I plan on building an ice company on my layout that is of an actual building that burned to the ground in 1930. Based upon my research this building was one of, if not the, larged ice house in North America at 3 stories and a footprint of 280’ x 185’. Now to scale ( HO ) that’s roughly 35" x 23". A little too big for my layout.
So my question is have any of you run across a similar situation and simply reduced the size to fit your layout? I was thinking af something like 1/2 the size of the footprint but keeping the same height and roof lines. I don’t really feel bad about this since the pond that fed it was 14 acres in size and I have no plans to re-create that!
I have information that mirrors may be a help here too. Have any of you tried that method to create the depth with success?
Often I reduce the entire size to keep the proportions roughly the same or back the building up against the backdrop so I only build one half of the building. If you are going to change the proportions, I suggest a cardboard mock up to see the size and proportions.
Yes most of us have to deal with selective compression on our layouts For me the most important thing is to try to include the major features so that you capture the {Flavor} of the subject
Here’s a COHS photo of the real Thurmond Depot
Here’s my Compressed version
I used a mirror in this scene to make the tracks look longer
But if you use a mirror it should be a "Front Reflective Mirror " to avoid the gap that
Reefer Madness! Cool! [:-^] I think ice-bunker reefers are great.
How is this positioned on your layout? One thing you might be able to do is put it on the back wall, and you could model the entire length that way, but make it a shallow “background” building, maybe an inch or 2 deep, with the reefer siding in front of it.
I think you have a lot of freedom in modelling one of these. The Walthers unit has a much smaller footprint, and the platform is about 80 scale feet long.
I think the modelling pros call this “selective compression,” where you cut out uninteresting sections, like long blank walls or repetitive loading docks with overhead doors, and use a shorter section instead. Try to pick the distinctive features of the structure, like unique doorways or bell towers, and be sure to include those. If you’ve got 10 loading-dock bays, the model won’t be any less interesting if you cut it down to 2 or 3.
Right now it’s to be located inside the 4’x8’ section of my layout. It’s a continuous loop section, so backing it up to a wall won’t work unless I re-lay my track. I plan to position it so the building is at or near the middle of the longest side so I can get the most out of the open table area. This ice house sent an average of between 20 and 40 reefers a day to Massachusetts. I think I’ll scale that back a bit too!
Another thing to consider with the selective compression approach and if you have the space available would be to keep the 35" length but reduce the width to lets say between 6" to 10" and place the structure against the backdrop to give the impression that it extends into the distance.
You and MisterBeasley have the same approach with the backdrop idea. I’ll give that serious consideration. I was thinking all along that it should be in the front…hmmmmmmmmmm
The easiest way to put real life into scale perspective is to use a scale ruler. I take the dimentions in real life and convert them to scale by simply using the scale size markings on the ruler itself. I never build anything without it. It will be ok if you fudge on the actual size of some of the buildings you are going to build. In fact, it’s good practice to do so so that it will fit on the layout. An acre is 43,560 square feet. So 43560 x 14 = 609,840 sq. ft. That may be way too big even in scaled down feet to fit on the layout. I’d reduce the size of the pond dramatically. It’s ok in modeling to fudge here and there. Modelers want to re-create the essence of prototype. It doesn’t have to be actual measurements inch by inch across the board when building a layout… chuck
I think I would be wary of using the full-length, low-relief approach on a 4 x 8. Three feet is a sizable chunk of table length and width and there would be a risk of making the world look small.
I would advise a structure of about 9" x 12". That’s big enough to look very large on that size of table. I also think that, if possible, the height should be reduced. Perhaps the building could be made two stories, or the stories themselves reduced in height (within reasonable limits) if they have few or no windows, as is probably the case, given that this is an ice house.
