For some reason, when ever the topic of displaying railroad equipment comes up, one of the main concerns that is expressed is whether or not the constraints of the display prevents or allows photography. I do not understand why no one talks about whether one can actually even SEE the equipment. The technology of photography is not that far off from how our vision works. If you can not photograph something, you are going to have a hard time seeing it in its entirety. I have yet to go to an art museum that has placed one of its prize paintings two feet behind a structural column.

I am just trying to suggest that visibility might be a better criterion for evaluating these shelters, and yes, for the most part, they fail.

The "CNW" consolidation is not bad, but the roof structure itself is a non-sequitor to me.

Soo Lije 2713 and caboose in Stevens Point, WI is one of the nicer ones.

http://www.soo2713.org/pb/wp_5115acc6/wp_5115acc6.html

I had always thought the ideal would be a structure with a cantilevered roof, open on the south exposure, with a nondescript solid wall along the north to block the wind, snow, etc. Unfortunately, I think the cost of the foundations and structure to support a 20' roof overhang probably drives the cost beyond even what the nicer of the roofs supported on both sides cost.

Dennis -

Your idea has merit. And Randolph's statement about "visibility" is exactly what I was talking about earlier in this thread. Maybe what we could do to give some help to Mr. Krueger, is to make some rough drawings of how we think an outside shelter should be designed, and get some feedback from readers, pro and con.

Les

Attached is a rough sketch of a possible solution. I moved the locomotive slightly aft in the shelter, and reduced the distance between middle support columns to try to give a decent viewing angle of the front of the locomotive.

(The loco in the sketch is a U25B.)

While not perfect, I think this is about the right idea for most park engines:


The efforts people make to give these shelters the appearance of "railroad architecture" are ill-conceived. The result is often a bad parody of the historic architecture I have a great affection for.

Otherwise, I think this represents the ideal solution:

HI

This locomotve was mentioned on the first page , but no picture , Pat

Randolph -

This fabric structure is VERY interesting! It solves the problem of photography and "visibility" by making one side of the the locomotive completely post-free. It also appears to solve the problem of bird droppings. It may even be somewhat cheaper to build than a structure with a wood or metal roof. And if installed with a chain link security fence such as that shown, it would probably be fairly secure, although I would put the posts closer to the rear of the chain link fence, rather than toward the front. This design also appears to be expandable to accomodate a longer engine, or one coupled to cars. I must admit that I don't know how a fabric roof such as this would hold up over time, but perhaps a replacement down the road if necessary, would be fairly easy to do, and perhaps not that expensive since the components are already in place.

So, we have this fabric structure and also the idea submitted by FLO. Great! Any others?

Les

I searched for cantilever canopies and noticed a variety of materials for the roofing, including steel and glass. I am curious how heavy and deep the foundations would have to be to account for heavy snow loading on these cantilevered structures.

I like the "idea" of the fabric roof, but wonder about:

a) Durability- how long will the roof last?
b) Protection- how much protection will it provide to precipitation?
c) Size- Single track application looks appealing, but could it be expanded to 2, 3 tracks?

I ask because we are building the SE Narrow Gauge & Shortline Museum and are breaking ground on our car barn in around June 1.

Fencing is also a concern. In many of the above attractive examples, I don't see any fencing. Our idea is to have a low fence that would require someone to crawl over it if they want to breach the perimeter, but a sensor on the fence would activate lighting/alarm/etc. Any further ideas on un-obstrusive fencing?

Thanks

Matt Bumgarner

HI all
Almost forgot about this one Shelburne, Vt CV # 220 , Pat

I managed a building with awnings made from traditional stretch vinyl fabric commonly used for this application. After about 10 years the fabric began to fail from exposure to the very elements it was designed to shield - sun and precipitation. A major ice storm weighed them down and the fabric failed. So you'd have to be prepared for a 10-year life if you go this route. Your mileage may vary.

Wesley

One idea that came up at a RR museum BS session where we we discussing storing equipment in a not so nice neighborhood was the "Chain-link fence Quonset Hut".

Fabric roofs such as the Denver Airport & the Minneapolis Metrodome, are rated for 20 years, the Metrodome roof lasted 24 years.

-Hudson

Here's one in Elizabethton, TN... I do like this one, particularly since it has a security fence and a high roof. Perhaps the brick pillars, which DO dress up the structure, could be built a bit lower, but this is basically what we are basing our SE Narrow Gauge museum structure on.

Two Harbors, MN
(DM&IR #229)


3883a DM&IR Locomotive #229 by meabbott, on Flickr


3968 Nose of DM&IR #229 by meabbott, on Flickr

Here is the Georgia Northern 107 static display in Albany, GA. The open shed structure is 30 feet wide and is almost centered over the display track. The original platform is covered for about 15 feet on the east side of the track, leaving around 5 feet of open space between the west side of the locomotive and the vertical supports, which are on 25-ft centers.

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPi ... ?id=121491

Here's a few others I found exhibiting photo options:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/railphotos/1348770079/

http://georgiainfo.galileo.usg.edu/colq ... ive107.htm

http://trains.nute.ws/4-6-2/GNR107.htm

http://www.flickr.com/photos/john_pluta/4717791491/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/57445866@N03/5290348739/

At the locomotive, the platform (east) side is open with no obstructions within the building footprint, but a 6-foot chainlink fence along the east side (seen in a few of the photos) prohibits moving any further back. Usually, by the time the museum is open the sun has put all or part of the loco in the shadow of the shed, making for significant contrast issues. Afternoon sun makes the best full-light photos on the west side, but the museum closes at 5, and there is no access when the museum is not open.

I still get flack for placing two "activity cars", the baggage car and bay window caboose, close to the depot with a space between the north end of the caboose and the front of 107. Those who have commented negatively still say it should have been set up the "usual way" with 107, the baggage car, the RPO and then the caboose. The current display does allow a nice perspective of the front end of 107, however, by climbing on the caboose end platform...at least I think so. There is a massive ADA-compliant ramp structure along the platform side of the baggage car and caboose. Had 107 been placed at the head end, this platform would have been covering up at least part of the left side. That, plus the fact that the Executive Director effectively blocked access on the west for restoration work, and a ramp on the east side would have made any work that much more difficult, if not impossible.