wood thickness and width

Lazaro,
I have done a fair amount of poking around abandoned mines here in California and although I never actually measured with a tape, the majority of support timbers seemed to be in the 12" x12" range with cribbing and cross bracing in the 4" x 6" range.
The one thing that really stood out was that it was VERY rough, almost like it was hewn by hand.
The soil/rock conditions would dictate the size and spacing I'm sure.


The roughness of the timbers would simply be from being cut with a circular type or vertical type saw mechanical saw mill. They did not plane lumber then unless it was for finish work and even then, it was still full dimension, i.e. a 2x4 was 2 inches by 4 inches and a 1x6 was actually 1 inch by 6 inches.
My own home, built in 1850-52 is made from "rough" (unplaned) lumber, with many of the wall and roof boards being 1 inch thick by 24 inches wide!
-mike

lazaro
FWIW
After a lot of experimentation over the years, and irrespective of full-size 'reality', I have found that if you scribe-in boards that are a minimum One (scale) Foot wide, these are quite believable - below that width they tend to become meaningless, a blur in the background, that any paint you put on quite quickly masks, so the effort put into them becomes somewhat pointless - sad but true I'm afraid!
And as far as timber dimensions are concerned:
As far as I can ascertain, there appears to have been little standardization of sizes, with each mine making its own arrangements with its local saw-miller/s to suit its own requirements.
This tended to result in a wide variation in timber used, its dimensions and the standard of finishes that were acceptable, while not forgetting that, due to the differing inherent strengths of each tree-type, different timbers had different uses within a mine - some more suitable for wet conditions, some for dry etc, etc.
As I said, FWIW - hope this has helped.
Komata
"TVR - serving the Northern Taranaki . . . "



lazaro
Yes, we do use the Metric System in New Zealand, but because the majority of our membership are from the USA, I use 'Imperial' measurements (feet, inches) here - it's easier for all concerned.
(As well, trying to convert feet and inches to Millimetres and Centimetres or vice-versa is a real pain, and very difficult to do on a continuing basis)
BryanC
Thanks for the compliment. 'Eloquent' - I like it!! [LOL]
Komata
"TVR - serving the Northern Taranaki . . . "

Work in decimal inches, then you only need 25.4, and 160 as your magic numbers.
ie; Instead of 10' 6¼" think of it as 126.250", then x25.4 gives mm, and ÷160 gives N scale.
There are several Scale Converters on the web that tackle the number crunching for you (check our links section, and/or do a Google search).
A spreadsheet could also be setup to quickly crunch the numbers for you (PM me if you need assistance with this).




Joined: 2007-04-21