The boilers, then, were the largest piece of equipment to be passed through the decks; for this an opening (estimated to have been about 10-1/2 feet wide and 8-1/2 feet long) probably was cut through both decks about 3 feet forward of the main hatch, which was commonly a little forward of the mainmast. The boilers could then have been lowered, after end first, into the hold. The opening in the lower deck could then have been closed, except for a small hatchway perhaps, and the steam cylinder let down to the lower deck and moved aft into position. To allow the crosshead to reach its maximum travel, the opening in the upper deck would have been about 10-1/2 feet wide--the over-all width of the engine frame--and would have been left open, inside the deckhouse. The width of the boilers might be particularly important because it would determine the deadrise at floor in the hull. The apparently precise dimensions of the boilers given in the Russian description were utilized to arrive at a suitable hull form. Both a single boiler and a double boiler (as described in the Russian accounts) were placed in the hull to assure the correct space estimates. Since the engine, as shown by Marestier, had an air-pump cylinder alongside the steam cylinder (with the pistons of both attached to the crosshead), it is evident that a condenser was employed. This condenser would not have been much larger than the air-pump cylinder. It may have been placed under the side paddle wheel axle on the lower deck, but its mode of operation is unknown. Possibly it was of the jet type, with pumps operating off the paddle wheel axle and with a return of condensate from a hot well into the feed water line. A number of possibilities could be mentioned, all speculative. However, there was no doubt that this equipment could be properly installed in the reconstructed hull, either on the lower deck or in the hold. Two questions have been raised as to machinery arrangement--whether the engine, and boilers also, might have been forward of the wheel shaft, and whether the wheel shaft was above or below deck. If the engine were placed forward of the wheel shaft, the wheels might be farther aft than is proposed in the reconstruction. However, the smokestack could not then be forward of the wheel shaft as shown by Marestier because it would have had to pass through the engine frame, thus interfering with the movement of the large crosshead. If the engine were abaft the wheel shaft, the stack could have been only as shown by Marestier. The boilers might then have been forward of the wheel shaft only if the stack were at the end away from the firebox. However, the length of the boilers as indicated by the Russian description would then have required them to pass through the bows!