Mar 29, 2024, 05:07 am

News:

New, New TardisBuilders!


Original Console Control Panels

Started by tony farrell, Dec 14, 2014, 09:34 am

Previous topic - Next topic

markofrani

A pneumatic air lead of some sort? From 'The Dead Planet'...

CONSOLE LEADS.jpg


galacticprobe

Sep 19, 2015, 05:46 am #361 Last Edit: Sep 19, 2015, 06:17 am by galacticprobe
Looking a little closer at that connector:
Console Leads-Close.jpg
It could be a pneumatic coupling like you have on an air ratchet or other such tool. The larger silver part on the right side of the "hose" could be the spring-loaded connector on the hose to the piston; the smaller metal bit it's coupled to could be the male end coupling of the air feed line. So the pneumatic idea is at least plausible.

Also, like Angelus, I stand corrected on the budget. I think those rumors may have started out later in the Classic Series when the budgets kept getting cut, probably across the board, but 'Doctor Who' got picked on as having that "shoestring budget" because of some of the, erm... shall we say, less-convincing monsters and visual FX.

But I do find a dilemma - or conflict (not sure which word fits best) - here:
Quote from: Tony Farrell on Sep 18, 2015, 10:55 am
The spinning console was televised in The Web Planet when the Tardis falls under the influence of the Animus. Clearly, the rotation of the console was achieved manually by a stagehand hiding underneath it.

Being honest with ourselves, much of the research published in the 1980s isn't reliable and I think tales of stagehands pushing the central column up and down fall into the category of rumour - look at the size of the hatches in the consoles plinth - you'd have to be a dwarf contortionist to manually work the column through such small openings!


That's the dilemma/conflict: if a stagehand can be hidden under the console to spin the thing in "The Web Planet", then surely a stagehand could just as easily have fit under the console to operate the central column. The hatches in the plinth didn't change size between the two stories, so there's the conflict. Dwarf contortionist? Surely there were stagehands that weren't all large-framed, burly guys; some were probably small enough to get under the console. Without knowing how a stagehand could get inside and under the console to spin it in "The Web Planet" - which was obviously done - we can't just dismiss out-of-hand the possibility of a stagehand getting into and under the console to operate the column if that's what was needed if the mechanical/pneumatic apparatus was on the blink.

And with several different behind-the-scenes books, each written by different authors and researchers, stating the same thing about a stagehand under the console operating the column at times, can we really say that every writer and researcher of those books was unreliable? What about the people that were interviewed who stated that? Were those the unreliable ones?

Stagehand under the console spinning it in "The Web Planet": confirmed. Stagehand under the console operating the column's movement: at the very least, plausible, since we know from "The Web Planet" scenes that one could indeed fit.

Dino.
"What's wrong with being childish?! I like being childish." -3rd Doctor, "Terror of the Autons"

Angelus Lupus

Sep 19, 2015, 10:46 am #362 Last Edit: Sep 19, 2015, 10:47 am by Angelus Lupus
I dunno... a hidden stagehand for a one-off 'spin the whole console' shot is a lot different to hiding someone out of view for every take form all angles for the many, many times the column moves. Plus this is the days of the various unions (when they'd knock off for tea, bang-on home time, regardless of what was left to film) and I'm sure there'd be a migraine's worth of wrangling over whether it was props, or set design, or someone from the technical lot who was responsible. All-in-all, I think the simpler solution is the mechanical one. Plus it would explain the second cable/pipe.
Besides, it only takes one faulty (or conflated) memory of an event to make it into a reference book, before it gets repeated and 'accepted' as fact: Look at how long the myth of why/when the Tardis was cut down in size lasted (the infamous lift size issue).
A mixed-up non-conformist, trying to fit in.

tony farrell

Sep 19, 2015, 01:17 pm #363 Last Edit: Sep 19, 2015, 02:47 pm by Tony Farrell
Quote from: fivefingeredstyre on Sep 18, 2015, 07:06 pm
I love this thread... :)

Thank you Steve - I too am enjoying myself. It's particularly rewarding that people feel able to contribute with their thoughts and ideas (I said somewhere earlier in this thread that working in the pharmaceutical industry you are constantly taught to subject your thinking to rigorous scrutiny and challenge; I think this thread really does 'come alive' when something I've stated sparks a genuine debate  :)  

If such a debate challenges established thinking, then frankly, all the better: I remember - not so long ago here on TB - it was genuinely argued that there was only one Tardis interior 3D wall built and it was trundled from one side of the studio to the other to create the illusion that there were two 3D walls made in addition to the main Tardis doors! (This despite the fact that there was a photo from Power of the Daleks showing the two 3D walls together.)

So, debate is good and - as a result - our understanding of what was done can change, can be improved and can be expanded.

Dino knows me well enough to know that I don't take offence by being challenged on something I've said/written (though it doesn't mean I have to agree with the 'challenge'  ;)). I am a simple seeker of the truth - that sounds really pretentious but I'll leave it in......

Quote from: galacticprobe on Sep 19, 2015, 05:46 am
Looking a little closer at that connector:
Console Leads-Close.jpg
It could be a pneumatic coupling like you have on an air ratchet or other such tool.


I completely agree - I know these as 'quick release' connectors- in the pharmaceutical industry they're used to connect both compressed air and pressurised water systems. So, once again we need to thank Jonathan not only for the high-definition picture but for providing at least a very strong indication that pneumatics were used.

