T
tony farrell
Guest
ALMOST EXACTLY 45 YEARS AGO TO THE DAY, ON 4th JANUARY 1971, PRODUCTION BEGAN ON “CLAWS OF AXOS”. THIS STORY MARKED THE DEBUT APPEARANCE OF THE KENNETH SHARP VERSION OF THE TARDIS CONSOLE.
By its final appearance in “Inferno” in 1970, Peter Brachacki’s original Tardis Console was in a very poor state of repair and had to be retired. The job of designing its replacement was given to BBC designer Kenneth Sharp.
Unlike the construction of the original which was contracted out to Shawcraft, the building of the new MK1A Console (as it is often referred to) was handled in-house by the BBC, probably by the Visual Effects Department who built a simplified timber frame on which were fitted the various controls (most of which were salvaged from the original Brachacki Console).
As well as having a slightly wider (and slightly sleeker) ‘silhouette’, the most obvious difference between the two versions of the Console was the design of the central column’s interior.
The Brachacki central column’s interior was clearly reminiscent of a steerable radio antenna (and, as such, was capable of rotating). The Sharp/Pertwee/MK1A version of the console’s central column is clearly designed for the then new medium of colour television – containing as it does brightly coloured plastics in the form of ‘shafts’ and various angled panels.
Though made of plastic, especially when viewed from above, the column’s interior is more reminiscent of the ‘clover-leaf’ shaped piers which can be seen in many medieval and later ‘Gothic revival’ Victorian-era buildings:
In architectural terms, this type of pier is known as a “compound column”; a compound column consists of a central “pier”, to which engaged (touching) or semi-detached “shafts” are attached. The central pier and shafts can be any regular geometric shape – in the case of the Tardis, a triangular central pier with three circular shafts.
Where the shafts are fully detached from the central pier, they are coupled to it by “armulets” (bridging pieces) at regular heights to maintain structural integrity. A compound column can be free-standing or mounted on a “base”. (Note, all terms in quote marks (“-“) are correct and a compound column does not need to support anything on top of it.)
This architectural analogy is particularly suited to the Pertwee/Sharp/MK1A console:
(For reasons of clarity, at this stage, the multi-directional angled panels are not shown.)
Here I’m posting Lespaceplie’s excellent version of the Baker/Davison “compound column” for comparison.
Though obviously simplified by the removal of the colourful angled panels and their replacement with frosted panels (which serve to obscure the still-slightly-gaudy pink/red central triangular pier), the later Baker/Davison version re-utilises the Sharp original.
Note, there are subtle differences in the construction methods implied by these drawings and these subtleties alter the overall dimensions as a result:
Firstly, let me say that (whilst I’m going to explain why I slightly disagree with his conclusions) how much I admire Lespaceplie’s work here on TB and, equally, how much I admire Crispin/Scarfwearer’s earlier work in trying to establish the dimensions of the MK1A Console as well.
They say ‘imitation is the sincerest form of flattery’; well, in creating my version of the Pertwee “compound column”, I’ve hopefully achieved precisely that! So where I’m now going on to explain why I differ from Lespaceplie (and Crispin) it is meant in the spirit of respectful, polite and friendly disagreement. Above all however, it is meant in the spirit of creating screen accurate plans:
In Lespaceplie’s drawing, structural stability is gained by recessing each shaft within a four inch diameter hole cut into the acrylic mirror which tops the column’s black base. Further rigidity is provided by the three Perspex “annular sectors” which are screwed through the mirrored disc and into the black base.
At the top of Lespaceplie’s column, three small armulets attach the shafts to a triangular collar which (in turn) attaches to the central triangular pier. Here I completely agree with Lespaceplie:
Where I disagree is in the relationship of the shafts to the mirrored disc. In my view, only the 'sheaths' for the fluorescent tubes are recessed into the mirrored disc. This would only require the cutting of three one inch diameter holes through the mirrored disc rather than three four inch diameter holes.
In my opinion, stability is not only provided by the three annular sectors but also by the presence of a triangular collar fitted onto the mirrored disc (i.e., except for the armulets, identical to the structure at the top of the column). The three circular shafts are therefore ‘locked’ into position rather than being ‘recessed’ into position.
