Okay, one more post for the night. Here are some of my thoughts made visual. The following diagrams are a bit underdeveloped, and would only be applicable to the display of streetcars. The principles might be applicable to the display of other rail equipment, but you can see how individual streetcars lend themselves to a staggered distribution on evenly-spaced tracks. Each streetcar is surrounded by two hatches. The inner hatch shows how far away you need to be to see the car from trucks to roof. The wider hatch shows how far away you need to be to see the whole car from end to end.

A museum building's layout should really be designed based upon the historic narrative the institution is committed to telling. History museums are a form of physical story telling. The path though the cars and their sequence should be used to tell a well-constructed series of stories about the cars and the people that rode them, ran them, built them, and maintained them. This approach should really be the driving force behind developing any kinda of museum plan. These diagrams are just an attempt to explore the implications of spreading the equipment out a bit more, but something like this could form the basis of a more highly-evolved streetcar museum. This strategy improves viewing and to creates a variety of spaces amongst the cars for different exhibits and activity spaces.

As I mentioned previously, it would be worth exploring other options with curved and non-parallel tracks. Free span buildings, and a commitment to leaving space open for viewing and exhibits makes this possible. This is not about packing in cars, it is about trying to design a building to pack in people. A facility such as this could also produce revenue as an event location as many museums now do.
In case you are curious, the car I traced for the drawing is a Pacific Electric 500 class wood suburban car.

And herein lies the problem of trying to design a "one size fits all" standard roundhouse for railway museums; we don't even agree among ourselves what a roundhouse should look like. People familiar with the western scene think corrugated iron is perfectly acceptable, while those in the east will settle for nothing less than a mill framed building with an ornate brick exterior. I'm from the Midwest, with more than a passing interest in the Soo Line, and I think that a shed roof building that looks like it is covered with board and batten siding would do just fine. However, expanding the Soo's standard wood roundhouse to make it long enough to house an N&W Y-3 would look just silly. Roundhouse construction went through era dependent styles just like houses or any other buildings, except the size is also era dependent... so the largest houses were never built in the oldest styles.

Mr. Ruiz wonders if a large brick roundhouse should be wood framed, yet looking at the C&NW book cited above, the last round of major terminal improvements ca. 1910, presented as a re-prints of drawings published in the June 15, 1912 Railway & Engineering Review show a mill framed brick building.

We each have a different vision of what the ideal roundhouse should be. To Mr Jacobsen, it is apparently wood framed, and he has the resources to make it reality. The rest of us may find we need to settle for something less... or nothing at all, if we take the position that it has to be perfect.

Dennis -

When discussing roundhouses, one thing that should be pointed out is that the floor plans can be quite different, depending upon the turntable and the closeness of the tracks to each other as they enter the front wall of the house. This also determines the amount of space between the tracks and the amount of space at the back end. The plot of land where a roundhouse could be built, might well determine what floor plan could be used. It would be nice if someone could post a couple of floor plans to illustrate the differences as Mr. Ruiz did with his Streetcar Museum Hall plans above.

Les

No sense recreating the wheel here;

http://www.barns.com/custom-metal-structures.html

http://coastalsteelstructures.com/

I would say the same applies to fees and worth of civil engineers hired for your projects. There are good, bad, and ugly ones. Check with your local municipal or county engineer or planning unit for their recommendation on local engineering firms.

Fees run approximately the same as for an architect, but it also depends upon the site you plan to use.

I would also suggest get as far away from that wetlands, low area, babling brook or river flood plain as you can with any proposed structure. It will flood at some point.

The one large question I would have is, "What is your funding source?" If it is self generated you need to meet local building codes. If it is government funded there may be tons of hurdles you need to jump which will drive up the cost of that structure. you may be required to have an architect and/or engineer design your project. You may be required to go out for public bid. You may be required to pay prevailing wage rates for labor. You may be required to verify all steel in that new structure meets the "Buy America" clauses. The list goes on and on.

