Yes, I have some free time today so I’m going to do one more attempt at a practice joint, then presuming that goes ok I will get on and make the sash.
Sash bar dimensions for historical windows
- Thread starter steve355
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
Yes, I have some free time today so I’m going to do one more attempt at a practice joint, then presuming that goes ok I will get on and make the sash.
mouldy plane
Established Member
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Good point, hadn't thought of that. Maybe sharp knife of some sort. Or mitres instead of scribes - just a few well aimed chops with a sharp chisel
Twas ever thus. Some new tools catch on, most don't, but they may hang around for a long time confusing the issue!
Last edited:
Johnny , that’s really interesting, thanks for that. The mitering prior to the scribe is shown in the “door and window making” book. One of those little mitre blocks you show in the pic are used.
That “reverse profile of a sash bar” profile is almost impossible to execute without a specialised plane (i actually made one a while back), unless it’s done in 2 halves using a hollow plane. Can you remember if it was screwed together?
mouldy plane
Established Member
Hi Steve. No, it was cut from the solid. If I had to make one I would possibly just use a plough plane and an appropriate sized round.
Aha I see - yes I’ve seen a video somewhere on YouTube where a similar board is used. Basically a sticking board but gives full support to the bar once one side has been planed .
Well, I got my head around the franked joint at last. It’s not very good but it seems structurally correct. Now to lay out my sash bits and cut 4 of them.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
That's why I thought my sample would have been spindle moulded. I didn't know these planes existed.
Ahah! I wondered where you had obtained one of these mysterious, very rare and hardly ever used planes! That explains it.
I guess they were dropped early on as they didn't live up to their promise - the story of many tool innovations and still about 95% of the catalogue items of most new tool dealers even today.
Last edited:
That particular plane was based on one in the plane making booklet be W J Armour (pretty much the only historical text on plane making) where it shows a plane used for making sash templates. I copied it - kind of - I actually made a rabbet plane and profiled it to the shape of a template-making plane.
Luckily I do all this as a hobby and for interest.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Forgot to ask - have you a photo of the rail end? It looks potentially difficult what with having to cut out the little extra mortice and that thin wall to the mortice on the stile. Or just cut the wall away? Why not full width mortice & tenon to match the flat?
Last edited:
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Looking for "frank" again and it seems in many books only to refer to the crossover of glazing bars.
I'm beginning to think that the so-called "franked" stile/rail joint is just a vestige of the fully scribed joint which was briefly in fashion thanks to the plane makers of that era, and is not a very good idea.
Odd coincidence that the sample from my box is the fully scribed version but I saved it (I think) because of the "coved quirked astragal" moulding which I replicated in a set of windows, but with normal haunched tenons.
Easy to replicate the moulding with home made spindle cutters, very difficult to replicate by hand without the matching plane from Mathieson et al.
https://chestofbooks.com/architecture/Builder-Joints/Joiners-Joints-Part-3.html
I'm beginning to think that the so-called "franked" stile/rail joint is just a vestige of the fully scribed joint which was briefly in fashion thanks to the plane makers of that era, and is not a very good idea.
Odd coincidence that the sample from my box is the fully scribed version but I saved it (I think) because of the "coved quirked astragal" moulding which I replicated in a set of windows, but with normal haunched tenons.
Easy to replicate the moulding with home made spindle cutters, very difficult to replicate by hand without the matching plane from Mathieson et al.
https://chestofbooks.com/architecture/Builder-Joints/Joiners-Joints-Part-3.html
Last edited:
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Looking for "story stick" / "rod etc.
The rod (full size drawing on a board) is described in the same way in most of the old books and is well established and a normal process, even in later books such as WB McKay
The "story stick" is not in any of the old books except as the familiar floor height "story rod" for staircase makers primarily. PS except American books.
But it flourishes on the interweb - endless youtubes etc.
I've concluded that story "sticks" are an attempt to re-invent the largely forgotten "rod".
You'd need a rod anyway to get your information together for a story stick.
Bring back the rod!
The rod (full size drawing on a board) is described in the same way in most of the old books and is well established and a normal process, even in later books such as WB McKay
The "story stick" is not in any of the old books except as the familiar floor height "story rod" for staircase makers primarily. PS except American books.
But it flourishes on the interweb - endless youtubes etc.
I've concluded that story "sticks" are an attempt to re-invent the largely forgotten "rod".
You'd need a rod anyway to get your information together for a story stick.
Bring back the rod!
Last edited:
mouldy plane
Established Member
Attachments
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Right. Your first photo earlier looked like motice narrower than the "flat" but it seems not. I was interested because the M&T on my sample is narrower, but for a reason.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Just checking out Charles Hayward. in "Cabinet Making for Beginners"
He describes the rod much as all the others do, whether cabinet or door/window making. He talks about sale drawings as part of the design process then moves on to:
“Full-size drawing"
This may be undertaken to see exactly what the piece of furniture will look like, to enable proportions to be adjusted and to fix finally the various widths and thicknesses.
Such a drawing is generally prepared on detail or cartridge paper and when completed is stood up against the wall so that it can be properly seen.”
then talks about drawing board T and set squares, then comes to the point of full size, for the maker.
