Sash bar dimensions for historical windows

[Sgian Dubh]

I've been puzzling about your measuring sticks. Kept me awake!
Why didn't you use a tape measure like everybody else?
Was it your own idea?

Telescoping measuring sticks were a method I was taught to take critical dimensions of a space. Basically you chuck some 18 mm plywood strips 2440 mm long X ~75 mm wide into the back of your vehicle and go on site. On site match the sticks to the space, usually two for vertical dimensions and two for horizontal dimensions, so typically four in total. Neither stick in a pair is long enough to span the space, but an overlapping pair clamped or screwed together will span the distance.

The telescoping sticks are used to determine the longest and shortest dimension of a space. For example, the horizontal space between two walls in an alcove may vary in length by about 25 mm. With that determined fix the telescoping sticks together at the shortest dimension and note the position of any features that need to be accommodated in the build by holding the telescoping sticks tight against one wall, either right or left, whichever is preferred, or whichever one is nearest to vertical for the sake of accuracy.

Naturally, as I described earlier, all the other common tools for taking a a survey are deployed, e.g., tape measure, spirit level (maybe replaced by a laser level nowadays), notebook, camera, etc.

At the end of the survey, take the sticks apart and chuck them in the back of the van ready to be reassembled in the workshop so that rods can be created. Slainte.

 

[Jacob]

Telescoping measuring sticks were a method I was taught to take critical dimensions of a space. Basically you chuck some 18 mm plywood strips 2440 mm long X ~75 mm wide into the back of your vehicle and go on site. On site match the sticks to the space, usually two for vertical dimensions and two for horizontal dimensions, so typically four in total. Neither stick in a pair is long enough to span the space, but an overlapping pair clamped or screwed together will span the distance.

The telescoping sticks are used to determine the longest and shortest dimension of a space. For example, the horizontal space between two walls in an alcove may vary in length by about 25 mm. With that determined fix the telescoping sticks together at the shortest dimension and note the position of any features that need to be accommodated in the build by holding the telescoping sticks tight against one wall, either right or left, whichever is preferred, or whichever one is nearest to vertical for the sake of accuracy.

Naturally, as I described earlier, all the other common tools for taking a a survey are deployed, e.g., tape measure, spirit level (maybe replaced by a laser level nowadays), notebook, camera, etc.

At the end of the survey, take the sticks apart and chuck them in the back of the van ready to be reassembled in the workshop so that rods can be created. Slainte.

Do you measure each adjusted/clamped stick as you go?
Sounds like what you do with sticks I do directly with a tape measure and notes - missing out the stick stage altogether.

 

[johnnyb]

there was actually tons of speculation about why sash planes were in pairs. our speculation about making the intermediate smaller bars is totally sensible. but profiles that have a flat face (lambs tongue grecian ogee or chamfer) also have 1 and 2 planes! often repeated is one set coarse and one set fine. maybe it was maybe it wasn't. how quickly these fine details just evaporate.

 

[Jacob]

there was actually tons of speculation about why sash planes were in pairs.

Just a guess - so that direction of planing can be reversed where the grain is problematic?
Have been thinking about this with current little job - planing up table legs with octagonal section in sycamore. Grain all over the place different from one facet to the other. Answer is to reverse direction where you get a bit of graunching, and/or use a finer set and freshly sharpened plane set aside for this. Handy to have a more than one plane on the job.

 

[johnnyb]

no the plane profiles are identical. just the fence is slightly different. mouldyplane could give a better explanation I'm sure.

 

[johnnyb]

one is the 2 planes leave much less of a nib on as reference for the sash fillester to rebate all pieces identically. then finally remove the tiny nib.

 

[Adam W.]

there was actually tons of speculation about why sash planes were in pairs. our speculation about making the intermediate smaller bars is totally sensible. but profiles that have a flat face (lambs tongue grecian ogee or chamfer) also have 1 and 2 planes! often repeated is one set coarse and one set fine. maybe it was maybe it wasn't. how quickly these fine details just evaporate.

