May 13, 2021, 12:02 am


New, New TardisBuilders!

Five Doctors Console Dimensions

Started by cyberleader1991, Aug 22, 2005, 03:58 am

Previous topic - Next topic


Aug 22, 2005, 03:58 am Last Edit: Oct 16, 2012, 06:26 pm by Scarfwearer
Cobbled together from various sources, including figures from the old TR site archives and my own estimations, is this diagram of the Five Docs console, overlaid onto the DWM "plans". It appears Mike Kelt designed this console in metric, as when you use inches, you get some whacky figures! At any rate, it seems do-able, if I can teach myself to cast in fiberglass.

Anyone want to add to this or comment?


Using my time-tested method consisting solely of a calculator, ruler and pencil :-[ I am also working out the individual panel figures. I will post those shortly.

Cheers Tom


May 14, 2006, 10:55 am #1 Last Edit: Jan 25, 2010, 05:01 pm by scarfwearer
How big are the panels? Scarfwearer says they're 30.32" tall, but what about the width? Are they prefectly square, barring the angle cut?


Aug 22, 2005, 09:13 am #2 Last Edit: Aug 22, 2010, 07:22 pm by scarfwearer
These are looking kind of close, but the worst thing you can do is use that DWM picture as a starting point because it's not very accurate at all.  As for the panels themselves, in particular the top control panels, because they are hand made, they are a bit wonky - you can see where bits have slipped so that the symetary has gone out of the window.

I suppose that I could measure the panels and then correct them, or leave in the wonkiness... I'll have to see when I get around to this.

The only problem that I can see at the moment is the time it would take to do this measuring job as I have so much on my plate at the moment, but if someone wants to volunteer to come over to my place and do the measuring, you're more than welcome.  I live (or will do quite soon) just outside of London, about 20 minutes from Heathrow airport.  The offer is there.

Right then, back to the packing - when will this ever end?!!!!  BTW, I'll be back in the UK at the very end of August.


Aug 22, 2005, 12:53 pm #3 Last Edit: Aug 22, 2010, 07:22 pm by scarfwearer
How exactly did you find yourself the owner of that particular piece of history??! Is it complete?


Aug 22, 2005, 01:28 pm #4 Last Edit: Aug 22, 2010, 07:22 pm by scarfwearer
The lower drawing shows the upper panels' corner angle as 20 degree, that's correct, but on the original Kelt Plans the lower angle is 15 ( fifteen ) degrees, making the bottom panels shallower that the top. You also show the rim as 7 cm, it's 3 inches, or 7.62 cm. 

My measurements show as follows: The upper panels' vertical height is 10 inches, the lower panels' height is ( maybe) 5 inches.

The vertical height from floor to TOP of console RIM is 2 ft 8 in ( 32 inches), IE, the pedestal is 24 in, the vertical height of the lower panels is 5 in, and the console rim is 3 in.

There seems to be a second, slightly different version of this console  with the following changes: vertical height from floor to TOP of console RIM is 2 ft 8 in ( 32 inches), IE, the pedestal is 22 in, the vertical height of the lower panels is 7 in, and the console rim is 3 in.

The "collar" at the base of the clear column is 35 in, same as the pedestal top.
The "collar" top is 30 inches.

The Kelt plans, though blurry, show INCH numbers, not CM, example, the number for the console rim height, and the lower panels' height are both single digits, IE, 3 and 5, respectively, not a 3 digit number, as 7.62cm  ( 3 in ) or 12.7cm ( 5 in ).

As I said, the pics are blurry, but the figures are single digits in the right places for them to be INCH numbers.

I just wish I could get the sizes of the smaller details right, such as the insets where all the switches are, and the funny trim around the edge.


Aug 22, 2005, 03:37 pm #5 Last Edit: Aug 22, 2010, 07:23 pm by scarfwearer
Quote from: cadonguy board=console thread=1124683126 post=1124717331There seems to be a second, slightly different version of this console  with the following changes: vertical height from floor to TOP of console RIM is 2 ft 8 in ( 32 inches), IE, the pedestal is 22 in, the vertical height of the lower panels is 7 in, and the console rim is 3 in. 