Quote from: galacticprobe on Sep 19, 2015, 05:46 am
But I do find a dilemma - or conflict (not sure which word fits best) - here:
Quote from: Tony Farrell on Sep 18, 2015, 10:55 am
Being honest with ourselves, much of the research published in the 1980s isn't reliable and I think tales of stagehands pushing the central column up and down fall into the category of rumour - look at the size of the hatches in the console's plinth - you'd have to be a dwarf contortionist to manually work the column through such small openings![/size]

That's the dilemma/conflict: Without knowing how a stagehand could get inside and under the console to spin it in "The Web Planet" - which was obviously done - we can't just dismiss out-of-hand the possibility of a stagehand getting into and under the console to operate the column if that's what was needed if the mechanical/pneumatic apparatus was on the blink.


Ah, I didn't say that the rotation of the console in "The Web Planet" was achieved by anyone getting inside the console, I said that the console was rotated on its 'railway track'/under-plinth disc by a stagehand hiding out of camera shot. After all, the console was actually designed with a single 'pilot' in mind - giving it the ability to be rotated for dramatic purposes would add to this:

console 2 rob handles.png

Quote from: galacticprobe on Sep 19, 2015, 05:46 am
Stagehand under the console spinning it in "The Web Planet": confirmed. Stagehand under the console operating the column's movement: at the very least, plausible, since we know from "The Web Planet" scenes that one could indeed fit.
Dino.


Again with respect, I don't agree:

There is no requirement for a stagehand to get inside the console in order to spin it; in "The Web Planet", we only see the upper six-sided 'table' of the console, we don't see the plinth when the console is spinning.

I return to the size of the hatches - these would allow very limited access to the internal workings. Even though it is made primarily of Perspex, the combined weights of the column's outer cylinder, cylinder top, two-tier turntable, rotating 'navigational instrument', lights, wiring, etc must be considerable. It would take someone of quite some strength to manually raise and lower that amount of weight in such a confined space.

If the column was raised manually what about the raising/lowering mechanism itself? What about the other electrics which run through the plinth. Surely all the internal 'gubbins' would have to be removed in order to gain access to the column's underside to be able to push it up and down? As this picture shows, the internal gubbins were very definitely not removed in The Web Planet:

N39a.jpg

As the last few posts in this thread have shown, our knowledge has been increased and our understanding has been changed. The console's central column was - in some way - pneumatically powered. In addition, it could also be operated remotely (as in Edge of Destruction/Brink of Disaster).

Quote from: expendable on Sep 18, 2015, 10:05 pm
I think the best bet is an egg-shaped or eccentric cam that's been shaped to allow the pauses up and down. With the central column on vertical slides, you'd just need the cam follower to push it up and down.


Okay, this seems to me to be an excellent suggestion; so, in addition to pneumatics and a cam, how do people think the varying degree to which the column is seen to rise was achieved?


console top two sides 2.png

T

gerald lovell

If you listen carefully to the (noisy) soundtrack as the console dematerialises in "Inferno", I'm sure you can hear the release of compressed air as the column rises and falls.

galacticprobe

Sep 20, 2015, 05:17 am #365 Last Edit: Sep 20, 2015, 06:45 am by galacticprobe
Quote from: Tony Farrell on Sep 19, 2015, 01:17 pm
Thank you Steve - I too am enjoying myself.

So am I! I'm finding this very enlightening.

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Sep 19, 2015, 01:17 pm
If such a debate challenges established thinking, then frankly, all the better: I remember - not so long ago here on TB - it was genuinely argued that there was only one Tardis interior 3D wall built and it was trundled from one side of the studio to the other to create the illusion that there were two 3D walls made in addition to the main Tardis doors! (This despite the fact that there was a photo from Power of the Daleks showing the two 3D walls together.)

I remember that one, only I would use the word "discussed" rather than "argued"; for some reason "discussed" sounds less angry.

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Sep 19, 2015, 01:17 pm
So, debate is good and - as a result - our understanding of what was done can change, can be improved and can be expanded.

Once again, I agree. I've said it before; I thought I knew my way round this console inside and out. Now thanks to all of this new research and discussion, I'm learning so many new things that I'm also learning I knew so little about this console, you could call my previous knowledge of it negligible!

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Sep 19, 2015, 01:17 pm
Dino knows me well enough to know that I don't take offence by being challenged on something I've said/written (though it doesn't mean I have to agree with the 'challenge'  ;)).

Well said, my friend! I think we're on the same page with that train of thought. :)

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Sep 19, 2015, 01:17 pm
I am a simple seeker of the truth - that sounds really pretentious but I'll leave it in......

Pretentious? Blah! I call it being honest. Anyone seeking the truth about anything, and admitting that they're seeking the truth is not pretentious in the least. It's honest, and no one can fault anyone for honesty.

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Sep 19, 2015, 01:17 pm
Quote from: galacticprobe on Sep 19, 2015, 05:46 am
Looking a little closer at that connector:

It could be a pneumatic coupling like you have on an air ratchet or other such tool.


I completely agree - I know these as 'quick release' connectors- in the pharmaceutical industry they're used to connect both compressed air and pressurised water systems. So, once again we need to thank Jonathan not only for the high-definition picture but for providing at least a very strong indication that pneumatics were used.

Again I agree; we also call those "quick release" connectors, I just couldn't think of that term when I posted that last night (old brain cells). And I also agree that Jonathan deserves some huge thanks for providing us with such great images. So thank you, Jonathan!

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Sep 19, 2015, 01:17 pm
Ah, I didn't say that the rotation of the console in "The Web Planet" was achieved by anyone getting inside the console, I said that the console was rotated on its 'railway track'/under-plinth disc by a stagehand hiding out of camera shot. After all, the console was actually designed with a single 'pilot' in mind - giving it the ability to be rotated for dramatic purposes would add to this:

Well, I believe the exact quote was:
Quote from: Tony Farrell on Sep 18, 2015, 10:55 am
Clearly, the rotation of the console was achieved manually by a stagehand hiding underneath it.

