaylor]

I'm curious John. Was she plated on hurricane deck?  Many (most?) weren't which created some serious issues as the Union found out at Fort Donelson and a couple of others where the Confederates had the high ground.  If it wasn't iron cladded, they might just removed the deck planking for reprovisioning but that doesn't help getting the barrels/bags, etc. down to the Commissary room and for securing other stores such as powder and shot.

[johnhoward]

Mark,

No, as I mentioned in my initial message, the City Class ironclads were unarmored on all deck surfaces and in fact the Hurricane deck was only covered by relatively thin planking which provided scant protection from plunging fire such as occurred at the cliffs of Vicksburg. However, stout 8.5" wide deck beams, spaced about 26" apart supported the full Hurricane deck planking between the bow and stern casements which would limit the size of any opening. We also thought it probable that portions of the deck planking were removed by the crew carpenters for loading provisions but also probable that, once done, it would be made into another reusable scuttle and not simply replanked. Another possibility was that larger permanent scuttles were provided inside of the aft deck houses but no evidence of this has been found. The shot and powder rooms were between the paddlewheel & officer's quarters and accessible thru small scuttles in the gun deck and "passing rooms" but not very close to a gunport. The USS St. Louis log (diary) does mention some ship remodeling activity by the crew carpenters to add wood protective barriers for machinery but not for additional access.

 

johnhoward

[Cathead]

Thanks for the clarification, John, I was having a hard time envisioning the three-dimensional nature of the interior. That's interesting that they pivoted the guns for each reloading; seems like that would lead to a really slow rate of fire and lots of wear on the deck.

 

For coaling, is it geometrically or practically possible that they ran some kind of chute or even canvas tube through a port and down to the storage areas? That would allow bulk loading through a potentially twisty path.

[johnhoward]

Eric,

Some interesting comments.

You're probably correct about the low rate of fire. I don't think these ironclads often, if ever, intentionally engaged in broadsides with other vessels but were used mostly for bombardment of inland targets. The bow armor was 25-inches thick combination of solid wood and 2.5-inches thick iron plates. Their limited side casement armor only covered their mid-ship boiler and engine sections. All of their gun port lids were only 2.5" thick oak with no armor cladding at all.  Most of their heaviest cannon were located in the bow casement gunports which had a little more room to retract their guns for reloading, however I've never seen any detailed reports on their battle practices. As for deck wear, I'm sure you're right, but these ironclads were originally built as an emergency stop-gap and weren't expected to last very long anyway. I think they were much more successful than expected, largely because the Confederate Navy didn't have any counterpart on the rivers at that time.

I do agree they must have used a chute for coaling especially if the coaling facility was compatible. The main coal bunker scuttle was on the boat centerline, about 25-feet from the side casement and nearest gun port which had a 2-foot high sill. A chute this long wouldn't have much of an angle decline to help feed the coal along. The single scuttle for each of side coal bunkers is closer to a gunport but is against the wall behind the cannon. I've read somewhere that coaling was sometimes done thru a gunport but then transported further with buckets, but am not sure this was the standard practice or just in an emergency. It would probably be easier to just use a chute thru the gunport to dump the coal onto the gundeck and then shovel it thru the scuttle into the side bunkers.

 

johnhoward

[mtaylor]

I shudder to think about using buckets.   Thanks for the reminder about not being armored on top.  And 26" isn't much room.  I'm thinking the gunports sound reasonable for provisioning.

 

Rate of fire didn't seem to be an issue with guns of the time as the few battles involving them were rather slow affairs and the guns did more damage than old 32 pounders. Merrimac and Monitor's famous confrontation seems fit this but crew training was blamed there.  For the rivers, it would seem a broadside would be impractical.

Edited January 9, 2018 by mtaylor

[johnhoward]

Thanks for all of the "Likes" we have received on this discussion.

One additional issue we have been pondering over on the "coaling" procedure is "How did they manage to fill (respread the coal) the 20-foot x 20-foot x 5-foot high main coal bunker shown in our last photo and the attached drawings from the single 2-foot square scuttle at the center of the bunker, assuming they managed to get the coal to the scuttle in the first place?" It would appear that they wouldn't be able to achieve a very high depth of coal with wheelbarrows and shovels without significantly more scuttles.

 

johnhoward

[Canute]

That makes sense. When you look at pre-dreadnoughts, the decks have a number of coal scuttles for filling the bunkers.

[BANYAN]

Hi John, is there sufficient height in the coal bunker for an overhead 'spout' or shute like the swinging arm spout you see on the water tanks used to feed water to  locomotives?  This would have allowed the coal to be spread over a much wider area?

 

In some recent reading, I noted comments that coal was usually separated into areas by mangers or cofferdams to form hoppers (bins).  This allowed the coal to be moved about for managing the list among other things, and if there was a problem (e.g. a coal fire) to be able to isolate it.  Coaling in the Victoria was via 4 scuttles, and the ash raised to the upper deck via two dedicated cranes for discharge overboard via two ash shutes.

 

I don't know if any of this will be of much relevance to your build but may offer some food for thought?

