It is not a freelance design, and it was not done by a museum. It is a fairly accurate reconstruction of a specific class of locomotives owned by the Central Pacific Railroad, that was thoroughly researched by consultants to the National Park Service. At the time, they felt that all dimensions were within 1/4" of the original.

Kloke is a private individual, and although he chose to give it a non-historic paint design, he did name and number it after one of the CPRR prototypes. Also, no lemphor exhaust, no roller bearings, no ditch lights, and as far as I know, no automatic couplers.

As to your last point about the ability to accurately recreate something, EXACTLY.

That is an important part of my point.

I'm not sure of the costs and other factors involved in the design of the roundhouse at the Altoona Railroaders' Museum, but I think it's one of the ugliest new public buildings I've seen in a long time. Traditionally, roundhouses were distinctive, but rarely ugly. The one at Altoona is steel, and looks tinny and temporary. I haven't been inside. There don't seem to be many windows, which means it is likely to have a claustrophobic feel. Maybe the cost of an attractive building was beyond what the budget would allow.

When I think about the beautiful Age of Steam Roundhouse, I can't really grasp the notion that it is on the same planet with that ugly crackerbox in Altoona. Of course, money talks.

Tom

Brian, sorry to not directly address your question. It is hard to tell from the size of the image, but it looks like the pillars and lower sill panels are stone, but the lintels and roof structure are probably timber. I'd say the stone was unusual at this late date, but the preference for large, tall windows goes along with what I had said before. By having a timber lintel, the windows could go much higher than if there had been load-bearing arches at each bay. This seems consistent with later roundhouses, and higher windows are better at getting daylight to penetrate deeper into the roundhouse. Brick roundhouses with arched windows were still being built into the early 20th C., but I'd say it's the embrace of the tall widows with lintels that make this building look more modern despite the stone.

Back to the stone... I am guessing the railroad was doing well at this point. I associate western narrow gauge roads with a more fly by night attitude which at this date would have suggested all wood or corrugated iron over timber. Concrete was in use by then, but it was not very common, probably hard to get in the sticks, and still more expensive than masonry. I suppose that in a rural location such as Alturas stone might have been an economical alternative to brick.

Just some thoughts, could be wrong about some of this...

hi,

Of the photos of the three museums, the secend two are so-so. The first one I expect to see Buggs Bunny and Yosemite Sam and Roger Rabbit coming out the door chasing each other. Are they serious?

As a side comment, the picture of the propose roundhouse fro the Railroad Museum or Pa. Has a WHAT??? response from me. I clasify the Buggs Bunny front from the first photo and the proposed roundhouse as serious as hanging a locomotive frame a crane in New York City. They call that art?????

Of course me definition of art are the rendition done by painters (I am not learned in art so I'd call some of them Dutch Masters as in Netherlands) where the painting seems aliveand the eyes of the painting seems to follow you some of the best. The drop cloth paintings of some people is not my cup of tea.

Others have their opinions and are entitled to them. Just keep them away from me.

Doug vV

One of the other reasons for the large window-walls at the end of each stall was to provide a simple-to-repair wall when a locomotive went a bit too far and broke through the outer wall. Yes, it happened.

As for the examples of current railroad museum design shown, all I can say is, interesting comparisons here--- Cal State exterior looks like any forgettable 1970-80s low-rise office building, Green Bay is the usual steel pre-engineered buildings with a sign (though they probably got plenty of equipment under cover for their dollars-- not a bad thing in our game), and RMPA: "What were they thinking?"

Full disclosure: our place has only our 2005 shop and 1881 station structures. Yes, I'd love to have Green Bay's barns, to get stuff under a roof.

Mid-Continent's rolling stock display building greatly impressed me when I saw it in 1993. It also has an appropriate exterior for the museum campus.

Howard P.

Guessing this is not what the recent RRMPA entry construction came out as--however, this looks far more interesting:

http://cboltdesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Railroad-Museum-of-Pennsylvania.pdf

Michael Seitz
Missoula MT

Like this time on the NYNH&H in Hartford, CT. (That's the dome of the Connecticut state capital in the background.)

That looks like an excellent job at being welcoming.

Doug vV

Randy,

The N-C-O used stone for several of the buildings at Alturas: The passenger depot, the office building, the large (car?) shop building north of the roundhouse and the pump house are/were all of stone construction. The office building is unique as it is done in stone, but with a mission-revial style. The large shop building is partially still standing; it suffered a fire some years ago and the upper part of the walls were removed when a new roof was installed.

The N-C-O used the money it got for selling the southern (Reno) portion of the line to the Western Pacific to fund the construction of the new construction in Alturas. Other than that it may not have had much money. Most of its business seems to have been related to agriculture and ranching; it moved sheep between ranges and shipped out the wool fleeces. (An accounting journal summary sheet shows something like 1.2 million pounds of wool shipped out in 1918)

The general style of the roundhouse at Alturas makes me think more of the bright and airy style of industrial buildings being built during the same era. As apposed to the older buildings were glass was a luxury and windows were small.