So you can see how I could misunderstand that to mean there was someone inside the plinth. Also, with regard to this:
Quote from: Tony Farrell on Sep 19, 2015, 01:17 pm
...look at the size of the hatches in the consoles plinth - you'd have to be a dwarf contortionist to manually work the column through such small openings!

When I was on active duty I was considerably slimmer than I am now; back then I was 5'10" at 125 lbs. I was able to crawl through a similar-sized opening into a 19-inch wide, 30-inch deep antenna patch panel rack. The rack was loaded with cables (thick ones) and I was still able to both stand up inside it and squat to do the work needed - which was finding all of the dead cables and pulling them out; needless to say that once I was done, I had even more room to move around inside that rack.

Now, think of a stagehand that could be about the size of The Evil One (and you've met her - 5'3", 100 lbs... soaking wet!). Someone like that could fit inside the plinth. And while the column could have weighed as much as 20 lbs with all of its components taken into account (the perspex couldn't have weighed all that much, even the cover which looked on the thin side), it wouldn't have needed Herculean strength to move it up and down, even from a squatting position. (Maybe Chris - celation - could give us a round estimate of how much his column weighs so we could get a better guess at that aspect?)

Also, I wasn't saying that some poor stagehand was squashed inside the plinth all of the time; I was just mentioning what I'd read - that when the mechanism was on the blink they put a stagehand inside to operate the column. So if that was the case - which we still don't know for sure - the plinth's insides would have been removed so someone could repair the mechanism, which would have left enough room inside the plinth for a stagehand of my pre-retirement size, or The Evil One's size, to crawl in and operate the column. I'm not saying this is definitively how it was done, only that I'd read in several books that said this is how it was done when the mechanism was on the blink.

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Sep 19, 2015, 01:17 pm
Quote from: galacticprobe on Sep 18, 2015, 04:26 am
As far as the mechanical aspect for doing this, it would require someone, off-camera perhaps with a controller, working the column's mechanism...


Now here, I do agree with you Dino: When the central column is seen to partially rise in "Brink of Disaster", none of the cast are anywhere near the console. So, it follows that some kind of 'remote' control was used and I further agree that this was done with what Jon Pertwee used to call 'hard wiring' - the mass of cables seen on the Tardis' floor in this episode are more numerous than the standard two cables we normally see emerging from the console's base.

Now I'll have to break out my "Beginnings" DVD set and watch those episodes again and count the cables. It's been a while since I've seen those anyway, so a little memory refresher is in order. And I also wonder if the column could have had a dual control for it: a remote one that someone off-camera could use to trigger movement as in "Brink of Disaster", and a local one that was connected to one of the large levers on the console - like the current 2013 console's Demat Lever actually activates the yellow lights just above it as well as turning on the overhead whirligig.

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Sep 19, 2015, 01:17 pm
So, to sum up, the Tardis set was not built on the cheap nor was it built by amateurs (Shawcraft was a well established and respected firm of engineers - they built the forty foot long highly accurate model of the Titanic for 1958's film "A Night to Remember"). The central column was clearly mechanically operated and capable of being operated remotely (albeit through wiring).

I think we're all agreed on that as well now.

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Sep 19, 2015, 01:17 pm
Perhaps I should have re-phrased my original question: If you were going to build a central column which is capable of rising and falling in stages (to simulate take-off/landing) and fully rising and falling (to simulate being in flight), how would you go about doing this using a mechanical solution?

This one would require some sort of cam to get that "up-and-downy" motion; the cam would also have to be in stages ("stepped", if you would) to get the different heights. The tricky part is getting the post/rod that lifted the column to ride on the cam to get the increasing height, then when it got to a certain point stop and ride on the highest part of the cam to keep that "in full flight" motion. Then you'd have to reverse that for the landing. That would require some intricate gearing - almost like a car's transmission - which if this is how they did it, could explain why so many people involved with the show back then said the mechanism was prone to breaking down in the early days.

Maybe that's why they started using the pneumatic lift? And with the pneumatic lift there would only be a remote controller for it because you'd never be able to convincingly get the column to rise and fall in stages from the console; working a control for that would be so obvious that it would remove all illusion of the column doing it on its own.

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Sep 19, 2015, 01:17 pm
Quote from: galacticprobe on Sep 19, 2015, 05:46 am
Stagehand under the console...


Again with respect, I don't agree:

Yeah. I think we've beaten this one into the ground. ;D

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Sep 19, 2015, 01:17 pm
There is no requirement for a stagehand to get inside the console in order to spin it; in "The Web Planet", we only see the upper six-sided 'table' of the console, we don't see the plinth when the console is spinning.

Ah... you're right about that. And if memory serves correctly (because it's long-term memory, which "usually" works), we don't even see the console's edge at the bottom of the screen. It's conveniently cut off out of the shot.

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Sep 19, 2015, 01:17 pm
I return to the size of the hatches - these would allow very limited access to the internal workings. Even though it is made primarily of Perspex, the combined weights of the column's outer cylinder, cylinder top, two-tier turntable, rotating 'navigational instrument', lights, wiring, etc must be considerable. It would take someone of quite some strength to manually raise and lower that amount of weight in such a confined space.

I don't want to repeat myself here because I've mentioned this above. So I'm not ignoring your comments; I've just commented on this before. I guess since I read your post first this bit was in my head when the size issue came up earlier.

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Sep 19, 2015, 01:17 pm
If the column was raised manually what about the raising/lowering mechanism itself? What about the other electrics which run through the plinth. Surely all the internal 'gubbins' would have to be removed in order to gain access to the column's underside to be able to push it up and down? As this picture shows, the internal gubbins were very definitely not removed in The Web Planet:

Again I mentioned this above; those 'gubbins' and all the other innards would have been removed for repair if the mechanism was on the blink - or for troubleshooting to find out what was on the blink. Depending on what that 'blink' was it might not have been repairable while the mechanism was inside the plinth, so it would need to be removed which would have left the plinth pretty much open space-wise.

