• Attn: If you were on the old forum, you may have to reset your password!

New Met box plans - first draft.

  • Thread starter Thread starter anita
  • Start date Start date
No problem! I'm honestly always glad to have feedback like this - hopefully at some point they'll be accurate enough to be useful. The plans posted earlier were of course just a proof-of-concept (mostly as a test of rendering the model as a plan). When I'm dedicated to something like this, I never know when to stop.

But I'm glad to be of help; someday I hope I'll be as knowledgeable as you on the topic. We know a lot more about Met boxes now than we did even six years ago, but there's still always a little bit of mystery surrounding it all, and I'd love to be a part of that research (I've just ordered The Rise and Fall of the Police Box too, so that should make for a good read). I never expected myself to get this invested in it, to the point where I'm excited by even just a new photograph, but it's a great community and I'm glad to be part of it.
 
They've already been very useful, with the promise of being even more so.

I had long ago intended to do something like this, but time never seemed on my side, so your contribution has been a much needed boost to things.

Bunker's other book, "From Rattle to Radio" is also a good read. Only most of a single chapter on the Met Police Boxes and their antecedents, but still interesting, especially if you have any interest in the 1897 boxes, as there's a bit more info there on them than in "The Rise and Fall..."

BTW - The Trench plans may be a very good place to start with measurements on the Mark 2's. As noted above in my last post before your first, they seem to have been traced from one version or another of the Mark 2 working drawings, then just modified to reflect the planned changes for the Mark 3's (as with the Glasgow Mark 4 Boxes). As such, some of their measurements, especially in the roof area, seem more applicable to the earlier Met Boxes.

Of course, not all the measurements are called out, nor are they drawn with enough accuracy to be able to reliably read off measurements from the given scale (drawn details often differing even from one side to another on the same elevation or plan), but if one interprets things to more or less the nearest even fraction of an inch (1/4" or 1/8"), I think it's a good place to start.  Then line them up in wire frame to good photos of various Mark 2s and see where things fit and where they don't - adjusting as necessary, just like Tony Farrell and dw_1200 have been doing so brilliantly with the Brachacki Box (http://tardisbuilders.com/index.php?topic=8649.0).
 
If I could just 'chip in' on Alan's final point about overlaying wire frame diagrams on photos, be prepared to have a great many goes to get it right.

Slava (DW_1200) and I are still working on this but rather than boring the socks off everyone showing each minute adjustment, we decided to do the work just between ourselves with numerous e-mails flying backwards and forwards between the Duchy & County Palatine of Lancashire and the imperial city of St Petersburg!

You'll be surprised too how what might be thought of as a minor adjustment to one single dimension - even less than an eighth of an inch - can throw everything else out. As Mike Verte has demonstrated in his rather nice little videos, straight lines and perfect angles don't really exist in the real world. This fact is particularly true of the Brachacki box - as early as Season two through constant man-handling (and a couple of serious wallops) the Tardis has started to twist out of shape and by the time of "The Gunfighters" the old girl is on the point of collapsing altogether!

The same thing is going to be true of concrete. Even if the parts were all drawn from the same moulds (which, if I understand correctly, they weren't), constant use of those moulds would result in the moulds becoming distorted and having to be repaired. Then you'd have to ask are the parts all put together with the same degree of accuracy? Is the box you're studying actually level on the pavement? Then there is maintenance: If the door has been repaired, has the door been re-hung at the same height or have the workmen sanded a bit off to get it to fit?

Have fun with this project Lym but, be prepared for some hard work and head-scratching along the way!  ;)

T
 
Thanks for all that Tony, and I was wondering why things had gone quiet after so much interesting activity.

It's actually even worse for Met Boxes after the Mark 1's, though. Not only were they designed to shed water, so with almost no right angles in a vertical sense, they were also moulded in concrete, which means that many parts couldn't be at right angles due to mould release issues (to say nothing of the wide tolerances inherent in both the materials and the moulds themselves).

I think that Matt was quite surprised when he started making measurements at Crich as to just how irregular that structure really is - as I recall, saying at one point that he didn't think there was a single right angle on the whole Box. Even many of the non-concrete parts were also moulded, with all the same issues (though a bit tighter tolerances).

And as to construction, the loose tolerances necessary to be able to slap them together with just some mortar to fill the voids is obvious in many photos. One look at the sign lintel fascias on most Mark 2s and 3s alone tells a story, as you can almost instantly see that they were rarely anywhere near centred, with often huge variance in the distance to the end of the pillar between left and right sides.
 
hb88banzai said:
Note also that while you've got the roof tier sloping flats about right, you haven't added the slopes to the sign lintels (though even Trench didn't show that). They sloped quite a bit up top to shed water (on par with the roof tiers), but I believe below as well just a bit for mould release reasons - then they flattened out for the rest of the ring beam area you can't see.
Click to expand...

