This is not a supporting wall.

Two courses of brick above it and nothing else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9swFneMwjI

The house was built in 1969/1970.

--
Adam

"ARW" wrote in message
...
This is not a supporting wall.

Two courses of brick above it and nothing else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9swFneMwjI

The house was built in 1969/1970.

--
Adam

At least the wall is supporting the lintel. In our house the door and window
frames support 'em. Friggin cowboy builders.

ARW wrote:

This is not a supporting wall.

Two courses of brick above it and nothing else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9swFneMwjI

The house was built in 1969/1970.


I like their method, with the mattress!
--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://www.dionic.net/tim/

"It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent
moral busybodies."

brass monkey wrote:


"ARW" wrote in message
...
This is not a supporting wall.

Two courses of brick above it and nothing else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9swFneMwjI

The house was built in 1969/1970.

--
Adam

At least the wall is supporting the lintel. In our house the door and
window frames support 'em. Friggin cowboy builders.

See a lot of lintels round here where it hangs on the bricks by the skin of
its teeth - 1/2" overlap if you're lucky!

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://www.dionic.net/tim/

"It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent
moral busybodies."

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
brass monkey wrote:


"ARW" wrote in message
...
This is not a supporting wall.

Two courses of brick above it and nothing else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9swFneMwjI

The house was built in 1969/1970.

--
Adam

At least the wall is supporting the lintel. In our house the door and
window frames support 'em. Friggin cowboy builders.

See a lot of lintels round here where it hangs on the bricks by the skin
of
its teeth - 1/2" overlap if you're lucky!

1/2"? I wish. Ours are cut to match the windows/doors widths. Or more
probably broken off with a sledge. 10 bungalows in our street, all lintels
are supported in the same manner.

brass monkey wrote:


"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
brass monkey wrote:


"ARW" wrote in message
...
This is not a supporting wall.

Two courses of brick above it and nothing else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9swFneMwjI

The house was built in 1969/1970.

--
Adam

At least the wall is supporting the lintel. In our house the door and
window frames support 'em. Friggin cowboy builders.

See a lot of lintels round here where it hangs on the bricks by the skin
of
its teeth - 1/2" overlap if you're lucky!

1/2"? I wish. Ours are cut to match the windows/doors widths. Or more
probably broken off with a sledge. 10 bungalows in our street, all lintels
are supported in the same manner.

Someone hates double glazing salesman. Or rather the installer who's getting
a nasty surprise when he checks for a lintel then confidently pulls the
window frame out!

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://www.dionic.net/tim/

"It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent
moral busybodies."

Tim Watts wrote:
ARW wrote:

This is not a supporting wall.

Two courses of brick above it and nothing else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9swFneMwjI

The house was built in 1969/1970.


I like their method, with the mattress!

To lift it down would need three pairs of steps, maybe four. Might as well
let gravity do the work.

I just could not believe the size of it considering it only had two courses
of bricks above it.

--
Adam

On Oct 6, 8:38*pm, "ARW" wrote:
This is not a supporting wall.

Two courses of brick above it and nothing else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9swFneMwjI

The house was built in 1969/1970.

--
Adam

Thy are made in standard sizes.
There may have been a floor above anyway.

In message , ARW
writes
Tim Watts wrote:
ARW wrote:

This is not a supporting wall.

Two courses of brick above it and nothing else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9swFneMwjI

The house was built in 1969/1970.


I like their method, with the mattress!

To lift it down would need three pairs of steps, maybe four. Might as well
let gravity do the work.

I just could not believe the size of it considering it only had two courses
of bricks above it.

Could this be *standard house design* with variable second floor
configuration?


--
Tim Lamb

ARW wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:
ARW wrote:

This is not a supporting wall.

Two courses of brick above it and nothing else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9swFneMwjI

The house was built in 1969/1970.


I like their method, with the mattress!

To lift it down would need three pairs of steps, maybe four. Might as well
let gravity do the work.

I just could not believe the size of it considering it only had two courses
of bricks above it.



Did it have an other floor or roof struts sitting on it?

On 06/10/2012 20:38, ARW wrote:
This is not a supporting wall.

Two courses of brick above it and nothing else.

Originally intended to be installed elsewhere in the house? Wrongly
ordered/specified? - Builder decided it was easier just to use it in
that location rather than cart it off site and store it somewhere
indefinitely?

"ARW" wrote in message
...
This is not a supporting wall.

Two courses of brick above it and nothing else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9swFneMwjI

The house was built in 1969/1970.

I'm renovating a 1948 house and all of the lintels are cast insitu. Maybe
your one was. The one across the doorway of the flat roofed garage recently
removed was 3 courses of brick deep and loaded with rebar. It was removed,
without the aid of a safety mattress, by the relentless application of two
sledge hammers.

mark

F Murtz wrote:
ARW wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:
ARW wrote:

This is not a supporting wall.