Actually, there were only ever two consoles, the hero version and the rehearsal version, no others were made as the prop was rather expensive - the only other castings made were the black control panels used for Dimensions in Time.

As for the numerical side of it, it is actually in inches, but a lot of it does seem to also be in CM, which is odd.

Cadonguy - you've been a member here before haven't you?  Under a different name.

Oh yes, the 116 / 77 / 44 dimensions have to be changed - I didn't take into account the fact that the panel edges are rounded off to make it easier to pull from the moulds, remember, I took these dims well over 10 years ago during a hurried session at lunch time.

Thomas, I aquired the prop from a private party who was unsure what it was and was about to scrap it.  I'd known of its whereabouts since 1997 and kept track of it over the years.  When I called the chap about it, he was just about to skip it that very moment, so you can guess how relieved I was that I phoned him at that moment.  Is it complete?  Not exactly, much of it is damaged and has been thrown out, but I've saved all the best pieces - I have the full pedestal, most of the underside and four top panels - so essentially I'll take the best individual parts and have them tidied up and recast from to make it better than the hero version.  Over the years, it's been stored very badly and a lot of it has warped out of shape - though this will be easily corrected - it's just a case of bending it all back.

Regarding the lower panels, they are just a wee bit smaller than the upper panels, but off hand, I'd say the angle of tilt is greater than 15 degrees, but less than the top angle, but to be sure, I'd have to go back and have another look.

The central column took ages to get right, but finally I worked it out and again at some point, I'll have that made, or the bits cut out on a CNC machine, just like the original - although that one is currently missing several sections!

Enough rambling from me for now.


Aug 22, 2005, 05:25 pm #6 Last Edit: Aug 22, 2010, 07:23 pm by scarfwearer
Unbelievable! They didn't know what it was? What, did they find it on the side of the road?!  :o


P.S. Thanx for the extra console details mates.


Aug 22, 2005, 05:32 pm #7 Last Edit: Aug 22, 2010, 07:23 pm by scarfwearer
Dear Cadonguy

May I humbly ask where you got access to the Kelt plans?! I even e-mailed Mike at Artem Digital (rather bold of me ;D) to ask for help with console dims, but he never responded (no suprise there).  :-[

I know there was a pic of the plans on (under collector Chris Balcombe - seems to have been removed now!), but it was fuzzy indeed and I can't imagine having garnered any information from that.

Regards, Tom


Aug 22, 2005, 11:56 pm #8 Last Edit: Oct 31, 2010, 10:39 pm by Scarfwearer
Anyone think this is the slightest bit accurate?



Aug 23, 2005, 04:36 am #9 Last Edit: Aug 22, 2010, 07:23 pm by scarfwearer
My numbers are a combination of Purple's and the "RichardWho" info, much magnified and calculated with 10 digit accuracy, and also, taking into account perspective,IE, this giant pic of Panel One you put here is of it leaning against a wall, so, to get the sizes of  both the top and bottom correct, you have to draw perspective lines up from the middle inset at the bottom, at the edges of the one you list as 32CM across, and then use THAT as the 32CM part of the top just below the 11 holes in the "collar".

Re: Purple's Question: I will ONLY say that there is a Proposal ( at a site on the MSN Groups ) to open a Partnership Site for Props and Plans from TV programmes, but only ACCURATE Props and Plans, the site MAY be called "Lungbarrow's And CadonGuy's Blueprint Emporium", a partnership of people helping each other SPECIFICALLY with props like this one, until then, let's all PLEASE not fuss about any of this, but just exchange assistance with each other, ok? I understand Mr Purple had a disagreement with a former member, but I myself will not tolerate such things, let's Smile and Enjoy the fact that we HAVE these props available, and whenever Mr Purple *happens* to find time in his VERY busy schedule to measure something, I will receive his info Cheerfully!!! His numbers have, so far, been VERY Precise, I'm soon going to make a "First Draft" of this prop, using mostly Purple's numbers, in a suitable CAD Programme.  I'll keep you informed!


