Lula by Keith Black - 1:120 Scale - 1870s Sternwheeler Supply Boat for Floating Pile Driver

[Glen McGuire]

11 hours ago, Keith Black said:

Once the Tennessee is done then I'd love to start on a diorama.

Wait a minute!  I thought a ship in bottle with penguins was next on your list!?!?  And I know just the guy that can carve you some awesome penguins.  Check out what @gsdpic did.  See post #18.

 

https://modelshipworld.com/topic/37836-friendship-sloop-by-gsdpic-bluejacket-shipcrafters-112/#comment-1091805

 

And your Lula is really coming together nicely.  Wonderful work, Keith!

Edited March 22 by Glen McGuire

[clearway]

Nice Keith- i take a couple of days away for the steam gala at Keighley and she has sprang forwards leaps and bounds.

 

Keith

[Jim Lad]

Looking good, Keith. Are you going to leave those sidelight boxes white?

 

John

[Keith Black]

On 3/22/2025 at 9:54 AM, Glen McGuire said:

Wait a minute!  I thought a ship in bottle with penguins was next on your list!?!?  And I know just the guy that can carve you some awesome penguins.  Check out what @gsdpic did.  See post #18.

 

https://modelshipworld.com/topic/37836-friendship-sloop-by-gsdpic-bluejacket-shipcrafters-112/#comment-1091805

 

And your Lula is really coming together nicely.  Wonderful work, Keith!

 Thank you, Glen. I'll leave SIB work to your capable hands and as far as penguins go........I'm back on the patch. 

 

21 hours ago, clearway said:

Nice Keith- i take a couple of days away for the steam gala at Keighley and she has sprang forwards leaps and bounds

 Thank you, Keith. I've managed to get some extra work time in on Lula lately. 

 

20 hours ago, Jim Lad said:

Looking good, Keith. Are you going to leave those sidelight boxes white?

 Thank you, John. Yes, I'm leaving the light boards white because white paint reflects better according to Google AI.

 

 "Red light will appear brighter when reflected off white paint because white paint reflects all colors of light, including red, while red paint only reflects red light"

 

"Red paint contains pigments that selectively reflect red light and absorb other colors. When red light shines on red paint, the red paint reflects the red light back, but the amount of reflected light is less than that of white paint, as it doesn't reflect all wavelengths of light" 

 

"Green light will appear brighter when reflected off white paint because white paint reflects all wavelengths of light, including green, while green paint only reflects green light and absorbs others" 

 

 "Since white paint reflects all colors, including green, it will appear brighter when illuminated with green light compared to green paint, which only reflects green light"

 

 I've seen light boards left natural when hung in the shrouds, painted red and green, painted black, dark gray, and silver. But because of the above I went with white. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited Sunday at 04:30 PM by Keith Black

[Jim Lad]

Thanks for those quotes. Mark.  Traditionally, of course, the light boxes were painted red and green, and now they are usually painted black.

 

John

[MAGIC's Craig]

2 hours ago, Keith Black said:

 

 Thank you, John. Yes, I'm leaving the light boards white because white paint reflects better according to Google AI.

 

 "Red light will appear brighter when reflected off white paint because white paint reflects all colors of light, including red, while red paint only reflects red light"

 

"Red paint contains pigments that selectively reflect red light and absorb other colors. When red light shines on red paint, the red paint reflects the red light back, but the amount of reflected light is less than that of white paint, as it doesn't reflect all wavelengths of light" 

 

"Green light will appear brighter when reflected off white paint because white paint reflects all wavelengths of light, including green, while green paint only reflects green light and absorbs others" 

 

 "Since white paint reflects all colors, including green, it will appear brighter when illuminated with green light compared to green paint, which only reflects green light"

 

 I've seen light boards left natural when hung in the shrouds, painted red and green, painted black, dark gray, and silver. But because of the above I went with white. 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, one learns something everyday...I have sailed with many black and natural finished light boards, but not white. Perhaps they were finished thus to avoid excessive glare from light scatter when on deck.  (I note that it doesn't seem to help in fog or rain.) This use of white light boards, however, does make some sense and so I shall follow your logic with the light boards on TWILIGHT when I get to mounting them. Thanks again for the thorough research on all aspects of your model(s).

Craig

[Keith Black]

10 hours ago, Jim Lad said:

Thanks for those quotes. Mark.  Traditionally, of course, the light boxes were painted red and green, and now they are usually painted black.

 John, thank you for questioning the light boards color. I also went with white light boards because of Lula's owners decision, with the exception of the black trim, to paint everything that didn't move white.

