Hello,

I get to make another full-sized TARDIS.  Is there a set of Yardley Jones plans that is considered the best?

Thanks!

Bob

If you can wait until tomorrow, I think I'll be able to help you with that!

T

This reminds me that are a few things to reconcile regarding Imperial vs. metric timber. Even when builders switched to metric, the majority of building material were still Imperial sizes with new metric labels. For instance, a 38mm x 152mm is super common, but it's merely 1.5" x 6" within a very tiny fraction (not regarding nominal sizes which are strangely rounded as is the case with so-called 2x4s). This means most of the peculiar dims of the TYJ are a result of the casting process. If building a replica in wood, it's probably easier to build to the intended dims.

I put together some Imperial TYJ plans in a general arrangement without regard to the history of the multiple versions of the prop (with input from Purple). The dims seem to jive with much of what's in the Technical Manual, which is hit & miss for accuracy but seems to get some things very right.

Tony's history thread is the place to head, but I have a few dims challenges to that, which I will address there.

I'm in the process of updating the article with input of dimensions which have been obtained by measuring the actual prop. This is why I asked to be given a "day's grace"!  

All will be revealed tomorrow evening (British Summer Time).

After that it will be 'full steam ahead' with the Newbery version!

T

Well, you can't do better than that! My main issue was with the slope of the top roof tier (taller) and maybe evidence that the corner posts are a bit wider as illustrated in my Imperial plans.

Thanks! I think I can wait a day or 30.

Sounds intriguing Tony.

Don't suppose you can obtain some measurements from the Mike Melt console can you?

It's not really intriguing Mark - more a case of sneaking-in a tape measure when no-one is looking!

When I undertook my 'pixel counting' from various photos, I got two things wrong - I assumed the box was actually square and that all the cross-rails on the panels were the same size.

Neither of these things are true which meant that I'd overstated the height of the doors by just over 1.5 centimeters and I'd over-estimated the widths of the sides (outside edge of the corner-post to outside edge of the corner-post) by just under 2 millimeters:

I originally came up with the widths of the sides as 51.25" (1301.75 mm) - they're actually 1300 mm. I originally stated that all the cross rails were 3.6" (92 mm). I based this on the photos Steve W/Fivefingeredstyre took which show the central rail is 92 mm, because Steve's photo is taken with the camera slightly pointing down, I took it that all the cross-rails were the same height but, the remainder are actually 90 mm. (The remainder of the difference is accounted for by the fact the actual height of the panel recesses varies too - so depending on which door you measure/count the pixels on, you get different results.)

So, I'm actually quite pleased - if you can find a high-definition photo which is taken 'square-on', my pixel counting does actually work and it does produce results which are 99.9% accurate (he says modestly   ).

As regards the Mike Kelt Console, as I commented on Lespaceplie's topic, the only things where I disagree with Gene's excellent plans are the omission of the slight gap between each control panel and the fact that the hexagonal pattern on the fascia (what Gene calls the belt) has a depth of approximately 5 mm (the gaps between the control panels are about 5mm too). If you factor in those two very minor changes, you get a console whose sides are almost exactly 46" which precisely matches the previous Kenneth Sharp version of the Console! (I think the outside diameter of the central column/time rotor is 563mm i.e., the top disc is 560 mm in diameter and the cylinder is made from 1.5 mm thick Perspex which is 'wrapped around' that top disc.)

In short, there's no disagreement on my part with Gene's excellent plans - I simply make the Kelt Console fractionally wider due to the alignment of the control panels on the metal sub-frame.  

T

(Edited to split the second paragraph into three sections to aid readers' understanding.)

The Kelt rotor isn't constructed in the same way as the Sharp or Brachacki replacement ones (questions about the very first Brachacki, though). It's allegedly drape-formed with bonded seams and top. I'm not sure about 1980s UK manufacturers, but a 22" diameter cylinder with 2 polished seams is a non-custom item available now. It would have a thicker wall, which the Kelt rotor looks to have.

Also, regarding the Sharp rotor, Purple supposedly measured the very last version of it at 22.625" or 22.5 plus .063 sheet. Do we have a count of how many Sharp rotor housings there were? I'm supposing at least 2 due to the varying reinforcement strips.

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Aug 26, 2017, 11:41 am

When I undertook my 'pixel counting' from various photos, I got two things wrong - I assumed the box was actually square and that all the cross-rails on the panels were the same size.

Neither of these things are true which meant that I'd overstated the height of the doors by just over 1.5 centimeters and I'd over-estimated the widths of the sides (outside edge of the corner-post to outside edge of the corner-post) by just under 2 millimeters:

I originally came up with the widths of the sides as 51.25" (1301.75 mm) - they're actually 1300 mm. I originally stated that all the cross rails were 3.6" (92 mm). I based this on the photos Steve W/Fivefingeredstyre took which show the central rail is 92 mm, because Steve's photo is taken with the camera slightly pointing down, I took it that all the cross-rails were the same height but, the remainder are actually 90 mm. (The remainder of the difference is accounted for by the fact the actual height of the panel recesses varies too - so depending on which door you measure/count the pixels on, you get different results.)

Tony, will you be updating the plans posted in your Thomas Yardley-Jones reference/history thread with this new info?  Hope so, it's a fantastic resource.

TF.

Thank you.... Indeed I will sir!

The plan was to update it last night but, I ended up going out and got slightly (for that read "very") tipsy and as a result I'm feeling a little delicate today.... 

T

Quote from: lespaceplie on Aug 25, 2017, 07:58 pm
...Most of the peculiar dims of the TYJ are a result of the casting process. If building a replica in wood, it's probably easier to build to the intended dims.

I'm currently in a bit of a quandry as to which dimensions I should build to, for my forthcoming 1:1 replica - which will ultimately be cast in fiberglass. 

I'll obviously be making the wooden formers /plugs in the first instance, but if I build to the actual dims of the TYJ at the DWE, then, by the time my casts are pulled... it'll be a bit different (shrinkage).  Or do I build to Lespaceplie's 'general arrangement' plans?  Or do I build to Thomas Yardley-Jones original drawings?  I want to end up with a box that's highly convincing as a recreation of the 1980s box circa season 21/22. I'm concerned that one mis-step at this early planning stage could lead to regret further down the road.

Any thoughts?

The other part of my quadry is whether to build the formers in positive (necessitating the production of moulds before then pulling castings), or whether to build the moulds in negative... meaning there's only one-step in the fiberglass process... My reasoning is that if there's only one step, then (a) it'll be cheaper, and (b) it'll suffer less shrinkage.  But then there;s the fact that building in negative will be quite a headache, and may lead to unforeseen errors... only apparent when the first casts are pulled.

What to do?  :/

TF.

To be honest TF I have no fiberglassing skills, although I wish I had, so cannot help you with your quandry.

That said though, I shall be looking forward to seeing your build diary!

As promised, http://tardisbuilders.com/index.php?topic=6965.0 has now been updated with plans based on actual measurements taken from the Thomas Yardley-Jones Tardis on display in Cardiff.

For those that don't want to read the 'article' in full, the principal plans are posted below:








T

(Open images in a separate tab and use the 'magnifying glass' to see them at full size.)

Tony, that's fantastic!  Thank you so much.  And you've 'fancied up' the graphics some more too.

TF.