I think we need to have a serious debate about building new buildings as part of the railway preservation movement. Thinking in the way of new engine houses, car shops, round houses, and in general, any building that can take a few pieces of rolling stock and protect them from the elements. As anyone involved in the preservation movement knows, there are main three-consistence battles that we are waging to preserve equipment:

First are the finances for the restoration and upkeep,

Second is finding a safe place for your equipment.

And third, the battle with Mother Nature.

A large number of projects that I have come across have gotten themselves into a situation of forever raising money to keep their equipment safe and maintained. Yet these groups leave the majority of their equipment exposed to the elements. Years of restoration work are consistently being repeated, sometime in a losing battle. If we are going to save locomotives & rolling stock, and at the same time save resources, such as man hours, money and materials, we need to think more than just saving something from scrap. Added bonus is money saved can help other items or preserved more equipment. .

My idea is if we share architectural resources between everyone in the preservation movement, we can come up with some basic expandable buildings, up to current building codes.

My first proposal is a basic 3-stall roundhouse type engine house. Each stall should be able to hold at least one medium size steam locomotive or Pullman car. More stalls can be added if or when they are needed, along with back extensions. A turntable would be ideal, but optional. This structure would fit in with a museum and or historical setting.

Second is a standard two-stall engine house, basic short-line shoebox designed that can be lengthened or have extra stalls added. This is more of a practical / modern design, and can also be build as a one stall engine house.

These first two building offer both weather proofing and better security for your equipment. Not to mention the benefits of year round workshop with heating. Sure beats working on that 4-8-4 behind a chain link fence in the rain.

The third is a basic car shed, like the type used on the British – Southern Electric lines in the south east of England. These structures are usually designed to hold 12 to 16 four car EMU trains on four tracks. They have full roofs, semi open sides and are not 100% weatherproof. But they do offer some protection from the elements, are expandable and can later be made fully enclosed.

Sure, the short-term investment is high, but the long-term rewards will be worth it.

What do you think? Have fun – David Notarius, London UK, ex New Hope PA

I've been a proponent of this for a long time - work with builders of "standard" modular industrial structures such as Butler Buildings, and create structures that can be built to stock engineered designs and added to on a modular basis. We can afford a 3 stall roundhouse today, our ten year plan adds 6 more stalls, whatever. Sheathing can be whatever is suitable and appropriate for your mission - board and batten for a shortline, brick for mainline, whatever regional variation is correct.

I'm certain there's somebody working in archecture on this list that can come up with a solution.

dave

This has gone under major debates on the IRM group, for the available money, unless you get some major donations or grants, IRM has continued on the car barn construction as the money goes. For any museum/etc, you have to make a callout for funds/donations or work out a grant, contact a favorable politician rich person, companies/corporations, let them know its tax deductable. etc etc....if your a non-profit etc etc...as you go.

pretty much the same same everywhere.

It helps when you have an active museum like IRM. The smaller groups are just as determined and plenty of things can happen on a shoestring.

Good idea, and one step further:
All of you who have been servants of steam are used to dealing with one-off, complex machines that (or possibly who) need specialized everything. It's hard to remember that not everything is like that. Many, if not most, railroads had stock building plans that could be altered for terrain if need be. How many things around a museum could be done more economically were there a few standard items?
In the thread about digital displays, someone mentioned that it should be possible to come up with some exhibits of almost universal interest. For that matter, it should be possible to come up with a display design that could be used almost anywhere, run from stock computer equipment that could be repaired or replaced as needed. Those of us who go to a lot of rail museums would recognize the similarity, but the general public would be unlikely to notice and certainly wouldn't object.
Having a stock roundhouse plan, shed plan etc. ought to save money, speed production and make it easier for a museum to show donors what they're ordering--"it's this #261 engine shed kit from Blue Box Engineering." It would also be easier to get approval from zoning boards, etc. and might avoid the need for an on-site architect to "design" a stock structure. One size won't fit absolutely everything, but it sure would help.

I have given a lot of thought to these issues, and it comes down to what it is you are trying to accomplish and how much money can you raise to do it. Although I think this discussion can lead us to make better buildings, I do not think it is possible to make them more affordable to cash-strapped groups. The design end of the equation for most of these buildings has already been squeezed down about as far as it can go. The best opportunity for saving money is in using volunteer labor and used building components as has been discussed in July: http://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=33557&hilit=used+buildings

I agree with the importance of housing preserved equipment to protect it from weather and vandals. There are a range of structure types that have evolved for this purpose. There is, in fact, already some manner of standardization embodied in these approaches. We can find remarkably similar carhouse buildings in Perris, Union, Rio Vista, Kirkwood, Kennebunkport, Colesville, etc... These buildings are very effective and efficient at what they are expected to do, which is pretty much focused on protection from rain, sun, and vandals. I would say, "protection from the weather," but that is not entirely true. More on that in a bit.

