Yes I know it's not 1932 and I also know that the architect knows much more than I do.

I have been involved in the building of several buildings in different jurisdictions. I have found that the projects go better if you let the pros do their thing.

In this case I would take the antique standard plans to the the architect, we would sit and talk about the site, he would use the plans to come up with preliminary drawings, we would then go and visit the building and zoning people, get their input, do more drawings, apply for permit, make changes required by permit, solicit construction bids.

That's a bit simple, but that's usually how it goes.

Every jurisdiction has a different building code, usually based on the IBC, but with this type of building there will be problems.


Of course there was the apartment building, the Building guy said fire alarm pulls and the Fire Marshal said no alarm pulls and round and round we went.

-Hudson

Also...

If someone offers the museum a building, it is too big, too small or in the flood plain.

If you think you're out of the flood plain, the next gigantic rain will prove you aren't unless you are on the Mount Ararat and Southern. Building above the probable maximum rainfall flooding estimate can work if you can find property that high up and still get your equipment to it (with operable grades if you run.) As rainfall increases, knowing where to go will be more and more difficult. If there's been flood water on it, and somebody wants to give it to you, pass.

Storage areas are too small. Work areas are usually too small. They don't look too small when you build them. The point about costs not being linear is well taken; the biggest storage area that will fit on the property might almost do the job. It's like a hard drive; remember when a 30 meg hard drive was bigger than anyone expected to need?

Deciding which part of the property will be public and which won't will save money. Sure, dress up the museum or the engine display shed. Does everyone need to see the carbarn, or can that be a special tour? Will your insurance company be happier if it's not part of the regular Day Out With Thomas crowd venue?

The materials yard, or "rust garden", is the most devilish part of any large railway museum site. There are things that should go outside. Racking them in a warehouse is just daft, especially if your collection is not under cover yet. You MUST have a materials yard, do not delude yourself into thinking you do not need one. As far as most onlookers are concerned, it is a junkyard. Getting it out of sight is the real trick, and few do it well.

Some materials can go in a flood plain, especially one that floods rarely. Think rail. If your rail floats away, that is probably for the best :)

It is NOT a junkyard. Do not say it is. The term junkyard has very specific legal meaning, and refers to people in the commercial business of buying and selling scrap, "antiques" and the like.. A poopstorm of government requirements apply to one, dont be mistaken for one!

Robert -

To set the record straight on Hoosier Valley, our Shop consists of 3 back-to-back buildings; the first erected is 60' x 100', the second is 60' x 60' and was added to the front and the third is 50' x 97' and was added to the rear. There are two tracks with one being about 250' long, which would accomodate six 40' cars. The second is about 155' long, which would accomodate three 40' or 50' cars. A third track will eventually enter from the rear of the last addition and be about 90' long, which will accomodate two 40' cars. So a total of 11 cars, a bit more than the 5 cars you mentioned. Saying that, I will admit that the Shop currently also serves as a "barn" or "storage shed", keeping our 3 diesels and C&O 2-8-4 #2789 out of the weather. We DO have plans to eventually build a roundhouse, which would free up the Shop for use as it was intended. The first step is to get our 100' turntable put IN the ground. Our problem isn't a floodplain but a high water table.

Les

For a totally custom building designed to suit your exact needs, the complete design fee can typically range from about 6% to 12% of the construction costs. The design expertise of the right professionals can help our organizations create great, visitor-friendly facilities. However architects are not needed for every building.

Most of our carhouses and carshops are designed for much less than the above fees because they use standardized building systems that are engineered by the structure's manufacturer. They often don't even require architects, especially when they are just warehouses for rail equipment. As I mentioned in my previous post, other consultants will be needed to take care of civil engineering and environmental clearance if required, but these buildings are the cheapest way to put acres under roof.

I am obviously not a disinterested party, but I suggest that buildings intended to house the public and museum exhibits would benefit greatly from the participation of architects. These kinds of buildings do not lend themselves to standardization. They could still use an affordable building system, but such a building will probable not be very nice without the help of a skilled designer.

