I appreciate all of those comments about door spacing, docks and awnings, eras, whatever. I really do. All are thought provoking comments.
But my main objective would be to make this freight house look prototypical, as it might have looked in the 1950s. That photo, taken in the mid-1970s, although showing the building in decline, gives the viewer a pretty good idea how that structure might have looked just 20 years earlier.
So, what it comes down to is scratch building versus a form of kitbashing, that is, using DPM modulars to create a reasonable facsimile.
To get the look as close as possible to the actual prototype, I would love to tackle the job of scratch building it, using styrene brick walls and Tichy windowa and doors which more closely match the prototype than does DPM windows and doors. But my main hesitation with scratch building is the super detail around the windows and doors, the sills, the arched brick work, etc.
What I fear most with scratch building is a close match to the prototype from afar but a mediocre, amateurish look from up close.
Rich
Alton Junction
I think that I may have resolved my biggest objection to the DPM modules and that is the lack of height difference between the 1st and 2nd story windows.
I could take blank 1st story wall modules and cut them horizontally to cover the lower have of the 1st story windows, making those 1st story windows lower in height in proportion to the 2nd story windows.
I have a jeweler's saw and some fine and xtra fine blades, so with care and caution, I could cut to fit.
What do you think?
Rich,
On Your mock-up, are there two sections there, a top and bottom. Or are they one piece? If they are two piece, cut about a 1 1/2'' off the bottom of the top pieces. The way it looks now, for anyone to look out the windows on the second floor, they would need a ladder to do so or be 15ft tall. That's the part that looks really different than the prototype. Also the mock-up looks to be a lot taller, than the proto building, more so, because of the space between the first and second floor. The second floor was all office anyway! Lifschultz was involved with International shipping.
Take Care!
Frank
zstripe Rich, On Your mock-up, are there two sections there, a top and bottom. Or are they one piece? If they are two piece, cut about a 1 1/2'' off the bottom of the top pieces. The way it looks now, for anyone to look out the windows on the second floor, they would need a ladder to do so or be 15ft tall. That's the part that looks really different than the prototype. Also the mock-up looks to be a lot taller, than the proto building, more so, because of the space between the first and second floor. The second floor was all office anyway! Lifschultz was involved with International shipping. Take Care! Frank
AAHHH! Yeah, that would make more sense. The prototype is only a two story structure. That would probably look better.
zstripe Rich, AAHHH! Yeah, that would make more sense. The prototype is only a two story structure. That would probably look better. Take Care! Frank
I hope You realize, that the windows on the prototype, the sill is a little higher than waist high and a person can look out them and also open them.
zstripe Rich, I hope You realize, that the windows on the prototype, the sill is a little higher than waist high and a person can look out them and also open them. Take Care! Frank
Therein lies the advantage od scratch buiding the freight house.
Now you see why I have been procrastinating.
richhotrainWhat I fear most with scratch building is a close match to the prototype from afar but a mediocre, amateurish look from up close.
Now to further confuse the planning process....
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
richhotrain I think that I may have resolved my biggest objection to the DPM modules and that is the lack of height difference between the 1st and 2nd story windows. I could take blank 1st story wall modules and cut them horizontally to cover the lower have of the 1st story windows, making those 1st story windows lower in height in proportion to the 2nd story windows. I have a jeweler's saw and some fine and xtra fine blades, so with care and caution, I could cut to fit. What do you think? Rich
I think I would just chop the bottom off of the top modular walls. No cut lines to see as they would blend right in to the top of the bottom wall.
And the smaller DPM walls tend to have a brick banding that stretches about dock height as well, so you need to factor in whether or not your wall would look out of place if the banding was missing, or present where it shouldn't be.
- Douglas
Thanks Rich!
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
....As I see it, in this case disappointment has two sides, the possible disappointment in the final result, or the actual disappointment in one day realising you didn’t accept the challenge when you had the chance.....
If you set a goal realistic to your abilities, it's unlikely that you'll be disappointed, and if you're not all that interested in the challenge, then you'll not likely be later disappointed by not accepting it. Only you can decide.
...Model Railroads are FUN, pushing yourself model beyond your comfort zone may seem contrary to that premise, but for me aiming for mediocrity is not fun....
A project in which you're truly interested usually draws you in more deeply than you originally intend. That added interest usually results in you coming out of the project with new-found skills and renewed confidence.
