Sash bar dimensions for historical windows

[Jacob]

Sawn timber tends to be to multiples of one inch, with some 1/2" sizes thrown in.
Talking about finished sizes the common expression is "ex (sawn size)" so e.g. a board planed up finished from sawn size 6x1" would be referred to as "ex" 6x1" and actually be 1/4" smaller in both directions, or thereabouts.
I tend to think in imperial for sawn sizes and metric for finished, so "ex 4x1" would end up being finished at 96x19mm (or thereabouts!)

PS yes 5/8" finished of you say so, which suggests means 1 1/2" finished too, but this is very small for a sash window with a 5/8" moulding. Maybe the 1 1/2" is sash size for a so called "gothic" profile where you'd use that same ovolo plane but miss off the nib, or something?
But either way these tools are not that common and most sashes and casements would have been made without them, Which is probably why old ovolo moulding planes with no specified uses, and old rebate planes, are extremely common.

 

[johnnyb]

OK I've taken a look at my sash templates. the rail and stile one measure 3/4 by 1 1/4 and because of the profile the sash bar one measures 7/8 by 1 1/8.

 

[johnnyb]

obviously this nib is the difference.

 

[Jacob]

OK I've taken a look at my sash templates. the rail and stile one measure 3/4 by 1 1/4 and because of the profile the sash bar one measures 7/8 by 1 1/8.

What are they actually for though? What would you do with them? Why that narrow fillet on the moulding?

 

[johnnyb]

they are solely for marking the scribe. so the rail and stile has the fillet( this is the sliding face of the window. and the sash bar one is that fillet smaller so the bars are missing a flat and when set at its thinnest give that gothic arch look. it is adjustable by way of being in 2 halves with woodscrews holding them together. but as soon as you went thicker the fillet/ flat must appear and nestle between the split templates. marking itself can be done with a sharp chisel held on its flat against the template lightly making the correctly shaped line( a pencil also works fine)

 

[johnnyb]

the depth 1 1/4 wouldn't mean the sash thickness as the template wouldn't need to go beyond the edge of the rebate. 1/4 for the rebate(to match the mould) makes the sash thickness 1 1/2. pretty typical.

 

[Jacob]

they are solely for marking the scribe. so the rail and stile has the fillet( this is the sliding face of the window. and the sash bar one is that fillet smaller so the bars are missing a flat and when set at its thinnest give that gothic arch look. it is adjustable by way of being in 2 halves with woodscrews holding them together. but as soon as you went thicker the fillet/ flat must appear and nestle between the split templates. marking itself can be done with a sharp chisel held on its flat against the template lightly making the correctly shaped line( a pencil also works fine)

Right! Thanks.
I always marked the scribes in the old fashioned way by sawing at 45º which gives you the profile to saw around with a coping or fret saw.
I'd do it on the horizontal glazing bars full length unseparated, starting by nicking out for the nib with a chisel (it might have a proper name but it looks like a pen nib), then sawing the gap for the glazing fillet on the other side. then saw right through for the 2 stub tenons, leaving already sawn waste to be coped out from under the moulding.

 

[Sgian Dubh]

Well fancy that, it's called a rod in my book too....LOL!

In my book, it's also called a rod. Maybe I'm all wet, though.

Hold on Adam. I pose a question to Jacob in my next post that may be of interest to you ... or may be not. Who knows. Slainte.

 

[Adam W.]

In my book, it's also called a rod. Maybe I'm all wet, though.

Hold on Adam. I pose a question to Jacob in my next post that may be of interest to you ... or may be not. Who knows. Slainte.

Maybe we both live in a puddle.

Like the built ins BTW, very sleek.

 

[Sgian Dubh]

Yes but your so called rod as shown would have to have been marked up from from the full size drawing.
The orthodox rod system misses out this step and marks components direct from the drawing, with no fiddling about with a second set of measuring/marking sticks, nor endless measuring and calculating.
Which book is it? I'd bin it if I were you, it's obviously misleading!

Here's a question Jacob, and bear in mind I'm primarily a furniture maker not a joiner knocking out windows and doors on a regular basis, so maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick completely .