Two courses of brick above it and nothing else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9swFneMwjI

The house was built in 1969/1970.


I like their method, with the mattress!

To lift it down would need three pairs of steps, maybe four. Might
as well let gravity do the work.

I just could not believe the size of it considering it only had two
courses of bricks above it.



Did it have an other floor or roof struts sitting on it?

There is a wall directly above it, but the wall above it (thermalight
bricks) is just sat onto the floorboards. Both walls run parallel to the
joists and the lower wall was not supporting a joist or the wall above - it
stopped at ceiling height.

The surveyor said it was fine to knock the wall down and lots of people on
the estate with identical houses have done the same.

--
Adam

mark wrote:
"ARW" wrote in message
...
This is not a supporting wall.

Two courses of brick above it and nothing else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9swFneMwjI

The house was built in 1969/1970.

I'm renovating a 1948 house and all of the lintels are cast insitu.
Maybe your one was. The one across the doorway of the flat roofed
garage recently removed was 3 courses of brick deep and loaded with
rebar. It was removed, without the aid of a safety mattress, by the
relentless application of two sledge hammers.

I do believe you may be correct. I have had a look at the "markings" on the
lintel from when it was cast..

It was shuttered with timber - you can clearly see the wood grain on the
lintel face at the front and back but the bottom of the lintel looks like
brickwork and the top was smooth.

--
Adam

Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , ARW
writes
Tim Watts wrote:
ARW wrote:

This is not a supporting wall.

Two courses of brick above it and nothing else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9swFneMwjI

The house was built in 1969/1970.


I like their method, with the mattress!

To lift it down would need three pairs of steps, maybe four. Might
as well let gravity do the work.

I just could not believe the size of it considering it only had two
courses of bricks above it.

Could this be *standard house design* with variable second floor
configuration?

Not that I am aware of. There are 30 identical houses on this estate.

--
Adam

In article ,
"ARW" writes:
mark wrote:
"ARW" wrote in message
...
This is not a supporting wall.

Two courses of brick above it and nothing else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9swFneMwjI

The house was built in 1969/1970.

I'm renovating a 1948 house and all of the lintels are cast insitu.
Maybe your one was. The one across the doorway of the flat roofed
garage recently removed was 3 courses of brick deep and loaded with
rebar. It was removed, without the aid of a safety mattress, by the
relentless application of two sledge hammers.

I do believe you may be correct. I have had a look at the "markings" on the
lintel from when it was cast..

It was shuttered with timber - you can clearly see the wood grain on the
lintel face at the front and back but the bottom of the lintel looks like
brickwork and the top was smooth.

So it was reinforced concrete, not pre-stressed concrete.
That probably explains the size difference (needs more rebar).

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On 07/10/2012 18:14, ARW wrote:
Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , ARW
writes
Tim Watts wrote:
ARW wrote:

This is not a supporting wall.

Two courses of brick above it and nothing else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9swFneMwjI

The house was built in 1969/1970.


I like their method, with the mattress!

To lift it down would need three pairs of steps, maybe four. Might
as well let gravity do the work.

I just could not believe the size of it considering it only had two
courses of bricks above it.

Could this be *standard house design* with variable second floor
configuration?

Not that I am aware of. There are 30 identical houses on this estate.

Could it have been planning ahead for future extensions?

SteveW

On 06/10/2012 20:38, ARW wrote:
This is not a supporting wall.

Two courses of brick above it and nothing else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9swFneMwjI

The house was built in 1969/1970.


If there was no room to build in at least 3 courses of composite
brickwork courses .. which is needed for pre-stressed concrete lintol ..
then you need a reinforced concrete lintol ... these are deep ...
can't be sure on this without measurements .. but at least 9" deep for
that opening.

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
"ARW" writes:
mark wrote:
"ARW" wrote in message
...
This is not a supporting wall.

Two courses of brick above it and nothing else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9swFneMwjI

The house was built in 1969/1970.

I'm renovating a 1948 house and all of the lintels are cast
insitu. Maybe your one was. The one across the doorway of the
flat roofed garage recently removed was 3 courses of brick deep
and loaded with rebar. It was removed, without the aid of a
safety mattress, by the relentless application of two sledge
hammers.

I do believe you may be correct. I have had a look at the
"markings" on the lintel from when it was cast..

It was shuttered with timber - you can clearly see the wood grain
on the lintel face at the front and back but the bottom of the
lintel looks like brickwork and the top was smooth.

So it was reinforced concrete, not pre-stressed concrete.
That probably explains the size difference (needs more rebar).

Ta.

--
Adam