...Disclaimer. Now there may be some who read this and manage to take from my ramblings that I somehow look down upon non scratch builders as lesser modellers. Having spent my working life working with my hands, I tend to make the invalid assumption that if I can do something, so can anyone else. Well some can’t, their abilities lie elsewhere, and as long as Model railroads is fun for them, the I have no right to criticize!...
Well said, Bear. Those who "can" often assume that anyone "can", but it's not realistic for most people to take up an unfamiliar task and immediately excel. Modelling, like most skills, is best learned by doing - if you have the courage to take the first step, and have even some success, it can give you confidence to take the next step. Success builds success, but eventually, your latest efforts may make you dissatisfied with your earlier successes - that is the first step onto the "slippery slope". While it can take you to a depth of skills you've not imagined, it can also make you lose sight of what is "good enough", and by that, I mean good enough for you. That's often how overly-ambitious projects get bogged down.Anyone else for whom your "good enough" isn't good enough meets my definition of a rivet counter and shouldn't cause you any dismay. In a hobby, the only person you need to please is yourself.
Wayne
Rich:
I think your idea of shortening the 1st storey windows is great. It gives you both a more prototypical appearance for the 1st storey windows, and it also makes the 2nd storey windows look better because of the more obvious difference in height between the upper and lower windows. I would still shorten the 2nd storey walls a bit so the ratio of window height to wall height is greater.
A couple of thoughts on this...
If only you will see it, then you only have to satisfy yourself it's good enough. This is always a good opportunity to go easy on yourself because you found the motivation to do it. My projects often still turn out all over the field, from Shazzam! to I'd rather not talk about it. Yet I enjoy every one once I set aside my own tendencies toward being a perfectionist. In fact, I think model railroading is what finally taught me to accept the fact that "I made it" is more important than "I made it perfect." My baling wire FT truck fix thing this week was a good example of that, pics included
To make this easier, how far away will the installed freight station be from the viewer? If you normally can't get close enough to see the faults, then you're good
Paint and weathering -- if it's in the 50s, it's gonna be dirty -- hide a multitude of sins.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
JaBear: Rich:
What is interesting in that shot is that there are no docks and the track does run right next to the building. That begs the question of whether or not the 1950s version had docks or was it set up the same way as the 1970s photo.
As I have said before, I personally think that there were no outside docks on the original building. The partial docks in Rich's original photo are far too sloppy to have been built in the era of the original building, and there is no obvious evidence of docks or roofs along the remainder of the building. Besides, not having docks saves you the better part of an inch in depth for your scene.
Bear:
Your ramblings are always coherent, and very interesting and relevant too I might say.
Now mine on the other hand..... well lets just say that some times I am a bit slow to recognize that I should have shut up a while ago!
JaBear, that first photo link in your most recent reply is fascinating.
I had never seen that one before.
The C&EI signage at the top of the wall, very interesting.
Also, that first story portion of the building has a flat roof, whereas in my photo, it is sloped.
I am a member of the C&EI forum on Yahoo. I am going to start a thread there and inquire about the specifics of that building, including the docks, the roof slopes, and anything else that the members care to share.
I can tell you this. Besides the ATSF as a tenant, five other railroads owned Dearborn Station, C&EI, GTW, Monon, Wabash, and Erie. Each of those five railroads had two large freight houses at Dearborn, an inbound freight house and an outbound freight house. The topic of this thread is the C&EI inbound freight house, and that is the one shown in your photo links.
I have several books with photos of trains coming and going on the 4-track C&WI mainline leading into and out of Dearborn Station. Before making the turn west at 15th Street, that 4-track mainline ran a stretch of 7 blocks, nearly a mile, to Dearborn Station at Polk St. (8th) and Dearborn St. (thus, the name of the station, sometimes called Polk Street Station). Perhaps the most prominent structure over that stretch of track was the 2-block long C&EI inbound freight house, a combination of 1-story and 2-story structures.
Time out!
JaBear, in his usual devious manner, tried to trick me.
That flat roof on the 1-story portion of the freight house bothered me since, in later years it was sloped.
So, I put my glasses on and looked closer at that photo.
Aha, the freight house in that photo is the C&EI outbound freight house, just to the north of the C&EI inbound freight house.
In my photo, taken from the Roosevelt Road overpass looking south, you can see the C&EI inbound freight house.
