Scarfwearer Wooden console plans

[Scarfwearer]

Here's a reference to the Season 14 wooden console plans that I drew up.


All measurements are guesswork and subject to discussion.

Crispin

[lespaceplie]

The time has come to refine plans for this console. In spite of some remarkable replica projects, I don't think this one has quite been nailed. It might not be everyone's favorite (certainly not mine), but it needs more love. Some clues to the outer dims have much to do with what's going on inside. The upper structure is pretty well revealed in some screen caps, and I haven't seen anyone build or even draw it as such. I'm on it! Also, please jump in.

[galacticprobe]

Have you visited scarfwearer's web site and contacted him via the e-mail address he has listed there? (It's on his front page, but it's not a link; you have to copy-n-paste the address in your e-mail's "To:" line.) He did some outstanding research on this console when he built his replica and his http://tardisbuilders.com/index.php?topic=284.0 build diary has quite a few of the findings mentioned in it (like the ball-and-claw feet this little beauty has). Perhaps he's got some revised plans he'd be willing to share? (Might save some work if he has, and is: less having to re-invent the wheel, so to speak.)

Just a thought.

Dino.

[lespaceplie]

I'm building mostly on the work he's done. Of course, I'm inviting Tony Farrell to weigh in on things given his excellent work on the Mk I. The primary thing lacking now is detail.

Scarfwearer's replica is a bit too large overall. It's shocking how small this prop was. There is also an unpublished drawing of the plans for it (Jan Vincent-Rudzki's book, the status of which I don't know). Things change when props are built - especially at the BBC - but the original plans should inform some aspects of the design. More reference material is bound to be out there.

[DoctorWho8]

I spoke to Jan in December, and unfortunately the TARDIS book is in limbo due to the BBC losing interest after Peter Capaldi was announced as the Doctor a year ago and the anniversary year was coming to an end.  He's on Facebook.  Maybe we can suggest he raise money through Kickstart to cover startup costs, rights permission from the BBC, and obtain a publisher?
Bill "the Doctor" Rudloff

[Rassilons Rod]

How much does the license cost?

[tony farrell]

I'm building mostly on the work he's done. Of course, I'm inviting Tony Farrell to weigh in on things given his excellent work on the Mk I. The primary thing lacking now is detail.

Scarfwearer's replica is a bit too large overall. It's shocking how small this prop was.

I'm happy to help in any way you want Lespaceplie. I rather like the little Edwardian console (and room). Best wishes T

[lespaceplie]

How much does the license cost?

It's hard to say. One component of setting the price has to do with the total number of books published. I don't believe the per image price would be too steep especially given the technical nature of the photos and drawings. It's a different matter for likenesses of actors, which aren't needed in this case. See the separate thread about the book.

[galacticprobe]

I rather like the little Edwardian console...

Ditto, Tony! I think I've posted before that it's in a 3-way tie with the original Hartnell and the 2005 console as my top favorite.

Dino.

[lespaceplie]

I can guarantee these dims exactly zero percent. For a start, I believe the wee console is even more wee than we initially thought. Not counting the brass rails, it's about 3 feet tall in total. The belt is exactly 3 feet at its widest. You can see how the whole thing only reaches around waist height - particularly in The Hand of Fear. This is great news for anyone wanting to tuck a replica somewhere in the house.

Part of the problem of working this one out is that it seems to have been built to the happenstance of convenient angles and materials. I doubt there was a strict plan for it. The key is to sort of build it first then see what happens to the dims. It's like a jewelry box!

The slope of the panels is 45 degrees. The crown would be 1" thick, but there's a quarter inch bevel at the bottom - half of which is hidden when the panels are closed. The width of the crown seems random, but is simply the result of where the tops of the panels "landed" after a rise of 6 inches.

The hinged portion of the panel laid flat is exactly 8" tall, 11" at the top and 17.5" at the bottom. This is a hint that I'm on the right trail.

[galacticprobe]

Not sure if this helps you refine your dims, lespaceplie, but using the TARDIS Console Calculator in the http://tardisbuilders.com/index.php?board=30.0 section, in order to get a 45-degree angle to the panels (full panel, including the non-hinged part of the top panel because this would also have to hold true for the non-hinged panels on the console's underside), plugging in measurements:

Panel Top Width = 12 inches
Panel Height = 6 inches (the rise)
Panel Bottom Width = 18 inches

you get a perfect 45-degree panel angle (and that would allow about .5-inch for that non-hinged portion of the top panel where it meets the console's "belt line"), making the entire panel 7.94 inches tall (close enough to your estimate of 8 inches to say that extra .06-inch is negligible). So if making the full panel 8 inches from top edge to bottom edge, that extra little .06-inch is probably given clearance for opening and closing by that bevel you mentioned on the bottom of the "crown". It also keeps your hinged lower edge at close to 17 inches wide (guessing that by going up .5-inch from the bottom edge to get to the hinge line, with the trapezoidal shape of the panel you'd lose about .5-inch on each side).

