Steve kleszyk

I keep talking myself into and out what size there posts are in this picture.  Anyone want to make up my mind for me?

Thanks

Steve

 

0station.jpg 

Reply 0
AzBaja

Holding up the scale rule on

Holding up the scale rule on the screen and comparing it to the width of the track,  I came up with 10"

 

AzBaja
---------------------------------------------------------------
I enjoy the smell of melting plastic in the morning.  The Fake Model Railroader, subpar at best.

Reply 0
Deane Johnson

In blowing the picture up

In blowing the picture up some, it appears they are not square.  I would guess them to be 6" x 8".

Reply 0
Boudreaux

We called them Pole building

Worked on a few jobs sites when younger.

Many American companies list all lumber dimensions for durability and customers needs.

Some even used telephone type poles.

Boudreaux,

Check out the company web sites.

Reply 0
CM-NS_fan

If the siding corrugations

are 2-6/7" then I was going to say 8inches square until Deane's comment!

Reply 0
CM-NS_fan

one helpful tool

is to draw the building in CAD, and using other dimensions like height accurately, your eye will tell you 8" or 10" is correct.

Reply 0
Patrick Stanley

I would suspect

at least a 10 x 10. I'm not sure anything smaller would be structurally sound.

Espee over Donner

Reply 0
Rick Sutton

I'm getting

10"x10" at 8' spacing.

Reply 0
ctxmf74

I get about the same

as Deane, 8 inches wide by 6 inches deep. probably rough saw full dimension posts....DaveB

Reply 0
Steve kleszyk

I feel better now....

You guys sound like me over the last day or so    It's 8x8, no 6x8,  no, wait a minute........

 

Reply 0
Neil Erickson NeilEr

Type IV Construction

These would have been 8” square. My guess.

The frugal nature of a structural engineer is to use as much as required and not more. 8x8 is considered a one-hour rated construction and might have been used for larger wood framed structures. 

Neil Erickson, Hawai’i 

My Blogs

Reply 1
ctxmf74

Square or rectangular?

  The perspective of the photo might be masking the squareness of the posts but looking at the boxcar ladders the side ladder looks about half the apparent width as the end ladder while the side of the post nearest the ladders appears to be less than half the face width   (which would indicate 6 by 8 or some similar ration over 8 by 8 )  ....DaveB

Reply 0
mike horton

Try drawing out in scale,

then try using 8x8’s, if it looks good, you’ve got it, if not try 10x10’s, it’s really not that critical is it?

Reply 1
barr_ceo

Let’s start with a known dimension.

Let’s start with a known dimension.

The box car is essentially 10 feet wide. If you run vertical lines up to the end gable of the pole barn from the near corners of the boxcar you will find there are ten boards between them, so  the boards are 12 inches wide.  

Comparing the parallel sides of the pole to the boards, the poles are one third the width of the boards.

They’re 4x4.

Yeah, I know, I expected them to be 6x6, but they”re definitely not half as wide as the boards on the gable. If I were building it I’d still use 6x6 poles, for the added durability ability against 1:1 hands!

I’m sure four by fours are strong enough to hold the roof up under compression, but I’ll bet it came down in a wind storm!

Whoops! I mis-counted. There aren’t 10 boards in the width of the boxcar there’s only eight. That makes the boards 15 inches,, and makes the posts 6 x 6.

Reply 0
Volker

I have measured width of

I have measured width of boxcar and post in the enlarged picture. The ratio is approximately 2.5/37 = 0.0676. Sorry I used millimeters. The width of the post is than approx. 0.0676*10*12 = 8.1''

I think the post is 8'' x 8''. As structural engineer wouldn't use a rectangular profile, at least not here in Germany.
Regards, Volker

Reply 0
Ken Rice

Measuring the boxcar end

Measuring the boxcar end isn’t going to help directly, because it appears that the boxcar is only halfway under the structure.  So perspective will make measurements off the near end of the boxcar larger than measurements off the end of the building.

