The Tom Yardley Jones TARDIS (Original) (1980)

[tony farrell]

I don't have a dog in this fight

No, no Volpone, I in no way think of this discussion as a "fight". I enjoy the 'cut and thrust' of a good argument (and I use the word 'argument' in the academic sense of the word). If Steve and I were fighting, I wouldn't have invited him to stop at my house next weekend and - I'm sure - he wouldn't have accepted that invitation!  

It doesn't make sense that they'd go to the expense and effort of refitting the Newbery prop for "Logopolis" etc if they had a timber version of the TYJ laying around.  On the other hand, they had to make the original fiberglass molds off of *something*, so I can't rule out the argument.  

This is the crux of the 'argument' - was a full wooden former made or simply - as Steve has suggested - parts of it (roof, side panel, possibly two doors, base, sign-box and a corner post)?

As those of us - like me - that have a degree in History will know, a 'primary source' is a document (or, in this case, a plan) which was written at the time by the person or people involved.

[Pedant mode]You did also call the document "Primary Evidence" which is not the same thing at all [/Pedant mode]

Primary evidence and primary source material means the same thing - it can be documentary (a person's diary) or their memories. What makes it primary is that it comes from the person involved at the time i.e., it's contemporary. The TYJ plans and the plans from "Planet of Fire" are primary source materials/evidence as they were created at the time! 
End of pendantic mode!  

Like you I like the idea that the reference section of this site is as accurate a record of the history and dimensions of the of the props as possible, and I feel that if we suddenly start throwing in hand grenades around the existence of a hitherto unmentioned version of the prop we need to be completely sure on this. So far the only indication we have on this is a paragraph on a design drawing drawing coupled with established knowledge that the Newbery box has totally different dimensions to that of the finished TJY.

I don't see why my suggestion of a full timber 'master' should be regarded as a 'bombshell'. From what I can gather, making multiple versions of the same prop is common practice in the film and TV industries. When Dr Who was brought back in 2005, presumably to give the production team flexibility, there were at least two versions of the Police Box prop made (two-and-a-bit, if you count the doors to the interior set as well):

I just feel that what was written on the plan was the intent rather than the reality (I realise I keep referring back to the TJY's sign boxes, but the Planned vs Actual on that tells us that the intent can be very different to the real world)...

Well, if you look at the plans for the TYJ top signs, they do actually show the full-width insert for the "Police Public Call Box" sign (there's a border drawn just inside the outer edge of the sign-box which matches what was actually built). Mind you, they show a separate narrow insert for the actual sign as well! Any deviation from the plans in this regard is down to how the contractors have interpreted those plans (in much the same way as Shawcraft interpreted the Brachacki plans for the original Tardis interior - rather than slavishly copying them).

Did they ever put Richard III's car park back after they dug him up?

Er, yes! I don't think the retailer would have tolerated a ruddy great hole in their car park on a permanent basis!  

One thing I forgot to ask about was your mention of a possible additional TJY between the first and second versions. This is the first time i've seen this mentioned before, what makes you say that?

I'm referring to the BBC approved plans for a light-weight demountable Tardis for "Planet of Fire" (1983). What has been referred to as the TYJ Mark 2 Box was constructed in 1986 for "The Trial of a Timelord". So, if the Planet of Fire prop was built (as indicated by the approvals process and the 'outside contractor's' stamps), what Tardis Builders currently calls the TYJ (mark 2) should, in actual fact, be called the TYJ (mark 3)!

If I may, I'd just like to make three 'final' points:

Let's be careful about being definitive and let's also remember that our understanding can change as new evidence emerges. Karsthotep called his plans for the Baker 'time rotor' definitive, yet it was me who pointed out the three strips on the circular black base. Once I identified those strips, I was able to show that Karsthotep's dimensions weren't definitive at all - in fact they were incorrect! (Karsthotep was gracious enough to accept my discovery and hasn't taken offence at me pointing out his mistake).