Christopher Vitz, PE. A licensed civil engineer in NJ

Les,

If you have to ask, you don't have room. :-)

All the dimensions are inter-related. The only truly fixed dimension is the track centers at the front wall, because they need to be wide enough for adequate clearance on the door posts, and I don't even want to think what 8'-6" track center line to the door posts would do.

The largest roundhouse I can lay my hands on drawings of at the moment is a 100' house the Omaha Road built in 1912. This was for use with a 90' turntable (need some room to walk around the engine in the house) and is really too small for what most museums hope to have in their collections, but it will do for an example.

As built in 1912, the doors were 12'-6" wide, flanked by 12" x 12" door posts, for 13'-6" track centers at the front wall. The back wall of the center stalls was 28'-4 13/16" wide, which already exceeds Mr. Ruiz's desire to keep the roof spans to 25' or less. The geometry works out to stalls on 8.5* angles, with the front wall back 87' from the center of the turntable pit. At this angle, the stall rails do NOT need crossing frogs at the pit wall.

But that 12'-6" wide door is scary, as it only leaves twelve inches of clearance between the engine and door post. To increase the door opening to 14' clear, we need to move the front wall back 10' from the pit. We also need to move the back wall, which now increases it's length (and the roof span) to 30'. If we want 120' long stalls, the roof span at the rear wall becomes 33'.

We can decrease the max. roof span by decreasing the angle between the tracks, but that has other trade-offs. If we decrease the stall spacing to 6*, we have to move the front wall back an additional 47' to maintain that 14' wide door opening, putting the front wall 144' from the center of the turntable pit. We also need to increase the length of the table to at least 100', maybe a bit more, or the rails will converge before they reach the pit, and rail frogs are not cheap. To the good side, we can now build a 120' long building and only have to span slightly less than 28' at the rear wall. The house gets narrower, but the track arrangement gets much longer. A full circle roundhouse would be 527' in diameter., but could contain 58 stalls.

Note: Dimensions rounded to the nearest foot.

Dennis -

We have the room, but not the bucks. We also have the turntable; a 100 footer. As envisioned, the roundhouse would have an extended stall (or two), to accomodate our C&O Kanawha. The balance of the r.h. would not have to be as large. Our diesels are switchers.

I once saw a drawing in an old NRHS Bulletin of an Illinois Central roundhouse that was located in Dyersburg, Tennessee with a clerestory type roof. That one had wood sides, but vinyl type siding would make more sense today. I don't know what the turntable length of that house was, and I don't have the original Bulletin anymore, so not sure what the dimensions of the building actually were.

I envision us building a roundhouse, sometime this century.

Les

Well, I could make up some numbers based upon the costs of other steel buildings, but I am sure they are going to be way off. The building manufacturers would be happy to give us a price if we gave them some simple information (that I'd be willing to sketch up), but I think we've established that there are just so many variables involved that I believe it would be better to come up with specific designs for individual groups. Actually making the building is where the money goes, and I think if we price one generic scheme, it would give us a basis for guesstimating variants.

Back to variables... How much land do you have? What is your longest engine? How much more room do you need at the front and back to walk around (and see things)? How many stalls? Is a shed roof okay?

As Dennis explained, the inside dimensions of the roundhouse drives the rest of the rather interesting equation that leads you to an efficient roundhouse plan. Speaking of which, SP's Bayshore roundhouse used cast iron columns at the inside wall to allow for 13' track centers. The rest of the building consists of a brick perimeter and fire walls with braced timber columns and roof framing. There was only one truss in the building, and it was used to eliminate a column at the wheel pit.

Unless land is tight, or you are looking to park a Challenger alongside a bunch of Prairies, I'd be inclined to make all the stalls the same length. It will be easier to build if all the pieces are more or less the same. Jogs in the walls and roofs add expense, and the extra room will only be marginally more expensive. The bonus space can be used for exhibits, shop equipment, or any number of good uses. Alternately, no one will stop you from putting a couple of switchers in the same stall.