This arrangement would seem to be borne out by the pictorial evidence:
(The presence of the lower stabilising triangular collar - fitted to the mirrored disc - is highlighted in yellow in the last picture.)
By comparing the diameters of the hole in the Console’s collar, the Perspex cylinder and the diameters of both the mirrored disc and black base, we can also begin to establish the Central Column’s overall dimensions; it doesn’t matter what the unit of measurement is, the ratios of the diameters will remain the same (476:438:352 pixels at the points indicated). So, once you’ve established one diameter, the others can be calculated accordingly.
But which diameter do you choose? As with everything connected with Dr Who, the Pertwee/Sharp/MK1A console was subjected to adaptation – for example, a microphone was fitted for “The Time Monster” as was the ‘time ram’ dial, whilst in “Death to the Daleks”, coloured lamps replaced the small toggle switches on Control Panel 2; famously in "Colony in Space", sudden damage to this panel was supposedly hidden by the creation of a ‘socket’ into which the housing for the Tardis’ de-materialisation circuit could be fitted!
So, our diameter needs to be something we know was not altered. This therefore effectively rules out the diameter of the outer Perspex cylinder:
Not only were controls modified or replaced, throughout its screen lifetime the Central Column too underwent various refits; it is obvious that the outer cylinder was made in two halves from very thin Perspex sheets which were riveted together. When first introduced in “Claws of Axos”, these joins were achieved using two metal re-enforcing strips:
This is a close-up from “The Time Monster”:
Note the main securing brass rivets/small bolts/screws in the ‘rear’ join of Perspex cylinder (left-hand side of picture). Note also that the two Perspex halves of the outer cylinder meet rather than overlap so, the metal strip acts as the original joining piece (see nearside of cylinder/right of picture where upright join meets the circular top of the central column). Also note the small holes in the Perspex on either side of the nearside join (these are in addition to the holes which correspond to the main nearside brass fixings).
These metallic joining strips remained until Pyramids of Mars but were removed in the next story - Planet of Evil:
By the time “The Pirate Planet” was recorded, it is clear that the production team had decided that overlapping the two Perspex halves would be more durable/easier than fitting any kind of joining strip:
The screen grab from Pirate Planet is also helpful in determining the relative diameters of the hole in the Console’s collar, outer cylinder, mirrored disc and black base:
The Central Column is (more or less) at its full height and has (for once) risen vertically! These pictures are the full-sized version of the same screen capture but split into three to ‘dodge’ the forum’s 500KB upload limit):
Note the ratios of the three diameters we are discussing (760:700:570) and compare them to the same ratios seen in Claws of Axos (476:438:352). Also note that in the Pirate Planet the mirrored disc appears to be fractionally smaller than the black base whereas in Axos, both the mirrored disc and black base appear to be the same diameter.
Now to the maths and – remember – we don’t yet know any dimensions, we are simply talking about how big each diameter is in relation to the others. Secondly, the two pictures are different sizes so the comparative diameters need to be expressed in the same way: To achieve this, I am going to take the diameter of the hole in the Console’s collar as my baseline i.e., its diameter is one hundred units.
For Pirate Planet:-
Where 760 pixels = 100 units,
the diameter of the Perspex cylinder = 700/760 x 100 = 92.105 units and
the diameter of the black base = 570/760 x 100 = 75 units.
For Claws of Axos:-
Where 476 pixels = 100 units,
the diameter of The Perspex cylinder = 438/476 = 92.017 units and
the diameter of the black base = 352/476 = 73.950 units.
Clearly at 73.950 units and 75 units respectively - and given the appearance of a slight discrepancy between the diameter of the mirrored disc and the diameter of the black base in the later Baker picture - the black base has been fractionally increased in size between the two stories (possibly a later thin ‘skin’ was added to disguise some damage to the original - MK1A - black base).
So, with different outer Perspex cylinders and a re-dressed internal ‘compound column’, between the Pertwee and Baker versions, just what were the dimensions of the MK1A Console’s Central Column as designed by Kenneth Sharp in January 1971?
As the only ‘constant’ dimension is the hole in the Console’s collar, we need to accurately establish this measurement. The only way to do that is to create screen accurate plans for the entire Sharp Tardis Console itself!
