Just Make It Fit!

WNYcarpenter

Look at pic #5 what's plumb? what needs to happen?

__________________
"I knew I lost my wallet as soon as I threw my pants over the fence". -'lil jarhead bro when asking for a wire transfer...

nywoodwizard

What needs to happen is that post needs to be taller,never mind anything else,can't be fixed properly until,you should be able to remiter and use the peices you have.lay a level accross the nosing of the steps and put an angle finder on it ,what ever degree shows on the finder is what the miter of the rail ends should be,If it says 34 degrees,than miter 34,your baluster miters will also be the same ,if done correctly.if you cut that angle on a piece of scrap butt it to the top post in the position it should be in ,the other end will dictate how much higher the bottom newel post should be,i hope that makes sense.

__________________
Learning without thought is labor lost; thought without learning is perilous.

Trimcat

The way you have it sitting in the first few pictures....... before you cut it..... is the proper rake. It's hard to tell from the picture, but the bottom newel looks like it's long enough to accept the rail if that height is OK..... which it looks low to me, but the local building code will determine that. If you have to raise the rail, you can either make a longer newel post, or move that one forward... which it already APPEARS to be as forward as it can get.

Also... if that's the proper rake..... which it is..... it means that the spindles are cut at the wrong angle. Plus, from the pictures, it looks like it POSSIBLY needs another spindle to match the spacing of the spindles on the flat rail shown.... hard to say from what I can see..

Tom R

Sorry, - - but no way that bottom newell is long enough, - - at least where it sits. How could it possibly be long enough when the rail is already 'maxed' at the top of it (the bottom newell), - - and it's 'ascent' is already steeper than the steps??

I would think the bottom newell was designed to go on the first step, - - if it gets move up there the railing can be re-cut and it will look better anyway.

I don't know if those spindles are 'fixed', or if they just pivot within that rail, - - if they're fixed, - - you're fuxed . . .

Trimcat

Look at the very first picture...... the one where the railing is sitting next to the newels. The top of the rail on the bottom APPEARS to be able to slide right in under the trim.

It's really hard to judge from the pictures of course, but I would say that the rail is into the top part of the newel (gray part) because he's got the back jacked way up in the air....... looks like about a foot or so from the pics.

If you took rail the first picture, marked the plumb cuts exactly where it sits, which is the proper rake, and slide it in horozontally where it goes, the newel appears to be tall enough. The spindles would be whacked though. But you know, without being right there, it's hard to say.

I am not argueing that is couldn't, or shouldn't be higher.... I'd like to see it higher myself... just that this COULD work according to what I'm seeing in that first picture.

Tom R

Yeah, - - but it's also 'sitting' right on the steps, - - which would be dead wrong, - - PLUS look how low it sits up against the top newell when it (works??) at the bottom.

Semi-correcting one mistake by making two more isn't the answer . . .

Tom R

Ooops, - - make that three more, - - look at pic #3 how far off the spindles are out of plumb when the rail fits at the bottom . . .

Trimcat

"but it's also 'sitting' right on the steps, - - which would be dead wrong"........

I agree that it would not be ideal, but unless there is a code against that..... which I know of none... to call it "dead wrong" is just an opinion.

"PLUS look how low it sits up against the top newell when it (works??) at the bottom"..

If you are referring to the fact that the rake rake hits the top post lower than the flat rail on the other side, that is absolutely what SHOULD happen. Take a look at any staircase that uses landing newels to make the transition between a rake and a flat rail. That's what you have here in effect.
If you are not referring to that, I'm sorry that I've misunderstood you.

Attached Thumbnails

 

Trimcat

Ooops, - - make that three more, - - look at pic #3 how far off the spindles are out of plumb when the rail fits at the bottom .

I covered that in my very first post.

Trimcat

besides that... wasn't it you who said "Semi-correcting one mistake by making two more isn't the answer"?? . . ........ well isn't setting this thing way out of whack because somebody cut the spindles wrong and pre-assembled it incorrectly semi correcting one mistake by making another?