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Sep 19, 2015, 01:17 pm
As the last few posts in this thread have shown, our knowledge has been increased and our understanding has been changed. The console's central column was - in some way - pneumatically powered. In addition, it could also be operated remotely (as in Edge of Destruction/Brink of Disaster).

And on that I couldn't agree more! (And that's also why I love this thread!)

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Sep 19, 2015, 01:17 pm
Quote from: expendable on Sep 18, 2015, 10:05 pm
I think the best bet is an egg-shaped or eccentric cam that's been shaped to allow the pauses up and down. With the central column on vertical slides, you'd just need the cam follower to push it up and down.


Okay, this seems to me to be an excellent suggestion; so, in addition to pneumatics and a cam, how do people think the varying degree to which the column is seen to rise was achieved?

As I mentioned above, the cam would need to be "stepped" in some way, and the "push rod" that's riding on the cam and lifting the column would need another mechanism to move that push rod along the cam to get that change in height, hold it at the highest point for "full flight", and then pull it back to reverse the process for landing. That's an awful lot of mechanism to be working with for the mechanical solution.

With the pneumatic operation, the person off-camera with the controller could vary the pressure applied to the piston that lifted the column. All he would need to do was twist that control knob to get the height needed, and then twist it back to let the pressure drop and the piston would bring the column down to its "resting" position before rising again. (And after seeing that quick-release connector and the hose, my money would be on a pneumatic lifting mechanism, rather than a complex mechanical one with cams of varying heights and something to push/pull the lifting rod along the cam to get the needed height.)

Dino.
P. S. This one is really putting my brain through the wringer!
"What's wrong with being childish?! I like being childish." -3rd Doctor, "Terror of the Autons"

tony farrell

Sep 20, 2015, 11:11 am #366 Last Edit: Sep 20, 2015, 04:51 pm by Tony Farrell
Dino, I've never doubted that you're accurately quoting your source material(s) from the 1980s, just that those source materials were inaccurate in this respect. (I can just about conceive that the central column might have been pushed up and down manually on one occasion, but not that this was in anyway a regular occurrence.) Here I'm in agreement with Angelus:

Quote from: Angelus Lupus on Sep 19, 2015, 10:46 am
I'm sure there'd be a migraine's worth of wrangling over whether it was props, or set design, or someone from the technical lot who was responsible. Besides, it only takes one faulty (or conflated) memory of an event to make it into a reference book, before it gets repeated and 'accepted' as fact: Look at how long the myth of why/when the Tardis was cut down in size lasted (the infamous lift size issue).

Up to the 1980s, the BBC was heavily unionised and demarcation disputes were a regular occurrence - on one occasion the BBC was blacked out by a strike because a non-electrician had unplugged an electric clock!

Anyway, setting this very narrow disagreement to one side, let's return to the subject of how the Central Column powered and whether on occasion it was operated remotely as well as being operated from the console itself:

Quote from: galacticprobe on Sep 20, 2015, 05:17 am
Now I'll have to break out my "Beginnings" DVD set and watch those episodes again and count the cables. It's been a while since I've seen those anyway, so a little memory refresher is in order. And I also wonder if the column could have had a dual control for it: a remote one that someone off-camera could use to trigger movement as in "Brink of Disaster".


Here we go:

An Unearthly Child - camera rehearsals
console5.png
The Dead Planet - full-sized version of the detailed picture Jonathan posted
myphoto (36).png
Edge of Destruction/Brink of Disaster
back of both towers.png
Planet of Giants
cables.png

So, from An Unearthly Child and all the way through the first season, the 'typical' way of powering the console seems to have been via one cable and one pneumatic (air) supply. The tangled mass of leads present in 'Edge' and 'Brink' seems to have been a 'one off'. I would suggest that this tangle represents the additional wiring necessary to operate the Console's central column (and lighting) by remote control.

Incidentally, I don't think that there would have been any need for separate air-cylinders as Studio D, along with all other studios at Lime Grove, was fitted with air-conditioning: According to the author of this website (http://www.tvstudiohistory.co.uk/old%20bbc%20studios.htm#lime), the original specifications were as follows:

"dressing rooms - 49 with accommodation for 600 people
fresh air supply - 14 tons per hour
generators - 6, weighing 8 tons each
generated power - 1 megawatt, or 1.5 megawatts over half an hour
fire prevention - 3,000 sprinkler heads with 6 miles of pipe
laboratory output capacity - 2,000,000 feet of film per week
total floor area of the 5 stages - 90,000 square feet".

So, a ready-made pressurised air supply system - a 'spur' from which I'm sure could have been used to supply the pipe seen in Jonathan's close-up from "The Dead Planet".

In addition, William Hartnell appears to have tried to operate the Tardis controls in a consistent manner - using the same switch(es) to perform the same function(s); for example, the same small lever switch is consistently used to 'operate' the scanner. Similarly he consistently uses the switches on Panel 4 to dematerialise the Tardis:

In the 'take-off' scene in An Unearthly Child, even though Susan struggles with him, it is plain that he is 'operating' his ship from Control Panel Four.

4th panel.png (Well, what's the point of having a good drawing and not re-using it?!  ;))

In the closing scenes of "The Firemaker", William Hartnell again operates the ship from Panel 4:

panel 4 operation of 1.png

During the aborted take-off from Skaro in The Dead Planet (just before he removes the fluid link), the console is again operated from Panel 4:panel 4 operation of 2.png

In the same scene, whilst Bill Hartnell's hands are still on the controls of Panel 4, the central column begins to rise:

panel 4 operation of 3.png

Whilst in the closing sequence of the Aztecs (episode 4), the console is again operated from Panel 4 (in this grab Hartnell is seen to switch on both the 'chaser' lights in the Movement Sensors and the flashing Function Indicator Lamps (the ping-pong ball lights)):

panel 4 operation of.png

So, Panel 4 appears to be crucial not only to the fictional operation of the Tardis but also to physical operation of the Console prop itself!