Keeping the back wall to 25' wide bays was to keep the frames close enough that regular purlins could span the distance (depending on snow loads). Roundhouses built for Northerns-and-up might need additional framing in the back portion of the building. Some roads would just let the longer engines stick out the door. This solution might work out in a place with mild weather and no crime, but probably not... This is another factor that makes a one-size-fits-all approach difficult.

The 8'-6" side-clearance requirement in California just does not work with roundhouses. 18' centers at the front wall plays havoc on the size of the building. If there is not an exception for doorways, this would be a good place to request a waiver from the State PUC.

As to my question about the use of heavy timber in the Age of Steam Roundhouse... I am well aware that timber was commonly the primary structure of "Brick" roundhouses, since the brick was only ever used at the perimeter. Most of the roundhouses in California had timber frames, but they were also almost all built before 1910. The handful of later structures were of concrete. The Age of Steam's tall clerestory and deep stalls looks like an engine facility from later than 1910. Eventually, steel trusses or concrete frames would have have been used instead. Admittedly, I do not know enough about the evolution of Midwestern roundhouses to know, but it looks off to me.

No time like the present to put together a plan and start fundraising, we are already over 12% through this one. ;)

I'm glad Mr. Ruiz has mentioned concrete roundhouses. Considering that this proposed (depending on money, of course) house is to be "new," and considering the combined Van Sweringen heritage of the site and its predecessor roads, a modern concrete house would be quite appropriate. Nickel Plate had at least one or two that are still around, and if the C&O had ever gotten around to building one, then it would likely have been similar in construction.

Some things I found:

The page linked below is what came up in a search for "concrete roundhouses." There is a good deal more in the book this is from, including the Reading's shops in its headquarters city, and a Santa Fe shop in Topeka.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/52461317/25/R ... an-Pacific

Another text on concrete in railroad construction, including roundhouses:

http://books.google.com/books?id=IqIJAA ... &q&f=false

General study of concrete from 1908:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/0344/report.pdf

Apparently there is an effort to preserve and redevelop the big Santa Fe facility at Albequerque. much of which is also in concrete:

http://www.wheelsmuseum.org/default.html

Concrete was also apparently useful on a narrow-gauge road on a tropical island; I can easily picture it as being not only fireproof, but rot and bug proof:

http://www.historichawaii.org/MostEndan ... house.html

A point to consider is that concrete beams and columns are available in standard sizes and lengths, much like their steel counterparts. I would imagine the companies that make such components would also offer similar design expertise for a custom or semi-custom application. Most interestingly, at least to my eyes, is that some of these beams and columns look like some of their older counterparts.

Some samples from one company; standard beams are available in lengths up to 52 feet:

http://www.midsouthprestress.com/produc ... n-Info.pdf

http://www.midsouthprestress.com/produc ... n-Info.pdf

Some thoughts on this type of construction, admittedly from a total, 100% amateur:

One possible application of this would be to use the concrete columns and beams for structural work, and to fill in the spaces with brick and industrial windows, or perhaps even some sort of concrete blocks, possibly with glass blocks for windows as well. This was used by a number of railroads on the principle that if a locomotive overshot the wheel stops, it would only knock a hole in a relatively easy to repair or replace brick filler section. It might be possible that a railroad museum could provide its own labor for this brick infill job, perhaps saving money. (Do you have a mason among your volunteers?)

The companies that advertise these concrete components claim reduced initial cost and maintenance cost. I have no doubt about concrete lasting well, but how much money do you have to spend? Even something relatively economical is too much if you don't have the dough.

This type of building system is also on the heavy side. It's going to require really solid foundations. Also, would this sort of construction be earthquake resistant, an important consideration in a place like California?