While more standardization could be developed, my experience tells me that the local regulatory and site conditions will pretty much trump efforts to come up with a one-size (or modular-sizes) fits-all solution. One of the main benefits of standardization is to reduce design costs, which just can't come down that much when we are talking about Pre-Engineered Building Systems. These companies make enough money from the manufacturing of these buildings, and their design systems are so dialed in, that the building's engineering is included in the price. They are accustomed to producing unique buildings that respond to the specific needs of the client, site, and regulatory context. Nevertheless, anyone erecting one of these structures will need civil engineering for the site, and ideally, some sort of master plan to ensure that this project will fit in with the museum's future development. Depending upon the intended use of the building and the local regulatory authorities, an architect may also be required to ensure the building is designed to be accessible and safe. Other "soft" costs may be needed to address local environmental regulations.

So what about this "intended use" stuff I have referred to? Every building is obviously designed to serve a variety of purposes, and here is where I think the standards that have emerged fall short, and where some discussion and work could result in improvements to our museums. Most of our carhouses are good at keeping our equipment dry, shaded, and safe from vandals, but there is a lot more we could accomplish depending upon the aims and fundraising abilities of our institutions. There are other threats to our equipment. Western Railway Museum has tried to take on these issues by building a carhouse that would also protect their cars from fire, ultra violet light, and rapid temperature swings. Their building has insulation, fans, and no skylights. Taking this to the extreme would mean adopting the conservation standards used by art museums, which would require a carefully-controlled climate. California State Railroad Museum and the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvannia both do this.

As "museums," our primary mission is supposed to be public education, but many of our "Display Barns" are unattractive to visiting families. Buildings intended for public display need to do a much better job providing good lighting and viewing conditions. While I am a big fan of CSRM and RMPA buildings, I know there are cheaper alternatives that could be achieved using low-cost building systems.

As I said, it comes down to understanding what it is you are trying to accomplish. I am optimistic that many of our organizations are capable of doing more.

First, own your railroad. Make it a VIABLE location. If you are in a non-viable location, go to step 1.

Second, own the land you'll be building these carbarns on. No damned flood plain land. No NIMBY encroachment. Get enough land. The experience of the greats (Orange Empire, Seashore, IRM, WRM) is that 20 acres is a good start. Move fast before the real estate market pops.

Third, and especially when volunteers build the building, an outsize percentage of costs are engineering, utilities, site prep, foundation work, site plan, zoning, permits, ADA, parking, drainage, unrelated site improvements the government requires just to be annoying, fundraising, accounting, prime contracting, public education, catering for the ribbon cutting, yada yada yada. These costs are EXACTLY THE SAME whether your barn holds 4 or 40 cars. Well not quite, but close... my point is these costs are highly non-linear. If you pour 75% less concrete, the total concrete work is cheaper, but it's not 75% cheaper. Your building will have 2 ends whether it is 60 or 600 feet long. You need to think in terms of total project cost per track foot. It changes everything.

Fourth, I am very distressed to see people thinking mostly in terms of the wrong kind of building. The first place David goes is a shop, and a small 2-3 car one at that. He's not the only one. Let's hop across Indiana, shall we? Hoosier Valley: Shop holds 5 cars. Noblesville: "shopbarn" that holds 6. Carthage: 3 track engine house 40 feet long. Connersville, what, 150 feet under cover? French Lick: 100ft x 2 tracks, and in a floodplain to boot. New Haven KY, 150 feet x 2. They've all built SHOPS, but guess what? The fleet is still outside.

So the rot continues unabated, while they try futilely (albeit comfortably) to slow it down.

Yes, I get the frustration of trying to work outside. Believe you me, I do. I can understand the impulse to build a shop first. But you can work in a carbarn. You can't store cars in a shop!

So why a small 2-car shop? Cheaper?? Oh no... go back and see what I said about costs not being linear, it's very clear that these small shops are mind-blowingly expensive per track foot. That's never going to occur to someone who gets it in their head to build a shop. If you can spend 40% more and get a substantial fraction of your total fleet under cover, maybe it's worth not being able to work on the coldest winter days.

I'm not saying "don't build a shop", I'm saying build it after carbarn 1.

