Steel framing is completed for our new 6000 sq ft Visitors Center. The building will be connected to our new display barn, shown in the upper left corner. An indoor corridor will allow our visitors direct access between the two buildings. The corridor, nicknamed "conduit hall", will feature a display of a large artifact from Washington's conduit system.



Wesley

GREAT!

I had the opportunity back in May to be shown the display barn by Ken Rucker. I was back to Baltimore for a CAD software users' conference and stayed in the area a couple more days to see NCTM and also the museums in Baltimore.

Here is a view of the completed display barn. The visitors center mentioned above will feature the same masonry architectural elements. The visitor center will connect to the building at the rear of the far right corner of the car barn. The combined storage and shop barn will be located to the left of this building. The front of that building will match the front of the building shown here.



Wesley

Congratulations. Not too shabby. That highway money is nice, yes? Will there be any cars displayed within the visitor's center? It looks like the building would provide a great opportunity to highlight one or two cars from the collection in a well-lit display space.

Hopefully you won't mind too much if I take this opportunity to discuss the subject of railroad museum architecture. I bring this up because I've noticed that few folks seem to approach the issue of static display as a museum design problem best addressed with a comprehensive architectural design. The vast majority of organizations approach it as an engineering problem first, and maybe an architectural issue later (if at all). The carbarn/train shed approach is spatially and economically efficient, but it does not create a good environment for viewing collections. Trains are big, and it is impossible to get back far enough to view the equipment when it's displayed on parallel tracks. The adaptive reuse of railroad structures is also common for equipment display. These buildings were not designed for this purpose, but they can provide an excellent and authentic setting. Respect for the historic integrity of these buildings should guide their use and rehabilitation. They are part of the collection just like the trains.

Carbarns are the best solution for getting a lot of track undercover, and I think we agree that their construction should be a high priority for the protection of every collection. That said, some of the more successful museums could consider displaying a portion of their collection (including non-equipment items) in purpose-built museum buildings. There are few institutions in the U.S. that display railroad equipment in this manner. The recent discussion of the Chicago Museum of Science and industry illustrates one such example. Others include the Smithsonian, and the California State Railroad Museum.

CSRM's History Building is a great example of the "museum" approach. It is actually more similar to a train shed then is immediately apparent. It is a large industrial-style shed with a layout of tracks that are mostly parallel, but the tracks are generously spaced and slightly curved into different orientations. The far end of the building is a roundhouse with widely-spaced bays. This layout combined with a few spatial dividers serve to break up the interior into a series of diorama-like scenes that provide a context for viewing the collection.

The RR Museum of Pennsylvania has done a very good job of adapting their large train shed for public viewing by carving out enough space in the middle of their train shed to allow a few locomotives to be seen in their entirety. This space is located near the entry to the hall and serves to orient visitors to the different trains on display. Upon visiting, one is able to instantly discern that the equipment is organized by era and use into a number of trains.

Some other solutions for the indoor display of large objects can be found at a number of air museums. The Museum of Flight near Seattle uses a couple of different approaches. Their newest wing displays WWI and WWII aircraft in beautiful dioramas (one recreates the deck of an aircraft carrier), while the older building sets the collection in a more neutral and abstract setting that aims to recreate a sense of flight by suspending many of the aircraft from the ceiling (Despite the desires of Jeff Koons and an unnamed Vegas casino, this is not a good approach for displaying steam locomotives).

The most effective display of railroad equipment is operating it in an authentic environment, but well designed indoor displays are an important part of the interpretive arsenal. Such displays could and should include attractive presentations of rail equipment in a setting that establishes an appropriate visual, and historic context.

http://flickr.com/photos/rrr/1518205903/

The car barn pictured here is a display barn. There is a wide aisle between two of three tracks for viewing and exhibit panels. As noted, this building is directly connected to the visitors center allowing visitors to walk between the two at their leisure.

Wesley

I appreciate and respect what you are doing. My comments were not intended to be read as a criticism of your project.

The essential point I was trying to convey is that a "display barn" is not the same as a museum display. The display barn is a great interim step, but I believe that some organizations could aspire to create better indoor equipment displays than what the carbarn/train shed model allows. I am trying to offer these ideas in the spirit of constructive criticism, and I was hoping this could pivot from the discussion of the rail displays at CMSI.

There is a place near here in the Silicon Valley called the Computer History Museum. They are still raising the funds for building out their exhibits, but in the meantime, their feature exhibit is a large room filled with highlights from their collection. They are arranged in a sensible manner, and are placarded with useful information, but not as a part of a designed museum exhibit. They call it "Visible Storage," and I think it is about all that can be achieved in most carbarn-style display buildings. Even though some of these machines are incredibly large by today's standards (for computers) they are never more than eight feet tall, and are easily viewed in the six foot wide aisles.