 

10 hours ago, MAGIC's Craig said:

Well, one learns something everyday...I have sailed with many black and natural finished light boards, but not white. Perhaps they were finished thus to avoid excessive glare from light scatter when on deck.  (I note that it doesn't seem to help in fog or rain.) This use of white light boards, however, does make some sense and so I shall follow your logic with the light boards on TWILIGHT when I get to mounting them. Thanks again for the thorough research on all aspects of your model(s).

 Thank you, Craig. I try to be accurate when building but sometimes I fail and that bothers me. Hopefully I'll continue to learn and each new project will be more accurate than the last.  

[Javelin]

Actually nowadays they are painted matt black by colreg regulation. 

The reason is that it shouldn't reflect the colour of the light at all, simply because the light would then be visible from unwanted angles (in case of sidelight that would be from angles too much astern).

That said, I believe that only came into use in 1970 or later, so for Lula I guess it's really up to you. 

 

In any case this thread is great to follow, so much detail on such a small model. She really looks the part!

 

[Keith Black]

14 hours ago, Javelin said:

Actually nowadays they are painted matt black by colreg regulation. 

The reason is that it shouldn't reflect the colour of the light at all, simply because the light would then be visible from unwanted angles (in case of sidelight that would be from angles too much astern).

That said, I believe that only came into use in 1970 or later, so for Lula I guess it's really up to you. 

 

In any case this thread is great to follow, so much detail on such a small model. She really looks the part!

 Thank you, Roel. 

 

The 1972 Convention was designed to update and replace the Collision Regulations of 1960 which were adopted at the same time as the 1960 SOLAS Convention. 

 

Annex I - Positioning and technical details of lights and shapes

5. Screens for sidelights

The sidelights of vessels of 20 m or more in length shall be fitted with inboard screens painted matt black, and meeting the requirements of section 9 of this annex. On vessels of less than 20 m in length the sidelights, if necessary to meet the requirements of section 9 of this annex, shall be fitted with inboard matt black screens. With a combined lantern, using a single vertical filament and a very narrow division between the green and red sections, external screens need not be fitted.

 

 

On 3/22/2025 at 8:24 PM, MAGIC's Craig said:

This use of white light boards, however, does make some sense and so I shall follow your logic with the light boards on TWILIGHT when I get to mounting them. Thanks again for the thorough research on all aspects of your model(s).

Craig, you better nix the thought of white light boards. Sorry to have lead you and anyone else astray. 

[MAGIC's Craig]

14 hours ago, Keith Black said:

 Thank you, Roel. 

 

The 1972 Convention was designed to update and replace the Collision Regulations of 1960 which were adopted at the same time as the 1960 SOLAS Convention. 

 

Annex I - Positioning and technical details of lights and shapes

5. Screens for sidelights

The sidelights of vessels of 20 m or more in length shall be fitted with inboard screens painted matt black, and meeting the requirements of section 9 of this annex. On vessels of less than 20 m in length the sidelights, if necessary to meet the requirements of section 9 of this annex, shall be fitted with inboard matt black screens. With a combined lantern, using a single vertical filament and a very narrow division between the green and red sections, external screens need not be fitted.

 

 

Craig, you better nix the thought of white light boards. Sorry to have lead you and anyone else astray. 

Oh, well...Can't have a CG fellow arrest the model for the color of the light board backs...back to flat black - whenever I get to them .  Craig  😉

 

[Keith Black]

 Thank you to everyone for your comments and likes

 

As I said, I'll be leaving Lula's light boards white. Side lights were recommended in 1858 and signed into law in1864 by President Lincoln. I can not find light board color requirements mentioned in the early regulations. 

 

 

 A brief update... I got the boiler stack chain stays attached which took the better part of a full workday. The chain size required wire no greater than 28 GA for making the eyes. To attach chain stays I have to sneak up on the correct link length by trial and error. It's a very tedious process and I wish I knew a faster/better means to accomplish this task. One link makes all the difference in the world and it drives me a bit batty getting the perfect length.

 

 With the stack stays done next up is the pilothouse. It'll be three or four days before I have an opportunity to get back to work on Lula so it will be awhile before I'm able to post progress and photos.  

 

  Thank you for your support and for following along.

 

   Keith

[Ian_Grant]

The other thing about chains which drives ME batty is blackening them. I have had little success. 😞

[Keith Black]

5 minutes ago, Ian_Grant said:

The other thing about chains which drives ME batty is blackening them. I have had little success. 😞

 Ian, until recently I would have agreed with you 100% but the last two times I've used Birchwood Casey I've had success amazingly enough. I blackened the chains for the derrick crane stays and the sidelight lanterns and they came out perfect. I'm somewhat shocked because in the past I've had a flakey/sooty finish which easily rubbed off. 