A lot of our museums would also benefit from having professionals help to create a comprehensive master plan. The tendency has been to approach our museums as civil engineering problems. They solve the basic problems of laying out tracks, and work at the scale of railroad equipment, but they are often not as good at addressing the scale of our museum's visitors. Good architects are great at designing environments for people. The outside perspective and generalist approach of a good architect and/or landscape architect could help your organization create a surprising and feasible vision of your museum's potential. Donor are going to be a lot more enthusiastic about supporting an organization that is competent and has an appealing plan.

All of this said, not all architects are equal, and some are downright bad. It is important to find architects that are good listeners, appreciate what you are doing, have relevant experience, and have demonstrated some degree of talent. Some firms will do pro-bono work, especially at the planning and conceptual phases, and these can result in useful fundraising presentation materials. I have done some of this myself, but the difficulties of running a small business keep me from developing a set of contract documents for free.

Buildings are big investments, they will be with you for a long time, and the amount of money needed to be raised is significant. Donors are going to want to make sure their money is being well spent. For these reasons, it might make sense to not cut corners on the design process. Overlooking things in the master plan, or in a building design can be expensive to deal with or fix later.

Also, to reiterate a couple of Robert's points, there is economy in scale. Build as much as you can with any project. Adding on to it later costs a lot more than building it all at once. Finally, fundraising is not a zero sum game. Raising money to build a structure is probably not taking away from the money available to acquire a piece of equipment.

Wilmington & Western is one of the few tourist railroads (excluding large, complex type operations like IRM and OERM) that can store all of their regular operating equipment indoors. Since 1966 they have been able to do so. The original 2 track building was expanded once in the late 60's to around 450 feet in length and has the capability of being expanded again, to cover tracks on either side of the current structure. At the back end of the building is the shop with drop pit.

Their is also a newly built shop structure next to the original building to provide heated space for winter work. They essentially have 3 bays for shop work.

All of their regularly used equipment is stored under roof, with a fire suppression system in place...that's 3 diesels, 2 steam locomotives, 3 cabooses, 6 coaches and their Pennsy Railcar.

I think their Lackawanna coaches have only been painted twice in 45 years.

There are indeed benefits, the major ones being protection against the elements and vandalism, but acquiring the land is the biggest issue in todays world... there is not much left of open space around most metro area operations....and the operations out in the sticks, do not have the financial resources to buy up the land around them, cheap as it may be, due to not having the ridership and financial support that more metro area'd operations have.

Catch 22.

Dave, could you expand upon your question? I am not sure I understand what you are asking here. The only area where I could see it might make sense to develop design standards for carhouses and carshops would be to develop a series of building sections for different numbers of tracks. A four-track wide building would probably be similar in section anywhere it was built, but the structure for that building might be different in earthquake country than in hurricane country. In anycase, I don't think the specific building design costs are really the problem with a pre-engineered structure, and if they are, how is anyone going to afford to build the building?

With pre-engineered steel buildings, you pretty much tell them what you need, and they design exactly what you want with a well automated CAD system that is integrated with their production floor. I toured a Varco Pruden plant a while ago, and they were showing us how they take plan dimensions, interior height requirements, and local conditions to create these huge buildings that appear to be made up of identical components. There might actually be a number of unique pieces due to the specific conditions within the building, but they don't add cost or complexity because of how they produce these parts using CAD-produced shop drawings tied to each piece with a barcode, and automated mfg equipment including CNC plasma cutters. These buildings are nearly a "turnkey" solution that is highly adaptable and well-suited for railway equipment.

While these buildings are often used for "dumb" warehouses and factories, they can be finessed into much nicer buildings with the participation of someone with a good eye for that sort of thing.