Also did some checking on the very modern (by our standards, only dating to 1948) roundhouse at Bellview, Oh., on the former NKP. Based on the available photographs, it looks like this structure uses concrete walls as well as internal structure, with the "engine escape panels" in glass blocks. Can this be confirmed or corrected by someone who has actually visited the place?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bdmccray/7 ... /lightbox/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bdmccray/7 ... /lightbox/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bdmccray/7 ... /lightbox/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bdmccray/7 ... /lightbox/

Comments may start as soon as I retreat to another concrete round house, one specifically designed to survive extreme blasts and wind:

http://www.artificialowl.net/2008/08/ab ... logan.html

Unfortunately there is little alternative. One hopes a fire in-car will contain itself to a single car. The sprinklers would contain the propagation of fire to other cars, giving the fire department time to work. A carbarn without sprinklers is a crematorium.


Oh, I know it CAN be done. I say it SHOULD NOT be done.

Not least, it's a very very bad precedent. So you make your all-singing, all-dancing, carbarn shop cafe BATHROOM library archive building as carbarn 1. Now you go to build carbarn 2, "just a carbarn". What does the municipality say? BATHROOM. Because carbarns require bathrooms, look, your first one does! People work, eat, shop and study in carbarns after all! Now you are running plumbing service to the building, which also means you need to heat it at a king's ransom, and then it freezes ANYWAY in the next ice storm that knocks out power for 3 days. (very few furnaces work without electricity. My house happens to have one.) This is a bad scene allaround.



A damn good reason: heating. Take some time and study how various railroad museum shops handle the problem. The apocryphal example is "The Box" at Seashore Trolley Museum, which follows the standard formula that will be recommended by 90% of those in your profession. "Build it from sticks, specify max insulation, and throw cubic cash at it forever to buy a bunch of fossil BTUs. What else are you going to do?" Well:

You use the sun. It's throwing 1000 watts of heat at every square yard of building surface that faces it, whether you want it or not. So you aim all your windows at the winter sun (shade them from the summer sun) and now you have a building which soaks up the winter sun. Next, you build massive thermal mass into the building, to slow the temperature swings. Thermal mass probably isn't going to be much of a problem, since your building will have heavy concrete floors rated for car jacks, and massive pillars to support overhead cranes. Next, you wrap the building in insulation -- on the OUTSIDE of the thermal mass. Now your heat isn't draining away, so it stabilizes at a much higher temperature. The building slurps up the winter sun - and keeps it. Now you have a building that naturally stays warm, and nobody worries or fights over the thermostat.

Getting the right temperature is a matter of sizing and position, which depends on latitude and orientation, the latter depending on practicable track approaches. Anyway, you were saying about custom... yeah. Very, very custom.


Not to talk above my pay grade or anything, but the space you imagine for this uber-CH1, I would prefer to see for something rather different. I should probably explain that. You have talked about the visitor experience. Consider that at WRM, and start with the natural expectation of a consumer. What brought him here was the prospect of a tourist train ride. He expects to park, walk into the depot, buy a ticket, wait for a train, ride it, get in the car and drive home. Now contemplate how that will interact with the general plan of interurbans arriving directly at the Visitor Center. It looks tailor made to be exactly what the consumer expects, and he WILL in fact expect that and will resist anything to the contrary. As the car saunters back into the museum complex, they will be reaching for car keys, assuring their kids, expecting a 5-minute breeze through the gift shop and then back on the road before traffic gets too bad. They don't expect to NOW, this near the end, start a car-house tour of indeterminate length and uncertain value. So I think many visitors will decline the invitation to see the bulk of the museum, especially if they are concerned for the feelings of the rest of their party. And all this will happen because their expectations were mis-set.

Now, how might you do that different without tearing down perfectly good buildings? Think about it, and discard your assumptions. The Visitor Center looks like a RAILROAD station, and it is symmetrical. What kind of operating equipment does WRM have? Would that equipment normally pull up to the TRAIN side of a railroad station, or the STREET side? Are interurban stations always right next to train stations, or did you sometimes have to take a streetcar to get from one to the other? Are there any genuine interurban station sites on the WRM property? Are they right next to the "train station"? Think it through... seems obvious to me. I think you could do a real bang-up job with it and create a very engaging visitor experience.