 

 The last two times I've soaked the pieces to be blackened in acetone and thoroughly rinsed in water as usual but instead of soaking the parts in the blackening solution I used a Q-tip soaked in BC and rubbed the pieces for 30 to 45 seconds and let sit for 15 seconds. I did this twice rinsing in water after each application and they came out great. I am ashamed to say that with the exception of using acetone instead of alcohol these are the exact directions on the bottle which after seven or eight years of frustration I finally read.   

[Ian_Grant]

I always get that flaky finish too! And I too dump the chains into the solution.

 

I will try your new method.

 

Thanks Keith!

[wefalck]

Leaving a part too long in a blackening solution results in a buildup of several layers, which then can detach, i.e. flake. Using a ‚tampon‘ process means that the surface is exposed to a limited amount of blackening solution, reducing the risk of flaking.

[Keith Black]

10 hours ago, Ian_Grant said:

I always get that flaky finish too! And I too dump the chains into the solution.

 Ian, we're both of that "we don't need no stinkin' directions" school of thought.  

 

I forgot to mention that I placed the parts to be blackened on a folded paper towel to absorb any excess blackening solution and once rinsed in water I buffed them with a clean paper towel before repeating the process. I hope it works as well for you as it did for me.

 

9 hours ago, wefalck said:

Leaving a part too long in a blackening solution results in a buildup of several layers, which then can detach, i.e. flake. Using a ‚tampon‘ process means that the surface is exposed to a limited amount of blackening solution, reducing the risk of flaking.

 Thank you, Eberhard. Oh, how very true! 

Edited Tuesday at 11:25 PM by Keith Black

[kurtvd19]

Many chains have a clear coating that needs to be removed for decent blackening.  I soak the brass chain in warm Sparex (I use a small crock pot for this - it's not used in the kitchen, only in the shop!) to remove the coating.  A thorough rinse in water and after drying the chain can be blackened.  I dip it in and remove it letting the excess drain off over the container.  Two dips is usually adequate to blacken chain.  I will try the use of a a small, cheap paintbrush to "paint" the Brass Black onto the chain the next time I have to blacken chain to see how it compares to dipping it.  I use the paintbrush method for rods, ladders and other parts that are too large for my small containers I use for most blackening.

Kurt

[Keith Black]

5 hours ago, kurtvd19 said:

Many chains have a clear coating that needs to be removed for decent blackening.  I soak the brass chain in warm Sparex (I use a small crock pot for this - it's not used in the kitchen, only in the shop!) to remove the coating.  A thorough rinse in water and after drying the chain can be blackened.  I dip it in and remove it letting the excess drain off over the container.  Two dips is usually adequate to blacken chain.  I will try the use of a a small, cheap paintbrush to "paint" the Brass Black onto the chain the next time I have to blacken chain to see how it compares to dipping it.  I use the paintbrush method for rods, ladders and other parts that are too large for my small containers I use for most blackening.

 Kurt, I think oxygen plays as important part in the blackening process as the solution itself. Soaking pieces in the solution is too much and a paint brush maybe too much as well plus it's hard to rub with a paintbrush. I know rubbing with a Q-tip works like the bee's knees.  

[KeithAug]

On 3/25/2025 at 3:43 AM, Keith Black said:

It's a very tedious process

Very nicely done - I would love to know your technique Keith? 

[Keith Black]

6 hours ago, KeithAug said:

Very nicely done - I would love to know your technique Keith? 

 Thank you, Keith.

 

 I first drill my holes where the chain ends will attach. I start with a piece of chain that's a few links longer than the correct length. I then make the top eye at the end of the chain and trim the eye shank to match the top hole depth. I work from the top down when making the chain length that way I don't have to fight gravity. I run a piece of wire between the links (bending the two ends downward) where I think will be the bottom end link is. With the top eye in the top hole (unglued) I pull the chain as taunt as possible at the center of the bottom hole holding onto the wire I had run between the links. The chain is usually too long, I note how many links too long and run another piece of wire through those links cutting away the chain where the first piece of wire was run. I repeat this process till I have the correct chain length. I then make the eye in the bottom link, cut the eye shank to the correct length, pray, and test fit the chain. Occasionally I'll cut the chain too short and have to start over with the top eye but 95% of the time I can sneak up to the correct length by trimming away the bottom links.