The drawings I produce, or that I've received from designers to make stuff are almost exclusively to scale, e.g.,1/5, 1/10, etc. This has always applied even to things like the occasional door or window that I've put together from those drawings. So rods were/are produced from the drawings, but as the drawings are to scale you can't create the rod from non-existent full scale drawings. The rods are created from the information given in the drawings using rules and tape measures, etc., and marking tools such as squares, bevel gauges, compasses, dividers, and the like on to sticks of wood usually bits of MDF, ply and so on. How do you overcome that scenario for creating a rod when a full scale drawing isn't available?

The exception to the above has always been for me where I've gone out and measured a space and recorded measurements on what I call telescoping sticks as I illustrated in an earlier post, and from which I could make rods directly from those telescoping sticks along with additional on-site note taking, e.g., sketches and photographs. Slainte.

 

[Sgian Dubh]

Maybe we both live in a puddle.

Like the built ins BTW, very sleek.

Ta. Slainte.

 

[Jacob]

Here's a question Jacob, and bear in mind I'm primarily a furniture maker not a joiner knocking out windows and doors on a regular basis, so maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick completely .

The drawings I produce, or that I've received from designers to make stuff are almost exclusively to scale, e.g.,1/5, 1/10, etc. This has always applied even to things like the occasional door or window that I've put together from those drawings. So rods were/are produced from the drawings, but as the drawings are to scale you can't create the rod from non-existent full scale drawings. The rods are created from the information given in the drawings using rules and tape measures, etc., and marking tools such as squares, bevel gauges, compasses, dividers, and the like on to sticks of wood usually bits of MDF, ply and so on. How do you overcome that scenario for creating a rod when a full scale drawing isn't available?

The exception to the above has always been for me where I've gone out and measured a space and recorded measurements on what I call telescoping sticks as I illustrated in an earlier post, and from which I could make rods directly from those telescoping sticks along with additional on-site note taking, e.g., sketches and photographs. Slainte.

Not sure why you think this is a problem, so I can't really answer.
Basically you scale them up with the information you have - just a normal drawing board procedure. Very basic and normal across industry, architecture, design, engineering etc etc though done with CAD nowadays I expect.
You seem to have done it yourself with your fitted cupboard - was that a problem in some way?
You end up with what is generally known as a full size working drawing.
In engineering called a "production" drawing as it is used to produce the thing, though not necessarily full size as much more computation goes into the design instead.
It verifies all the details as you are working with much more precision than a scale drawing and is the last step in the design process.
The difference with the rod is that you do it on a board, so it'll survive being knocked about in the workshop.
Call your measuring sticks "rods"if you want to, possibly an American thing, but the "joiners rod" is quite specifically another thing, as taught and as described in detail in many text books, Ellis being one of the most well known, see pages 176, 274, 390 - 396 3rd Edition.
"Techniques of Furniture Making" Joyce introduces it on page 66 but with less detail.
Hope that helps!

 

[Jacob]

Here's a question Jacob, and bear in mind I'm primarily a furniture maker not a joiner knocking out windows and doors on a regular basis, so maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick completely .

The drawings I produce, or that I've received from designers to make stuff are almost exclusively to scale, e.g.,1/5, 1/10, etc. This has always applied even to things like the occasional door or window that I've put together from those drawings. So rods were/are produced from the drawings, but as the drawings are to scale you can't create the rod from non-existent full scale drawings. The rods are created from the information given in the drawings using rules and tape measures, etc., and marking tools such as squares, bevel gauges, compasses, dividers, and the like on to sticks of wood usually bits of MDF, ply and so on. How do you overcome that scenario for creating a rod when a full scale drawing isn't available?

The exception to the above has always been for me where I've gone out and measured a space and recorded measurements on what I call telescoping sticks as I illustrated in an earlier post, and from which I could make rods directly from those telescoping sticks along with additional on-site note taking, e.g., sketches and photographs. Slainte.

