MODERATORS NOTE:
Car storage has been converted from the pre-July 2008 WW&F Discussion Forum.
Some formatting may have been removed or modified from the original postings that appear quoted in this topic.
Information contained within this post may be superseded by more recent postings and conversations.
James Patten wrote:The subject of car storage has come up. Here's my take on the subject.
When we wrote the long range plan, car storage was identified as a near-term priority (along with bathrooms and parking).
Part of the reason for purchasing the back portion of the Percival lot was a connection to the Boudin lot behind it. It was thought that the northern portion of the Boudin lot, north of the stream, would be an ideal spot for car storage.
The problem with this idea is that this ideal spot would need to be at a 90 degree angle to the railroad. There's no way to get to it from the south. Even coming from the north and clipping the northeast corner of the property to get in there, it was thought that it would be a 20 degree curve (the sharpest on the original railroad). Nothing has been surveyed, though. Rick and Paul, if you haven't yet been asked, I'll ask you now if you could survey a curve into the back lot (probably several different ones).
Another problem with this idea is that we'd have two separate yards. Not everybody liked the idea. And this second storage building would probably have been a steel building, which had even less liking.
A smaller, less ambitious version of this idea was proposed. Instead of trying to turn a whole 90 degrees, turn off a few degrees and stick a short, two-track storage area in the Percival lot near the track. Come off it straight, head for the stream, and stop before it.
Yet a third idea has been made, of extending the first 3 bays of the Sheepscot shop building another 30 feet. This would give us room for 3 more freight cars, or with creative shuffling we can put the Coach 8 and 103 in there.
Expanding the Sheepscot Shop is not a new idea. When we first considered building a machine shop, we were going to expand toward Cross Road as far as we were able, sealing off Bay 1 as part of it and extending only the Bay 1 track into the shop. Neither Clarissa nor Harry wanted their view of the parking lot and the fire pond altered, so we expanded west.
Finally, there was the idea of buying the west Albee field at Alna Center and building a storage area there. Or building the Hall's Siding and storing things there. However, storing anything away from Sheepscot wasn't thought to be a good idea, because there's too much temptation for idle troublemakers to make trouble.
I'm personally all for the spot on the northern portion of the Boudin property, but if it proves too difficult to build a line up in there I can live with putting it on the Percival property.
Wayne Laepple replied:OK, James, I'll jump right out of the car poll pool and into this subject. Covered storage is a subject near and dear to my heart. I've spent way too much time in the past 45 years or so replacing rotten wood, sandblasting rusted steel and painting, painting, painting antique railway equipment.
One concern with extending the front of the current shop by 30 feet is that it takes away much of the outside track space on which members and visitors can observe and photograph equipment. While it would be nice to house three more cars by doing so, and this is probably the most expedient solution to the problem, there is the matter of esthetics. Such an expansion would overwhelm the yard area and the viewscape.
Building a structure on the Percival plot is possible, but a lot of earth- moving would be required to get a track up into the property from the north. The same must be said for access to the Boudin plot. Even if the switch points were immediately south of Stockford's crossing, a fairly sharp curve would be necessary. You mentioned 16 degrees, which is about 360 feet, if memory serves me.
Coming in from the south might be possible and would present the advantage of being able to simply back the train out of the station and into the car house at the end of the day. If a switch was placed a short distance north of the tool house and the track angled off the main line at a 45 degree angle, such a scenario might work.
Keeping in mind the length of the cars and the most common configuration of trains, I would suggest a 33 by 100 foot building with two tracks, erected fairly close to the main track. This would house either three freight cars or two passenger cars on each track. Provision could be made for either a through track or a track along one side to eventually serve a second structure located behind it. My thought is that if some disaster should strike one carhouse, the second might be spared. A steel-sheathed structure such as those built by Morton Buildings have a very nice appearance and would not overly clash with the present buidings on site.
Stephen Hussar replied:I agree that car storage, bathrooms, etc., are the first priorities.
Morton buildings are nice-looking, they're metal (which is key) and affordable -- unfortunately they don't look the period. If this type of structure ends up being within sight of the mainline then perhaps it could be covered over with wood...or a serious attempt at "weathering" could be made(?)
gordon cook replied:One thing that I always find useful when trying to do 'floorplans', is an accurate map of the area that I'm trying to fit stuff into. Does such a map exist? Is it in a format that is easily worked with and modified? Can a map be created in such a way as to be easily shared (i.e. a computer program of some sort)?
If there is consensis that this is a good idea I'd be willing to look into what's available, but we would still need an accurate survey of the existing lot boundaries and track locations.
Also, in looking at our needs now, does the existing placement of the mainline switch make sense? If it was moved north, does that free up some options such as a north facing switch placed south of it with a crossover to get into the storage barn?
Right now the main switch is under the water tank, which seems like it will present some operational difficulties, especially in freezing weather. Moving the switch north allows access into the yard even when an engine is being watered. So there's at least one advantage to that idea.
