"Jimk" wrote:

Spindles not "rails"..

Yes, I realised what you meant. Thanks for the point, but a bit of
experimentation suggests that it won't be a problem.

OK, one side is (almost) done. Neither the railings nor the spindles are
actually fixed in place yet, this was a test assembly.

I'm moderately pleased with it: the rails are parallel and the spindles are
vertical and evenly spaced (not as easy to achieve as perhaps it sounds,
given the hole-elongations). There's some filling required around the ends
of both the rails and the spindles but nothing drastic. I made one mistake
("What do you mean, only one?" I hear people cry) which I'll rectify, or at
least disguise, tomorrow, weather permitting.

And then I have to do the other side...

https://ibb.co/ZM6WjRd

"Bert Coules" Wrote in message:
OK, one side is (almost) done. Neither the railings nor the spindles are
actually fixed in place yet, this was a test assembly.

I'm moderately pleased with it: the rails are parallel and the spindles are
vertical and evenly spaced (not as easy to achieve as perhaps it sounds,
given the hole-elongations). There's some filling required around the ends
of both the rails and the spindles but nothing drastic. I made one mistake
("What do you mean, only one?" I hear people cry) which I'll rectify, or at
least disguise, tomorrow, weather permitting.

And then I have to do the other side...

https://ibb.co/ZM6WjRd



That doesn't look half bad Bert :-)

Looking at the pic, you might even get away with lowering the
sloped section a tad, using the post to disguise the transition
more evenly?
--
Jimk


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

Jimk wrote:

That doesn't look half bad Bert :-)

Thanks.

Looking at the pic, you might even get away with lowering the
sloped section a tad, using the post to disguise the transition
more evenly?

Actually, the spindles have enough length to permit dropping just the lower
rail a little - and if I'm being honest, the mistake I made was in the
placing of the lower brackets: the rail doesn't exactly line up with its
horizontal neighbour, but is slightly higher - but I don't think I'll do it
until I know for sure if it's necessary in order to meet the regs. I've
ordered a 100mm diameter expanded polystyrene ball from eBay.

Either way, I'm glad I decided to tackle the less exposed side of the steps
first, as a rehearsal for doing the other side. Lessons have been learned.

"Bert Coules" Wrote in message:
Jimk wrote:

That doesn't look half bad Bert :-)

Thanks.

Looking at the pic, you might even get away with lowering the
sloped section a tad, using the post to disguise the transition
more evenly?

Actually, the spindles have enough length to permit dropping just the lower
rail a little - and if I'm being honest, the mistake I made was in the
placing of the lower brackets: the rail doesn't exactly line up with its
horizontal neighbour, but is slightly higher - but I don't think I'll do it
until I know for sure if it's necessary in order to meet the regs. I've
ordered a 100mm diameter expanded polystyrene ball from eBay.

Either way, I'm glad I decided to tackle the less exposed side of the steps
first, as a rehearsal for doing the other side. Lessons have been learned.


Fair enough :-)

My thought re position of sloping bit was... as there's a chunky
post in between the horizontal & sloped sections, the sloped
section could be put a little lower so that, to the eye, the
transition from sloped to horizontal appears to happen *within*
the post...

--
Jimk


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

"Jimk" wrote:

My thought re position of sloping bit was... as there's a chunky
post in between the horizontal & sloped sections, the sloped
section could be put a little lower so that, to the eye, the
transition from sloped to horizontal appears to happen *within*
the post...

Oh now that's an interesting thought. It would be necessary to drop the
brackets enough to ensure that the new screw holes were far enough from the
existing ones to avoid any problems (unless I were to fill the current ones,
of course) but it's worth bearing in mind.

Not to go all health-and-safety mad, but I wonder if there's a possible
drawback in having the vertical height of the top rail change, even
slightly, between the horizontal and sloping sections? Though I suppose the
presence of the post means it doesn't matter: it's not as though anyone can
keep a grip on the rail all the way across and then down.

Jimk,

Do you mean along these lines? Yes, I think that would look good. Thanks
for the idea.

Link to image:

https://ibb.co/X2KVLD8

On 23/02/2020 11:04, Bert Coules wrote:
Jimk wrote:

That doesn't look half bad Bert :-)

Thanks.

Looking at the pic, you might even get away with lowering the
sloped section a tad, using the post to disguise the transition
more evenly?

Actually, the spindles have enough length to permit dropping just the
lower rail a little - and if I'm being honest, the mistake I made was in
the placing of the lower brackets: the rail doesn't exactly line up with
its horizontal neighbour, but is slightly higher - but I don't think
I'll do it until I know for sure if it's necessary in order to meet the
regs. I've ordered a 100mm diameter expanded polystyrene ball from eBay.