That is always a theory which has puzzled me, as most of the waste is accurately taken off with a jack plane and the moulding is wrought on the chamfer with very little material taken off by the complex side escapement plane.

Plus, why would you give yourself two lots of complicated sharpening by using two nearly identical planes just to make a single small moulding?

As I mentioned earlier, extensive practical research is required to answer these questions, questions which can not be solved just by coming up with an idea off the top of your head. This is why I make it clear when I am speculating, because it's embarrassing to be proven wrong in public even if I am totally convinced I am right.

It is also the driving force for the research I am currently undertaking on medieval carpenter mouldings at the moment, and I won't publish the results until I have written and submitted the dissertation (sorry @toolsntat ), although I am happy to provide some visual progress snippets on this very forum for those who are interested.

Although it's easy to dismiss academic research into these historic carpentry/joinery processes as merely "playing around", there is an acute need for concrete, proven answers, otherwise we end up going around in the same old circles of speculation and end up disappearing up our own jacksies.

 

[Jacob]

....
as most of the waste is accurately taken off with a jack plane

I wouldn't have thought so - a large cumbersome plane taking off a tiny and precise chamfer, plus the changeover etc

...


Plus, why would you give yourself two lots of complicated sharpening by using two nearly identical planes just to make a single small moulding?

.....

One simple answer could be that it's a two man job with one sharpening whilst the other planes. They were into high productivity and gave their tools a thrashing. Same amount of sharpening either way

As I mentioned earlier, extensive practical research is required to answer these questions, questions which can not be solved just by coming up with an idea off the top of your head.

A hypothesis is a very good and perfectly conventional thing to start with.

 

[johnnyb]

it's intrigued people who are experts with access to pots of material evidence. my point being it would be very obvious if the nib was not present at all but that tiny difference between a nib 1/8 tall and say a 1/16 can be hard to spot on a worn dried plane.

 

[Adam W.]

I think Richard Arnold has taken this further and is probably the one to consult for the best and most thorough research on the subject of making vertically sliding sash windows by hand.

If you want to know about making early English Gothic 3/4 circle hollows and casement moldings by hand on circular or radiused structural work, I might tell you, but not just now.

Edit: Amy McAuley at George Washington House in Virginia, U.S.A. is also an authority on the subject of making and using complex side escapement planes for window production on conservation projects.

 

[Jacob]

@Sgian Dubh and @toolsntat

Sounds like the measurements from the scale drawings are transferred directly to the rods that he has in his pictures earlier. I'm sure he will confirm or deny that soon enough. Beat me too it!

Just like you can mark out the "rod which isn't a rod" by knowing the aperture which the window is going in and your finished section sizes and crucially how to make them, without resorting to making a full sized drawing of the vertically sliding sash window, which is just a bunch of simple rectangular or square frames anyway.

Except it isn't that easy and they aren't all simple and rectangular - the cill and the bottom rail have bevels and the two sashes slide in a different plane, with different design profiles and sizes.
Yes you could make a stab at it without a careful layout drawing but it would be very error prone if you were just working out measurements on the back of an envelope, or even a little stick!

 

[Jacob]

it's intrigued people who are experts with access to pots of material evidence. my point being it would be very obvious if the nib was not present at all but that tiny difference between a nib 1/8 tall and say a 1/16 can be hard to spot on a worn dried plane.

I've done various designs where you leave the nib on for convenience of handling and planing but finally take it off as a last pass or two with a block plane.

 

[toolsntat]

As mentioned by Adam it is easy to make suppositions without experience or corroborated evidence which is something I bear in mind when out doing displays and telling people what tools did what.
Even with hard facts like original catalogue listings you can still come across tradesmen who have always used a particular tool to do a job it wasn't originally intended to do.