If you are going to build in concrete, I wouldn't bother with older methods of concrete construction (fun as they are to examine). I would go directly to one of the reinforced-core systems (like the old AVG system) where the "panels" are reinforcing-steel wire structures driven through a foam sheet. The sheets can be computer-designed and fabricated at low cost; the reinforcing wire can be easily welded, 'dip' galvanized at the joints, etc. in the field; all the utility lines can be 'modularized' inside the panel to the extent you want (and new ones added with little more equipment than a heavy wirecutter and hot-wire foam cutter before the concrete is shot). You can dress or stamp the shotcrete if you don't want to apply an exterior finish right away. Habitat for Humanity built five houses in Florida using this system; the center of hurricane Andrew passed some short distance away (I remember 20 miles or so) and those houses survived while little else around them did.

Local codes may have a fuss with this method of construction; some of the businesses in the sprayed-concrete-construction industry have advice on how to go about correcting the situation in reasonable time.

A nice thing about this kind of system is the speed with which buildings can be erected. Including the foundation curing time, you can be in the dry in less than three weeks with minimum labor, and this is making allowances for wind and bad weather limiting ability to raise and wire the panels before gunning them. I think it's worth at least considering the technology when planning construction of buildings of this general type...


One little note:



This is why God invented heat tape for plumbing lines ;-} You put it on, inside the insulation jacket, and make sure you have cutover in the breaker box to your little emergency generator if there are no volunteers who will go out and drain the plumbing in case of extended power failure. No reason to heat the whole space just to keep a few hundred feet of copper or plastic pipe warm!

(Not much more power involved in running a gas or even oil furnace off a reasonable emergency generator that uses the same fuel as that furnace... but I don't want to hijack this thread into emergency-systems management for facilities)

One more go at this, and then I need to do some of the work that pays the bills.

I spent a bit of time with the old Model Railroader plan book (good quickie source of engine lengths that include the tender.) It looks like 120' of interior length would be a good design parameter... it's long enough for many preserved engines:

AMC Berkshire... 99'
SP GS-4 ......... 109'
N&W J............ 110'

Obviously, shorter engines will offer better viewing. One or two longer engines could be accommodated by extended stalls on tracks that line up with the leads across the table; this is beyond the scope of this exercise except to point out that the entire house doesn't have to be as long as the longest engine.

I also tried to get a better handle on the radial spacing of stall tracks, to no avail. This is a dimension that just isn't typically put on the drawings, due to its lack of usefulness for laying the actual building out.

I did notice an error in one of my previous posts; in the 100' Omaha Road house the tracks are at 9* rather than 8.5*. Actually, trying to lay out the angle from the length of the front and back walls was complicated by not knowing exactly where the 100' was measured. The CAD layout says 8.9*, which I miss-read as 8.5. Anyway, that much spread makes the back of the house way too wide.

I do note that many full circle roundhouses are 58 stalls. That, plus the two lead tracks makes 60, or a 6* spread.

I also laid out a 5* spread. This does bring the roof span close to 25' at the rear wall, but introduces crossing frogs in the tracks outside the turn table pit wall, unless one increases the turntable diameter to 120', and at that point one would want to make the building longer, and the wide roof span problem would return. Therefore, I conclude that the 6* spread should be the design parameter. I do note that the length of stall that exceeds a 25' span also happens to be 25', so it may be possible to introduce a cross member at this point, and frame the last 25' of roof in the opposite direction.... or substitute heavier section structural steel for the light section formed purlins... or substitute bar joists.

I'm going to propose a radical idea... one could get a handle on the cost by pricing a rectangular building with a 120' span and 25' bays, one bay per desired stall. My reasoning is thus:

The foundation contractor doesn't really care if the building plan is rectangular or radial. Radial requires more work to lay out, but uses less material in the front wall.

The flat work (floor) can be figured as straight square footage on the final floor plan, plus a "pain-in-the-rump" factor for dealing with the rail flangeways. Pits would be extra (lots extra). This is envisioned as a display building.

