Hi, I don't have any direct answer to your question.
Generally speaking...and I do mean very generally speaking..
Hypothetically speaking, let's say you want to build a replica of Scotland road; you can't do it full length as the real one was; I mean you probably could if you had a HUGE soundstage (or more likely out on the lot), but it would waste a lot of space and time and a boatload of money. Scenery is scenery. 99% of the audience is not going to count every rivet. Scotland road on the real ship was several hundred feet long; realistically if you do not need to film in 80% of that corridor, then why build it? So you build what you need to shoot your scene. Now your storyboard/script/screenplay call for your characters to be trapped between a gate and flooding water; and your research consultant is telling you there isn't a place that really matches your scene on the ship's blueprints. Boom, now it does or you have no scene. It's artistic/dramatic license. You have it built to what it would have looked like had that particular room existed on the ship, and 99% of people won't be bothered because it is designed to fit in with the look of the real ship. It could be a real room for all the audience cares if it looks convincing enough.
So in short,usually places are condensed when building a set, and the sets are built to meet the needs of the production; not as a museum. If your story calls for a room that doesn't exist, you have it designed to look like it belongs there and put it on film. The magic is what comes out of the camera; sets are pretty cool but it is how they interact with the lens and the director's vision that make us forget they aren't real rooms.
But I really have no idea so don't take my word for it, that is just how I understand it from what I have heard. My point is just that something built in real life and something built for a few months of filming will not be the same for numerous reasons.