I've been puzzling about your measuring sticks. Kept me awake!
Why didn't you use a tape measure like everybody else?
Was it your own idea?
You could need a lot of them - did you go on to a site with a bundle of sticks prepared?
How would you sort them out back at the ranch?
The normal way is to make sketches and annotate them with measurements, no sticks involved at all, just a tape measure which would fit in your pocket, a note book and a pencil.
And a camera nowadays of course, or smart phone.

 

[Adam W.]

OK I've taken a look at my sash templates. the rail and stile one measure 3/4 by 1 1/4 and because of the profile the sash bar one measures 7/8 by 1 1/8.

That's right, one for plane 1 and one for plane 2 of the pair of side escapement moulding planes with the corresponding number such a the ones I use ..... Just like I mentioned waaay up thread. Post #20

You can also use just the plane that makes the fillet to produce thicker glazing bars for larger windows that have a fillet running down the middle of them.

 

[toolsntat]

Here's a question Jacob, and bear in mind I'm primarily a furniture maker not a joiner knocking out windows and doors on a regular basis, so maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick completely .

The drawings I produce, or that I've received from designers to make stuff are almost exclusively to scale, e.g.,1/5, 1/10, etc. This has always applied even to things like the occasional door or window that I've put together from those drawings. So rods were/are produced from the drawings, but as the drawings are to scale you can't create the rod from non-existent full scale drawings. The rods are created from the information given in the drawings using rules and tape measures, etc., and marking tools such as squares, bevel gauges, compasses, dividers, and the like on to sticks of wood usually bits of MDF, ply and so on. How do you overcome that scenario for creating a rod when a full scale drawing isn't available?

The exception to the above has always been for me where I've gone out and measured a space and recorded measurements on what I call telescoping sticks as I illustrated in an earlier post, and from which I could make rods directly from those telescoping sticks along with additional on-site note taking, e.g., sketches and photographs. Slainte.

I've been puzzling about your measuring sticks. Kept me awake!
Why didn't you use a tape measure like everybody else?
Was it your own idea?
You could need a lot of them - did you go on to a site with a bundle of sticks prepared?
How would you sort them out back at the ranch?
The normal way is to make sketches and annotate them with measurements, no sticks involved at all, just a tape measure which would fit in your pocket, a note book and a pencil.
And a camera nowadays of course, or smart phone.

Perhaps I can help with your problem Jacob....

I quote Sgian....
#######
The drawings I produce, or that I've received from designers to make stuff are almost exclusively to scale, e.g.,1/5, 1/10, etc. This has always applied even to things like the occasional door or window that I've put together from those drawings. So rods were/are produced from the drawings, but as the drawings are to scale you can't create the rod from non-existent full scale drawings. The rods are created from the information given in the drawings
########

If you read a bit more deeply into what is said you will see the answer is that Sgian has possibly "got the wrong end of the stick" ?
He has the plans/measurements to create the full-scale rods/drawings from which to fully understand and produce his work. The chain is complete, just terminology getting in the way.

If you point out to him that his full size cross and vertical section plans he has created from measured drawings and site surveys are in fact also called the "rod" and from that stock/components are marked accordingly.

It's quite understandable really that,
over time and different regions,
when so many tradesmen were taught the trade that variations in terminology and practice exist.

You picking to pieces his proven method of working with "sticks" to promote YOUR methods looks like you're telling him he's doing it wrong and not differently.

Cheers, Andy

 

[Sgian Dubh]

Not sure why you think this is a problem, so I can't really answer.
Basically you scale them up with the information you have - just a normal drawing board procedure. Very basic and normal across industry, architecture, design, engineering etc etc though done with CAD nowadays I expect.
You seem to have done it yourself with your fitted cupboard - was that a problem in some way?
You end up with what is generally known as a full size working drawing.
In engineering called a "production" drawing as it is used to produce the thing, though not necessarily full size as much more computation goes into the design instead.
It verifies all the details as you are working with much more precision than a scale drawing and is the last step in the design process.
The difference with the rod is that you do it on a board, so it'll survive being knocked about in the workshop.
Call your measuring sticks "rods"if you want to, possibly an American thing, but the "joiners rod" is quite specifically another thing, as taught and as described in detail in many text books, Ellis being one of the most well known, see pages 176, 274, 390 - 396 3rd Edition.
"Techniques of Furniture Making" Joyce introduces it on page 66 but with less detail.
Hope that helps!

