RSJ problem ...
 

I slapped an opening in a thick internal stone loadbearing wall.....the
approved plans show RSJs to be installed but I have installed a row of old
railway lines.....the problem is they don't want to accept this as I cannot
provide calcs ..... surely if a railway line has supported the Flying
Scotsman for years it should be OK to support a triangle of stone? ........

RSJ problem ...
 

"Holiday Hacienda ..." wrote in message
...
I slapped an opening in a thick internal stone loadbearing wall.....the
approved plans show RSJs to be installed but I have installed a row of old
railway lines.....the problem is they don't want to accept this as I
cannot provide calcs ..... surely if a railway line has supported the
Flying Scotsman for years

Done very differently to how you have used yours.

it should be OK to support a triangle of stone? ........

RSJ problem ...
 

Holiday Hacienda ... wrote:
I slapped an opening in a thick internal stone loadbearing wall.....the
approved plans show RSJs to be installed but I have installed a row of old
railway lines.....the problem is they don't want to accept this as I cannot
provide calcs ..... surely if a railway line has supported the Flying
Scotsman for years it should be OK to support a triangle of stone? ........


Totally unsuitable. Put an RSJ in and do the job properly.

RSJ problem ...
 

On 05/05/2015 13:39, Bob Minchin wrote:
Holiday Hacienda ... wrote:
I slapped an opening in a thick internal stone loadbearing wall.....the
approved plans show RSJs to be installed but I have installed a row of
old
railway lines.....the problem is they don't want to accept this as I
cannot
provide calcs ..... surely if a railway line has supported the Flying
Scotsman for years it should be OK to support a triangle of stone?
........


Totally unsuitable. Put an RSJ in and do the job properly.

Why can't you provide calcs?

RSJ problem ...
 

In article ,
Holiday Hacienda ... wrote:
I slapped an opening in a thick internal stone loadbearing wall.....the
approved plans show RSJs to be installed but I have installed a row of
old railway lines.....the problem is they don't want to accept this as
I cannot provide calcs ..... surely if a railway line has supported the
Flying Scotsman for years it should be OK to support a triangle of
stone? ........

You should have used polystyrene tiles. Much easier to work than old rails.

--
He who laughs last, thinks slowest*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

RSJ problem ...
 

"Holiday Hacienda ..." wrote in message
...
I slapped an opening in a thick internal stone loadbearing wall.....the
approved plans show RSJs to be installed but I have installed a row of old
railway lines.....the problem is they don't want to accept this as I cannot
provide calcs ..... surely if a railway line has supported the Flying
Scotsman for years it should be OK to support a triangle of stone? ........

I have seen this done several times.
Railway lines are a bit OTT.
Some many decades old, seems to have been a common practice.

Your mistake was in telling them.

They employ ****heads with little practical experience these days.
The "cover-my-arse" types.

RSJ problem ...
 

But it might bend of course, more than the actually specified item. One
really needs to know such things in case it cracks the building by its lack
of rigidity.
After all it is load bearing in a different way. also if you are indeed
using old lines, the how do you know metal fatigue has not started?
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Holiday Hacienda ..." wrote in message
...
I slapped an opening in a thick internal stone loadbearing wall.....the
approved plans show RSJs to be installed but I have installed a row of old
railway lines.....the problem is they don't want to accept this as I cannot
provide calcs ..... surely if a railway line has supported the Flying
Scotsman for years it should be OK to support a triangle of stone? ........

RSJ problem ...
 

I'm not sure I believe anyone would truly do this, so wonder if its a troll
post.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Holiday Hacienda ..." wrote in message
...
I slapped an opening in a thick internal stone loadbearing wall.....the
approved plans show RSJs to be installed but I have installed a row of
old railway lines.....the problem is they don't want to accept this as I
cannot provide calcs ..... surely if a railway line has supported the
Flying Scotsman for years

Done very differently to how you have used yours.

it should be OK to support a triangle of stone? ........

RSJ problem ...
 