I know there are regs for internal staircases, but are you sure that
they apply to externals steps like these? I've got some similar steps up
to the back door of my garage, with no rails at all!
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

Roger Mills wrote:

I know there are regs for internal staircases, but are you sure that they
apply to externals steps like these?

I did check some time back and found this:

Handrails should be provided to at least one side if the stairs is less
than 1 metre wide.
For stairs wider than 1 metre handrails should be provided to both sides.

That's quoted (from Document K of the regs) on this site, which is dedicated
to outdoor decks and steps:

https://www.fountaintimber.co.uk/adv...g-regulations/

On Friday, February 21, 2020 at 6:12:24 PM UTC, Bert Coules wrote:
I have some railings kits, picked up cheaply in a DIY shed sale: horizontal
softwood rails pre-drilled for tubular metal spindles. They go together
very nicely when fitted on the level, but I'd like to use them also on some
steps, which will mean re-drilling the 17mm diameter spindle-holes at an
angle.

I think I'm going to have to rig up some sort of jig to ensure that the new
holes are at a consistent angle, but I suspect that asking a bit to bite
accurately not only at an angle but also into an existing hole is likely to
prove tricky. Any tips on doing this? Many thanks.

Forstner bit will do the job. Then fill existing holes if necessary

"fred" wrote:

Forstner bit will do the job. Then fill existing holes if necessary.

Thanks, and to everyone else for the thoughts and advice. In the end I
drilled the holes by hand and by eye, using a conventional (albeit
reduced-shank) bit and holding the rails at the necessary angle in the jaws
of my trusty Workmate.

Following a trial assembly I found I had to re-drill the holes in the
underside of the upper rail oversize (18 rather than 17mm) to allow a bit of
wiggle room. Not a bad result, though some filling will be needed. I'm
moderately pleased with the job.

Even after dropping the sloping section of the railings a little, the gap
between the bottom edge of the lower rail and the steps doesn't in places
meet the 100mm maximum gap requirement of the regs, I wasn't expecting
that, but a 100mm diameter sphere (courtesy of eBay) is notably smaller than
I'd visualised.

I might have to add a length of timber to the underside of the bottom
railings, even if only temporarily.

On 27/02/2020 12:06, Bert Coules wrote:
Even after dropping the sloping section of the railings a little, the
gap between the bottom edge of the lower rail and the steps doesn't in
places meet the 100mm maximum gap requirement of the regs,Â* I wasn't
expecting that, but a 100mm diameter sphere (courtesy of eBay) is
notably smaller than I'd visualised.

That is why you normally fill that in or dont have a rail, but have the
uprights going into the steps themselves. That means you have to have
the gap some exact divisor of the tread depth tho...

I might have to add a length of timber to the underside of the bottom
railings, even if only temporarily.



--
€œBut what a weak barrier is truth when it stands in the way of an
hypothesis!€�

Mary Wollstonecraft

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

That is why you normally fill that in or don't have a rail, but have the
uprights going into the steps themselves. That means you have to have the
gap some exact divisor of the tread depth tho...

Yes, I did consider that, but working out not only the spacing but also the
fixings for the bottom of the spindles seemed rather more effort than it was
worth, especially given that the kits I had included bottom rails. I have
enough spare lengths of rail to double up the depth of the bottom ones, and
while it won't look ideal it also won't be horribly unsightly.

"Bert Coules" Wrote in message:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

That is why you normally fill that in or don't have a rail, but have the
uprights going into the steps themselves. That means you have to have the
gap some exact divisor of the tread depth tho...

Yes, I did consider that, but working out not only the spacing but also the
fixings for the bottom of the spindles seemed rather more effort than it was
worth, especially given that the kits I had included bottom rails. I have
enough spare lengths of rail to double up the depth of the bottom ones, and
while it won't look ideal it also won't be horribly unsightly.



Can you just add a strip of timber under the current rail to meet
the 100mm rule? Rather than a whole section of rail...

Or possibly cut triangular infill pieces or even "toeboards" of
some sort to fix to the ends of the treads?
--
Jimk


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

Jimk Wrote in message:
"Bert Coules" Wrote in message:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

That is why you normally fill that in or don't have a rail, but have the
uprights going into the steps themselves. That means you have to have the
gap some exact divisor of the tread depth tho...

Yes, I did consider that, but working out not only the spacing but also the
fixings for the bottom of the spindles seemed rather more effort than it was
worth, especially given that the kits I had included bottom rails. I have
enough spare lengths of rail to double up the depth of the bottom ones, and
while it won't look ideal it also won't be horribly unsightly.



Can you just add a strip of timber under the current rail to meet
the 100mm rule? Rather than a whole section of rail...

Or possibly cut triangular infill pieces or even "toeboards" of
some sort to fix to the ends of the treads?

Also, is that eBay sphere really 100mm....?
--
Jimk


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/