A few years ago, I was involved with an unnamed preservation group that had a windfall from donations and a good operating season. At one of the general meeting, one of the members purposed building a roundhouse with turntable for storing the groups three locomotive. The idea was to build a 3-stall roundhouse with an additional 12 to 18 tracks radiating from the turntable pit, set in concrete. The roundhouse would have been a focal point for exhibitions of equipment during operating days. Additional stall would be built for additional equipment when needed. Part of the plan was to make available for rent to other preservation groups, NRHS chapters, or railway equipment operators, such as private car owners to keep their stock under cover. This was to generate additional income and help pay for the up-keep. The person who made the proposal even drew up plans using an old roundhouse blueprint, made a O scale model, and even had a group lined up who owned a preserved diesel looking for a new home, willing to help and pay for an additional stall as part of their rent. Anyway, after 3 hours of arguments the idea got shoot down by some of the members who thought their one –stall engine house was enough, and wanted to send the money on an additional locomotive. Point is, these new buildings, if managed right, can also generate money, besides helping other people & groups preserve their equipment. David Notarius, London UK, ex NH&I - BR&W from New Hope PA

Now, consider the museums like KRM and Shore Line Trolley Museum. While flood plains are far from ideal, sometimes that is all that is available. Now get ready to laugh and then rank on the kid; for those museums, build a moat. Water goes to the lowest Couple that with some sort of car barn (or the carriage shed that David described at the very beginning), and there's your two-pronged attack to dealing with weather. But what if you can't afford a full fledged car barn or round house? A temporary garage-type structure might work. Ya, those pipe-framed, tarp covered things. Not tall enough? We do have the technology to literally raise the roof in this case. A cinderblock base should be sufficient, and can be cut down or have more added should it be needed for clearance. But tarps don't last forever. Weather takes a beating, so what could work better... Oh I know! EDPM rubber might be a good way to bolster the tarp. Use the tarp as framework, and slap the EDPM on the top of the garage to sustain a water-tight roof. Attach however you like, but I hear that EDPM has worked wonders as a coach roofing material ;)

I feel for the O scale model proposal guy, lot of work for an idea to be shot down, but certainly a building experience you can throw onto a layout, so prolly no waste, it may reside as a reminder holding O scale engines.

Talk of a turntable/roundhouse at IRM has an issue of a flood plain and drainage for the turntable, if it gets reaaaaly wet it will start to flood out.
The truth about turntable roundhouses is it correctly represents the Steam existance,
we all know that and we all would love that. The alternative is to mod the car barn concept and use it.
IRM has a turntable bridge but it sits, awaiting its moment.

As far as moats, I don't think you understand how flooding works :) Yes, you do have a choice not to build in flood plain land, it works like this. Don't build in floodplain land. If your site is on floodplain land, MOVE IT. Yeah, it's hard. Harder is mucking mildew water out of every orifice of every car. Harder is sending out every traction motor. Harder is scrapping half your equipment just to stay alive because FEMA is a slow pay. Harder is finding out FEMA denied your claim.

It's unfair anyway, that someone should intentionally choose to build in a floodplain to save a few thousand bucks over buying better land... and then pick MY pocket for a lot more money when the inevitable happens. What kind of person does that?

As for a small temporary building, here's the problem, and this has unfolded at several railroad museums. The temporary building "solves the problem" so it stops all further effort at solving the problem for real. The temporary shop means pursuing a permanent shop is put on the back burner forever. And then when the temporary finally fails (e.g. ORM comes to mind), you are caught off guard and ill-equipped to replace it, so you don't. And now you're worse off. Also, you had to suffer with a lousy building all those years.

Railroad museum funding is not zero-sum. Saving $10,000 by not doing X, does NOT liberate $10,000 for doing Y. The reason is donors are fickle, and will give much greater support to worthy projects, e.g. X and not Y. The roundhouse guys were foolish, because they would have a much easier time raising money for a 3 stall roundhouse than another engine. Smart money is aghast when foamers keep collecting more and more junk without seeing to its preservation. So smart money doesn't give much to stupid museums. That's why smart museums get so much money -- there's little competition.

The original poster proposed that a set of "standard" plans be built for numerous structures, a roundhouse, car shop, shed, etc. The idea was that the pooling of resources to pay the architectural fee would be a savings to other museums.

How much is the typical architectural feel to design a structure? While I see some value in the idea, building codes vary enough in the US that this may not be as easy as proposed. It might be easier for a museum to find an architect willing to work on a reduced fee, or as a donation, on a project.

Thanks David; and my point was that there's probably something already designed - or something already designed that's easily adaptable at much lower cost than starting from a blank sheet - in the world of preengineered structures.

Randolph is an architect; perhaps he knows of a colleague with familiarity in that world that can run interference?

dave

The "Standard Plans" already exist, Mine says "Northern Pacific Railway Standard Plans" on the cover. Has plans and bills of materials for just about any RR structure you would want.

If I was going to build a Roundhouse, I would take copies of the needed pages to a architect, get some preliminary sketches and start from there.

Another thing that most RR Museums need is warehouse space. Most of them look like scrapyards, A building full of pallet rack would make their neighbors and local governments much happier.

-Hudson

Properly designed warehouse space just might also protect what is now stored in open fields and allow its location in the future.

And if we were building in 1932 it would be just fine. Codes and standards have changed........so, it's probably a very good thing you aren't in charge of building one. Further, the concept under consideration is to avoid any custom design and associated expense. We need railway structures that are like Butler Buildings - capable of being erected anywhere, affordable and modular.

dave