Gordon Cook
Dave Crow replied:Based on working with streetcars for the last 30 years, I agree that we need a metal building for fire protection. I'm sure that the amount of vandalism is no-where near what it is in more urban settings, but as other people have said, "Metral doesn't burn." I have seen firsthand the effects of a fire in a wooden carbarn/carhouse. Smoke detectors are nice, but the response time of a rural fire department, and the location of a building off the beaten path makes it even worse. Does anyone remember the Cass Scenic Railroad shops fire in 1972? How about National Capital Trolley Museum's carbarn fire in September 2003?
I asked Stewart about the use of the Boudin property and he said that, to get to that piece of property, we would have pass across the only part of the Percival lot that perks for a sewerage drain field. Hopefully Rick Sisson has surveyed the lots and their relation to the existing track layout? Certainly James, Allan, Dana, Jason, and the other members of the board have more knowledge of the situation, and I thank James for starting this separate thread. Those of us that don't live locally (well, at least I do) thirst for any information about the goings-on at the museum when we're at home.
I agree with Wayne that to extend the current building would destroy the photo opportunities in the yard. It would also affect the amount of outdoor working space we have. It was certainly great to work on 103 outdoors with lots of elbow room as compared to being inside the building - and it was warmer in the sunshine, too!
Enough rambling for now.
James Patten replied:The resistance to a metal building stems from the fact that metal buildings look ... well, metal and modern. And in 1910 they didn't have metal buildings.
With the exception of the garage doors, the first photo in Steve Hussar's post looks nice. Lots of light from the clerestory roof. If it could be sided in board and batten, and the garage doors changed to something else, I might like it.
There's no accurate survey of the yard or properties in our possession. I've spent some time in the last month measuring the length of tracks in Sheepscot yard for my own curiosity, but these measurements plus some determination of angles could lead to a to-scale drawing of the yard.
I am assuming that our yard and property could be modeled on a CAD program; if you want to get less expensive then why not a program used by model railroaders to lay out their models?
fjknight replied:I am assuming that our yard and property could be modeled on a CAD program; if you want to get less expensive then why not a program used by model railroaders to lay out their models?
James,
I'm building a module of Sheepscot and started with a Google Earth picture. Then I took some measurements and put it all in a 3rd PlanIt drawing. I had to compress and move things a little bit to fit on a 6' module but that was easy enough to do. I've only used outlines but you can actually draw real buildings with 3rd PlanIt. Once built in 2D you can then put in a Z dimension and get a 3D view with is very realistic.
The beauty of 3rd PlanIt is that it actually enforces standards like a minimum radius for the track curves. I'm no expert but if I had a lot survey to start with I would make an attempt at drawing a current lot plan and then do some what ifs.
Let me know what you think.
Frank Knight
John McNamara replied:The issue of car storage is a real can of worms. Some people are extremely opposed to even the possibility of a metal building. Whether current structures are expanded or new structures built, the first step toward solving the storage problem is, as James proposes, an accurate survey. In surveying the "Percival property" that connects the "Boudin property" with the yard area, contour lines (one foot?) should also be included.
With the recent addition of a second coach, an excursion car, a small firefighting car, a handcar, two velocipedes under construction, and a possible railcar, we are rapidly approaching the traditional problem of typical rail museums - too much stuff rotting in the open.
Wayne Laepple replied:Last year, I suggested to several people that custom-made tarps could be made for cars that have to stay outside in the winter weather. For reasons unknown to me, no one seemed to care for that idea. This in spite of the fact that folks at other museums have used "toaster covers" to protect rolling stock outside over extended periods. In our case, I'd see putting the cover on after the Victorian Christmas runs and removing it when the snow goes away in March or April.
Steel-sheathed buildings have been around since the beginning of the 20th century. Corrugated iron was used extensively to sheath buildings, and Ive even seen a picture of a railroad covered bridge here in Pennsylvania sheathed in corrugated iron. Structures like those pictured above (thanks for posting them, Steve) can be custom-built in almost any configuration one can imagine. Buildings can also be painted in almost any scheme as well. I've seen a Morton building used as a horse barn that appeared to be wooden until I got within 20 feet. One of the types of siding available is made to look like board and batten, quite compatible with the era we wish to portray.
Once we figure out where we want a building and what size it is to be, we can order it without doors and build and hang our own doors. Firms like Morton will do as much or as little as the client wants. I will continue to maintain that we should build a couple of smaller buildings rather than one gigantic structure that would overwhelm the landscape. (A rail museum in England recently built a structure capable of housing 56 cars! It's a quarter-mile long!!)
We could certainly erect a building ourselves, but at the cost of letting other projects lag. A contractor would come in and build the building according to plans and specs in a couple or three weeks.
Dave Crow replied:Wayne,
I agree with your idea of toaster cover tarps. Several trolley museums have used them as protection for equipment stored outdoors. Even if we used them in the winter only, it certainly woould reduce the amount of moisture that works its way into the cars.
Dave
Wayne Laepple replied:I said something during the trackwork weekend about building a replica of the larger size WW&F tool house as a place to store tools not in regular use and also a place to store the handcar and velocipedes. See page 63 or 228 in "Two Feet to Tidewater."