We’ll discuss these measurements in Part Two. And Happy New Year!
By its final appearance in “Inferno” in 1970, Peter Brachacki’s original Tardis Console was in a very poor state of repair and had to be retired. The job of designing its replacement was given to BBC designer Kenneth Sharp.
Unlike the construction of the original which was contracted out to Shawcraft, the building of the new MK1A Console (as it is often referred to) was handled in-house by the BBC, probably by the Visual Effects Department who built a simplified timber frame on which were fitted the various controls (most of which were salvaged from the original Brachacki Console).
As well as having a slightly wider (and slightly sleeker) ‘silhouette’, the most obvious difference between the two versions of the Console was the design of the central column’s interior.
The Brachacki central column’s interior was clearly reminiscent of a steerable radio antenna (and, as such, was capable of rotating). The Sharp/Pertwee/MK1A version of the console’s central column is clearly designed for the then new medium of colour television – containing as it does brightly coloured plastics in the form of ‘shafts’ and various angled panels.
Though made of plastic, especially when viewed from above, the column’s interior is more reminiscent of the ‘clover-leaf’ shaped piers which can be seen in many medieval and later ‘Gothic revival’ Victorian-era buildings:
In architectural terms, this type of pier is known as a “compound column”; a compound column consists of a central “pier”, to which engaged (touching) or semi-detached “shafts” are attached. The central pier and shafts can be any regular geometric shape – in the case of the Tardis, a triangular central pier with three circular shafts.
Where the shafts are fully detached from the central pier, they are coupled to it by “armulets” (bridging pieces) at regular heights to maintain structural integrity. A compound column can be free-standing or mounted on a “base”. (Note, all terms in quote marks (“-“) are correct and a compound column does not need to support anything on top of it.)
This architectural analogy is particularly suited to the Pertwee/Sharp/MK1A console:
(For reasons of clarity, at this stage, the multi-directional angled panels are not shown.)
Here I’m posting Lespaceplie’s excellent version of the Baker/Davison “compound column” for comparison.
Though obviously simplified by the removal of the colourful angled panels and their replacement with frosted panels (which serve to obscure the still-slightly-gaudy pink/red central triangular pier), the later Baker/Davison version re-utilises the Sharp original.
Note, there are subtle differences in the construction methods implied by these drawings and these subtleties alter the overall dimensions as a result:
Firstly, let me say that (whilst I’m going to explain why I slightly disagree with his conclusions) how much I admire Lespaceplie’s work here on TB and, equally, how much I admire Crispin/Scarfwearer’s earlier work in trying to establish the dimensions of the MK1A Console as well.
They say ‘imitation is the sincerest form of flattery’; well, in creating my version of the Pertwee “compound column”, I’ve hopefully achieved precisely that! So where I’m now going on to explain why I differ from Lespaceplie (and Crispin) it is meant in the spirit of respectful, polite and friendly disagreement. Above all however, it is meant in the spirit of creating screen accurate plans:
In Lespaceplie’s drawing, structural stability is gained by recessing each shaft within a four inch diameter hole cut into the acrylic mirror which tops the column’s black base. Further rigidity is provided by the three Perspex “annular sectors” which are screwed through the mirrored disc and into the black base.
At the top of Lespaceplie’s column, three small armulets attach the shafts to a triangular collar which (in turn) attaches to the central triangular pier. Here I completely agree with Lespaceplie:
Where I disagree is in the relationship of the shafts to the mirrored disc. In my view, only the 'sheaths' for the fluorescent tubes are recessed into the mirrored disc. This would only require the cutting of three one inch diameter holes through the mirrored disc rather than three four inch diameter holes.
In my opinion, stability is not only provided by the three annular sectors but also by the presence of a triangular collar fitted onto the mirrored disc (i.e., except for the armulets, identical to the structure at the top of the column). The three circular shafts are therefore ‘locked’ into position rather than being ‘recessed’ into position.
This arrangement would seem to be borne out by the pictorial evidence:
(The presence of the lower stabilising triangular collar - fitted to the mirrored disc - is highlighted in yellow in the last picture.)