Reply 0
Douglas Meyer

Long story short use 6x6 for your model

ok the above is the short answer now for the very long drawn out answer

I do this for a living.  Taking known dimensions and extrapolate from a photo.

Here are my observations.

First off what some seam to think are lines defining boards on the end of the building are in fact just wide gaps between boards and the so called boards thus defined are actually made up of several smaller boards that are not as obvious.  You can tell because not all spaces are the same size this is because some have less boards between the wide gaps. So the end wall is covered by probably a hundred individual boards.  
that being said this is not really the question.

The problem is you don’t have or at least don’t provide enough info.  We need some know dimension of something to base this on.  And we don’t have it.  As note the end of the car sticks out bast the table end wall and thus is not useful for determining a dimension.

We donut know the. Building width so we can’t determine it that way either.

We don’t know the size of the end boards.  The could be 2” to 6”. (I am guess 2.5”. But that is just and educated guess and not based on anything we know).  So we can’t compare that.

Now what we can tell is that the trim boards on the end of the roof are obviously bigger then the post.  So this gives us something to work from.

If we assume that those boards are at best 12” then we are getting someplace.  Why 12” mak you ask?  Well this type of construction is ment to be inexpensive if the budget was bigger they would have built a full building or use brick or something.  And inexpensive construction means the stuck with standard lumber and at no point was anything over 12” inexpensive standard lumber.  Before the went over 12” they would have moved the rafter or whatever closer together.  So we can safely say the trim on the end of the roof is no bigger then 12” and probably smaller.

So if we look at the post in relation to the trim we can clearly see the posts are MUCH smaller.

So now we know the posts can’t be bigger then say 8”. But what else do we know.

Well this is an older building and rough construction so the posts are either old finished sizes or the are rough full sized boards.  Once again this is inexpensive construction and it is not passenger related so no point in spending money to get finished posts.  So odds are it is basically full sized.  So instead of 3,5. Or 5.5  or 7.25. You probably have 4,6 or 8”.

Ok what else can we figure out.  Well old lumber was drastically stronger then today’s lumber.  So much so that I could use a 2x6 where today I would use a 2x10.  Add in that back then the building codes were a joke if the existed and you tend to see a lot smaller lumber then we use today.

What else?  Well cranes and sky trucks and lifts were not common then so these posts were set up by hand odds are.  And tall posts are a pain.  And larger tall posts get really hard to set by hand.  So they would have preferred more smaller posts then fewer big posts.  So odds are 4x or 6x

Looking at the photo,  and considering the relative size of the end boards and the trim and everything else I would guess 6x.  But 4x is possible.  Now this is not much help I know.  But... look at it from a different point of view.  Presumably you are trying to model this.  So you want it to look right.  Well if you probably are best off mocking it up and seeing if it looks right.  You realy don’t care if it is right you are not doing structure load calls you just want it to look good.  So in much the same way as we make the joints on brick to wide so we can see it you want to make it “look” right.

And if I had to guess I would say a model using 4x4 (especially if that is 3.5x3”5) will look to spindly.

So long story short I would go with 6x6 (non sq posts are very uncommon). And anyone saying the stalled this or stalled that is at best guessing as there is nothing to scale from that is both a known dimension, accurate enough to not get lost in rounding error and on the same plane as the posts.

Now if you know more about this building or have other photos or something then we may get closer.  And feel free to let me know and I will help you as best I can.

Like I said I do this all the time.  I once guessed a dimension of 104’. From one very bad photo taken on a huge angle  and a sketch of an airport that was sized to fit in a regular sheet of paper and based on logic. when we measured the space it was 104’4”. So I do know what I am doing.  And frankly you don’t have enough info to truly know.

I keep thinking about doing an article or clinic on how to guesstimate dimensions from photos and other photo analysis stuff but I have yet to figure out a good way to write it up.  