This is something that could be partially addressed with master planning and some site improvements. A master plan could designate a well-located place for stores away from the public areas of the museum. Furthermore, efforts could be made to screen this from view with landscaping, fences, buildings, etc. Alternately, some outdoor storage could be viewable to the public if it was used to recreate a railroad backshop.

Lots of stuff should be stored inside though, and a lot of it can be put inside carhouses, especially if they had been designed for that from the start. OERM's newest carhouse has ample room between the steel frames at the building's sides for pallet rack shelving, which is gradually being filled with motors, resistors, controllers, and other various materials, much of which had been kept inside boxcars.

The storage of non-rail equipment collections is another matter. In other fields, about 40% of museum buildings are devoted to "back of house" uses, which includes collection storage. Carhouses take care of the rail equipment obviously, but other materials need a secure, climate controlled environment if it is going to survive. These spaces can be included in other compatible building projects.

I appreciate that you seem to have some experience with the world of construction, and I am sure you know this, but I wanted to point out that it's not just codes that have changed, but really the whole way we build things.

In the early 20th century, labor was cheaper, and different materials were available. Additionally, the science of engineering has improved dramatically and we know a lot more about how structures perform. Brick is almost never used structurally now, riveting is nearly a lost art, large sticks of wood are extremely expensive, and a lot of manufactured components just are not made anymore. These factors make it pretty tough to build faithful recreations of historic industrial buildings unless you have seriously deep pockets like someone in Ohio we all know of, and even then, there are a few things about that building that set me off the same way most of us are irked by balloon stacks on coal burners.

There is also an argument to be made that in the realm of historic preservation and museums, recreations are on a slippery slope that must be carefully tread. This is why the NPS choose to make a new museum building in tribute to the old roundhouse at Scranton instead of rebuilding the portions that had been torn down. The new building is designed to serve its function as a museum (not a roundhouse) and it does not blur the line between the actual preserved buildings and the NPS-era buildings.

Sorry for not being clear; we're not thinking on divergent lines. Based on your recent posts, it is clear to me that you do have a grasp on the preengineered structure industry, which not all in your profession do, and a practical understanding of our realities also.........thank you.

So, small groups working on structures with little professional base of knowledge but committed to good stewardship have a lot of potential competing ideas and providers from which to make any number of choices. As you pointed out, you tell the manufacturer what you need and they then whip out drawings and specs......almost on an automated basis. So, how do they know what they need and in what language can they explain it to the manufacturers in the bidding process to start with?

Here's where the idea of standard designs for resource-poor railroad museum purposes based on the abilities of manufacturers to provide them cheaply and efficiently might come into use. I spent over 2 hours listening to a debate on what color T shirts a group would use once; imagine the debate on what the "best" space between adjacent tracks would be like? And, that's just one of any number of things that are guaranteed to bog down even the most dedicated bunch.

Yes, we're crossing over into a master long range plan and articulated vision.......and nobody understands the real added value professionals can bring to the table more than I do .......but when you can't afford the extra expense it would be nice to have proven costed options.

dave

This is where any group needs an experienced architect. I learned this with the construction of our new visitor center and maintenance/storage barn. As a bonus, we were lucky to discover our architect had worked on WMATA's central shops. When said we wanted a pit he asked what kind - bridge or box - and we were off and running. Of course he had the benefit of our own hindsight with the design and construction of Street Car Hall (display barn), our first pre-engineered building.

Wesley

A few examples of what can be accomplished, using a "barn" as a shop...
















Jeff

Let me expand on what Mr. Ruiz has already well stated... when it comes to a rectangular shop or storage building, all that work has already been done. The pre-engineered building market has squeezed just about as much cost out of their products as there is to squeeze.

Need a rectangular car storage building? Decide what the track centers will be, how high the overhead clearance needs to be, and how much the diagonal bracing in the corners can encroach on that height, and they will price a combination of their standard components that meet or exceed those requirements.

