"N. Thornton" wrote:
"Jerry Built" wrote...
IMM wrote: The Neutered Pillockofer wrote:
Modern multi-braced roof trusses are cheap, and adequate, but won't
allow you to add a room in the attic like substantial victorian ones
might.

So? Modern timbers are far superior to Victorian houses.

What? In what way?

Hi. I dont think there were any building regs covering timber sizing
100 or 150 years ago, and some of the woodwork on these old places
I've seen has had people peeing in their boots (figuratively .

The question wasn't actually about opxy "building regs" or timber
sizing.


I saw one Vic house with twisted snaking 3" beams supporting the
upstairs floors, and IIRC they were something like 15 feet long.

Yes, I've seen a number of new houses with twisted snaking roof
trusses, too...


One
or two had rotted through as well. The chap who owned it said that
when he pulled the plaster off, he was amazed the beams had supported
the floor without it collapsing.

6" floor joists are common in the better Vic houses, which is still
smaller than you'll find on new builds, but not a problem. Its just a
bit less soundproof.

A bit less? Would that be measurable, I wonder, or merely theoretical?


The biggest diffrence is probably in the roof. There are Vic houses
around that wouldnt have the least chance of meeting todays load
requirements, but if they've stayed up, they're still with us.

So "building regulations" outlaw a "traditional" roof constructed of
4x2s? I didn't know that.

J.B.