Unfortunately, these scenes have to be watched in motion in order to see which controls physically do something - by which I mean that when a particular switch is used, a corresponding lamp is illuminated or, as I hope to have shown, that the Console's Central Column responds directly when the switches on the right-hand side of Panel 4 are used. (I've left the DVD counter visible in the screen grabs so that those who are interested may watch the scenes and judge for themselves.)

'Rivet Counter' that I am, I've watched these scenes repeatedly  ;D. This is what I think is happening:

4th panel describing control functions.png

I think that in real life, under normal conditions (i.e., when it wasn't being operated remotely - as in Brink of Disaster) the Console's central column as a television prop was originally designed to be operated by the actors from Control Panel 4!

T

galacticprobe

Sep 20, 2015, 09:07 pm #367 Last Edit: Sep 20, 2015, 09:26 pm by galacticprobe
Quote from: Tony Farrell on Sep 20, 2015, 11:11 am
Dino, I've never doubted that you're accurately quoting your source material(s) from the 1980s, just that those source materials were inaccurate in this respect. (I can just about conceive that the central column might have been pushed up and down manually on one occasion, but not that this was in anyway a regular occurrence.)

Tony, just so we're on the same page with this, I don't think you're doubting my quotes from the books I have on the behind-the-scenes stuff. But I think there is a slight bit of confusion in your interpretation of my comments. (Either that or I'm not being as clear as I'd hoped, which is entirely possible.) I wasn't trying to say that the column was operated manually (the stagehand under the console) as a regular occurrence, only that it was operated as such when they had to film and the movement mechanism was on the blink. And that's really all those books said: they used a stagehand to move the column when the mechanism was on the blink. They never mention how often the thing went on the blink, just that it did happen. (My personal guess - having worked with new equipment many times - would be that in went on the blink a few times in early episodes as this would be the "field trials" for the mechanism, and if anything was going to break down, that would have been the time for it to do so.) I'm sure the stagehand thing wasn't standard practice, only an emergency "Oh crap! We need to have the column moving and the mech is on the blink! You: the nameless stagehand over there! You're small enough! Get over here and push this thing up and down so we can film! And you techs: get this mechanism out, fixed, and back in before we need to do the next take!" sort of thing.

Oh, and thanks for posting that image with the tangle of cables. (What a rat's nest!)

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Sep 20, 2015, 11:11 am
In addition, William Hartnell appears to have tried to operate the Tardis controls in a consistent manner - using the same switch(es) to perform the same function(s); for example, the same small lever switch is consistently used to 'operate' the scanner. Similarly he consistently uses the switches on Panel 4 to dematerialise the Tardis:

In the 'take-off' scene in An Unearthly Child, even though Susan struggles with him, it is plain that he is 'operating' his ship from Control Panel Four.

In the closing scenes of "The Firemaker", William Hartnell again operates the ship from Panel 4:

Good points, and very observant! This makes me wonder about that article in the old Doctor Who Weekly about those people that claim to have watched every episode available to determine which controls were used for which functions. The one thing that article and you agree on is this: Hartnell used the same controls to initiate the same functions on the console.

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Sep 20, 2015, 11:11 am
During the aborted take-off from Skaro in The Dead Planet (just before he removes the fluid link), the console is again operated from Panel 4:

In the same scene, whilst Bill Hartnell's hands are still on the controls of Panel 4, the central column begins to rise:

And to throw viewers off, whilst doing all that, Hartnell cleverly - with great timing - reaches over and throws that large lever closest to him in that grab, making it look like that lever also has something to do with the operation of the console. (It really is a clever move.)
panel 4 operation of 3.png

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Sep 20, 2015, 11:11 am
Whilst in the closing sequence of the Aztecs (episode 4), the console is again operated from Panel 4 (in this grab Hartnell is seen to switch on both the 'chaser' lights in the Movement Sensors and the flashing Function Indicator Lamps (the ping-pong ball lights)):

So, Panel 4 appears to be crucial not only to the fictional operation of the Tardis but also to physical operation of the Console prop itself!


I think you're right about that. Other switches on other panels may have operated other lights, but from your observations, it looks like Panel 4 was the "hub" for all of the console's functions. This is much like on TOS 'Trek' series; all of the lights on the bridge consoles were just plastic coverings over bulbs, but each station had several push-push buttons and rocker switches (and some toggle switches) that the actors could use to turn certain lights or displays on and off - as well as having each station and the entire bridge controlled from a master switch off screen. So this ties in with the column's movement being controlled at the console as well as remotely.

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Sep 20, 2015, 11:11 am
Unfortunately, these scenes have to be watched in motion in order to see which controls physically do something - by which I mean that when a particular switch is used, a corresponding lamp is illuminated or, as I hope to have shown, that the Console's Central Column responds directly when the switches on the right-hand side of Panel 4 are used. (I've left the DVD counter visible in the screen grabs so that those who are interested may watch the scenes and judge for themselves.)

Hartnell's hands move rather quickly, so maybe the scenes need to be watched in "slow" motion to really follow the operation of things?

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Sep 20, 2015, 11:11 am
'Rivet Counter' that I am, I've watched these scenes repeatedly  ;D. This is what I think is happening:

4th panel describing control functions.png

Tony, I think in this case we all need to be Rivet Counters! We're trying to figure out what appears to be a very complex prop - you almost can't even call her a prop at this point; she's more like a machine thanks to all of the intricacies, both mechanical and electrical. (So rivet count away!)