Just now I'll take the opportunity to promote once again Richard Arnold's Instagram feed showing lots of information and his own hands on experience in the use of the tools for making vertical sliding sash windows .
Hopefully this link will take you directly to the the time period on his feed when he is talking about the subject. EDIT CLICK ON HIS PICTURE WITH HANDS ON THE PLANE TO GO DIRECT

 

[Jacob]

I've done various designs where you leave the nib on for convenience of handling and planing but finally take it off as a last pass or two with a block plane.

Exactly what R Arnold is describing above but without the two planes.
Same plane* for glazing bar and rails/stiles but take off the glazing-bar nib with a block plane and a final touch of sandpaper.
Same profile in fact, called "quirked astragal and hollow" according to Dan Cruikshank.
* I say "plane" but in fact was spindle cutter. May sound a world away but in fact very similar issues involved.

PS it never occurred to me to make two cutters, one for the frames the other for the glazing bars. Maybe would have done if it had been a very long run.

 

[Sgian Dubh]

Do you measure each adjusted/clamped stick as you go?
Sounds like what you do with sticks I do directly with a tape measure and notes - missing out the stick stage altogether.

No. Once the shortest dimension is found the sticks are screwed together at that shortest dimension and marked with a triangle, or similar, across the pair of edges so that they can be disassembled and reassembled later whilst retaining their extended dimension. Naturally an additional note has to be made of the longest dimension. This can be done most simply by making a written note on the sticks or in a notebook.

I guess the key is that the shortest length of the space surveyed is denoted by the joined together sticks, and at that specific point no other linear measurement numbers matter - that's the length, and that's it whether you later work in metric, Imperial, royal cubits, nautical miles, or something else. Whatever kind of cabinetry is going into the space cannot be longer than the joined together sticks at their shortest dimension. Even that's too long because in truth I've always made built-in cabinetry smaller than the opening by, typically, about 75 - 100 mm widthways and appropriately reduced dimensions vertically, all depending on the nature of the job, and used infill pieces of one sort or another to scribe to walls, floor (e.g., toe kick) and ceiling if required (e.g. cornice).

As I said in an earlier post in this thread I found the discussion in it interesting and educational. I'm not a trained and qualified joiner that's spent a lifetime doing joinery stuff such as windows, doors, stairs and so on. That's never been my thing although I've had to do odd bits of joinery stuff here and there, e.g., plot and execute an occasional housing in a pair of stair stringers; maybe two of those in about fifty years. I trained and qualified as a designer cabinetmaker and although there are similarities between the professions they're really rather different. It's those differences and similarities I find interesting in this thread. Slainte.

 

[steve355]

On the subject of sash planes, I‘ve been looking into this a lot, having an interest in plane making. On the cover of Richard Nelson’s sash plane booklet you can see the extra scribe marks on the #2 planes which show the difference in the moulding depth.

In practice it all makes a lot of sense, I have a pair of Griffiths sash planes, and I set #1 to “full hog” which creates the basic moulding in just a few passes (say 4-5) , until it hits the depth stops. #2 is set fine to clean up and produce that silky finish.

it’s very efficient, you wouldn‘t want to reset the plane for each moulding and you wouldn’t want to take it out of the sticking board to return it to clean up later. It’s akin to modern workmen having 2 drill-drivers, one with a drill bit and one with a screwdriver bit, if that makes sense.

 

[Jacob]

On the subject of sash planes, I‘ve been looking into this a lot, having an interest in plane making. On the cover of Richard Nelson’s sash plane booklet you can see the extra scribe marks on the #2 planes which show the difference in the moulding depth.

In practice it all makes a lot of sense, I have a pair of Griffiths sash planes, and I set #1 to “full hog” which creates the basic moulding in just a few passes (say 4-5) , until it hits the depth stops. #2 is set fine to clean up and produce that silky finish.

it’s very efficient, you wouldn‘t want to reset the plane for each moulding and you wouldn’t want to take it out of the sticking board to return it to clean up later. It’s akin to modern workmen having 2 drill-drivers, one with a drill bit and one with a screwdriver bit, if that makes sense.