I don't have a problem with creating rods from scale drawings. On a side note, and to correct a misperception you seem to hold, Americans in my experience, having lived and worked there know what I call rods as story sticks.

What I do struggle to understand from your description of a working method is that you seem to suggest that from the scaled orthographic projection the normal procedure is to produce full size working drawings on paper on a drawing board or, nowadays more commonly, using digital drafting. Then manufacture begins with the making of rods taken from the full size drawings. That's what throws me a bit because it's frequently the case that what's being made is bigger than readily available pieces of paper or board to either draw on full size, or to print out from a CAD generated drawing. CAD programmes always draw full size, by the way; it's at the printing stage that scale is applied to suit the paper size available.

I've always gone straight from the scale drawing to making the rods which are basically sticks of varying widths from about 75 mm to anywhere up to maybe a metre or so, with all the relevant details drawn in or noted, e.g., length, width, placement of joints, profiles, and so on.

Maybe we're basically talking about the same thing but simply misunderstanding each other.

And yes, on a side note, I'm aware of what Ellis and Joyce say about the topic of rods. Slainte.

 

[Jacob]

Perhaps I can help with your problem Jacob....

I quote Sgian....
#######
The drawings I produce, or that I've received from designers to make stuff are almost exclusively to scale, e.g.,1/5, 1/10, etc. This has always applied even to things like the occasional door or window that I've put together from those drawings. So rods were/are produced from the drawings, but as the drawings are to scale you can't create the rod from non-existent full scale drawings. The rods are created from the information given in the drawings
########

If you read a bit more deeply into what is said you will see the answer is that Sgian has possibly "got the wrong end of the stick" ?
He has the plans/measurements to create the full-scale rods/drawings from which to fully understand and produce his work. The chain is complete, just terminology getting in the way.

If you point out to him that his full size cross and vertical section plans he has created from measured drawings and site surveys are in fact also called the "rod" and from that stock/components are marked accordingly.

If you read my post I did point that out that he had made full size drawings, which is why I was puzzled about why he thought this was a problem.

It's quite understandable really that,
over time and different regions,
when so many tradesmen were taught the trade that variations in terminology and practice exist.

You picking to pieces his proven method of working with "sticks" to promote YOUR methods looks like you're telling him he's doing it wrong and not differently.

Cheers, Andy

It's not "my" method it's the bog standard method as taught to many generations via C&G and other establishments, as detailed in the classic text books, and in use highly effective.

 

[Adam W.]

@Sgian Dubh and @toolsntat

Sounds like the measurements from the scale drawings are transferred directly to the rods that he has in his pictures earlier. I'm sure he will confirm or deny that soon enough. Beat me too it!

Just like you can mark out the "rod which isn't a rod" by knowing the aperture which the window is going in and your finished section sizes and crucially how to make them, without resorting to making a full sized drawing of the vertically sliding sash window, which is just a bunch of simple rectangular or square frames anyway.

 

[Jacob]

..

I've always gone straight from the scale drawing to making the rods which are basically sticks of varying widths from about 75 mm to anywhere up to maybe a metre or so, with all the relevant details drawn in or noted, e.g., length, width, placement of joints, profiles, and so on.

I've always gone from the design drawings, survey notes and other information to draw up the full size (sectional) drawing* on a board, not on paper.
This board - the "rod" is then key to the making process and you take measurements off by laying prepared components directly on to it and marking up, with no measuring involved and no need to prepare "story sticks" etc.

*In practice it might not be recognisable as such, depending on how much detail I would want to put in for my own information and use.

As I said: It's not "my" method it's the bog standard method as taught to many generations via C&G and other establishments, as detailed in the classic text books, and in use highly effective.

 

[Adam W.]

Must dash....things to do.