 

 I hope the above makes sense, I'd like to add photos but I can barely get this three handed job done with the two hands I have let alone take photos. As I said, it's a tedious process and I wish I knew a better way. If anyone has a better method I am all ears!  

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 03:32 PM by Keith Black

[kurtvd19]

Keith:

That's exactly how I do it.  Took me a couple of tries before I figured out not to fight gravity and work from the top down.

Kurt

[Keith Black]

51 minutes ago, kurtvd19 said:

That's exactly how I do it.

 You mean, this is as good as it gets? 

[Cathead]

Keith, forgive me for a slight digression, but I'm betting you'll enjoy this. I was re-visiting a local museum here in central Missouri the other day, and noticed an image I hadn't thought much about before, but the last time I saw it was before your pile-driver build. Here's a small pile driver on the Missouri River at Boonville in central Missouri, undated but I can tell from the bridge in the background that it's between the 1890s and 1930s. For those following both this log and my model railroad one, that background bridge is the same rail line I'm modeling and will show up in a different scene down the road. But regardless, I thought this was a fun little comparison and worth sharing. Forgive all the light reflections.

 

[Keith Black]

2 hours ago, Cathead said:

Keith, forgive me for a slight digression, but I'm betting you'll enjoy this. I was re-visiting a local museum here in central Missouri the other day, and noticed an image I hadn't thought much about before, but the last time I saw it was before your pile-driver build. Here's a small pile driver on the Missouri River at Boonville in central Missouri, undated but I can tell from the bridge in the background that it's between the 1890s and 1930s. For those following both this log and my model railroad one, that background bridge is the same rail line I'm modeling and will show up in a different scene down the road. But regardless, I thought this was a fun little comparison and worth sharing. Forgive all the light reflections.

 

 Eric, no forgiveness necessary. If you've got pertaining historical photos, please, always feel free to post them.

 

 I don't think it's a pile driver per se, I think it's some sort of floating well rig? Note the threaded pipe casing on deck. The pipe is in short sections (that's why the pile driver is so short), maybe 6, 8 feet at the most. Too short for oil or gas and you wouldn't be drilling for drinking water in the middle of the river, my guess is they were setting pipe to get water to the tracks. 

 

 Whatever its purpose it is a cute little bug, you need to put that in your train layout. 

[Cathead]

10 hours ago, Keith Black said:

you wouldn't be drilling for drinking water in the middle of the river, my guess is they were setting pipe to get water to the tracks

Awesome observation, I completely missed the pipes sitting there. I bet you're right, and here's some fun context to support your contention. There IS a rail line right along the river bank where this is tied up, but it's not the MK&T line on the bridge in the background. It's a Missouri Pacific line running along the river (it passes under that bridge). 

 

Missouri River water is extremely sediment-rich (hence the common nickname Big Muddy), and there's no way you'd want to run river water directly into a steam engine's boiler. But the river is underlain by a deep layer of sand, so it makes perfect sense that they'd be drilling down maybe 20-50' into that sand to get access to shallow filtered water.  Also, for anyone wondering why they're doing it just off the riverbank instead of on land, the river valley here is bounded by bedrock bluffs on both sides that rise a couple hundred feet above the river and dive down deep beneath it. So you don't have to go very far in from the river before you're quickly on shallow bedrock, whereas just off the bank you're on nice thick river sand.

 

What I am curious about in this scenario is why they're just where they are. They appear to be well downstream of the town of Boonville (that bridge is on its northern side), where the Missouri Pacific had a depot. I don't think there would have been a water tower here. But maybe they were piping it back up to Boonville proper, since the actual riverfront near the depot was still a steamboat landing even in the early 1900s. Or maybe it's to provide water to some entity up on the bluffs (though if it was a drinking water well I think you'd put it upriver of Boonville, not downriver).

 

That's more than enough digression, sorry! Fun stuff.

 

10 hours ago, Keith Black said:

Whatever its purpose it is a cute little bug, you need to put that in your train layout.

100% agree, if I get to the Boonville scene, that has to be included.

[Keith Black]

2 hours ago, Cathead said:

I don't think there would have been a water tower here. But maybe they were piping it back up to Boonville proper, since the actual riverfront near the depot was still a steamboat landing even in the early 1900s. Or maybe it's to provide water to some entity up on the bluffs (though if it was a drinking water well I think you'd put it upriver of Boonville, not downriver).

 Eric, it could have been a water source for nothing more than a track pan? 

[Cathead]

I could be wrong, but I don't think Missouri Pacific used track pans on this line. It was very much a secondary/local line for them and I can't think of why they would need to. But I should stop diverting your log into railroad stuff!