View attachment 165580

Or: no.1 for the frame with nib and no.2 for the glazing bar without the nib - giving you a "lambs tongue" glazing bar?
Similar to what R Arnold says above and same as what I did except trimming the nib off with block plane, (not having a second cutter)?
I was copying existing at the time and I couldn't figure out how they did the difference, but I know now, perhaps?
The very common ovolo no.1 with a matching no.2 would then give the nibless "gothic" shape?
I've got a box of old moulding planes which I've never used except for playing with - I'll have a delve and see if any of them are numbered.
The difference between them - the no.1 nib would line up with the glazing rebate on the frame members, the no.2 moulding centre line would be centre line of glazing bar and not line up with glazing rebate.
Would this make sense with other profile paired ones and twos?

PS I think we've cracked it - somebody tell Adam!

 

[steve355]

Or: no.1 for the frame with nib and no.2 for the glazing bar without the nib - giving you a "lambs tongue" glazing bar?
Similar to what R Arnold says above and same as what I did except trimming the nib off with block plane, (not having a second cutter)?
I was copying existing at the time and I couldn't figure out how they did the difference, but I know now, perhaps?
The very common ovolo no.1 with a matching no.2 would then give the nibless "gothic" shape?
I've got a box of old moulding planes which I've never used except for playing with - I'll have a delve and see if any of them are numbered.
The difference between them - the no.1 nib would line up with the glazing rebate on the frame members, the no.2 moulding centre line would be centre line of glazing bar and not line up with glazing rebate.
Would this make sense with other profile paired ones and twos?

If I understand what you are saying, I don’t think so. Both planes had the width of the glazing bar stamped on them, indicating that’s what they were for. Also, both have 2 depth stops, designed for use with a flat sticking board for producing a perfectly proportioned glazing bar every time. Most demos of these tools, including Mr Arnold’s I think, have the glazing bar hanging off the edge of the sticking board. That isn‘t how they were designed to be used:

See above both depth stops bottoming out, one on top of the glazing bar and one on the lower part of the sticking board. With this plane and sticking board, It’s impossible to create a glazing bar with the wrong sized nib. Hanging off the edge of the bench, it’s easy to go wrong.

For moulding the edge of a frame, stile or rail, it’s not so easy. Theres no depth stop to help. I’ve been setting a marking gauge to run a line to work to. Else it easily goes wrong:

Alternatively, if you have one, you can use a plane with a long fence, as shown on the pic I posted above. I’m not certain, but I’d be willing to bet that they are for frames, rails and stiles. The long fence is useless for a sticking board but allows correct referencing on the front face of a rail or stile. R. Nelson’s thinks they are Scottish, but as Mathieson sold them alongside the 2-depth stop version it would make a lot of sense If they are for front referencing.

 

[Jacob]

...

View attachment 165582

...

Looking at the above, if that is a no.1 you could follow it with a no.2 and remove half of the nib, then turn the bar over and remove the rest and end up with a gothic profile?
In fact I've convinced myself! Not least because it's the answer to the problem I've encountered in the past, with spindle cutters - some patterns you need two, I now see.
I'm hoping to find a pair of planes in my box, I want to have a go!

 

[steve355]

Looking at the above, if that is a no.1 you could follow it with a no.2 and remove half of the nib, then turn the bar over and remove the rest and end up with a gothic profile?
In fact I've convinced myself! Not least because it's the answer to the problem I've encountered in the past, with spindle cutters - some patterns you need two, I now see.
I'm hoping to find a pair of planes in my box, I want to have a go!

These planes were sold as an ovolo matched pair, with a pair of templates thrown in as part of a package. I am certain that if they wanted a different profile, they would’ve brought a set a Planes for the different profile.

But by all means, give it a try!