Anyone reading "Nothing at the End of the Lane's" history of the Brachacki Tardis interior in isolation might think that this was an accurate representation of fact. but if that person were then to read this forum, they'd find out that what "Nothing at the End of the Lane" presents as fact, is nothing of the sort - the article on the Tardis interior is actually littered with errors.

There is a big difference between 'antiquarianism' and 'history'. Antiquarianism is collecting information from the past (documents, people's memories, props, etc), history is the interpretation of that information.  

T

[meantimebob]

Weren't the timber door plugs that were made for the YJ box fitted into the Newbery prop for Logopolis or Castrovalva?

[fivefingeredstyre]

(ooo, I appear to have rested my elbow on the pedant button again...)

Actually Steve, it was you - not me - who used the phrase 'primary evidence' see http://tardisbuilders.com/index.php?topic=966.msg85183#msg85183
End of pendantic mode!  

you sure?

These are what an historian would call 'primary sources'. They are contemporary documents - it would be a brave historian who would dismiss such primary evidence for the existence of a wooden TYJ-style Police Box prop.

Just sayin'

(Takes elbow off the pedant button...)

[tony farrell]

My fault here buddy, I was editing my last post when you replied so you beat me to it!

T

[fivefingeredstyre]

Fastest fingers first 

Primary evidence and primary source material means the same thing - it can be documentary (a person's diary) or their memories. What makes it primary is that it comes from the person involved at the time i.e., it's contemporary. The TYJ plans and the plans from "Planet of Fire" are primary source materials/evidence as they were created at the time! 
End of pendantic mode!  

I agree; but to clarify, I'm saying they are only evidence of the designers intent, not evidence of actual construction.

I know from my professional life with commercial buildings that things get changed quite often from design stage when construction starts. What we need is a nice set of 'As Fitted' drawings, but I doubt they were ever made

[tony farrell]

Fastest fingers first  

Primary evidence and primary source material means the same thing - it can be documentary (a person's diary) or their memories. What makes it primary is that it comes from the person involved at the time i.e., it's contemporary. The TYJ plans and the plans from "Planet of Fire" are primary source materials/evidence as they were created at the time!  
End of pendantic mode!  

I agree; but to clarify, I'm saying they are only evidence of the designers intent, not evidence of actual construction.

I understand where you're 'coming from' - just because something is drawn, it doesn't follow that it was made.

However, as can be seen from the plans we're discussing, the approvals process has been followed (as evidenced by the various stamps on the plans (design manager, outside contractors stamps, etc). In contrast, if you look at the Brachacki plans (which, again, have the various approval stamps) certain items - the working junkyard door, the illuminated 'stilts' for the ceiling canopy - have been marked as "OMIT".

So, the changes made to the Brachacki plans were documented. There are no such annotations on the plans we're discussing; it's therefore not unreasonable to suggest that the plans for both "The Leisure Hive" and "Planet of Fire" TYJ Boxes were implemented.

Specific to Planet of Fire - it would seem sensible to make a new light-weight prop because of the transportation issues/costs in getting it to Lanzarote (from memory, I don't think anyone is seen entering or leaving the Police Box prop in the scenes actually shot on location - if I'm incorrect on this point, I'm sure someone will correct me - and this would tend to support the existence of a lighter prop). And, in any case, the TYJ (mark 1) fibreglass box was two-and-a-half years old by this stage and had probably been patched up/repaired/re-enforced with bits of timber (and/or a metal supporting framework) all of which would have added weight to the prop and therefore increased transportation costs/assembly and dis-assembly time - something you'd wish to avoid on an expensive location shoot.

Hopefully, this illustrates the difference between an antiquarian and an historian: An antiquarian would say that the Tardis prop was taken to Lanzarote because the filmed evidence shows it was there. An historian would say the filmed evidence shows that a Tardis prop was taken to Lanzarote - the existence of plans showing that a new box was built and the associated costs of setting up/transportation, etc means that it may not be the same Tardis prop.