Aug 23, 2005, 04:56 am #10 Last Edit: Aug 22, 2010, 07:24 pm by scarfwearer
Additional note: When I magnified the "RichardWho" fuzzy image, about 150% to 500%, I  clearly could both read, and confirm with a protractor the upper and lower angles, as 20 degrees upper, and 15 degrees lower, as well as the 3 inch "rim", the 24 inch high "pedestal", and other  part's info too detailed to put here, I've already put too many numbers in these two last posts here, sorry....

If it helps, you can use the fact that the top and bottom of the "main part" of the console is the same, about 44 or 45 CM, in my plans I get about 35 inches ( 44.45 cm ) and you can "stack" together the upper panels, the rim, and the lower panels, and put all that atop the pedestal.

I'll try to ONLY post here stuff that I've CONFIRMED in some way, and my goal is to STAY AWAY from speculating about stuff not MEASURED reliably in some way.

Maybe I'll post here a magnified copy of the "RichardWho" image, with graphic overlays in CAD showing the sizes, IE, the same idea as Mr Fournier has done.

P.S., Vincent Fournier is the "legal name" of Rock Singer "Alice Cooper", any connection, Tom???? hehe!


Aug 23, 2005, 08:11 am #11 Last Edit: Aug 22, 2010, 07:24 pm by scarfwearer
Here's a copy of that image which is transformed to correct for perspective, using the known perimeter dimensions as a guide. This shows how it would appear if viewed square from a perpendicular angle.
The height of the panel (to the base of the slots) can be computed by pythagoras' theorem:
sqrt(sqr(77) - sqr((116-44)/2))
which works out at very close to 68cm.
I've scaled the image up so that when printed landscape using the Windows Picture and Fax viewer (Preview in the explorer) it will fit on a piece of paper in such a way that the scale is 2mm = 1cm (i.e. 1/5th actual size). This way you can measure off any dimensions you want with a ruler to within maybe 3mm at full size if you have a sharp eye.
Alternatively you could scale it down in MS Paint and measure it using the onscreen coordinate readout.

Bear in mind that if you measure the sizes of adjacent objects, you will get cumulative rounding errors, so it's best to measure distances from a common origin, so that the parts get positioned correctly, and then subtract to get widths.

Hope this helps


Aug 23, 2005, 10:14 am #12 Last Edit: Aug 22, 2010, 07:24 pm by scarfwearer
Tom, most of what you have there seems to ring true from when I last measured the prop (about a month ago) and so you are on the right lines with over all dimensions. 

As soon as I can get myself sorted, I'll do my best to measure the prop up for you and photograph it.  The offer is still there for anyone near me to come over and have a look at it for themselves to make their own notes.

Just give me a couple of weeks and I'll see what can be done.


Aug 23, 2005, 01:02 pm #13 Last Edit: Aug 22, 2010, 07:24 pm by scarfwearer
I didn't use just that particular pic for measuring the squares; I laid my figures (that I compiled from looking at and measuring several pics of the panels) over that pic simply because it looks the nicest. And yes I did take perspective into consideration.

I sense a case of "Caps-lock" syndrome... ::) Anyone?


Aug 23, 2005, 01:12 pm #14 Last Edit: Aug 22, 2010, 07:24 pm by scarfwearer
Quote from: cyberleader1991 board=console thread=1124683126 post=1124802122I sense a case of "Caps-lock" syndrome... ::) Anyone?

I know what you mean... we're aware of the shape shifting situation.  He must think we're stupid.  Old hat, water under the bridge.  Move along, nothing to see here. :P

As I said about your work, I think you're on the right lines there, so well done that man.