By comparing the diameters of the hole in the Console’s collar, the Perspex cylinder and the diameters of both the mirrored disc and black base, we can also begin to establish the Central Column’s overall dimensions; it doesn’t matter what the unit of measurement is, the ratios of the diameters will remain the same (476:438:352 pixels at the points indicated). So, once you’ve established one diameter, the others can be calculated accordingly.
But which diameter do you choose? As with everything connected with Dr Who, the Pertwee/Sharp/MK1A console was subjected to adaptation – for example, a microphone was fitted for “The Time Monster” as was the ‘time ram’ dial, whilst in “Death to the Daleks”, coloured lamps replaced the small toggle switches on Control Panel 2; famously in "Colony in Space", sudden damage to this panel was supposedly hidden by the creation of a ‘socket’ into which the housing for the Tardis’ de-materialisation circuit could be fitted!
So, our diameter needs to be something we know was not altered. This therefore effectively rules out the diameter of the outer Perspex cylinder:
Not only were controls modified or replaced, throughout its screen lifetime the Central Column too underwent various refits; it is obvious that the outer cylinder was made in two halves from very thin Perspex sheets which were riveted together. When first introduced in “Claws of Axos”, these joins were achieved using two metal re-enforcing strips:
This is a close-up from “The Time Monster”:
Note the main securing brass rivets/small bolts/screws in the ‘rear’ join of Perspex cylinder (left-hand side of picture). Note also that the two Perspex halves of the outer cylinder meet rather than overlap so, the metal strip acts as the original joining piece (see nearside of cylinder/right of picture where upright join meets the circular top of the central column). Also note the small holes in the Perspex on either side of the nearside join (these are in addition to the holes which correspond to the main nearside brass fixings).
These metallic joining strips remained until Pyramids of Mars but were removed in the next story - Planet of Evil:
By the time “The Pirate Planet” was recorded, it is clear that the production team had decided that overlapping the two Perspex halves would be more durable/easier than fitting any kind of joining strip:
The screen grab from Pirate Planet is also helpful in determining the relative diameters of the hole in the Console’s collar, outer cylinder, mirrored disc and black base:
The Central Column is (more or less) at its full height and has (for once) risen vertically! These pictures are the full-sized version of the same screen capture but split into three to ‘dodge’ the forum’s 500KB upload limit):
Note the ratios of the three diameters we are discussing (760:700:570) and compare them to the same ratios seen in Claws of Axos (476:438:352). Also note that in the Pirate Planet the mirrored disc appears to be fractionally smaller than the black base whereas in Axos, both the mirrored disc and black base appear to be the same diameter.
Now to the maths and – remember – we don’t yet know any dimensions, we are simply talking about how big each diameter is in relation to the others. Secondly, the two pictures are different sizes so the comparative diameters need to be expressed in the same way: To achieve this, I am going to take the diameter of the hole in the Console’s collar as my baseline i.e., its diameter is one hundred units.
For Pirate Planet:-
Where 760 pixels = 100 units,
the diameter of the Perspex cylinder = 700/760 x 100 = 92.105 units and
the diameter of the black base = 570/760 x 100 = 75 units.
For Claws of Axos:-
Where 476 pixels = 100 units,
the diameter of The Perspex cylinder = 438/476 = 92.017 units and
the diameter of the black base = 352/476 = 73.950 units.
Clearly at 73.950 units and 75 units respectively - and given the appearance of a slight discrepancy between the diameter of the mirrored disc and the diameter of the black base in the later Baker picture - the black base has been fractionally increased in size between the two stories (possibly a later thin ‘skin’ was added to disguise some damage to the original - MK1A - black base).
So, with different outer Perspex cylinders and a re-dressed internal ‘compound column’, between the Pertwee and Baker versions, just what were the dimensions of the MK1A Console’s Central Column as designed by Kenneth Sharp in January 1971?
As the only ‘constant’ dimension is the hole in the Console’s collar, we need to accurately establish this measurement. The only way to do that is to create screen accurate plans for the entire Sharp Tardis Console itself!
We’ll discuss these measurements in Part Two. And Happy New Year!
Bravo! (And that drawing of the Pertwee column you've started is still an amazing feat using just Paint!)