In Pat Troughton's words "appearances aren't everything". The context, not the fact, is the key!

Anyway, I've probably bored the pants off everyone by now and, I've got work to do. T.T.F.N! 

T

[fivefingeredstyre]

I understand where you're 'coming from' - just because something is drawn, it doesn't follow that it was made.

see also, just because it was written, it doesn't necessarily mean it happened... 

However, as can be seen from the plans we're discussing, the approvals process has been followed (as evidenced by the various stamps on the plans (design manager, outside contractors stamps, etc). In contrast, if you look at the Brachacki plans (which, again, have the various approval stamps) certain items - the working junkyard door, the illuminated 'stilts' for the ceiling canopy - have been marked as "OMIT".

So, the changes made to the Brachacki plans were documented. There are no such annotations on the plans we're discussing; it's therefore not unreasonable to suggest that the plans for both "The Leisure Hive" and "Planet of Fire" TYJ Boxes were implemented.

I do wonder just how rigid the control process was by the 80's?

either way though we are not going to ever know for sure unless someone can track down the actual people who worked on the prop in 1980, or a full sized BBC wooden box turns up (minus its doors and roof...  )

[galacticprobe]

In the words of Patrick Troughton, "Oh no, no, no, no, no no. I don't wish to seem contrary but" I really must disagree with you Dino (and to some extent with Steve also). Let me try to explain:

I love these discussions, Tony. They may make my brains hurt, but I can feel the increased blood flow into my skull, which I can only imagine is good for what brain cells I have left!

The reference in the 1980 plans to "the existing wooden Tardis" simply cannot refer to the Newbery Tardis exterior (Police Box prop), its design is simply too different from that proposed by Tom Yardley-Jones.

I agree that the Newbery and TY-J boxes were utterly different, but the Newbery could still have been "the existing timber TARDIS". There is nothing to indicate that it could have been otherwise, just as there is nothing to indicate that it was not the Newbery. Although, if I was drafting these plans, I would have written "Take delivery of timber TARDIS for pattern & make MLDS..." The terminology is too vague to rule out the Newbery as the "existing" timber TARDIS; as far as anyone knows, at the time, it could have meant the TARDIS in use, or the Brachacki that was in storage and about to be put to use for mould-making.

Alexander Graham Bell was awarded the patent for the telephone in 1876...

This I know. I'm the one that let Bell know that Elisha Gray was about to take his plans for a telephone to the patent office, and that he'd better get a move on if he wanted to beat Gray to it. (It also helped by telling Bell it would only be appropriate for him to get the patent because his name - "Bell" - would be the component of the telephone that rang to let someone know they were being called.)

...are we seriously suggesting that the contractors took delivery of the Newbery Police Box prop, looked at it and then looked at the TYJ plans, scratched their heads and simply 'did their own thing'?

If the TV/film industry is anything like the military, then the answer is 'yes'. If new plans are issued for something, and an example is provided that differs from the new plans, then people usually go with the "new" plans over the old or differing example. They may use the old example as a reference for some details, but the builders would follow the new plans when building.

I find It is absolutely inconceivable that someone wouldn't have picked up the telephone and asked TYJ if they'd been sent the wrong Police Box prop by mistake!

We also don't know which "timber TARDIS" was delivered: Newbery, Brachacki, or other. So how do we know the builders would have thought they may had been sent the wrong prop when we don't know which prop the word "existing" is referring to?

The BBC may well be bureaucratic (and many would argue inefficient) but it is not so incompetent as to provide someone with explicit instructions to take moulds from a particular prop and then to send them the wrong one!

Stranger things have happened, but again, the wording - "existing" - only implies a timber TARDIS that is already built. It could have been the Newbery, or the Brachacki, or this other box that's still in speculation. But a new "timber" TY-J box should have been considered "new", and stated as such on the plans. So that "existing" still leaves too much ambiguity to rule out the Newbery, or even the Brachacki.