The erector doesn't really care if the frames are set parallel or radial, and the pre-cut purlins lay out just the same. Where the huge increase in costs will come from is the labor in cutting and fitting the metal roof sheathing to fit. Even when this is done, there is no good way to seal the joints, which seems to indicate that the steel roof needs to be covered with a membrane roof, and that may as well have insulation installed underneath.

I am too far removed from the construction business to even hazard a guess at costs.

Comments?

I would be careful doing this. The municipal or county engineer may have that job through their political connections and not their engineering ability. The situation I've seen is the job is filled by a town contracting the job to an engineering firm. The municipal engineer is not an employee of the town. There can also be a conflict of interest in any recommendation they might make. You need to be aware of any relationship between the person making the recommendation and the firm they recommend.

I have seen a township engineer approve substandard materials and workmanship. The only reason I would ask that person for a recommendation is if I thought following their recommendation would help get the plans past the zoning board. It should not be this way, but sometimes it is.

-Mark

Concrete can be a great material. It is durable, fire resistant, attractive, and well-weathering, but it is typically very expensive. All of the historic concrete roundhouses would have been "cast in place," meaning the concrete was poured on site into wooden forms that provided a "mold" for the columns, beams, and roofs. This formwork needs to be very sturdy to hold the weight of wet concrete, but is discarded after the concrete has cured. This extra work is the main reason cast in place concrete is rare save for large civil engineering projects such as bridges. Okay, yes, obviously, it is common for foundations, but you get to use the ground itself for most of the formwork in building a foundation.

So now let's talk about pre-cast concrete. This is certainly is a more economic approach because they reuse the same forms over and over to produce identical steel-reinforced components. The problem is in the modularity of these components and the ways in which they are connected to one another. The pre-engineered steel frames are dimensionally very flexible because of the way they are made. You can make a frame almost whatever size you want, and given the way the other pieces are made, you can cut them to any desired length. The concrete stuff wants to go together in a much more regular manner that does not easily lend itself to a radial structure. I could be wrong about this, but suspect there would be a lot more work involved in trying to force these systems into a circular shape. I am really just speculating here. It would be better to talk to one of the companies that does this and ask them.

As to the connections, they are often pretty big and ungainly looking. Due to the weight involved, and the lack of continuous steel reinforcement though different parts, the columns end up having the chunky ledges upon which the girders or beams sit. You have probably seen these in a pre-cast concrete parking garage. Outside of parking garages, most pre-cast buildings hide their connections. I mean, they are not the end of the world, but these kinds of details will keep the building from having an "authentic" appearance. Not that this stops us from thinking about options.

There may be another approach that might end up looking pretty good, but it would definitely take a lot of design work to make happen. My idea is that you could use a "tilt-up" system, whereby all the main structural components would be cast flat on the floor slab and then craned up into a vertical position. It is a hybrid between pre-cast and cast-in-place that allow for custom pieces, and pieces that are larger than would fit on a truck on the highway (this is the limiting factor in how big any pre-fab component can be). The problem (which may be too much to solve) would be to see if it is possible to design these big frames to survive getting picked up sideways by the crane. Tilt-up construction is typically used to create large, flat wall panels for the perimeter of warehouse-type buildings, but there have been other more creative uses of the technique. It may be possible to make all of the walls, frames, and roofs for a roundhouse using this approach. It would still be quite the project though.

As for ICF (insulated concrete form) systems, they have the great advantage of taking little skill to assemble to create thick, well-insulated walls. Theses large foam blocks, or cavity walls serve as formwork for the concrete, and are retained as insulation on both sides of the wall. The system has its benefits, but there is no way to get any "architectural value" out of the concrete since it is buried within the insulating form, which then needs to be clad on both sides. Cheaper buildings use stucco for this. One could put brick veneer on both sides to simulate masonry construction, but it is also worth noting that this is a wall system. It only be used to make walls, though it is presumably possible to make larger arched openings just like in the masonry originals. In any case, the building would still need a roof structure and columns to hold it up using ICF. The main benefit of this system is its insulation. In a roundhouse, the roof has the greatest surface area, and is where almost all of the building's heat will escape, not that the large windows don't help as well...