Speaking of slopes, I noticed the base of the box in both the above drawing and in the renders has a sharp "bevel" around the top edge (like the TARDISes have). However both the GPO and Trench plans show a much shallower "slope", like that on the Top Sign boxes... at least in the cross-section drawings; most of the overall external drawings show no slope, just a plain square base.

So whether it's a slight slope, or no slope, the sharp bevel on the drawing and renders needs some flattening out.

I hope this is a little helpful.

Dino.
 
Yeah, it's a little steep. This is a detail that varied a bit over time and type, but I don't think any were quite that steep.

Here's a pic of the Ashcombe Avenue early Mark 2 Box at full resolution, cropped to the base --

V47--Ashcombe Avenue, Surbiton Box-(c1930)-HiRes2-Base Crop.jpg

Note that the top right corner of the base has been knocked off along the bevel line and extending below it, making it look steeper and deeper than it was.

Here's a crop of the later photo of it from that side, showing the damage there and also more on the same side at the back lower corner, where a big chunk is missing --

Ashcombe_Avenue_Box-V47-(c1935--hi-res)--base crop-levels.jpg
 
As for slopes, as mentioned earlier, the Crich box had them everywhere for rain dissipation however the base looks flat upon first inspection, certainly no chamfer like the two last pictures or the TARDIS.

If you look closely at it though, there is indeed a very shallow slope but nothing like these.
 
Having made a replica, I can confirm the Base on the Crich box does have a slant, but that the slant goes all the way to the wall, with no horizontal part.  So, the columns actually land on slanting surfaces, instead of flat, which makes it rather harder to build!  (But presumably, is more weatherproof, as there's no flat area to accumulate rain water...
 
Yeah, I figured as much. I have a sneaking suspicion that the seemingly flat section on the Mark 2 and 3 Boxes were also at a slight slant from the walls.

Here's a crop from one of Mark's photos to show the Crich (Mark 4) Box base --

DSCF4050-right bast crop.JPG

Note that the edge of the base is also closer to the pillar than on the earlier Met Boxes. I'm wondering what the overall width of the base measures.

The Mark 1's also had a continuous slant from the wall to the edge of the base, but at a significantly steeper angle --

V11-(c1930)-HiRes3.jpg
 
This is all great stuff! I've got a document in which I'm taking these notes which I'll be able to cross off when I add them to my models and plans. I plan to read through every topic posted to the Police Box section of the site (including those on the Met box catalog) and try and learn any other things of note.

It really is such a niche interest, which is probably why it's taken so long to try and organise accurate plans. If there's anything else I could help with even a little bit, just let me know.
 
Good shot! You can actually see the slight slope, and also appears to be a slight ridge where the top surfaces meet on the right.

And yes, the Box that replaced the original Post there was indeed a Mark 4 --

H15 Blackwall Tunnel North 2 (c1978).jpg

Interestingly, this almost was the Crich Box, as it was the one they looked into potentially acquiring before getting in touch with the Met directly and finding out they still had a few in storage.
 
That photo always depresses me, as it wasn't in the best of condition when I took my pictures, but it looked a sight better than that!
I believe my pics are in the database, but for quick access, go to my (minimalist) website:

http://www.spacewarp.co.uk/who/BlackwallNorthBox.htm
 
Tomorrow, I'll take Tony's advice and do some more overlaying of wireframes onto photographs. I've done it a couple of times before, and it's certainly tedious, but worth it to get an accurate end result. Once we've reached an accurate stage (which may not be for a while), then work can be put into the actual plans.

Getting a bit ahead of ourselves here, but I'd love to help with graphics work on any infographics/charts that may be needed, such as the Spotter's Guide mentioned in the Met Box "To-Do" list. Functionally it wouldn't make too much of a difference if the information is the same, but I feel it's always nice to have something that is aesthetically pleasing.
 
Would it be wise to split off and start a photogrammetry thread for the box wireframes? That way it has its own dedicated place and doesn't take up space in this thread or the build diary thread and just makes things much easier.
 
anson said:
I'm trying to produce a very detailed set of plans based on Anita's Sketchup - perhaps they can be official 'Tardis builders' plans.
I don't really know what format they should be in - suggestions welcome!

So far;

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a136/AnsonJames/MetropolitanPoliceroof.jpghttp://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a136/AnsonJames/MetropolitanPoliceBoxsignbox.jpghttp://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a136/AnsonJames/MetropolitanPoliceBoxsignboxdepth.jpghttp://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a136/AnsonJames/MetropolitanPoliceBoxpillartop.jpghttp://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a136/AnsonJames/metboxroof.jpg
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a136/AnsonJames/metboxdoors.jpghttp://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a136/AnsonJames/metboxdetail1.jpg
Click to expand...
These look great, , how do I download these
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top