 

cheers

 

Pat

[Roger Pellett]

In the coal fired pre-dreadnought and dreadnought eras coal was loaded from lighters into large cloth bags and hoisted on board.  There are photos of sailors using hand carts to wheel these large bags of coal to the coal scuttles.

 

Roger

[johnhoward]

Pat & Roger,

Thanks for your interesting suggestions, I'll try to cover them all

The distance from floor ceiling boards to overhead beam was 5-feet. I suppose a rotating chute would be possible for spreading the coal and work better than wheelbarrows and shovels. I know people were shorter in the 1860's but this is ridiculous. Do you have any ideas on how high they would try to pile coal in a 5-foot high bunker? or what the normal coal capacity would be for such a 20-foot square bunker? These ironclads burned about 1-ton of coal per hour when steaming and I suspect they coaled up every chance they got on the river banks & from lighters but maybe never really filled the bunkers for a long distance mission. We haven't found any evidence of separate compartments in the main bunker except for an enclosure around the capstan's below deck gearing which is near the single scuttle. However, there are two side bunkers adjacent to the fireroom which I assume were unloaded equally to maintain balance. You bring up another issue on ash & slag removal from the fireroom which must have been equally troublesome, especially to eject it overboard or was it just temporarily stored in an empty coal bunker. We have two side by side doors from the fireroom to the main coal bunker, one on each side of the keel, and one  at the forward end of each of the side bunkers. Would it make any sense to load the coal bunkers thru the larger fireroom doors via wheelbarrows or carts rather than chutes thru the  smaller scuttles? The cloth bag idea seems promising and would appear to be a lot better than loose coal and dust on the gun deck. Could the coal have been left in the bags and more easily stacked in the bunkers until brought to the fireroom for stoking the furnaces?  Do you think the coal was loaded as available bulk material or readily burnable "steamboat size" brickets?

 

johnhoward

[Roger Pellett]

Ash and clinkers from the boiler fire pits would not have been stored on board due to the fire hazard.  The usual practice on coal fired steamships would be to periodically rake out the fire from one furnace at a time on to the floorplates in front of the boiler, separate the clinkers, and then rebuild the fire. This was necessary as the clinkers would plug up the furnace grates and kill the draft. The clinkers would be hosed down and immediately discharged overboard. Where boilers were located below the waterline hydraulic “ash guns” were installed lift this refuse over the side.  Illustration below.  

 

This is functionally how how things worked.  For the ordinary river steamer with the boilers on the main deck and the vessel’s sides open there is no reason why ashes could not have been dumped overboard from a wheelbarrow.  For these gunboats, I don’t know what technology was available.  I do know that the area in front of the boilers would have been plated over possibly on top of brick layer to withstand the heat from the hot clinkers.

 

Roger

Edited January 12, 2018 by Roger Pellett

[BANYAN]

Hi John and Roger,

 

I can only comment on what I have found that was relevant to HMCSS Victoria, a Gun Despatch Vessel or Screw-Sloop of 1855.  The Contract for Victoria stated the provision of two 'cranes' for raising ash.  I found a contemporary inboard arrangements diagram (dated 1860) for a contemporary vessel, HMS Harrier, which shows an ash chute which I presume there would have been one each side so that as weas disposed on the lee side.

 

Contract: Iron cranes for hoisting up ashes, …

 

I hope I am not breaching copyright (admins please delete if I am infringing) in showing this extract of the NMM plan (NPC6858), note the inboard side appears fixed with a curved 'mouth' to accept the wheelbarrow front.  The outboard side appears to be hinged to bring it inboard clear of 'snagging' but lowers sufficiently to ensure the ash clears the ship's side.  As to the cranes, these may have been simple goosenecks, or something a little more elaborate.  Please PM if you wish more detail on those.

As to coal bins I can only offer the following from the contract, but it offers some insight on the height of the coal dump:  

"The coal boxes to be constructed and arranged as may be hereafter determined, and sufficient details of the coal boxes in the engine rooms to be shown in the drawing, to enable a computation of their contents to be made in this computation; the space below the deck to the depth of 6 inches is to be excluded, to allow for the space occupied by the beams and for the difficulty of completely filling the boxes with coals.  No part of the coal box plate to be less than 1/8 inch in thickness.  Air tubes to be fixed in the coal boxes for ascertaining their temperature.  A space of 13 inches to be left clear between the boilers and coal boxes in every part."

 

I also found this info in Wikipedia: Coal trimmers worked inside the coal bunkers; they used shovels and wheelbarrows to move coal around the bunkers in order to keep the coal level, and to the firemen, who shoveled it into the furnaces.  This could imply no bags?  Could have been loaded in bags but emptied into the bunker?  Also, reading through some of the related discussion on the web, there is inference that the coaling scuttle was a sort of box with a chute down to the bunker.  From this I read that the coaling scuttle had a hatch type top that opened into a sort of small chamber which then had a chute attached at the bottom.  Most of this related to the Titanic coaling arrangements so may not be directly applicable.

 

I also found this site which provides some interesting background discussion and while of a later ship, the methods employed for coaling appear mixed (bags and bulk).

 

Hope this helps rather than confuse the situation further?

 

cheers

 

Pat

Edited January 13, 2018 by BANYAN
Additional Info