If we keep your original estimate of 10.5 inches for the top edge, in order to keep your 45-degree panel angle and top-to-bottom edge length of 8 inches (again since there are no hinges on the underside panels), then the bottom width of the panel needs to be 16.5 inches (still giving that 7.94 inches, with .06 being negligible).

So, depending on how these fit into your 3-foot height (and max. width) of the console, with a 45-degree panel angle with a 6-inch panel rise, since we do have to take into account the underside panels...

• if the top edge needs to be 10.5 inches wide, then the bottom edge needs to be 16.5 inches wide;

• if the bottom edge needs to be 17.5 inches at the hinge, then it will likely be 18 inches wide at the bottom edge, which means the top edge needs to be 12 inches wide.

Hopefully this did help somewhat, and not just cloud things even more. (Of all the consoles to not have any plans drawn up or lying about in someone's hands, it had to be this one - the one for which our reference material is less than limited!)

I do like your revised measurements, though; much easier to think about fitting into my front room library one day!

Dino.

[lespaceplie]

I might have introduced some confusion. The flap portion on the panel is what has the perfect dims. If you account for the whole face (upper or lower panel), I'd still say the narrow dim is 10.5 with a rise of 6. That would make the wide dim 17.4, which they probably fudged to 17.5 and filed to fit.

Incidentally, the calculator is wonky. If you don't believe me, just try a panel height of 6 and a slope of 45. The resulting middle length should be 8.49 no matter the other measures, but that's not the result it puts out. It seems to be putting the middle length in the corner length spot, and the corner length is garbage.

[tony farrell]

Hi Lespaceplie, In my thread (http://tardisbuilders.com/index.php?topic=4825.0) I tried to explain the methodology I used to 'establish' dimensions of the Tardis set including the console, what I've called using 'perspective lines'.

I'd find it helpful if you could explain your methodology.

As an aside I too have long thought that this console was smaller than previously thought. What confused me however was the studio floor plan for the set with its 2 foot square divisions. If these were 24" squares then, Crispin's drawing of the console's handrails certainly looked accurate. This then made me think that his plans for the actual console were accurate too. But I still this nagging thought that the thing was actually smaller.

A while back, I had a conversation with Marc/Rassilonsrod in which he revealed that what the BBC then called a foot rule(r) was in actual fact only 30 centimeters i.e., fractionally smaller than 12 inches. There was (believe it or not) also an actual Facebook group who remembered this 'half way house between imperial and metric' rule(r) used in the 1970s.

Oh, I also think this console was mounted on stylised 'claw' feet rather than 'ball' feet.

I hope that helps

Tony

[lespaceplie]

My technique is not far off from yours. A lot of the time I simply "eyeball" the perspective then trace over with simple vector objects in 3DS Max to see if they fit once I figure out the camera position. I also try to arrive at dims by considering what probably happened in the construction process. It seems convenience weighs more heavily than simple numbers.

I know about the claw feet. This is a low detail stage. I did, however resolve one problem that's not addressed in the diagram. The plinth doesn't look thick enough because the vertical corner strips are drawn fitting inside the hexagonal space where the lower panels meet. In most of the fuzzy photos, the strips appear to be inside, but I finally found one that shows their corners do poke out bit. The same photo also reveals some screws that warp the surface of the lower panels a bit, which suggests they're metal or plastic sheet.

Also, here's a snap that shows how short it could be even though Judith Paris (in heels) is standing a bit farther back than the center line through the console.

[tony farrell]

I did, however resolve one problem that's not addressed in the diagram. The plinth doesn't look thick enough because the vertical corner strips are drawn fitting inside the hexagonal space where the lower panels meet. In most of the fuzzy photos, the strips appear to be inside, but I finally found one that shows their corners do poke out bit. The same photo also reveals some screws that warp the surface of the lower panels a bit, which suggests they're metal or plastic sheet.

I'm not sure I can see the warping you refer to. Would it be possible to post a 'clean' version of the Elizabeth Sladen picture? Thanks.