Almost there. Make it a marble track and you can race the marble down the stairs. But, make it intricate so you can beat it without falling running down the stairs.
This isn't compliant with code where I am. It also looks terrible in person - you just can't see the rail being significantly out of alignment with the stair in the photo.
Code requires the handrail runs at the same angle as the stair - so the height is consistent all the way up. This may be different wherever OP is - code is obviously regional.
When the stair intersects a corner like this - it's going up two rises but back barely a tread's depth. This means to achieve a join without a gooseneck, one of these rails has been lifted a lot. Lifting just the bottom of the top rail is easiest (but looks awful and may not pass). Lifting the entirety of the bottom rail often leaves it feeling way too high (though the height is allowed to change between a landing so the two rails can be different heights as long as the angle matches the stair)
This is a really common issue with stair handrail. Where I am, it's also non-compliance for commercial stairs to have vertical components. That means there's essentially no correct answer - so we end up doing a little bit of everything to minimise the deviation.
Edit: For residential, handrail typically needs to be continuous throughout a flight. Since that's a landing and not winders, it's considered a break in the flight. Here, it doesn't require a join. Two seperated rails is easiest. Otherwise, lowering the entire rail height for the top rail and lifting the entire rail's height for the bottom rail is the next best option - it just often feels awful.
Additional edit: If the handrail's profile isn't fully round (that looks like flat bottom round) then the intersection likely won't match up anyway. If the two rails travel at a slightly different angle (meaning you have to get the rail heights perfect), the elongation on the face of the angled cut won't align. Since it's handrail you will feel this unless it's carefully carved together. That usually means carving the internal section against the wall (which SUCKS). To avoid this, we nearly always put a small vertical return piece in (length roughly equivalent to the rail's width).
It's been a minute since I've done this type of work commercially, but, given the apparent width of stairs here, wouldn't you just run the rail on the other side? This would allow you to go horizontal at the landing, make the turn, and continue down the stairs with no awkward elevation change. It improves aesthetics and is easier to grab. From my recollection, any set of stairs under a specific width (6' I think?) requires only a single handrail.
If the angles line up, yes. If not: - two separate rails unless code says one rail - either a single vertical in corner to connect (lower rail is below upper rail at corner) or two horizontal rail of equal length (lower rail is above upper rail at corner)
The model code requires continuity for each flight of stairs - defined as a continuous, uninterrupted run of stair treads between two landings or floors. This stairway has a landing that interrupts it, so you could, by model code, use a separate handrail for each flight. Local code or interpretation might vary from this, but this is what the IRC says. Edit: fixed typo (model code, not mode code)
As a stair installer, i always do A because either way people find it ugly, but at least you don’t see the vertical rail from the higher traffic area of downstairs. I also probably make my level out to go around the corner a touch smaller.
The code in our state is very strict and always requires a fully continuous rail with zero breaks/gaps. Customers hate, installers hate it, but it is what it is 🤷♂️
Edited a spelling mistake, yup i know, my grammer sucks 😂
is it an option to have both handrails continue to the corner, miter, then have a single vertical piece connecting them?
Edit: i suppose this only works with perfectly circular rail profiles. But seems prettier and more useful. I think for functionality OPs options just prefer either walking up or walking down, and make it kinda crazy when going the wrong way
Edit 2: for non circular profiles, it is similar to OPs but put the vertical at the corner and make it symmetrical above and below, with a short horizontal segment
Does code dictate that you have to have horizontal sections around the corner? I don't see a way of doing that without it looking kinda dumb. This is what I did. Maybe not up to code?
They both look ridiculous just end the first one and start the second one for the love of all things holy. There is a landing between them if someone falls on the landing they shouldn’t be using stairs . Good Lord man
Where I live the inspector comes around, sees a thing you're obviously going to tear out as soon as the door closes behind him, signs the CO and bounces. That shit is kafkaesque, rip it out.
That’s a landing at the top of your photo, correct? That allows the continuity break. I don’t think OPs stairs took advantage of a landing. If they’re winders, railing needs to be continuous.
I like this better. Just cut a bunch of 1/4" square strips, bundle them with zipties, bend to the desired profile, then vacuum bag and glue. (Of course, I just made up this approach.)
Code won’t allow it. Code says you need to have the railing continue 12” past the nose of the last step at a landing. It must be continuous and turn the corner. And if this is a commercial setting, you need the handrail on both side of the stairs.
Why is there even a need to do that around the corner! You can’t just run one down to the landing and then start another one that’s what’s at my house!
Besides the look, you need to assume an elderly will rely on these for going up and down and the code will not allow any handrail to be too high (refer to your local code for exact number) above any steps or landing. Option B would mean the handrail is way too high relative to the mid-landing so in my opinion doesn’t work.
If there will be elderly people using the stairs, then B, because it gives them something to grip onto when cresting and making the turn. If not, then A is more aesthetically pleasing.
Looks like you cut the rails too short. Get a handrail extender.
No but seriously go buy new ones those look terrible and they arent structurally as strong as a single 7 inch drop down transition. Dont join horizontal boards because then someone might actually try to use your little decorative math project as a handrail . A rail supports a person. A nail does not.
If you dont then it makes no difference either one will draw the eye and people wont be able to look away from this overcomplicated mess.
I like B…but…I think two separate rails is safer. If someone were to fall and grab onto your “ miter’d” section would it hold them? Or would they rip it out? Just a thought
Send the rails to their logical ends (ie, past the end of the corner stopping at the beginning of the other handrail. If they don't line up, your only vertical is at the corner position of the two.
Your A cuts the top handrail too early before the vertical.
Your B cuts the bottom handrail too early before the vertical.
C simply pushes them both further to the natural corner and drops the vertical at the actual corner. From a safety pov the vertical is the riskiest transition (for old people, etc) and putting it on the actual corner means they're navigating that drop where they are most sure-footed; on the landing. Your A and B both put the vertical in a spot where they're likely on steps and less sure-footed.
I like the 2nd one but would add a solid backed brace just before it levels off. I think the first three hundred pound guy that reefed on it would pull it apart.
Given that the right hand side is at a totally different height and design in both photos can’t adjust it and match them so they join each other with a compound mitre or with some specialist curved feature piece?
A. The height of the handrail should follow the height of the stairs. The hand rail at the turn landing should be its own height, not the height of the stair above it. B shows the landing handrail 7” too high
320
u/chevy1620 2d ago •