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Sep 20, 2015, 11:11 am
I think that in real life, under normal conditions (i.e., when it wasn't being operated remotely - as in Brink of Disaster) the Console's central column as a television prop was originally designed to be operated by the actors from Control Panel 4!

And I tend to agree, as I mentioned above in my TOS 'Trek' analogy.

Dino.
"What's wrong with being childish?! I like being childish." -3rd Doctor, "Terror of the Autons"

tony farrell

Sep 25, 2015, 11:21 pm #368 Last Edit: Sep 26, 2015, 12:43 am by Tony Farrell
Thanks for the comments Dino.

Quote from: galacticprobe on Sep 20, 2015, 09:07 pm
All those books said: they used a stagehand to move the column when the mechanism was on the blink. They never mention how often the thing went on the blink, just that it did happen. (My personal guess - having worked with new equipment many times - would be that in went on the blink a few times in early episodes as this would be the "field trials" for the mechanism, and if anything was going to break down, that would have been the time for it to do so.) I'm sure the stagehand thing wasn't standard practice, only an emergency "Oh crap! We need to have the column moving and the mech is on the blink! You: the nameless stagehand over there! You're small enough! Get over here and push this thing up and down so we can film!
Dino.


Without wishing to bore people with a British history lesson (I got a 2.1 in the subject), what your books say here really is a myth:

In Britain, the Second World War had shown that a 'command economy' was possible. On the back of this, and in the hope of ameliorating the economic privations of the 1920s and 1930s, Clement Attlee's Labour Party won a landslide victory in 1945. This victory lead to what - in Britain - was called the 'post war consensus' which lasted for the next fifteen to twenty years or so; the central tenet of this 'consensus' was the concept of full employment.

Rightly or wrongly, by the 1960s, this post war consensus and its concept of full employment had lead (particularly in unionised industries) to an extremely strict demarcation of duties (i.e., no-one could be seen to 'steal' someone else's job); demarcation disputes and consequent industrial actions were therefore frequent.

This was particularly true of the BBC. In 1969 for example, over one such demarcation dispute, half way through a concert, the entire BBC staff went out on strike leaving Petula Clark in darkness on the stage and BBC 1 with no programme to transmit!

So, Dino, with the greatest of respect, the books you refer to have misunderstood the nature of British 'unionised' industries in the 1960s and 1970s - the "get it in the can" attitude of co-operation your books suggest simply did not exist.

Anyway, history lesson over  ;).

As we've seen from the last few posts, the Console's Central Column was pneumatically driven (at least throughout season 1). It also could be operated both remotely (as in Brink of Disaster) and - more usually by the lead actor - from Control Panel 4.

4th panel describing control functions.png


Quote from: galacticprobe on Sep 20, 2015, 09:07 pm
Quote from: Tony Farrell on Sep 20, 2015, 11:11 am
During the aborted take-off from Skaro in The Dead Planet (just before he removes the fluid link), the console is again operated from Panel 4:
In the same scene, whilst Bill Hartnell's hands are still on the controls of Panel 4, the central column begins to rise:

And to throw viewers off, whilst doing all that, Hartnell cleverly - with great timing - reaches over and throws that large lever closest to him in that grab, making it look like that lever also has something to do with the operation of the console. (It really is a clever move.)


As Dino suggests, Bill Hartnell's use of the 'dummy' main lever on the adjacent panel before the actual operation of the column from Panel 4 was a brilliant piece of 'actorly' imagination - adding to the illusion of a complex space/time machine.

As we've also seen from the last few posts, the Tardis set was not cheap. At four thousand pounds, it cost the price of a three-bedroom semi-detached house. Nevertheless, even with this amount of cash at his disposal, Peter Brachaki had to make compromises. Most obviously, this economy was evident in the Tardis' photo blow-up walls. Even though these photo blow-ups look obvious to the modern eye, set in their historical context - i.e. TV production of the 1960s - these should not be regarded as in anyway unusual: Watch any episode of Coronation Street (a long-running British 'soap opera' drama and contemporary of Doctor Who) and the background railway viaduct is clearly an enlarged photograph. Similarly, watch some episodes of CBS's "The Wild Wild West" (1965 to 1969) and it is equally obvious that some of the background scenery is simply painted 'flats'.

So, being 'good historians', we must judge Dr Who (and its contemporaries) by standards which are applicable to the times in which it was made.

As with the Mike Kelt iteration of the Console, as an economy measure, not all of the Console's Control Panels were designed to be seen in close-up; the 'rear' panel on the Kelt Console was fitted with a dummy TV monitor housing rather than a functioning screen.

Similarly, it is clear that on the Brachaki Console, Control Panel 2 was not designed to be viewed in close-up containing (as it did) several 'dummy' slide switches (note the lack of 'finger plates' and fixing screws):

AmbassadorsDetail.jpg

By contrast, the slide switches on the panels more often 'seen' by the studio cameras were more detailed and contained 'functioning' slide switches mounted on 'finger plates':

detail_UnearthlyChild (1).jpg
fast return10.png
Fast_Return.jpg

Here, is my diagram of those 'slide switches':

slide switches.png

T

silverfox

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Sep 25, 2015, 11:21 pm


Similarly, it is clear that on the Brachaki Console, Control Panel 2 was not designed to be viewed in close-up containing (as it did) several 'dummy' slide switches (note the lack of 'finger plates' and fixing screws):

AmbassadorsDetail.jpg

By contrast, the slide switches on the panels more often 'seen' by the studio cameras were more detailed and contained 'functioning' slide switches mounted on 'finger plates':



I'm sure those simpler versions of the slide switches only appeared from Pertwee's run onwards. The photo you posted is even from Ambassadors of Death isn't it? (check out the plug socket details attached to the panel on the right)
Those same simplified slide switches appear all over Pertwee's version of the console. It was one of the things I noted when I was studying it to make a 3D model. None of Pertwee's have the fingerplate and screws attached.

galacticprobe

Sep 26, 2015, 06:41 am #370 Last Edit: Sep 26, 2015, 06:46 am by galacticprobe
Quote from: Tony Farrell on Sep 25, 2015, 11:21 pm
Thanks for the comments Dino.