In JaBear's photo, taken from the Roosevelt Road overpass looking north, you can see the C&EI outbound freight house.
If you look closely at JaBear's photo, you can see the train shed and station clock tower to the northeast in the upper right portion of the photo.
http://www.pinterest.com/pin/355995545517154497/
Still, it is a very neat photo, and one that I had never seen before.
EDIT: Aaaaah, I see Rich has added some clarification and to think I was accused of being devious. I did say that it appeared to be a different freight house.
Here is the text of the message that I just posted on the C&EI forum.
I am thinking about modeling that huge freight house that stretches from Roosevelt Road almost to 14th Street in HO scale on my layout.
From photos and diagrams that I have seen, the 1-story section of the freight house on the south measured 474' x 60' and the 2-story section on the north measured 288' x 60'. These dimensions do not include smaller 1-story sections at the far south and north ends of the freight house.
Can anyone provide me with more detail on a few aspects of the inbound freight house. In the photos that I can find from the 1970s, there was a short dock section on the north end of the 2-story section of the freight house and a dilapidated awning over the dock. Question: did a dock exist at one time over the entire length of the freight house?
The configuration of doors and windows in the photos show 3 doors, an overhead door in the middle and a small freight door on each side of the overhead door. These three doors are flanked by a pair of small windows on either side of the three doors. Question: why were some doors overhead and some doors not and were these doors spaced to accommodate the doors on box cars?
Any information on the C&EI inbound freight house at Dearborn Station, no matter how trivial, would be useful to me.
Thanks in advance for any help or comment.
hon30critter JaBear: The 1970 picture is definately the right building. What is interesting in that shot is that there are no docks and the track does run right next to the building. That begs the question of whether or not the 1950s version had docks or was it set up the same way as the 1970s photo. As I have said before, I personally think that there were no outside docks on the original building. The partial docks in Rich's original photo are far too sloppy to have been built in the era of the original building, and there is no obvious evidence of docks or roofs along the remainder of the building. Besides, not having docks saves you the better part of an inch in depth for your scene. Dave
JaBear:
The 1970 picture is definately the right building. What is interesting in that shot is that there are no docks and the track does run right next to the building. That begs the question of whether or not the 1950s version had docks or was it set up the same way as the 1970s photo.
I think the original building didn't have docks and boxcars were loaded directly from the door. However, the spacing of the doors were probably built for 40 foot boxcars, and when longer boxcars became the norm the railroad could only load/unload as many boxcars that lined up to the existing doors. So they relocated the track and built a covered dock so more doors could be opened for loading/unloading.
To have a dock or not would depend upon which era Rich wants to model.
IIRC, the spacing of the DPM modulars that Rich is using places the center of dock doors at about 40 foot intervals, so I think the model would be close for either era.
This one is captioned 1970...... http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r293/VIEWLINER/2011%20VLTD/GH02.jpg and now we have freight cars in the way Super Angry...... http://condrenrails.com/ATSF/ATSF-U28CGs.html ..again, just a less than tantalising glimpse..... https://www.tumblr.com/search/dearborn+station I guess that freight houses just weren't sexy enough for a photo in their own right.Sigh
Great finds, there, Bear. I tried looking for better shots and also was suprised at so few on the interwebz. As Rich noted, other lines used Dearborn. I dug through my Monon stuff without any luck, too.
Now if we just find a 1950 shot from roughly that angle, so we can see what the doors looked like then. One thing's for sure, there willl a lot fewer walk-out doors for people along there without a dock in place.
Regarding the presence/absense of docks, JaBear's Rich's drawing of the track arrangement suggests that there were outside docks but only on the north end of the inbound freight house where they show in Rich's original photo. The drawing shows a track close to the building for most of its length but the track curves away from the building towards the end and there appear to be external docks on the last bit.
Is there a date on the drawing?
mlehman Now if we just find a 1950 shot from roughly that angle, so we can see what the doors looked like then. One thing's for sure, there willl a lot fewer walk-out doors for people along there without a dock in place.
Here is another shot of the C&EI freight house, but of the truck trailer dock that is on the other side of the flat roof building. Part of the Monon freight house is on the left. This shot is looking south.
This one:
http://monon.monon.org/chicago/MESYDChicag901.jpg
Mike, a 1950s photo, preferably at ground level and unobstructed by box cars would be the “money shot” for me.
The map was drawn and dated December, 1953.