Geometry is the main issue that limits the success of car barns. Human vision has a binocular field of view of 120º, but a more comfortable limit is around 60º. Vertically, we can see about 30º above the horizontal, and the average eye height is five feet for adults. This means that if something is 15' high, you need to be able to stand back at least 17'-5" in order to easily take in its height. This equation just gives us a minimum aisle width. Presumably, we would not want people literally leaning back against the wall or equipment on the parallel track. There should be at least three more feet for comfort. That's an aisle width of twenty feet. A broadside view would require far more space than most would seriously contemplate. A 40' long car would need about 35' of clear area to its side. Now of course, the truth is that no one has the room to do this, and it is rare to present rail equipment "in the round" due to its size, but creating some room to step back every once in a while should be a consideration. the additional floor space could be used for exhibits, benches, and contextual details. Viewing angles should influence how display barns are laid out. Experience tells me they are not, and I think this is because these projects are approached as engineering problems, and not museum problems.

Here is a little diagram I made illustrating the viewing angle issue. It is based on a hypothetical car that is 40' long and 12' high.

No criticism taken. The building was planned as a museum display facility within the limits of funds available. Our viewing aisle between tracks 10 and 11 does exactly as you propose. Many of the cars are less than 40' long so the ratio you suggest here improves a bit in some instances. Come see us next July.

Wesley

Here is a progress photo showing the front (west) wall of the Visitors Center. the cinderblock wall is complete and the brick work has been started at the base. The round opening will eventually hold a tower clock. The facade elevation is based on the Lincoln Park carbarn in Washington, DC.



Wesley

Westley,

Thank you for posting. It's looking good!

So says the lip service, but our actions speak louder than words. We are unanimous: acquire more equipment before even getting what we already have out of the weather. That's what we do.



I respect the considerable thought you have given into proper display buildings. I think you have aptly described what should be the second evolution of artifact housing. But it should be second, and your example shows why. (I'm disregarding the first two, as they do not specialize in rail, and are "stuffed and mounted" museums.)

CSRM is exceptionally well equipped to be a "stuffed and mounted" museum; by that measure certainly the best railroad museum in the country. However they also operate. That's a good thing, but it adds three requirements (railroad, land and barns) which got second shrift to the fancy display facility. As a result they are now in big trouble. Their prestige location abuts the UP/Amtrak mainline to the north, across which they had a diamond, and north of it, the mighty SP Sacramento shops, of which they had borrowed much space both indoor and outdoor. Over the next 20 years... the number of Amtrak trains rose from 4 to 36, the diamond was replaced by a temporary drop-in track panel. The lines to the south were not preserved. As the rail lines shrank, so did the number and distance of land sites accessible to them by rail. The Sacramento area sprawled and real estate prices went insane (and still are). So - they could really use a site of their own, for barns and a maintenance facility. But there's not enough rail left to get far enough out of town for land to get cheap.

They didn't deal with this when it was possible 20 years ago, because they "had" the SP shops, and had the dream (and a quite reasonable one, from the viewpoint of historic preservation) that they would ultimately be deeded those shops. However, they don't need the whole vast shop complex, so the site has fallen under development. The developers obviously want all of it! They view a railroad museum as a nightlife-killer, a black hole in the middle of their vibrant yuppie community. So they and their lawyers are conceding to CSRM absolutely as little as possible. Not nearly enough for CSRM's current, let alone future, collection, and still on the wrong side of the Amtrak main. Such developments tend to be dense, so CSRM will soon be cheek-to-jowl with NIMBYs. Stack on it the economy and the California budget crunch. I have no doubt that CSRM will survive, but their collection is imperiled, and their operations will have a challenge especially if they want to keep steam.

You're right about display barns. But they should come second to dealing with the basics, which frankly none of us do well.

I once again would like to congratulate the NCTM on their progress.

Thanks for replying to my posts up above, Robert. I had been hoping it would spark a discussion. I more or less agree with you about prioritizing protected storage, but in many cases, the idea of a purpose-built equipment display space is not a low priority, it is a non-existent one. How many of the private rail museums have one, or are planning on building one? I still insist that "display barn" is an oxymoron unless the tracks are on 25-30' centers, and that would be extremely impractical.

Unless you have the stuff on display to the public, you have a "collection," not a museum. To describe the most critical elements of a museum (you know, like real museums), you would include: the collection, public exhibition space (indoor, climate control, lighting, security, etc), and collection storage (up to 40% of total museum building area, plus the same protective requirements for exhibition space). If you are fancy, you can also have room for administration, store, cafe, classrooms, lecture hall, etc. It is a standard expectation that a museum's collection will be much larger than the portion on public display at any given time. Creating a realistic plan to accommodate these elements should be a part of the design process for any museum.