You're welcome, Tony, as always. But I would like to correct one of my comments. As I re-read it, I noticed I missed out a word that totally changed the meaning of what I actually intended it to mean:
Quote from: galacticprobe on Sep 20, 2015, 09:07 pm
All those books said: they used a stagehand to move the column when the mechanism was on the blink.

That should have read "All those books said was: ~", as in, they said no more than - in short - it happened. The way the wording in my previous post came out, it looks like I was trying to assert fact, when in fact all I was trying to do was clarify that it was something I'd read in several books, in which they all said the same thing.

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Sep 25, 2015, 11:21 pm
So, Dino, with the greatest of respect, the books you refer to have misunderstood the nature of British 'unionised' industries in the 1960s and 1970s - the "get it in the can" attitude of co-operation your books suggest simply did not exist.

And as further clarification, since your post on some very interesting history (as a former living historian I love learning this sort of information), I just wanted to say that going by the spelling in those books, all indications are they were written in the UK by British authors. So it was all I've had to go on since the 1980s. Though I still can't figure out why they would put in untruths like that since these were supposed to be documentary behind-the-scenes books. I could see if they were done in the vein of "An Adventure in Space and Time" to get that flare for dramatics, but they weren't written like that, and I'm surprised the BBC let that fictitious info get published. So I think it's safe to say that we can finally put this one to rest.

And I love the drawing of those Slide Switches!

Dino.
"What's wrong with being childish?! I like being childish." -3rd Doctor, "Terror of the Autons"

tony farrell

Quote from: silverfox on Sep 26, 2015, 06:26 am
Quote from: Tony Farrell on Sep 25, 2015, 11:21 pm
Similarly, it is clear that on the Brachaki Console, Control Panel 2 was not designed to be viewed in close-up containing (as it did) several 'dummy' slide switches (note the lack of 'finger plates' and fixing screws):
AmbassadorsDetail.jpg


I'm sure those simpler versions of the slide switches only appeared from Pertwee's run onwards. The photo you posted is even from Ambassadors of Death isn't it?

Hi Silverfox - you are correct, the photo is from Ambassadors but it does show the original Console. Similarly, this photo (also in the post you quote) is from An Unearthly Child (again of the original Console). If you look closely, it can be seen that the Slide Switches on Panel Two were 'dummies' from the very beginning of the Console's history:
detail_UnearthlyChild (1).jpg

Quite why so many of Pertwee's Slide Switches were 'dummies' I don't know especially when so many of the original controls were 'carried over' to the 1970 Console.

T

tony farrell

Sep 26, 2015, 04:48 pm #372 Last Edit: Sep 26, 2015, 05:49 pm by Tony Farrell
Quote from: galacticprobe on Sep 26, 2015, 06:41 am
And as further clarification, since your post on some very interesting history (as a former living historian I love learning this sort of information), I just wanted to say that going by the spelling in those books, all indications are they were written in the UK by British authors. So it was all I've had to go on since the 1980s. Though I still can't figure out why they would put in untruths like that since these were supposed to be documentary behind-the-scenes books.

And I love the drawing of those Slide Switches!

Dino.


Thanks for the kind words about the drawing. I'm glad you like it - I've said before that drawing curved surfaces (and getting them to look vaguely realistic) is an absolute 'bugger' to do in Microsoft Paint; believe it or not, that drawing took me nearly a whole day!

As regards your books of the 1980s telling 'untruths' about the column being manually operated, I think the word untruth is a bit uncharitable. I think what the authors are really 'guilty' of is displaying thinking which isn't "joined up" - i.e., they've taken people's (faulty) memories as fact without checking how that 'fact' supposedly fits into the world around it. It wouldn't be the first time and, again in fairness to the authors Dino is quoting, 20 years ago, there wasn't as much information available as there is now. So, its easy to see how mistakes can creep in!  :)

Since this thread concerns the original Tardis, with the moderators' indulgence, it is perhaps helpful to list some of the 'myths' which surround the production of Doctor Who's first season and the subsequent facts which have come to light which de-bunk those myths:

1. Dr Who was made on a pitifully small budget. As we have seen, the Tardis Interior cost £4000 which equates to $250,000 in today's money.
2. Dr Who must have been made on the cheap - the sets wobble and just look at those photo blow-up walls. As we have seen, the use of enlarged photos or painted flats was common-place in 1960s television production (and not just in Britain, it equally applies to bigger budget American TV shows).
3. After recording of the Pilot Episode, the 'junkyard set' was destroyed and the Tardis interior set only narrowly avoided the same fate when Donald Baverstock changed his mind and allowed production to continue. The junkyard set was made from stock parts. It was simply broken back down into its constituent parts and returned to storage. Have a look at these pictures. As far as I'm aware, they are BBC copyrighted and so, I'm posting them for information purposes only:
junkyard for TB overview.png
junkyard for tb parts from stock 1.png
junkyard for tb parts from stock 2.png
junkyard for tb parts from stock.png
As can be seen, the lamp posts, iron railings, gates and street door have all been given part/stock identification numbers so that they could be 'picked' from the props store.
4. The original Police Box prop had its doors removed and that these were stood up against the Tardis set so that Barbara could walk straight through them into the Tardis interior. This was finally de-bunked in September 2013 when the Radio Times published the studio floor plan for The Pilot Episode:

