Protective, but makes the engine very difficult to view:

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPi ... ?id=391337

"Difficult" is a bit of an understatement! What locomotive? All you can see is the shed!

As this is one of my "pet" locomotives, my understanding is that the contractor who built the shelter "misread" the plans and built the shelter several feet shorter in height than it was designed.

Not to worry - when I win the Lotto this will likely be my first back to service. Sooo - the tight shelter will keep her safe for now.

Still dreamin. . .

Scott

Railfans in Maine would be grateful for anything over MEC 470, short or not! Some type of protection is better than no protection.
In the instance of this particular GN locomotive, shouldn't the contractor have to make good on his error? Raising the roof doesn't seem like rocket science to me.

I took a good look at the engine and shelter while waiting for 700/4449 at Wishram during the NRHS convention last year. From what you can see (and yes, it's darned near impossible to photogrph her), she is very well protected.
Which would you want, a locomotive under cover and difficult to photograph, or one out in the open and rusting away?

Since there is no "standard" to go by, I'd say I'd take the shelter over none. However, I have the same issue with the Soo Line Pacific in Gladstone. She may be a bit more open, but she has similar issues.


Can I ask a really stupid question? Why isn't glass used more? Is it simply the expense, or the liability of it possibly being broken? Or better yet, why isn't a engine house style format used? Seems to me a well built enclosure with glass would make a better setup, as long as there was enough room around her to get shots.

TJG

This has always been a problem with me too. Why not have the shelter set up so that a second exhibition track exists next to the locomotive, even though no such track, in reality, would exist. This would a least allow a photographer to have room with a wide angle lens to be able to photograph the locomotive without obstruction. The opposite side could be close to a fence (if one exists) for close inspection by visitors. Perhaps some type of standard might be proposed. The engine would be protected but still be accessible for photos.

Thoughts?

Les

Why can't "we" develop a simple stadard design for a park locomotive shelter? From my point of view, we're looking at a standard roof width, with the main variable being height and length to be determined by the size of the engine. Structurally it is a basic carport design with wood truss roof and posts. Such a package could be endorsed and offered to any (insert caretaker here) organization. By keeping a simple design, the cost can also be kept low, and hopefully attractive to the end user.

Wesley

[quote="wesp"]Why can't "we" develop a simple stadard design for a park locomotive shelter? (/quote]

Great idea - please do.

The problem with a shelter not showing off the engine is that the engine just disappears under the shelter. Not only should we strive to protect these engines by sheltering them, but we should also show them off. Think about people driving by the shelter that 2507 currently under, they might pass by not even noticing the wonderful engine under it. Remember that an engine is a black anyway, so it looks like just a black mass when under a shelter that is too low.
The best shelter I have seem it the one the a Gainesville Midland 2-8-0 is under in Jefferson, Georgia. The shelter both protects and still shows off the engine.
Eric

You mean this one?



O.K., that's a fine shelter for warmer climate areas, but it isn't going to stop snow for those of us that deal with that half of the year.

In addition, I have heard of a design that supposed to be used in Ohio soon, which has a "glass house" design, but also allows for the loco to be pulled out for sunny days. I believe it is a former Toledo-area interurban freight motor. Anybody heard of this?

Maybe two designs? A "warm" climate version and an "all-weather" version?


TJG

I don't think there is any question as to the "shelter vs. no shelter" question. But when a good-intentioned organization builds a protective shed that prevents seeing the object being protected, you might as well have it inside a vault. As massive as the roof supports are, seems that the roof structure is REALLY heavy or the shed was extremely over-engineered. Of course, we don't have to worry about snow down here.

One main consideration I had when designing the "Transportation Annex" shed for Thronateeska Heritage Center was the display space itself. How could the artifacts be viewed/photographed and positionad for interpretive purposes. I even went to the trouble of constructing a 1:87 diorama of the area and track arrangement so all these variables could be accounted for. A second track was to be built next to the existing track, and cars on the new track would be set back to allow good viewing angles on both sides of the engine. The unused track would be surrounded by a concrete pad so the floor space could be used for events and smaller displays. Autos, trucks and farm machinery could have been displayed in this area. If fully enclosed and climate-controlled, the length of the locomotive was to have a series of glass windows, something like roundhouse windows, with night time lighting (since that part of the building could be seen from the street).

Nice idea, right? Did it get built? No. The BOD originally thought it was a grand idea, but somehow the passion was lost and the Executive Director decided 30 feet wide was good enough. The building was narrowed to cover the single display track and part of the adjacent passenger platform with about 5 feet of overhang on the opposite side of the locomotive. It is a good steel structure, but still allows full morning and afternoon sun to hit everything on the track. It does protect from rain, but not from blowing rain. You do what you can, I guess.

This was one of the better shelters I've encountered, I guess its not really a shelter, but more of an enclosure. Sure keeps the vandalism down though. Engine is a Double farlie type engine in Otago New Zealand

Living on the other side of the country, you couldn't possibly know this, but this engine is nowhere near the main road. Wishram is down a logn winding road to nowhere. If you're there, you know the locomotive is in there somewhere...

Your remarks about contractor error are interesting. And the first time I have heard that. Strictly B.S.! Origionally the shelter was designed to be high enough to provide a good view of the engine. But bringing the GN 2507 back to Klickitat County was a rather expensive undertaking in spite of some cooperation from the BNSF, and at the last moment before construction of the shelter started, the County had a "panic attack" about the amount of money being spent on getting the engine back to the County in view of the fact that the displaying of the engine was going to have very little if any economic benefit to the County and there were other more important and much needed places for County funds to be spend that would generate better benefits for the County and its residents. Additionally, any money that might be spent in the area by people coming to see the engine displayed in Wishram, Washington would likely spend their money across the river in either The Dalles or Biggs Junction, Oregon, resulting in no benefit for Klickitat County.
This information was given to me by a now former County Official that fought hard against the last minute decision to change the design of the structure.