Again, I find that absolutely inconceivable!

"Inconceivable"? (Twice so close together... you're starting to sound like Vizzini. )

(If it did happen and I were in charge, I'd make damned sure that TYJ was never employed again...

And now it's my turn to ask the question: Why? How to we know it was Yardley-Jones that delivered this "existing" TARDIS to the Props Department? He may have drawn the plans and put in that note to "Take delivery of existing timber TARDIS...", but there is no indication that TY-J is the one who delivered that TARDIS, so why see to it that he was put out of work forever?

(and TYJ went on to design a great many programmes for the BBC - refer to http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0946424/, if you want to check).)

No need to check. Between BBC America and PBS, we've seen enough BBC programming to spot his name more than a few times.

As regards Dino's suggestion that the contractors took moulds from parts of the Newbery Police Box prop (roof and base) and then went on to construct the remainder of the TYJ box 'from scratch', again - with respect - I have to disagree: The slope of the Newbery Box's roof is completely different to that of the TYJ prop; the base too is a different design.

And going back and looking at the two props again, I have to agree. Touché.

I in no way think of this discussion as a "fight". I enjoy the 'cut and thrust' of a good argument (and I use the word 'argument' in the academic sense of the word).

I think in this case, to further clarify, "argument" is meant as "discussion". I also like the "cut and thrust" analogy, hence my "touché" above.

If Steve and I were fighting, I wouldn't have invited him to stop at my house next weekend and - I'm sure - he wouldn't have accepted that invitation!  

Hopefully, if I lived a little closer than 4,000 miles away, I would be included in one of those invitations (as in, I haven't worn out my welcome yet ).

I don't see why my suggestion of a full timber 'master' should be regarded as a 'bombshell'. From what I can gather, making multiple versions of the same prop is common practice in the film and TV industries. When Dr Who was brought back in 2005, presumably to give the production team flexibility, there were at least two versions of the Police Box prop made (two-and-a-bit, if you count the doors to the interior set as well):

Not a "bombshell", but comparing the New Series' duplicate TARDIS props to the Classic is a little outside the comprehensible range. I don't think the BBC had that sufficient of a budget allotted for 'Doctor Who' in the Classic Series. If they had, then they would have replaced the aging and obviously wobbly Brachacki long before they did, or they would have had a second one made for use while the other was being repaired/stabilised when it began wobbling too much. By the time 1980 rolled around everyone was feeling budget cuts across the board, and building a second TARDIS prop probably wasn't on the forefront of anyone's mind. (They'd gone nearly 20 years with only one TARDIS prop to work with, why make two now?)

I just feel that what was written on the plan was the intent rather than the reality (I realise I keep referring back to the TJY's sign boxes, but the Planned vs Actual on that tells us that the intent can be very different to the real world)...

And we have seen this happen more often than not. Tony proved that when he created his magnificent "as built" drawings of the original Brachacki TARDIS interior set from screen grab references and known measurements in relation to them, and we saw the "as intended" plans that were drawn for the set and props departments to work from.

Well, if you look at the plans for the TYJ top signs, they do actually show the full-width insert for the "Police Public Call Box" sign (there's a border drawn just inside the outer edge of the sign-box which matches what was actually built). Mind you, they show a separate narrow insert for the actual sign as well!

Without reposting the plans with the highlighted Top Sign boxes, what Tony says above is I think what only adds to the confusion when it comes to those boxes. That "outer edge" could be interpreted as a beveled edge on the box, but the side view shows no bevel. And yet there is that "original" look to the POLICE PUBLIC CALL BOX sign window. It becomes very confusing.

Any deviation from the plans in this regard is down to how the contractors have interpreted those plans (in much the same way as Shawcraft interpreted the Brachacki plans for the original Tardis interior - rather than slavishly copying them).