IRM's experience might be enlightening, for those who can use a wood framed agricultural type building. The original "barn" was designed around a 56' clear span covering three tracks on 18' centers. This provided nice wide aisles for viewing, however, upon more thought, it was realized that a 60' wide building covering four tracks on 14' centers covered 33% more cars for very little extra cost, and all subsequent barns have been built to that standard.

Meanwhile the wider aisles in the original building proved to be much better suited to restoration work, allowing scaffolding to be erected along cars on both sides of the aisle while still maintaining a passage, and the original barn (Barn 4 in the master scheme of things) has evolved into the electric car shop.

It also became evident that if one extends the original roof pitch down from the 18' eaves line, two additional bays of sufficient height for wood and metal working machinery, and rooms for upholstery and paint work can be had relatively cheaply. Unfortunately, this realization came a little late, and IRM has only been able to do this on one side of the building, since the other side is already at minimum separation from Barn 3. Also, the shop addition has prevented building Barn 5, again due to the separation issue. It does pay to plan ahead.

As far as custom design issues, I think the biggest IRM faced with agricultural "pole barns" was doors... The builders of these buildings are used to providing wood framed sliding doors, which open over blank wall spaces on each side. The end of a car storage building has no blank wall. Overhead doors are ideal, but complicate overhead construction. IRM has developed spec's for swinging doors over the years that any of the builders can cope with, that have worked well enough. Of the 32 track doors I count on the current IRM track plan, I know of only two that have been replaced; the two I built for the Steam Shop thirty five years ago, which were the largest on the property, were replaced with roll-up doors several years ago. There may have been additional doors repaired when they got loose in the wind over the years, but it has been by no means a problem.

IRM's oldest barn turned 40 this year. While I am no longer very active and not privy to the day to day details, I haven't heard of any major maintenance problems; I know that they have had to have some roofs repainted, and at some point the Wolmanized posts will reach the end of their lives, but there should be no reason why short post stubs can't be sistered alongside to extend their lives.

If building codes require steel framed buildings, it is even easier. Pick a span that your desired track centers will fit within, and the building company will do the rest. With the cost of steel framed buildings overhead doors are almost a given. Foundation details are going to be dictated by the site, and there is no way to get away from custom design here.

If there is to be any utility to this discussion, it will center around adapting a per-engineered building system to construct a facsimile roundhouse.The per-engineered building companies are not used to designing wedge shaped buildings. There are questions of the optimal diverging angle of the tracks; the wedge shaped stalls can't be made incrementally longer without affecting roof span, and the deeper trusses required at the rear of the building will affect the entire roof line of the structure.

I, for one, would be curious to see how someone like Varco Purden would adapt their designs to produce a roundhouse.

I've seen preengineered "round" storage buildings - well, actually segmented polygonal in plan. Highway departments store bulk commodities in them here. Expanded to a larger diameter, and built without the center, you'd have something usable as a roundhouse. I'd think that whatever dimension of beam and truss would span the longest outside bay would be even more stable in any of the inner shorter spans.

Anybody know much about the foam roof with a hard membrane? i think they are used a lot in reroofing old concrete built -up roofs. Wondering if this could be used over a corrugated metal subroof in something like this.

dave

The State of Illinois uses this style, however, I don't think they are easily adapted. First off, they seem to max out at 150' in diameter, likely due to the length of the conveyor needed to fill them. These round buildings are meant to be filled with a conveyor discharging through an opening at the peak of the roof. Yeah, I know that the salt is sometimes pushed into a pile with a bucket loader, but this normally results in roof damage, and inefficient use of space.. Salt that will be piled with a bucket loader is better stored in a rectangular building.

The roof is very high pitched, dictated by the angle of repose of the salt pile formed by the conveyor. The side walls are quite low, just high enough for a bucket loaded to scoop the salt away from the wall. Admittedly, the roof structure could be set on higher walls, but I'm not sure it adapts itself to having the center removed. If one wanted to replicate an early roundhouse with its covered turntable. this may be the way to go, but I don't see much use for a larger building.