“One important reason for full sizing is that it will enable you to make the piece without possibility of error, and and to work out any problem of construction or detail or section. In this case
(he’s talking about a chest of drawers)
you need only show certain parts.
What is known as a rod or skid is prepared…”
So "skid" is a new word but otherwise they all sing from the same sheet: this is what you do.
He's a bit vague about how you take dimensions from the rod, but in fact if you want to remove possibility of error you drop components on to the drawing and take them off directly, without any intermediate measuring.
Non of the British writers say anything about story sticks, poles etc unless they talk of staircases and "story rods".
Oddly, if you google there is very little about the rod at all, you get nonsense like this but then the interweb came along well after trad techniques like the rod had started to be forgotten.
Even modern writers like Paul (Mr Sensible) Sellers don't seem to be aware of this basic and essential technique.
Lost Art Press are working on Hayward, does this mean they may rediscover the rod (or skid)? I wouldn't count on it!
He describes the rod much as all the others do, whether cabinet or door/window making. He talks about sale drawings as part of the design process then moves on to:
“Full-size drawing"
This may be undertaken to see exactly what the piece of furniture will look like, to enable proportions to be adjusted and to fix finally the various widths and thicknesses.
Such a drawing is generally prepared on detail or cartridge paper and when completed is stood up against the wall so that it can be properly seen.”
then talks about drawing board T and set squares, then comes to the point of full size, for the maker.
“One important reason for full sizing is that it will enable you to make the piece without possibility of error, and and to work out any problem of construction or detail or section. In this case
(he’s talking about a chest of drawers)
you need only show certain parts.
What is known as a rod or skid is prepared…”
So "skid" is a new word but otherwise they all sing from the same sheet: this is what you do.
He's a bit vague about how you take dimensions from the rod, but in fact if you want to remove possibility of error you drop components on to the drawing and take them off directly, without any intermediate measuring.
Non of the British writers say anything about story sticks, poles etc unless they talk of staircases and "story rods".
Oddly, if you google there is very little about the rod at all, you get nonsense like this but then the interweb came along well after trad techniques like the rod had started to be forgotten.
Even modern writers like Paul (Mr Sensible) Sellers don't seem to be aware of this basic and essential technique.
Lost Art Press are working on Hayward, does this mean they may rediscover the rod (or skid)? I wouldn't count on it!
Last edited:
andrew_2
Established Member
Possibly because once CAD came along, there wasn't so much need for someone to draw up a same size rod drawing on detail paper, so the job got quickly forgotten and not interesting enough to remember.
You had to be very precise in your technical drawing skills and the writing of instructions, because a blunder could prove expensive. You would put on the critical dimensions and leave the maker to measure or scale the rest off the drawing.
I can quite imagine a joinery or furniture manufacturer of a period having rolls of their detail paper rods, beautifully drawn and annotated in ink, stored in the attic. They would probably (definitely) all have got thrown out once they became obsolete because that's what happened to ours.
I still have my 3ft beam compass. But I have never heard the word "skid" before.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Yes but they go on at length about story "sticks". We are talking of trad techniques pre CAD, as still used by many small operators, believe it or not!
Often wondered - how do you get from CAD to marking up and cutting woodwork, as unless you have a full size printer you can't do a rod
No more precise than the woodwork?
andrew_2
Established Member
Yes, sorry - might be cross purposes here. All I'm saying is that rods were common practice in my job. What I meant about precise drawing skills is that you could not hand over a sloppy drawing to a maker. You would get murdered.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Lots of variations on the theme but in general your beautifully full size drawings would be the final stage in the design process, whereas "the rod" would be the functional workshop drawing derived from it, on stiff paper or a board so that it can survive the workshop environment, particularly the laying on of components so that marks can be taken off without an intermediate process of measuring. The measuring is all done and dusted, all details sorted out, everything fitting together, and you are on autopilot, without a tape measure even!
Maybe it's lack of basic drafting skills which leads to people trying to work without it? I admit I had a bit of training on the drawing board - still got the first one - but it isn't difficult.
Last edited:
Sgian Dubh
Established Member
Oh, that's simple, Jacob: CAD to CNC machine, said a bit tongue in cheek.
Funnily enough I just last week disposed of my A1+ paper size parallel motion drawing board which I'd owned for about thirty years, it being a replacement for an older one. I took it to the charity shop. Somebody might buy it and use it, I suppose. I got rid of it because I hadn't used that drawing board for perhaps twenty years although I still have a small A3 drawing board plus all the drafting tools - squares, pens, compasses, scale rules etc. The truth is that I do 97%+ of my drawing digitally nowadays, mostly on Fusion 360, but there's still often a need to create from those digital drawings or orthographic projections full sized rods for the reasons you've given.
An irritant I experience with some designers/drafters who present you with digitally drafted working drawings is their unfamiliarity with the layout of orthographic projections. They're sometimes unaware of things like first angle or third angle projection and elevations and/or sections appear in odd illogical places along with occasionally presenting drawings that somehow randomly switch between first and third angle projection on the same sheet, which can lead to misunderstandings at the workbench... and even to errors in construction Slainte.
