Challenge: Figuring dimensions off photographs.

[rochsub]

Any ideas out there of the actual height of this yard tower?  Also, how many degrees off square are the front and back walls of the control house?  My estimates are at genevasub.blogspot.com.  I am very unsure of my numbers, so I am very persuadable.

[NARmike]

Do you have any "known" dimensions? You could assume that the smaller windows are 4' tall and just measure the rest using "window heights" as a scale. As for the angle... use a protractor on the last photo in your post on the right side. Place the bottom line of the protractor on the vertical edge of the tower and measure the angle of the top section.

I hope that helps.

Mike.

[DKS]

I would assume the top of the tower is approximately two standard stories tall, so 8' plus 2' between floors for support and infrastructure space. That makes the top portion about 20'. Using that as the yardstick, the whole tower works out to roughly 65 feet tall.



I used CorelDraw to determine the angle of the side by rotating a line until it matched. I came up with about 2.8 degrees.

[Lemosteam]

National code for door height (on the outbuilding in front) is 6'-8", this is also the height of windows from a floor.  From there you should be able to scale the height..  Not sure what to do regarding width.

[DKS]

National code for door height (on the outbuilding in front) is 6'-8", this is also the height of windows from a floor.  From there you should be able to scale the height..  Not sure what to do regarding width.

Using that makes the top of the tower a little over 18'. That then makes the whole tower around 58'. Width is trivial, assuming one can determine the height with relative accuracy.

[C855B]

Don't overlook perspective distortion. You were probably closer with the 20' estimate. Getting it truly accurate is going to take some trig.

[rochsub]

Using the third picture, I figured the windows were floor to ceiling and 8' tall.  From this I came up with 75' total height.  However, while the windows probably do reach down to the floor, I doubt they go all the way to the ceiling, especially since what they need to see is below them and not above them.   So, 65' sounds more likely.  Also, I have found that when it comes to structures, its always better to round down rather than up.

 

[pnolan48]

I agree with DKS' reasoning, but would add two feet (2+8+2+8+2) for 22 feet and an overall height of about 71.5 feet. I'll try to study the pictures more when I have time to look for other clues.

[DKS]

I made this quick tracing directly from the flattest of the images; I think it's close enough to get you started. 65' in N scale is 4.875", so scale the image to that dimension; since it's a tracing, if you decide the tower is a different height, just scale the image to the new dimension, and it will still be relatively accurate. If you want a higher-res version, let me know. I can also give you a vector file in any drawing format of your choice (except a MAC file).

[rochsub]

Wow!  This is way more than I expected, but exactly what I need.  Thank you so much David. 

I have the drawing printed out at 4.875 inches in height and will use that to build a mock up.  With the mock up on the layout I will try to decide if I need to scale it down or build it as is.

Thanks again!

Daryl

I made this quick tracing directly from the flattest of the images; I think it's close enough to get you started. 65' in N scale is 4.875", so scale the image to that dimension; since it's a tracing, if you decide the tower is a different height, just scale the image to the new dimension, and it will still be relatively accurate. If you want a higher-res version, let me know. I can also give you a vector file in any drawing format of your choice (except a MAC file).

[wcfn100]

I would be shocked if you couldn't a least the height of the tower with a few phone calls.


Jason

[Zox]

I found an overhead view on Bing Maps:

http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=41.895574~-87.893353&lvl=20&dir=0&sty=a&where1=301%20W%20Lake%20St%2C%20Melrose%20Park%2C%20IL%2060164&form=LMLTCC

...and rotated the building so the long side was horizontal, then pasted the scale next to it:



If 72 pixels equals 25 feet, then 58 pixels equals 20.14 feet. So I'd say 20 feet for the long axis of the top is probably correct.

[rochsub]

I found an overhead view on Bing Maps:

http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=41.895574~-87.893353&lvl=20&dir=0&sty=a&where1=301%20W%20Lake%20St%2C%20Melrose%20Park%2C%20IL%2060164&form=LMLTCC

...and rotated the building so the long side was horizontal, then pasted the scale next to it:



If 72 pixels equals 25 feet, then 58 pixels equals 20.14 feet. So I'd say 20 feet for the long axis of the top is probably correct.

Thanks Zox! Although I've looked at the structure using satellite photos, I never thought about using them for measurements.

David's drawing is 18' along the top of the tower, so that would make it 90% of the prototype.  I used the drawing to throw together a mock up and see how it looks size wise on the layout.

[DKS]

I found an overhead view on Bing Maps:

http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=41.895574~-87.893353&lvl=20&dir=0&sty=a&where1=301%20W%20Lake%20St%2C%20Melrose%20Park%2C%20IL%2060164&form=LMLTCC

...and rotated the building so the long side was horizontal, then pasted the scale next to it:



If 72 pixels equals 25 feet, then 58 pixels equals 20.14 feet. So I'd say 20 feet for the long axis of the top is probably correct.

Be aware that those scale indications on the satellite images are approximations at best; I've found features with known dimensions to not agree with them 100%.

Next step is to draw scale diagram of one or two elevations.

All four elevations have been drawn by tracing the best of the photos. They appear to have been shot with very long lenses, which means they're good and flat, with virtually no parallax distortion--perfect for tracing. Now all that needs to be done is to determine the actual height, and then simply scale the drawings to it.

[sirenwerks]

I know this is not contributing to the discussion, but that sure is a piece of architecture only a mother could love. Looks like it should be at an airport.