-Doug M

Reply 0
Volker

Measuring the boxcar end

Quote:

Measuring the boxcar end isn’t going to help directly, because it appears that the boxcar is only halfway under the structure.  So perspective will make measurements off the near end of the boxcar larger than measurements off the end of the building.

That is right. But as the measured width of the boxcar is the denominator in my ratio the 8'' x 8'' are more on the small side assumed my measurements were OK. With all inaccuracies of my measurement I stay with the 8'' x 8''.

We all only estimate trying to find plausible dimensions. It is not rocket science.
Regards, Volker

Reply 0
joef

Does it matter?

I’m amazed at the angst over getting the posts in a picture 100% scale correct. Why does it matter so much? Are the scale police going to come and take you away if you get it wrong?

I also am constantly amazed at the paralysis by analysis factor modelers get with stuff like this. Just do some mockups and get your head out of theoretical space!

Build yourself a piece of wall with say four posts and make them 4x4, 6x6, and 8x8 out of styrene or stripwood ... then set up a piece of track with a boxcar on it.

Hold up each sample piece of wall next to the track and using your phone, snap some photos at the same approx angle as this photo. Now put each photo side by side with the prototype and pick the closest match. Done!


P.S. There is an old model railroading maxim that says if you want the trains to be the focus and feel more massive, deliberately build things about 10-15% undersize. Making 1:87 at 10-15% undersize is 1:96 to 1:100. For reference, 1:96 is 1/8” to the foot. Many plastic model kits come in this scale, and using figures from those kits on an HO layout does indeed look great.

What would I do? I’d make them a scale six inches and have the shed done while the rest of you kept debating this question (like it really matters). And I would dare the scale police to pay me a visit and prove me wrong with total certainty.

Joe Fugate​
Publisher, Model Railroad Hobbyist magazine

[siskiyouBtn]

Read my blog

Reply 0
Rick Sutton

Joe

It's not angst.....it's a puzzle. It's the scratch builders version of "operation"

Reply 0
ctxmf74

using the track gauge as a known

back near the flat car I get about 10 posts widths ,so 56.5 in. / 10 = 6 in posts. Which seems more likely than 8 by 6 . The narrower apparent side might be due to photo perspective, or perhaps the posts are 4 by 6 's ??......DaveB

Reply 0
Rick Sutton

Dave

I'm thinking that 8x8 is the most likely. Hard to argue with Neil's 1:1 experience in structural practices. Anything smaller than that would be as fragile as toothpicks around that kind of heavy machinery and its support equipment. I vacillated between 8 and 10 as when I put a perspective correction on it the measurement (still with a healthy guess to references applied) calculated to 8.7" and decided to round up to 10 (9.5 nom)....still guessing due to facts not in evidence such as more modern "nominal" or "full cut" or even "over full cut" which I have seen in early construction. Fun exercise.

If I designed a structure like that the posts would definitely be square. can't see how you'd know which way a load or accidental force would be applied to such a spindly structure for any degree of safety in the smaller dimension. The extreme perspective in depth would account for the skinny appearance in that dimension.

Obviously, what ever looks best in scale is the correct answer.

Reply 0
AzBaja

My back patio used to be set

My back patio used to be set on 6"x8" post,  those post look to be massive compared to the patio post.  I would say anything smaller than 8" is way too small.

how wide is a railhead?  3"?    How tall are the SP lettering/numbers on the car?    Compare the 3rd pole next to to the car number,  Rotate the pole 90' degrees and compare the height/thickness of that 3rd pole to the height of the numbers.  

 

AzBaja
---------------------------------------------------------------
I enjoy the smell of melting plastic in the morning.  The Fake Model Railroader, subpar at best.

Reply 0
Ted Becker rail.bird

TLAR

This a good application for TLAR engineering techniques - - -That Looks About Right.


Ted Becker

Granite Falls, WA

Reply 0
Selector

I am convinced the posts are

I am convinced the posts are 8X8.  It would be hard to get 6X6 as long as they appear to be and not be compromised in terms of lateral strength.

Reply 0
Reply