duplicate doors pilot ep overview.png
duplicate doors pilot ep.png

Though that information was already available:
get-attachment1.jpg
dodo.png
5. The Pilot Episode was intended for transmission. William Russell has categorically stated that this was not the case and that the Pilot was intended as a trial run or proof of concept (looking at the unfinished nature of the Police Box prop (missing side signage) and the equally unfinished Tardis interior, this would seem to be the case).
6. The Tardis interior was white not pale green. Well, as we all know, this wasn't the case!
7. There was only one 3D internal Tardis wall built in addition to the main doors. Anyone looking at pictures from Power of the Daleks would have realised this wasn't the case either!
8. The Tardis Console's central column was chain driven. Thanks to Jonathan, we now have proof it was driven with compressed air!
9.  
Quote from: markofrani on Dec 23, 2014, 09:06 pm
IN THE FIRST DOCTOR HANDBOOK,
On 1 November 1963, IAN ATKINS (BBC Controller of Programme Services) intervened directly in an important question of design. On that date he held a meeting with James Mudie, Tony Reeves (Assistant Head Of Servicing), Beyon Lewis (Assistant Head Of Design)  and Raymond Cusick to discuss the sets for 'The Mutants'.  Ian Atkins gave them all a direct order to do something about the design of the TARDIS interior. As designed by the then-departed Peter Brachacki, it was simply too heavy and too complicated to erect. By 22 November, Cusick had redesigned and simplified the TARDIS interior. The revised "Cusick interior" made its debut in 'The Mutants'.

These changes might have been planned to have taken place for The Mutants as these plans show (again reproduced for information purposes only):
daleks set cut down overview.png
daleks set cut down 2.png
daleks set cut down 1.png

But, this myth ignores two simple facts - the first episode of the Daleks had to be remounted and the Tardis set appears in its full un-cut-down glory throughout the whole first season of Doctor Who:

tardis set behind scenes planet of giants.png
myphoto (36).png
myphoto (42).png
t1a.jpg

And lastly, a close-up of the photo from the proposed 'coffee book' showing the scanner's supporting structure still in place for Planet of Giants when according to The Handbook, it had already been removed!

t2.jpg

I guess, what I'm saying is that we should treat some research with caution and that we certainly shouldn't accept things 'on faith'. I've no problem with exploding myths; like the rest of us here on TB, I'm simply seeking the truth. If that means rewriting the history book, then - frankly - brilliant!

T

galacticprobe

Sep 27, 2015, 06:27 am #373 Last Edit: Sep 27, 2015, 06:50 am by galacticprobe
Quote from: Tony Farrell on Sep 26, 2015, 04:48 pm
Thanks for the kind words about the drawing. I'm glad you like it - I've said before that drawing curved surfaces (and getting them to look vaguely realistic) is an absolute 'bugger' to do in Microsoft Paint; believe it or not, that drawing took me nearly a whole day!

I still find it amazing that you can get that sort of resolution out of MS Paint! I have difficulties with that using an actual graphics program that was used by military engineering design types!

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Sep 26, 2015, 04:48 pm
As regards your books of the 1980s telling 'untruths' about the column being manually operated, I think the word untruth is a bit uncharitable.

Well, I didn't want to use the word "lie", although I supposed "slightly fibbed" might have worked, in a polite sort of way.

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Sep 26, 2015, 04:48 pm
I think what the authors are really 'guilty' of is displaying thinking which isn't "joined up" - i.e., they've taken people's (faulty) memories as fact without checking how that 'fact' supposedly fits into the world around it. It wouldn't be the first time and, again in fairness to the authors Dino is quoting, 20 years ago, there wasn't as much information available as there is now. So, its easy to see how mistakes can creep in!  :)

I believe what you've just described might be termed "folklore".

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Sep 26, 2015, 04:48 pm
And lastly, a close-up of the photo from the proposed 'coffee book' showing the scanner's supporting structure still in place for Planet of Giants when according to The Handbook, it had already been removed!

If by "coffee book" you're referring to Jan Vincent-Rudski's book, then that's one book I really wish they would publish! (I've e-mailed the contact that one of our members had given me, asking the BBC to give a little attention to the book because it would be one of those fantastic 'behind-the-scenes' books that we haven't seen in a while, though I never received a reply and for all I know my e-mail ended up in the electronic "round file".) With all of the photos and drawings that Mr. Vincent-Rudski had assembled that book would be a treasure trove of references for people like us!

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Sep 26, 2015, 04:48 pm
I guess, what I'm saying is that we should treat some research with caution and that we certainly shouldn't accept things 'on faith'. I've no problem with exploding myths; like the rest of us here on TB, I'm simply seeking the truth. If that means rewriting the history book, then - frankly - brilliant!

History is re-written all the time. I've seen some documentaries on the History Channel in the last few years - when they're showing actual documentaries - as well as some on the National Geographic and Smithsonian Channels that have made discoveries that will definitely re-write some history books. So I'm with you, Tony!

Dino.
"What's wrong with being childish?! I like being childish." -3rd Doctor, "Terror of the Autons"

handofomega

Tony Farrell wrote: "4. The original Police Box prop had its doors removed and that these were stood up against the Tardis set so that Barbara could walk straight through them into the Tardis interior. This was finally de-bunked in September 2013 when the Radio Times published the studio floor plan for The Pilot Episode:"

I am not disputing this but how was the shot of Barbara going through the police box doors and straight into the console room accomplished for the pilot?   Because although I have it on VHS I do remember seeing that shot when the pilot was released for the Unearthly Child VHS edition way back when.  Just curious.