Paul Sellers workbench

[thomashenry]

Just finished my Paul Sellers design workbench, having followed his course on YouTube. Made entirely from hand tools apart from a cordless drill. Timber was a mix of PSE from Wickes and reclaimed wood from Oxford Wood Recycling. Think in total I paid £65 for the wood. Vise was £70 or so, and is an Eclipse 9” quick release.

Very happy with it, and fully recommend making this bench if you are into hand tool woodworking.

 

[Tasky]

Ready to rock!!

 

[custard]

Congratulations, that looks like a really tidy, professional job.

 

[thomashenry]

Thanks! It's a great series of videos by Paul Sellers.

 

[thetyreman]

nice job!

I built the mk1 version as my first major project, his newer mk2 design is even better still, it's a great bench.

 

[Jacob]

Most benches you see nowadays are desperate fashion victims.
Good to see that traditional highly functional bench design is still alive and well!
If it was mine I'd set the vice flush with the apron so that the whole of the apron works as vice face to some extent.
An option is to extend a planted-on inner vice face to the full depth of the apron, to give good support to things held vertically

 

[thomashenry]

I did spend a fair amount of time thinking about that. At one stage I was going to set the inner face of the vise behind the apron, but I figured that it's easy enough to make a spacer that hooks over the benchtop and then hangs down over the front apron, flush with the inner face of the vise.

 

[MusicMan]

I think this depends on the type of work you do. I had a flush vice for maybe 60 years. But I rarely hold long planks. Most of my work is on musical instruments and restoration. The extra flexibility to hold odd shapes with bits sticking out is for me a big advantage of the offset face, which I now love, after using it for a couple of years. And as said, a spacer to use on long pieces is easy to do. If you are holding long bits most days, as Jacob may be doing, a flush vice makes more sense.

It's horses for courses, not one-size-fits-all.

 

[Osvaldd]

Im looking to build a workbench this summer. Can't decide whether to go with PS design.
Couple questions, did you modify/add anything since building this? There are no bench dogs nor a tail vice in his design, do you not miss those when planing the faces of long boards?

I like the tool well, but what about when you need to plane large panels? As per PS design the solid worktop is only 12" wide, how would you deal with very wide pieces?

The only other thing is I would like to incorporate a bottom shelve to store tools for quick access.

 

[Jacob]

Im looking to build a workbench this summer. Can't decide whether to go with PS design.
Couple questions, did you modify/add anything since building this? There are no bench dogs nor a tail vice in his design, do you not miss those when planing the faces of long boards?

For planing boards you only need one dog at the left hand end (assuming you are right handed). Mine's a 30mm square rod tight fit in a hole - sticks down below so I can knock it up with a mallet. If you don't have a tail vice you won't miss it. I'm not really sure what they are for TBH, except as an extra vice - I've got one on the other side of my bench.

I like the tool well, but what about when you need to plane large panels? As per PS design the solid worktop is only 12" wide, how would you deal with very wide pieces?

They rest across to the far side, or just plonk an mdf board or similar over the whole top as necessary. Much better to have a tool well than not - most of what you do will be on the front edge of the bench and having a well is really handy for tools, shavings, reducing clutter, keeping working surface clear, etc etc.

 

[Stanleymonkey]

Looks amazing - well done mate.

I get the Oxford Wood Recycling emails and wish I was a bit closer to them. Are they worth a detour next time I'm driving past?

 

[G S Haydon]

Good bit of practical woodworking there. You clearly have the knack.

 

[woodbloke66]

Nice job on the bench, looks a cracker, but why anyone would want to build in a front apron beats me. I know it's traditional, I know it will add a bit of mass and I know it will help to prevent the dreaded 'racking' etc (<which covers everything else) Wait though, until you need to use G or F cramps to secure something to the top as I do almost every time I use my bench. You'll find it's almost impossible.
Make the top thick enough and you don't need an apron.
Tool wells are excellent whichever way you slices it - Rob

 

[Osvaldd]

@woodbloke66 would you care to tell us more about your bench? few photos. Im looking to build a bench and I too don’t like that big front apron.

 

[MikeG.]

Nice job on the bench, looks a cracker, but why anyone would want to build in a front apron beats me. I know it's traditional, I know it will add a bit of mass and I know it will help to prevent the dreaded 'racking' etc (<which covers everything else) Wait though, until you need to use G or F cramps to secure something to the top as I do almost every time I use my bench. You'll find it's almost impossible.
Make the top thick enough and you don't need an apron.
Tool wells are excellent whichever way you slices it - Rob

That's a slightly odd argument, Rob, if I may say so. It's sort-of the equivalent of saying "I've got this fancy new carbon fibre racing bike, and it's no good because I can't ride it wearing wellies". You are wanting to use clamps for the job normally done by holdfasts. If you have a bench with the traditional apron, then you use the traditional way of holding work: holdfasts, not clamps. You're actually arguing that an apron is no good because it stops you using the wrong piece of kit on the bench.