Yes, this sounds an awful lot like Scrap Heap Challenge to me.
So I have this 2CV with a wheel missing is it OK to make up the other one
from three bicycle wheels of the same diameter welded to a hub?
King of thing.
brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Holiday Hacienda ... wrote:
I slapped an opening in a thick internal stone loadbearing wall.....the
approved plans show RSJs to be installed but I have installed a row of
old railway lines.....the problem is they don't want to accept this as
I cannot provide calcs ..... surely if a railway line has supported the
Flying Scotsman for years it should be OK to support a triangle of
stone? ........

You should have used polystyrene tiles. Much easier to work than old
rails.

--
He who laughs last, thinks slowest*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

RSJ problem ...
 

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Holiday Hacienda ..." wrote in message
...
I slapped an opening in a thick internal stone loadbearing wall.....the
approved plans show RSJs to be installed but I have installed a row of old
railway lines.....the problem is they don't want to accept this as I
cannot provide calcs ..... surely if a railway line has supported the
Flying Scotsman for years it should be OK to support a triangle of stone?
........

I have seen this done several times.
Railway lines are a bit OTT.
Some many decades old, seems to have been a common practice.

Your mistake was in telling them.

They employ ****heads with little practical experience these days.
The "cover-my-arse" types.


I know all flashing their B.Sc certs and just gathering in certificates for
everything....and no idea what a Buchan trap is ......tee hee

RSJ problem ...
 

"Brian-Gaff" wrote in message
...
But it might bend of course, more than the actually specified item. One
really needs to know such things in case it cracks the building by its
lack of rigidity.
After all it is load bearing in a different way. also if you are indeed
using old lines, the how do you know metal fatigue has not started?
Brian




well considering there are no other loads like a floor on it, a small
triangle of stone is all it is supporting....i

RSJ problem ...
 

On 06/05/2015 08:29, Brian-Gaff wrote:
But it might bend of course, more than the actually specified item. One
really needs to know such things in case it cracks the building by its lack
of rigidity.
After all it is load bearing in a different way. also if you are indeed
using old lines, the how do you know metal fatigue has not started?
Brian


The OP is presumably another troll.

Assuming it is a reasonably normal domestic building the specified RSJs
will be a long way from deforming plastically, so all that matters is
whether the elastic deformation of the rails is similar to or better
than the RSJs. The elastic modulus of RSJs and steel rails will not be
very different, so what matters is the second moment of area which is
reasonably easy to calculate. Fatigue is a red herring: unless it breaks
on installation owing to a large pre-existing fatigue crack, it will be
OK because there won't be any more fatigue cycles. Strictly, I suppose,
a crack might become jacked open by corrosion, but even then as a lintel
it is unlikely to lead to collapse even if it does fail catastrophically.

That's not to say that it wasn't a really stupid thing to do on a build
which was going to get inspected.

RSJ problem ...
 

In article ,
harryagain wrote:

"Holiday Hacienda ..." wrote in message
...
I slapped an opening in a thick internal stone loadbearing wall.....the
approved plans show RSJs to be installed but I have installed a row of old
railway lines.....the problem is they don't want to accept this as I cannot
provide calcs ..... surely if a railway line has supported the Flying
Scotsman for years it should be OK to support a triangle of stone? ........

I have seen this done several times.
Railway lines are a bit OTT.
Some many decades old, seems to have been a common practice.

Your mistake was in telling them.

They employ ****heads with little practical experience these days.
The "cover-my-arse" types.

Showing your ignorance again, Harry? For as long as I can remember it has
been a requirement to show simple calculations that any such alteration is
up to the job. And just why should the public be required to pay for them?

--
*Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

RSJ problem ...
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Showing your ignorance again, Harry? For as long as I can remember it has
been a requirement to show simple calculations that any such alteration is
up to the job. And just why should the public be required to pay for them?

And for quite a bit of work it's fairly simple to put together the data
needed for those calculations. For example, when we replaced our roof
in the 1990s it was sufficient to get the data and calculate that X sqm
of welsh slate weighed Y, and X sqm of replacement artificial slates
weighed less-than-Y, so the replacement would work.

jgh

RSJ problem ...
 

