Stairs replacement - old or new?

[JanJonWestWales]

Hi all, I am just mulling over our last (Big) job - replacing the stairs
There are four sets of stairs with 2 half landings and one full landing.
Stair (6 treads), half landing + turn, stair, full landing, stair, half landing + turn, stair, top landing

I have started taking it apart so I can see how it is put together. Removing the badly damaged/rotten pieces. Nothing much to rescue from the newels/handrails/balusters. The treads are worn and damaged, but will keep them for woodworking projects.
The treads/risers will stay in place until the new stairs are made.

I haven't been able to find out much about stair design of the time (1750), but it certainly doesn't look like a modern stairs:
Three heavy oak joists under each stair, upon which the treads and risers sit. The "stringer" is for decoration, and a base for balusters/handrail

The question is old or new ??
Should I leave the oak joists in place (they are fine), and replace the Treads/risers/balustrade/newels etc?
Or replace it all, and go for a more modern(?) stringer supported stair?

We would appreciate your thoughts

 

[malcolm]

Here is the link that didn't work above: http://blaencwmbychan.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/finishing-last-bedroom-and-start-on.html

I would use the original construction as it is more fun than run of the mill modern stuff. I imagine the stairs won't be off the shelf so it should make little difference to the carpenter.

I want to alter some stairs myself (planned in to phase 34 of the project) as I keep banging my head going upstairs, while the attic stairs above have 3m ceiling height. Can I have your old stairs?

 

[Zebra]

I still have most of original stairs, (dated 1750/1800, probably) underneath new pine treads and risers, so the originals can be seen from the cupboard under the stairs. I would recommend this approach, as it's nice to keep original stuff, while at the same time new treads and risers are practical.
However, making new treads and risers to fit old stairs was a fiddly job to be done slowly by hand, and so i wouldn't trust it to a professional!

 

[JanJonWestWales]

Thanks Zebra, I must admit that I am leaning towards utilising the understair joists, and leaving them revealed.
In some ways it might make the construction of the new treads&risers a bit easier, so long as I can ensure they are secure and dont creak !!!

 

[JanJonWestWales]

Malcolm ,thanks for the URL...numpty rescue!

 

[Westholme]

Victorian books on staircase construction can be downloaded for free but I doubt they would help much as design has improved since the 1750s, reaching its zenith during the Georgian era apparently.

I find staircases fascinating. Do you know the pitch of your stairs? Modern building regs specify 42 degrees or less or in other words the ratio of rise/going = 9/10 maximum. I've been trying to find out when this was first introduced and in my 1894 house the stair pitch is exactly 9/10. (This doesn't mean 9" rise and 10" going, of course.)

The newel in your photo is interesting, with a narrow bottom and wider top so that both handrails can attach to it, which avoided having "dog-leg" stairs where the handrails are directly above each other. Apart from the top and bottom steps, are there two balusters per tread? That is standard on open-string staircases. How high is the handrail above the tread nosing?

I'd keep the oak strings - they're not there just for decoration!

 

[88v8]

I'm shocked that you would want to 'improve' the stairs ..."keep at least some of the original style".
I'd say they could easily be original. Surely they merit careful restoration or just carefully leaving alone.

There are several places in our cottage where I at 6'0" bump my head. That's how it is. PO was taller than me, perhaps 6'2" and PO before that at least 6'6". Other than lowering the dining room (earth) floor 3" none of us has destroyed originality in the interests of headroom.

Ivor

 

[JanJonWestWales]

ok so had a re-think this weekend.
Taking onboard many of the comments, we have decided to keep the original oak joist construction.
As Zebra pointed out, we can then expose the underneath of the stairs

The Newel/balistrade etc will have to be replaced as they are shot, but we will use the originals as a template and replicate the style.
The treads and risers are not all as bad, but many will have to be replaced, so will have to see what a mix of old and new looks like. My interior designer may insist on replacing them all. (be asssured I will keep every one and make something out of them)

Keeping the joists will make the job that much easier, quicker (and cheaper), and hopefully less disruptive.
Also puts the job into the category of DIY - except I will get a friend to turn the spindles.

Really appreciate your responses, it really made me think about keeping as much as we can, and the "integrity" of the house.

To Ivor : yes I was considering raising the joist in the lower hall. It will now stay as is, and I will think of you every time I bump my head :roll:

 

[plasticpigeon]

I assume your "interior designer" is your other half!

 

[JanJonWestWales]

oh yes, and my Accountant/Quality control/Health&safety enforcer/motivational speaker...and the holder of my list of jobs !!

 

[88v8]

Well done.
Given the trouble you have taken with the rest of the house, it would have been perverse indeed to erase what should surely be the jewel in the crown. If as is perfectly possible, this is an original or largely original staircase, it should be proudly treasured, quirks and weirdnesses n'all, and I hope ever will be.

Ivor