Tom R

Yes, - - for obvious reasons a down-rail would end up setting lower on an upper newell coming off a flat deck or landing area, - - but not almost half-way . . .

That pic you're showing would almost make sense if only we were talking about winders and continuous spindles. Those newells are obviously UNUSUALLY high, - - but they do (somewhat, from a design point of view only), - - (almost) make sense for that particular set of steps. If only that were the set we were discussing . . .

Maybe I should reply with a pic of a spiral staircase to make some kind of point??

Tom R

I don't think he designed or built the newells or the railings and spindles, - - he just got put under the gun to make something work for the time being (temporarily). I don't think there's much more he could have done with something that was seemingly so botched to begin with.

As he titled the thread, - - he was told "just make it fit" . . .

Trimcat

Tom you're digging yourself into a hole my friend. I could post picture after picture after picture of the same thing. Those newels in the picture I posted are not unusually high.

The bottom line is this....I have built several HUNDRED staircases, and in my EXPERT opinion, the railing and newels that are shown in the pictures posted originally by WNYcarpenter...... ALTHOUGH NOT IDEAL....... WOULD WORK. HOWEVER, as it sits, the spindles are cut and installed improperly. That is what I said in my original post, and that is ALL I'm saying.

Take your silly arguements elsewhere. You don't know what you are talking about.

Tom R

Yep, - - you makin' that work would look REAL NICE, - - people would just RAVE about a shoe rail RIDING the steps!! . . .

The best effect of the whole thing would probably be the BROOM BRISTLES that would end up stickin' out of it all the time . . .

If you wanna win an argument you're probably best off starting a new one, - - ya' frikkin' clown . . .

Tom R

Here are some pictures of some every-day deck railings (but only because that's what we're talking about) . . .


http://www.mndecks.com/deck_pictures.cfm

nywoodwizard

First of all its pretty clear the base molding would have to be taller to have the bottom rail in the same position as on the top newel post to work in its existing position,in his picture that is not posible,the rail would end up in the panel profile,lets say for argument sake that wasn't an issue,by the time the top rail is cut in at the same angle,it would be sitting on the "top of the bottom newel post" therefor no matter how you look at it balusters out of level or not The Bottom newel post is too short in its position.As i see it the bottom rail would have to be raised lets say,3-4 inches to be at the proper angle (clearing the nosing on all the steps lets say by at least one inch,does it look like that top rail could be raised 3-4 inches ? i think not.never mind the bottom rail at the top newel post is way to high and its easy to assume why,to get the bottom rail away from the panel profile on the bottom newel post,hence the reason its nailed to the step.Pick the post up maybe 5-6 inches and his problem is solved.

__________________
Learning without thought is labor lost; thought without learning is perilous.

Trimcat

nywoodwizard, you seem like you're a reasonable guy. I appreciate that. So if you would, humor me for a second.
Bring up the first picture. The one where the assembled rail section is propped against the two newel posts in question.
Ok...... first..... stair building 101... and I'm not being a smart ass, just stating a known fact that I'm sure we can all agree on. Yes even you Tom....... the proper rake of the finished rail is parallel to an imaginary line that is bisects the front nosing of the treads...... that means you can't see it Tom, but if you lay a straight edge, or in this case, the assembled rail section across the nosings, you'll have the rake of the rail........ OK? You with me ny?
Now, back to first picture....... if you push the rail section tight against the newels, and mark the rail section at the intersecting points, and cut those marks with your saw, then bring back the rail section and put it right back where you had it when you marked it, then slide it in place, it would work would it not?

Now.... is that ideal? No..... I never said it was. In fact I said many times that it was NOT ideal.

Would that make the spindles out of plumb? Yes.... They are cut and installed wrong as I've stated a couple times.

Is it the way I would build it if I was building it from scratch? No, if I built it from scratch, the bottom newel would be longer, the rail would be at the proper rake and height per code, the spindles would be properly installed, and it would be on the cover of better homes and gardens.

But is it possible?????? The ONLY question I was answering that apparently started this crazy argument??......... ya..... it's possible.

Did that make sense ny?