Concrete block provides the most affordable way to put up an essentially concrete wall, with its benefits of fire-resistance, disaster-resistance, lateral strength, and durability. It is very common to use these walls as the actual structure upon which brick veneer is applied. If I was asked to design a "brick" roundhouse with a decent budget, I would probably start by looking at block walls. Although brick veneer can go on almost anything, I know that block wall is going to provide a solid, stiff structure underneath the brick. Once again, this only gets us walls. The roof and its structure are another issue needing wood, steel, and/or reinforced concrete.

I would not be too sure of this. It is hard for me to say, but I have heard plenty of anecdotes about visitors to our institutions asking where the "museum" is, and I know I have seen lots of visitors exploring the cars in CH1. The expectations of the visitors can evolve, and a large new project would give WRM plenty of opportunity for publicity that might have some affect on these expectations. In any case, if a car museum were to be built, it really needs to be easy to see and get to. Having it be convenient to the visitor center would probably be the right idea.

I don't know if it has changed since my last visit, but the way tours of the Jensen Carhouse are handled is kinda funny, and I would not be surprised if many declined the offer to visit it after riding the interurban back. The building is too far away from the visitor center and picnic area, and when I have visited, I do not remember anything being done to help the visitors know it was there, or that tours were offered on the way back in IF you rode the interurban.

I think visitors expect the ride to be the focus of their visit, because that is currently the best thing you guys offer.


I thought the replacement of CH1 was a forgone conclusion? Is there a plan to replace the poles instead?

As for the rest, I am not sure I get you entirely. Are you suggesting that WRM could run streetcars from the visitor center to the old Rio Vista Junction stop where the visitors could transfer? In this concept, is the parking lot now the "railroad" side? I do not imagine you are suggesting that streetcars run into the parking lot. There are examples of interurban depots that look somewhat (usually smaller though) like the visitor center, but I think you are suggesting that arriving at the visitor center could be like arriving at a city/town by train, and now the visitors may embark on a multi-modal trip via streetcar and then interurban, and then in reverse back to their cars. The thing that is still missing from the streetcar equation is the CITY. It will always look funny to see urban streetcars in fields instead of busy streets.

I am attracted to the idea of using the operating equipment for transportation, however, it would be better if the museum also worked for pedestrians without having to use streetcars. The problem with relying upon streetcars to get around, is that they need to actually run constantly to avoid stranding people somewhere they no longer want to be, or otherwise making them wait. What kind of headways do you think could be maintained? We might kinda forget that waiting for transit does actually suck, and it is one of the main reasons I go up and down Market Street on a bike, and not a PCC.

The visitor center was a pretty solid accomplishment, and I have always assumed the intention was to have tracks on the museum side of the building, but nothing has happened. For this whole time, visitors have emerged into the wind of Solano County across from the literal broad-side of a (car)barn. It is a bit awkward.

If CH1 is to be replaced, I think the new building could use an economical pre-engineered steel system to enclose a greater area that could be used as a car museum. Visitors could walk through this building from the visitor center to reach a relocated boarding platform. The new platform could be within the building (Transbay Terminal? "Outdoor" street scene? Key System pier?), or it could be outside on the opposite side, near the back of the shop. That way, all visitors would pass through the middle of the new car museum to and from the ride. Within the building, hanging backdrops, or more elaborate settings could be used to create contextual environments for the cars on display. The long-absent CITY could be suggested through backdrops, or even partially recreated with flat sets.

Even if CH1 is going to stay, I think there are some pretty achievable things that could be done to make the pieces work together better.

All of my "assumptions" can be discarded, but the principles upon which they are based are harder for me to dismiss. Given my limited, outsider's perspective and my experience in designing places for people (a lot of them Chinese after a stint with SOM), I reached a set of provisional suggestions that may merit scrutiny. I am sure new conclusions would emerge with a better, more nuanced understanding of the conditions facing WRM and the aspirations of its people.