Erm... Tony, wasn't I chastised <term used loosely> above for agreeing with Steve with regards to the builders "going their own way"? That's just another way of saying what you've said here: down to contractor (or builder) interpretation. They were presented with two different "designs" for the Top Sign box bezel/frame (and this time drawn on the plans), so they just picked one and went with it. So, too, could it have gone with the plans they had in front of them and this yet-to-be-determined "existing" timber TARDIS.

One thing I forgot to ask about was your mention of a possible additional TJY between the first and second versions. This is the first time i've seen this mentioned before, what makes you say that?

I think I'll stop here. Trying to wrap my head around a third TY-J box at this juncture makes me dizzy!

Dino.

[Rassilons Rod]

I'm leaning to the point of view that they didn't build a full timber box. Perhaps just one side.

Or why bust out the Newberry for Logopolis, Castrovalva and (more bizarrely) for Black Orchid?

[galacticprobe]

That was my original thought: one side, built in two parts; one part - the "left" half - would have the center divide built into it while the "right" half would have no center divide, but would extend enough to overlap with the center divide. That would allow for forming a solid wall for the sides and rear, and the opening doors for the front (and eventually the rear).

Dino.

[galacticprobe]

As regards whether there was sufficient budget in the 'classic' series (as against the new series), I was wondering when that 'old chestnut' would resurface! Can I just re-iterate (as I've tried to show with the cost of the original Tardis interior (in 1963, £4000 would have bought you a semi-detached house)), Dr Who has never been produced on a shoestring budget - it has always been granted what the BBC regards as a standard budget for a drama programme.

I think the misunderstanding is going two ways on this one, Tony. I never said the Classic Series was "produced on a shoestring budget". We established that in your thread on the Original Brachacki Interior. What I'd said in my post above was "I don't think the BBC had that sufficient of a budget allotted for 'Doctor Who' in the Classic Series." (Big difference than accusing them of working on a "shoestring" budget.) That said, given the "standard budget" as regarded by the BBC, once all of the expenses you mention have been eaten into, there either wasn't enough left for them to build a second or replacement TARDIS prop during the Hartnell years through to Tom Baker's "Seeds of Doom" (although the Brachacki prop's final appearance was more of a cameo than anything), or the production team didn't care and felt there was no need for a second TARDIS prop. Granted, in the beginning, everyone only expected the show to have a 5-year run so not spending money on a second TARDIS prop is understandable. However, when it became evident that the show was going beyond that 5-year run, and entering its 7th year with a TARDIS prop that was so visibly wobbly that it looked as if it would fall to pieces in some scenes, either the money just wasn't available for a replacement, or the production team didn't care and spent the money on other things.

By the end of the Troughton era, the Brachacki prop should have been replaced, or at least a second prop built for use while they repaired the original. Instead, they kept patching together the Brachacki until the point where the prop itself became dangerous to use and they finally retired it, and brought in the Newbery. Again they made no provisions for a "stand-in" Newbery prop for use in the event the TARDIS prop needed repairing. So while there may have been what the BBC deemed "a sufficient budget for a drama series" - which kept being cut along with every other production's budget whenever that axe fell - the 'Doctor Who' production team either spent the money they had left after the expenditures you've cited on other things in the production and didn't care about building a spare TARDIS, or there wasn't that much money left over after those expenditures.

By the time the Yardley-Jones TARDIS came around Nathan-Turner obviously used enough of his budget to built the "mark II" to help take the workload off of the "mark I" (though the Newbery had been given its refit, so one does ponder the logic behind the decision of having a third TARDIS prop with the construction of the TY-J mark II). But also under JN-T's reign we did see more flimsy sets (as Colin Baker recalled, the walls were always wobbling). So amid more budget cuts - again which all productions felt - even though JN-T had two TARDIS props already at his disposal - the TY-J mark I and the refitted Newbery - he felt it necessary to sacrifice set quality for a third TARDIS prop, the TY-J mark II. Which brings us back to the crux of this discussion: was there a third TY-J TARDIS prop (which would have brought the total to four TARDIS props: refitted Newbery, TY-J marks I, II, and III?

