Wenlock's Blog

Dont think anything is wrong......railway station doors are big things! And the chaps hand is just right for turning the door knob.......

Mickey's right, they are bigger than you might expect. I've spent some time adjusting Gerry Beale's drawing of Camerton in Maggs & Beale The Camerton Branch. His drawing is good but has a few small errors, one of which is the height of the doors which he made too low. As I mentioned before, Camerton is all brick and there is a good photo of the building in later years taken in strong sunlight so brick counting is quite easy. I've good reason to believe that the bricks are "standard" size, 8.5" x 2.5" x 4", so with mortar the headers are 9" x 3". Each "quoin" is 3 courses deep and this appears to be the norm for Clarke's brick buildings (see also this photo of Rowden Mill).

 

According to my estimates for Camerton, the doors in the end of the toilet block are 6'9" high, whilst the one at the front (a porters' room in the early 1920s) is 6'6" high. The single door (ladies' waiting room?) and double door (booking office/waiting room?) in the main building are both 7'9" high. The double door has a glass panel above, taking the total height to 10'. The window in the main block is 6'6" high by 3'6" wide.

 

Now, looking at your photos, it does look to me that the drawing may be stretched too much in the vertical. Compare with the 1910 photo of Abbotsbury here where the "porters' room door doesn't look to be much higher than the folk standing in front of it. Also, the windows look narrower than I would expect. On the other hand, your plasticard appears to have the correct number of bricks. Can you measure your embossed bricks and check whether you have four rows to the foot?

 

Nick

Dave, that squares with my observations on the 4mm one. When I came to replace my original scratchbuilt doors, I substituted Peco ones but found that on the main building, there was a heck of a gap at the top. I filled this with a toplight sort of arrangement but my guess, as per Mickey, is that the doors on the real thing really were tall. The doors on the toilet block are much more normal size.

Top hats!

Thanks to all for their replies, Mikey's comment regarding the door handle has confused me more if anthing because although everything looks too high, the door handle is,,as he points out is in the right place!

 

i'm working off the same drawing as Barry Ten used for his building of Abbotsbury just enlarged to 7mm scale on a photocopier, which may, or may not be accurate!

 

At Nick's suggestion ,I've measured my plasticard sheeting, four courses come out at exactly 7mm, so equate to 12 inches full size. I'm relieved that this appears to be right, so at least I've now got a fixed reference point.

 

If the doors in the end wall of the toilet block at Camerton are 6'9" high, this must equte to a doorway 27 bricks high. My plan of Abbotsbury makes them 30 bricks high, or 7'6". The single door on the front of this toilet block, where the figure is standing on my model is also this height of 30 bricks or 7'6" In Nick's link to the picture of Abbotsbury, the Porters door certainly looks to be much shorter than 7'6".

 

I'm still not sure quite where the error is occouring, but I think the only answer is to redraw the plan, counting bricks before starting on a "mark 2" version of the building.

 

Thanks once again for the advice, I remember my old woodwork teacher at school saying " measure twice, cut once" I guess I should have listened!

 

Dave

on my 2mm scale drawing of Abbotsbury in combined edition of GW BLT the doors are 8ft 6 high, and the knob is 3 ft off the floor level....

 

I never bothered to measure any but Id have well educated guess that most Victorian era station building doors Ive been through are very much in that heght range.....

on my 2mm scale drawing of Abbotsbury in combined edition of GW BLT the doors are 8ft 6 high, and the knob is 3 ft off the floor level....

Hi Mickey, yes this is the same plan as the one I've been working from. What I find strange is if you look at the photo of Abbotsbury that Nick posted http://www.oldpicturepostcards.co.uk/abbotsbury.htm the porters doorway doesnt look that much taller than the people standing around it. I d estimate it at around 6' 6" to maybe 6' 9", certainly nowhwere near the 7' 6" that the plan indicates!

 

I'm begining to wonder if the plan in GW BLT is entirely accurate as far as door heights go!

 

Having said all that the doors in the main station building are definitely huge, 32 bricks high or as you say 8' 6". May be BlackRat is right and they were designed to allow the wearing of Top Hats, though you would have thought that Victorian manners would have dictated the removal of said attire before entering the building!

 

Dave

The chaps in the picture though are stood quite a long way from the door, and the plan seems to be in proportion

eg the window cross bar and the porters room door levels are the same in picture and plan,,,,

 

I think the reason the public doors were so big was to give an impression of the Presence & Grandeur of the Railway to the would-be traveller

Mickey I think you are probably right there.

 

Look at so many of our Victorian civic buildings, even the most mundane (ie sewerage works etc) seem to be making a statement of grandeur, pomp and a sense of superiority..

 

Ohhhh for architects like that now!

 

The phot gives the impression that the top of the door is almost level with the bottom of the canopy awning or valence!

 

And those chimneys!

 

ps..........I wonder if all Victorian knobs were 3 feet off the floor!

The chaps in the picture though are stood quite a long way from the door, and the plan seems to be in proportion

eg the window cross bar and the porters room door levels are the same in picture and plan,,,,

Yes, but the tops of their heads and the lintel of the door are very close to the horizontal centre line of the photo, so the heights should be roughly comparable. As to the drawing, the features are all in proportion to each other because they have all been subjected to the same vertical scaling. Unfortunately, the scaling is wrong.

 

Nick

Thanks for your input guys, all food for thought and much appreciated!

 

Dave

Just seen this request, I may have some original research material.