Is the lack of convention referring to your construction methods and materials, or to the hull form (an aircraft carrier, rethought in a different scale)?
The superstructure is distinctively Australian, but the hull form reveals its ancestry.
The Australian design was influenced by the rivers in which the boats worked: snagged and winding, varying from fierce current in flood to strong current when shallow, to times with no water at all. Hence:
* Side paddles (more manoeuvrable), and towing barges rather than propelling.
* flat hull to maximise the use of shallow water, and to sit on mud off season.
* V prow from an upright stem post. I don't know all of the reasons, but I deduce that it was either for water flow around the hull, or to deflect floating logs, or for regular ramming into banks to assist with turning in tight spaces (using the current to bring the stern around).
* V stern to allow the water flow from the paddles to reach the rudder.
* long but shallow rudders (and hence needing big steering wheels to provide the leverage).
Australian sternwheelers weren't common; IIRC they had twin rudders between the hull and the wheel (I have photos of Captain Sturt placed in a Paddleducks post).
I haven't seen side rudders: I suspect that they would have required more swing than the space allowed.
Only the day before the post with this unconventional model, I grabbed a photo which flashed by on the opening screen: a model of PS Eva. It looked perfectly Australian, but for the square stern. However, that is certainly the design of the original (Parsons 'Ships of the inland rivers' p72). The upward taper must have been intended to provide the water flow. If you go to Michael's lengthy thread on rebuilding Sundowner as Struggler, his first move was to taper the stern inwards.
I have now searched: there seems to be no item posted on this model. It must have been by a member. Perhaps a history of this model could be posted to the relevant section?
Roderick B Smith
Rail News Victoria Editor
Main Menu
UserBox
Search