So, I never said 'Doctor Who' was made on a "shoestring budget", but rather the money allocated to the show was insufficient for a second TARDIS prop to be built (pre JN-T) after your cited expenditures, or the production team didn't care about building another prop (even though at the start of the Pertwee era they really needed one) and used the money on other things.

Dino.

[domvar]

I too had noticed the "stile" and "steps" I had always written this off as being these details were attached to the sign box and the variation is due to them moving these around, somewhere there is an image of the newbury box at longleet wearing a TYJ sign box on one side but I cant find a clear shot of it however I did find this:-



Could the sign have been taken out and turned upside down and then the sign box fitted the other way up causing the stile to appear?

if so it would suggest the steps were attached to the side panels and a separate piece altogether on the sides with doors?

[tony farrell]

Thanks for 'clarifying' your thinking Dino (though you might want to recheck your dates/version numbers of the boxes in your last post)!

That's a really interesting find Dom, thank you!

Interchangeable sign boxes would go part-way to explaining the inconsistency in the box's appearance after Planet of Fire but it's only a partial explanation:

If one or more of the signs had been replaced, I could understand us permanently seeing the additional 'stile' but this additional stile wouldn't then appear only to disappear and then reappear again. In addition, in the publicity shots of Peter Davison earlier in this thread (playing cricket in front of his Tardis) it can be seen that the stepped section above the doors is attached to the sign-box and not the actual box - they're both leaning outwards from the box's framework.




To address Marc, Dino and Steve's earlier comments that only one sign box was made and moulds were taken from this, the inference I draw from this 'one-piece construction' and the intermittent presence of the 'additional stile' is that there were at least two moulds made (one plain and one with the 'additional stile').

As far as I've been able to see from the screen-grabs before Planet of Fire, the 'additional stile' never appears on either the front or side elevations of the prop - its only in and after Planet of Fire that we sometimes see it above the doors and on the side elevation. So, if the 'additional stile' was present on the 1980 version of the box, for two and a half years, it was consistently fitted above the rear doors only i.e., the side I've never been able to find a contemporary picture of.

To my mind this begs the question what changed in Planet of Fire? Which brings me back to the 'approval stamped' 1983 plans for the construction of a new Police Box prop......

I won't even mention the bolts which were on the (front) doors' side of the prop during the early Davison's era which also disappeared. (Oh, did I just mention the disappearing bolts?)  

History can be fascinating, can't it?!

T

[domvar]

I would suggest that the steps are indeed attached to the sign box but not permanently as implied by the photo above as there are no steps.  Something like this:-

[tony farrell]

Hi Dom - there are steps attached to the underside of the crooked sign-box in the photo I posted. You have to look closely, but they are there! Your (rather nice)  little diagram makes the three steps too deep - they should total no more than the equivalent depth of the quadrants (so an inch in total for the three). Have another look at the side of the box in which Peter has his left hand in his pocket.

In addition, though the 'additional stile' is no deeper than the uppermost step, it is nevertheless taller than the uppermost of the three steps (the same height as the 'full' part of the corner post is above the sign-box). So, it would be a really tight squeeze to conceal the 'additional stile' behind the stepped section.

Here's another view:



T

P.S., do you know the provenance of the 'upside down' sign-box in the photo you posted? Has it come off an actual Police Box prop? If so, which one? The only reason I ask is its origin could - in itself - be significant.

I know Andrew Beech's box (the 1980 TYJ box) lacked its rear doors, but as far as I'm aware, the four sign-boxes were intact. Similarly, as far as I know, the 1986 TYJ box had all four of its sign-boxes.  So, which box was that upside down sign-box taken from?

I think you can see where I'm going with that!