It eventually became the standard practice to keep the structure out of the way of the locomotives by having the columns and piers centered between the tracks. I am sure this lesson was learned the hard way.

However, windows were and are usually more expensive than blank walls, so I wouldn't think of the large windows as a breakaway cost saving thing. The better explanation is the maximization of daylight. Also, roundhouse windows almost always have a solid sill wall beneath them. These low walls created usable working space, kept the windows higher than where they'd be damaged by regular use, and lower windows were just not as useful for getting light into the building.


I agree it is a bit dated looking, but I think it conveys that it's a serious Institution, and I will point out that is all REAL brick in common bond. It isn't actually structural, but it's not some chintzy lick-and-stick veneer either.

The building is actually kinda clever in some ways. It is clearly a modern (for 1981) building, but on the inside it uses materials and structures common to railroading, including big timber trusses and board-formed concrete piers. Also, it is the only railroad museum I know of in the US that breaks from having rows of parallel tracks inside.

The Altoona roundhouse may not be very architectually significant, but one thing that it does have going for it is that it is bright and spacious. Other than that its still better than no roundhouse at all.

As for the CSRM in Sacramento, I agree that once you go inside, it's a big surprise. Of all the RR museums I've seen over the years (and I've seen almost all of them in the US and many in Europe), CSRM is the closest one I've ever seen to the ideal of a museum that tells a story, while highlighting an amazing collection of well-restored and displayed artifacts (the rolling stock).
But yeah, the outside of that building looks like the school of business building at the university I went to. Remove the sign, throw about 300 young extras carrying backpacks, and you could easily film a scene there for a movie taking place at a major college...

OK, then we're back to what are we creating from the combination of the remains of the past and the needs of the present? CSRM is also operating the Jamestown collection of structures and facilities, a beautiful assembly of a shortline operating center..... yet it built a new shop facility rather than make use of the existing shop facility. I'm perfectly comfortable working in a pre-OSHA industrial setting, but not everybody shares my enthusiasm for selectively living in a time machine and is wiling to accept the risk associated with it. I have no problem replacing parts of historic fabric as it is consumed while making use of it in a contextual setting, but then we're dealing with mass produced, post industrial things designed to have parts consumed and replaced, not artwork. From my perspective, it's more honest than idealized preservation since the experience of the artifacts in use is more enlightening than experiencing them sitting still under glass. Obvious exceptions allowed, of course........ and encouraged.

Randolph, based on a documented prototype isn't accurately reproducing a prototype, and not all preservation is done by museums. You know this stuff........ Jupiter and 119 are both based on prototypes but are in reality anachronisms because of the use of new materials and techniques such as injectors and air brakes and welded boilers and frames that don't shake apart frequently. Even the paints used are modern formulations. That doesn't make them less great interpretive tools for the people who go a very long way out into nowhere to experience them in use, and also experience the comfortable modern facilities of a visitors center not provided at the original golden spike ceremony. I think we both understand well that the line is blurry and gets drawn differently based on situational considerations - we just have to try to draw it as best we can at any given time, knowing it will get erased and moved again frequently if we don't stagnate into oblivion.

I don't find comfort in the belief that I'm somehow morally superior by being a purist in preservation while my resources dwindle to nothing as I sit and prevent change. I'd rather accept the compromises and prosper to the extent that I can reinvest and have something meaningful to leave behind. Compromised preservation is reality and preferable to loss.

What does this have to do with roundhouses? Know what you want them to look like and why, then figure out how to practically adapt that image into the realities of modern materials, techniques and regulatory requirements with practicality for use and impact on visitor experience being the deciding factors once the technical stuff is handled. It will be historic enough, and not just better than nothing but useful and contributory.

I appreciate the thoughtful and courteous reply and while I might disagree with some of the details of your message, I expect we'd agree on many issues if given a chance to talk through things.

The point I still wish to focus on is my belief that we should approach the design of our facilities with as much care and intention as we approach the treatment of our equipment. Part of that means there needs to be some reasonable position on what is "appropriate," and if something "pure" (we could spend days trying to define this) is not achievable, then I feel it is better to make it clear that it is NOT pretending to something historic.

I don't get worked up over painting a mass-produced F3 for another line, but using modern thin-brick veneer may not provide close enough of an approximation of the real thing to be worthwhile. Unless you are an eccentric multi-millionaire in Ohio who can afford otherwise, maybe it's time to "adapt that image" into a thing with integrity of its own. We are not model railroaders, and "historic enough" sounds very slippery. Furthermore, we are mostly making new roundhouses now to preserve and display. It is a very different mission than to provide running repairs and maintenance.

I would gladly accept the commission to design the reconstruction of a roundhouse, but I would want to have these conversations with the project's stakeholders to make sure we were doing the best thing possible for the institution's mission, the collection, and the public for whom this is all intended to benefit.

You are correct, no argument about it. And, I think brick is brick and fake brick doesn't need to exist in real construction.

I've got a carbarn to be designed and built in the next year or so......