Dundee boxes
- Thread starter domvar
- Start date
mikey
Member
Few more Dundee boxes. There was massive controversy over these boxes when they were first commissioned. Many were moved and there were complains that they were eyesores/ poorly sited.
An enquiry was held into the procurement of the boxes and there were allegations of corruption involving the chief constable.
angelus lupus
Active member
Is it just me, or does it look like there's variation in the sizing of these? There's a squarish type, and then ones that look like 2 and 3 section versions.
As for the controversy.. I can see where the largest type might have generated complaint!
As for the controversy.. I can see where the largest type might have generated complaint!
angelus lupus
Active member
To my eye (which, admittedly could be wrong) the smallest, squarest one looks like it might be slightly wider than a Met Box? I'm trying to judge the size of the last image, where it takes up over 2/3 of the pavement width - and that's back when pavements were really wide (three paving slabs in this case) before all the roads got widened due to traffic.
Supposition and guess work ahead:
Judging by the fact that one slab is wide enough for two people to walk abreast I could posit that we're looking at old-fashioned 3ft wide slabs? The box (not including base) is a little less than two slabs wide and a very quick calculation gives me very roughly about 4 and a half-ish feet wide by 8 and a bit feet tall?
Feel free to tear my calculations to shreds.
Edit to clarify: I'm referring to the square type that resembles a Met Box - which looks like it comes in a single, double and triple-length types*. Not the extremely small type.
*My eyes may be playing tricks and it's just 2 sizes
Supposition and guess work ahead:
Judging by the fact that one slab is wide enough for two people to walk abreast I could posit that we're looking at old-fashioned 3ft wide slabs? The box (not including base) is a little less than two slabs wide and a very quick calculation gives me very roughly about 4 and a half-ish feet wide by 8 and a bit feet tall?
Feel free to tear my calculations to shreds.
Edit to clarify: I'm referring to the square type that resembles a Met Box - which looks like it comes in a single, double and triple-length types*. Not the extremely small type.
*My eyes may be playing tricks and it's just 2 sizes
angelus lupus
Active member
Hmm, I'd missed that really narrow one!
It really doesn't look much wider than a GPO Phone box -just a single door's width. Unless there was a little fold-down seat, it must have been standing room for 1 only. Apart from keeping out of the rain, I can't see it serving much more of a function than a (presumably cheaper) Police Post?
BTW, this is what I thought I was seeing first, and then me second guessing it:
It really doesn't look much wider than a GPO Phone box -just a single door's width. Unless there was a little fold-down seat, it must have been standing room for 1 only. Apart from keeping out of the rain, I can't see it serving much more of a function than a (presumably cheaper) Police Post?
BTW, this is what I thought I was seeing first, and then me second guessing it:
angelus lupus
Active member
Should I have specified that my rough guess was a bird's eye view?
T
tony farrell
Guest
A bit of info for you:
Up till the adoption of metric brick sizes in 1965, mass-manufactured Scottish bricks were 3.25 inches tall (England had two imperial-standard sizes for mass-manufactured bricks - 2.625" tall and 2.875" tall)
Since we're in Scotland, and we're pre 1965, we can assume that each brick in the wall behind this box is/was 3.25" tall. There are ten courses of bricks visible behind the box and (possibly) a partial brick visible where the pavement has been dug up to site the box; each layer of bricks is/was bedded on a half-inch layer of mortar (again, 0.5" was the imperial standard for each layer of cement (10 mm thick after 1965)).
So, 10 courses of bricks = 32.5"
10 layers of cement = 5.0"
Bit at the bottom, approx = 2.5"
Total height of wall to underside of coping stones therefore is approximately 40".
Based on that:
Note, the dimension of 40" for the upper portion of the box is the minimum - this is a single photo which has some lens distortion. Including the pitched roof but not the lamp, we have something a little over eight feet tall. Effectively, this box is the same size as the as the red - contemporaneous, Gilbert Scott K6 telephone boxes so beloved of filmmakers!
Does that help?
T
Up till the adoption of metric brick sizes in 1965, mass-manufactured Scottish bricks were 3.25 inches tall (England had two imperial-standard sizes for mass-manufactured bricks - 2.625" tall and 2.875" tall)
Since we're in Scotland, and we're pre 1965, we can assume that each brick in the wall behind this box is/was 3.25" tall. There are ten courses of bricks visible behind the box and (possibly) a partial brick visible where the pavement has been dug up to site the box; each layer of bricks is/was bedded on a half-inch layer of mortar (again, 0.5" was the imperial standard for each layer of cement (10 mm thick after 1965)).
So, 10 courses of bricks = 32.5"
10 layers of cement = 5.0"
Bit at the bottom, approx = 2.5"
Total height of wall to underside of coping stones therefore is approximately 40".
Based on that:
Note, the dimension of 40" for the upper portion of the box is the minimum - this is a single photo which has some lens distortion. Including the pitched roof but not the lamp, we have something a little over eight feet tall. Effectively, this box is the same size as the as the red - contemporaneous, Gilbert Scott K6 telephone boxes so beloved of filmmakers!
Does that help?
T
angelus lupus
Active member
Well, even while I was making my rough guesses and estimations, I was confident that someone on here would be able to pull actual references! Thanks Tony, and your amazing ability to not only find crucial period data, but then extrapolate using your patented count-the-pixels method! ;D
The real question now is... why is there a set of (possibly coin operated) weighing scales behind the gentlemen in hats?
The real question now is... why is there a set of (possibly coin operated) weighing scales behind the gentlemen in hats?