I agree that museum display space should be a lower priority than basic collection preservation, but I disagree that this step has to wait until all of the collection is undercover. Almost no rail museum will ever achieve that; they will always find more stuff (perhaps rail museums need to have a few sacrificial hulks out in the rain to serve as scarecrows?). In any case, appropriate and protected public display of collection items should be something all museums aspire to. A number of museums have succeeded in getting enough of their collection under cover that they should consider this next step.

The fixed costs associated with any construction project favor combining program elements into larger buildings. Instead of the monomic approach that says each function must have its own building, maybe it is time to consider projects that include multiply uses under one roof. Museums in other fields (with physically smaller collections) are typically designed this way. Such a strategy might broaden member and donor support by offering something to each of the different factions that are invariably competing within our organizations.

Incidentally, as planned back in the 70s, CSRM was supposed to have a collection storage building near the SP shops. Support for this later phase was not strong enough after the museum was "completed" in 1981. The storage concept evolved into the Museum of Railroad Technology (MORT, unfortunately), which was basically a restoration shop and display shed of parallel tracks. Technology exhibits were included on a mezzanine level so the project could be billed as a "museum." An economic downturn sparked by a collapse in the housing market killed this project in the late 1980s. Now the SP shops are seen as a restoration facility and museum, and once again, there is no space being allocated for collection storage when it is clear they should have built a huge pre-engineered steel building in a nearby industrial area. As a result, they have been forced to go through the painful process of purging their collection.

Has anyone seen an list on what went where?

Thanks,
Randy

MORT was seriously flawed in conception and design. I'm not shedding any tears over that. CSRM has the ability to operate multiple sites - the flagship location in Old Sac, which is arguably the finest railroad museum display in the country from the POV of the general public visitors and many professionals, the Jamestown walk back in time complex which is my favorite - and who knows where else some of the collection might justifiably go to be a smaller submuseum with a narrow specific mission?

Their deaccessioning and "right-sizing" the collection isn't painful - having waited too long to do it is. from what I know if it, it has been done responsibly and appropriately. It's difficult to finds genuinely capable organizations to deaccession to.

I challenge anybody to seperate housing a rolling stock collection from its preservation in any meaningful long term way.

I'm in complete agreement that we need to become more involved with the HP movement at large - but can't agree that the Secretary of State's Standards for buildings is better than a kludge in application to our mechanical artifacts. We need to develop our own standards based on our realities.

I am converting to the belief that the greatest obstacle for many of us to overcome in terms of creating the finest of audience grabbing interactive historic interpretive displays (apart from the obvious money question) is context - Jupiter and 119 are incredibly beautiful and dynamic, but the juxtaposition of a modern building within visible range is jarring. Having the VC and parking out by Thiokol and hauling visitors in to an accurate location behind either replica would be much more meaningful. Jamestown is still Jamestown, but Spencer has been sterilized to the point where you could perform surgery in the roundhouse. Can we interpret a city streetcar line without a period city?

We've got to get past our ironmongery prejudices and learn to work from the visitors experience POV or we don't need to be in business at all.

dave

The Pennsylvania Trolley Museum trolley display building has tracks on 22' centers. Not quite what Mr. Ruiz thinks is adequate, but seems to me (as an occasional tour guide) to work well.

See Dave Hamley's post for more on this building.

The carbarn layout has a major advantage in that equipement can be on display and also be available for operation.

All,

In my humble opinion, any organization that can get their collection protected and under a roof and on a moisture protected floor, in any fashion, is worth of praise. There are too many museums/ groups that have the want to cover and provide the public a venue to view and appreciate their collections, but nit-pick any proposals to death and do nothing.

PTM should be commended on their ability to come together and fund/ build a facility that works, and fulfills their mission. Debating the definitions of car barn vs museum space, vs display barn is counterproductive when the building is complete and functioning. That debate is one each organization needs to have within its walls and to suit its own needs/ mission. Public commentary needs to be constructive and not prejudicial on one's own opinions.

(removing soapbox)

Ted.

All true. But until you have it covered, you don't even have a collection! At least, not for long. You have unarrested decay, an eyesore, a complaint point for NIMBYs etc.



Try this. Build a 6-track barn on wide centers. Don't put anything on tracks 2 and 5.

Heh.



It's certainly true that every railway museum is a magnet for new equipment; even WRM, which preserves almost entirely railroads which are 50 years gone, gets at least one piece a year. Not even counting CSRM's recent distributions. I think a railway museum with a good practice of covered storage would be more likely to acquire new stuff. Thus, the humor in "don't fill tracks 2 and 5" :-)

As for rusting hulks, one of the advantages of covered storage is it makes neighbors stop whining about blight. If the rusting hulks won't get love, get rid of them. Ship them off to the smelter to be turned into reinforcing rod for construction of your next carbarn or *nod* display building.