On Wed, 6 May 2015 08:30:11 +0100 Brian-Gaff wrote :
I'm not sure I believe anyone would truly do this, so wonder if
its a troll post.

One of my former colleagues when I was a BCO 30+ years ago told us
about this being not uncommon on his former patch - Wolverhampton
IIRC so I think it quite possible. But I don't plan to add rail
sections to SuperBeam!

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com

RSJ problem ...
 

In article ,
wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Showing your ignorance again, Harry? For as long as I can remember it has
been a requirement to show simple calculations that any such alteration is
up to the job. And just why should the public be required to pay for them?

And for quite a bit of work it's fairly simple to put together the data
needed for those calculations. For example, when we replaced our roof
in the 1990s it was sufficient to get the data and calculate that X sqm
of welsh slate weighed Y, and X sqm of replacement artificial slates
weighed less-than-Y, so the replacement would work.

Quite - for this sort of job basically a back of the fag packet
calculation. I had it done for my through lounge, and it didn't cost much.

--
*There are two sides to every divorce: Yours and **** head's*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

RSJ problem ...
 

"Brian-Gaff" wrote in message
...
But it might bend of course, more than the actually specified item. One
really needs to know such things in case it cracks the building by its
lack of rigidity.
After all it is load bearing in a different way. also if you are indeed
using old lines, the how do you know metal fatigue has not started?
Brian

A railway line is probably about 20 times stronger than needed.
The axle loading of a steam locomotive could be over 20 tons.

Your little triangle of masonary wieghs nothing by comparison.
Especially if two are fitted side by side as was the normal trick.

RSJ problem ...
 

In article ,
harryagain wrote:
A railway line is probably about 20 times stronger than needed.
The axle loading of a steam locomotive could be over 20 tons.

If it last carried a steam engine, it could be rusted away by now.

BTW, when will idiots like you learn that 'probably' isn't good enough
when it comes such things?

I've seen enough building collapse because some ****** thought 'probably'
was ok.

--
*Wood burns faster when you have to cut and chop it yourself.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

RSJ problem ...
 

On 06/05/2015 15:56, harryagain wrote:
"Brian-Gaff" wrote in message
...
But it might bend of course, more than the actually specified item. One
really needs to know such things in case it cracks the building by its
lack of rigidity.
After all it is load bearing in a different way. also if you are indeed
using old lines, the how do you know metal fatigue has not started?
Brian

A railway line is probably about 20 times stronger than needed.
The axle loading of a steam locomotive could be over 20 tons.

Your little triangle of masonary wieghs nothing by comparison.
Especially if two are fitted side by side as was the normal trick.



Railway tracks have a pretty small span.

RSJ problem ...
 

I've seen enough building collapse because some ****** thought 'probably'
was ok.

*Wood burns faster when you have to cut and chop it yourself.

Dave Plowman

me too.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XH3FyjOVSSU

RSJ problem ...
 

harryagain wrote
Brian-Gaff wrote

But it might bend of course, more than the actually specified item. One
really needs to know such things in case it cracks the building by its
lack of rigidity.

After all it is load bearing in a different way. also if you are indeed
using old lines, the how do you know metal fatigue has not started?

A railway line is probably about 20 times stronger than needed.
The axle loading of a steam locomotive could be over 20 tons.

But those don’t have a ****ing great hole under the rail.

Your little triangle of masonary wieghs nothing by comparison.
Especially if two are fitted side by side as was the normal trick.

RSJ problem ...
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
harryagain wrote:
A railway line is probably about 20 times stronger than needed.
The axle loading of a steam locomotive could be over 20 tons.

If it last carried a steam engine, it could be rusted away by now.

Rust is visible SFB.

RSJ problem ...
 

In article ,
harryagain wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
harryagain wrote:
A railway line is probably about 20 times stronger than needed.
The axle loading of a steam locomotive could be over 20 tons.

If it last carried a steam engine, it could be rusted away by now.

Rust is visible SFB.

*You* don't seem to be able to see most things, so why not rust too?

But just carry on guessing about such things. In your own house. Hopefully
well away from others.

--
*I used up all my sick days so I called in dead

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.