The point is that if you want to use clamps, then have a bench without an apron. If you want a bench with an apron, you don't suffer any disadvantage whatsoever because you simply use the tool designed for the purpose, the holdfast.

-

The thickness of the top has no bearing on the job done by the apron. The apron's principle role is to act as bracing between the top and the legs, so that the bench doesn't rack under horizontal load (such as when planing). If you eliminate the apron, you'll need something else to do the bracing job, which can be a diagonal brace, or a sheet of ply.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

You can't please all of the people all of the time. Mine has no apron and no well - I wouldn't go back to either. It has the reversible strip down through the middle that I can use flat, raised as a stop or removed for clamping stuff down. And yes, I use holdfasts. That it doesn't suit other people doesn't matter to me one iota.

 

[Jacob]

.... until you need to use G or F cramps to secure something to the top as I do almost every time I use my bench....

Most workpieces can be worked on the top with no holding, but not if biggish and held in the vice against the apron - that's when/where you really need the g clamps.
 Big front apron is highly functional;
adds mass behind the front beam where it's needed (most work is done on the front few inches of the top)
prevents racking (the legs are housed into the back of the apron)
functions as a large extended back to the vice (if fitted flush) and helps support big pieces
can have any number of g clamps, pegs, nails added to hold pieces; stuff doesn't always need holding much on the top itself as the workpiece will sit there unaided but being able to support big/long things held in the vice is really useful.
NB there's a big fashion for "continental" style benches but virtually all trad woodwork in UK at least, when it was a big industry, was done on the tried and tested trad bench with a big apron, like Sellers'.

 

[dzj]

If you grind away the rivet at the end of the bar, you can use an F clamp through a dog hole even on a
Nicholson type bench.

 

[woodbloke66]

@woodbloke66 would you care to tell us more about your bench? few photos. Im looking to build a bench and I too don’t like that big front apron.

Absolutely...pics below

That's a slightly odd argument, Rob, if I may say so. It's sort-of the equivalent of saying "I've got this fancy new carbon fibre racing bike, and it's no good because I can't ride it wearing wellies". You are wanting to use clamps for the job normally done by holdfasts. If you have a bench with the traditional apron, then you use the traditional way of holding work: holdfasts, not clamps. You're actually arguing that an apron is no good because it stops you using the wrong piece of kit on the bench.

The point is that if you want to use clamps, then have a bench without an apron. If you want a bench with an apron, you don't suffer any disadvantage whatsoever because you simply use the tool designed for the purpose, the holdfast.

-

The thickness of the top has no bearing on the job done by the apron. The apron's principle role is to act as bracing between the top and the legs, so that the bench doesn't rack under horizontal load (such as when planing). If you eliminate the apron, you'll need something else to do the bracing job, which can be a diagonal brace, or a sheet of ply.

I think what we're discussing here Mike, are the differences between the traditional joiners bench, of which the OP has made such a cracking job and the traditional Emir cabinet makers bench which is what I modelled mine on, with some subtle improvements. I used one of those benches for four years at Shoreditch College in the 70's and they were severely used and much abused by us students; note there's no apron and they didn't rack, ever. Look also at the construction; the lower long rails are draw bolted with the bolt itself going through the tenon and the 50mm thick top is bolted directly onto the frame, with allowance made for movement.

I built mine along the same plan; it's traditional and it works but I made mine with a 75mm thick top. In addition, just to make dead sure that the thing would never, ever rack (and it doesn't, ever) I incorporated a third long draw bolted rail at the top of the frame....

Note the removable tool well bottom, which means I can cramp stuff to the top from the tool well side as well. Very, very useful.

Being able to cramp stuff to the top of the bench is just so useful it beggars belief why anyone interested in doing fine cabinet work would want to construct their bench with an apron. Just four swift examples of why it's so useful:

My jig for paring dovetail pins and sockets dead square; an adaption from Rob Ingham's method. Very difficult to do with a deep front apron, note the use of the bench holdfast.

This is Rob Ingham's dovetail transfer jig; very hard to cramp with a very deep front apron, but it could be clamped using the front dogs.

Cramping the Moxxon style vice to the top; invaluable for cutting wide dovetails etc and designed to be securely clamped to the top.

Cramping a shooting board with mitre shoot to the top.

IMO, a bench with a deep apron is a distinct disadvantage and one built without one makes the whole bench far more user friendly. It's possible, I will concede, that each of the above examples could be cramped to a deep front apron with something like a small sash cramp, but it just makes life a lot easier and a lot more simple to build one without a deep apron. Simples works - Rob

 

[custard]

The popularity of the traditional Nicholson style bench began to wane with the widespread adoption of the powered router. I don't believe that's a co-incidence.

One of the most common processes I (and pretty much every cabinet maker I know) perform at the bench is copy routing to a template. Where the template and roughly band sawn workpiece are fastened with F-Cramps, overhanging the front of the bench like this,

You could do the job at the router table or spindle moulder, but that's more of a faff. Quickest and easiest is right at your bench.

That's the key reason against a Nicholson style bench.