Joe Fox replied:Hi James,
I think that buying a small lot nex to Alna Center station would be the easiest possibale place. However, as my dad has just mentioned, at Alna Center vandales could do things to the cars. When Rick and Paul get ready to do the surveying, please let me know, so that I can not only take photos, but also see how it is done. Thanks.
Joe
Stephen Hussar replied:For purposes of comparison, these enormous metal storage buildings are located at the Illinois Railway Museum in Union, Illinois. They have an absolutely incredible collection, which is housed in 9 such buildings there. I actually remember taking this shot in case this discussion ever came up! These buildings work well for the IRM, but I think one of the fancier Mortons with some big wooden doors and other "creative" touches would work even better for the WW&F.
While I agree "toaster covers" would help, I'd be afraid that it would postpone the construction of a nice weather-tight building, especially if such a structure included a much needed wood-working shop.
James Patten replied:Frank, I take it that you are offering to enter the numbers in 3rd PlanIt and let it do the graphic work? That would be fantastic.
Let's remember that we now have 7 or so acres to work with. Some of this acreage is beyond easy railroad access; some needs to be set aside for septic and parking. We need:
- coal storage area (near tracks so steamers can coal up)
- a building to put our handcars and future velocepedes in.
- a storage track for the 4-wheeled jobbies and spare wheels & trucks
- a building to put the railcar(s) in.
The existing railyard was designed to fit in south of the stream behind the section house. The location of the section house and the stub switch really does sort of limit any expansion of it. The section house can of course be moved to the other side of the stream (we moved it there on the flatcar, we can move it again).
fjknight replied:James,
Yes, I am willing to make a 3rd PlanIt drawing of the yard and adjoining property. All I really need to get started is something like a survey map of the property. The Google Earth picture has most of the existing structures which will help with their location but I really need some accurate dimensions for the property lines.
Do you know if such a map is available?
Frank Knight
James Patten replied:There is the tax maps, but those aren't exceptionally accurate.
Any survey done should include property line angles from the main line. Once that's done we can send numbers to you.
Wayne Laepple replied:Hi all --
I just found my notes and a sketch I made about six months ago. The carhouse I sketched out is 32 feet wide by 100 feet long and contains three tracks. With three tracks, such a building would house all our current rolling stock under cover.
I envisioned a track coming off the main at Stockford's crossing and curving across the Percival plot, with the lead track extending to the southern edge of the Boudin plot. Along that track would be a shed-roof structure open on the track side and the other side for coal storage, and it struck me this morning that a small "garage" could be built at the end of that track to house the Model T track car.
The carhouse leads would split off that lead track. Again, I reiterate that space should also be left to allow for a second carhouse if and when the need arises.
A scenario such as this would permit the current shop building to be used for restoration and reconstruction as well as shelter for the locomotive fleet. Both internal combustion locomotives could be kept in bay 1, for example, and the back portion could receive some upgrades for use as a member canteen. Wait, wait. This isn't England.
Mike Fox replied:Would you really have to totally enclose it? What about a pole supported roof. Keeping the sides open. It would keep the rain or snow off. And if needed could close it in at a latter time as time allows. And you are going to need an excavator there to dig so they could dig some holes for the poles while they are at it. Just a thought. And if it is just for car storage, you could probably get 3 tracks into the 33 feet Wayne was suggesting. But things would be very close together.
Mike
John McNamara replied:Here's an idea that is truly bizarre. If one needs to solve the problem of excessive curvature accessing the Boudin/Percival land, one could incorporate a turntable. This would work for serving an engine house, but dealing with cars would be complicated, requiring two engines and some complex switching moves. How about a Mount Washington style transfer table? 
petecosmob replied:Turntable,.....hmmmmm......turntable,...turntable....yeah!
(Oh, I oughta' be quiet! It's not like I'm able to get up there enough to work on it! chuckle!)
No, realy, I think John may be on to something here! If there's room for one, then it should, at the very least, be discussed and voted up or down before being discarded.
Perhaps a seperate thread for this one too?
Cosmo
James Patten replied:I've been told that Harry had a transfer table in mind when he originally envisioned the Museum.
They must be ghastly things to clean out in Winter.
Dave Crow replied:It all depends on the type of transfer table. A traditional one with a "pit" would be a lot of digging out in the winter - if that was really necessary.
Some newer manufacturers have used a transfer table with a very shallow pit - less than a foot. AAI Corporation had a contract to refurbish railcars for the state of Maryland; they ended up building a 2000-foot test track and a transfer table to get the cars in and out of the building. The TT essentially was a metal "sling" so that the cars sit between the side trusses. In this way the support of the TT was above the track level; the drive motors were mounted above the wheels and drove them through a gear arrangement in a vertical orientation.
What if the locomotives and Coach 3 were stored in the existing building, and the newer equipment were stored, for the winter, in the other location? You at least have enough passenger capability for off-season trips.
Wayne Laepple replied:The building I envision for car storage would be for "dense" storage. In other words, it wouldn't be open for display purposes or for folks to wander around in. It is strictly to get as much rolling stock under cover as possible in the smallest square footage under roof.
So with a 32 by 100 foot footprint, such a structure would have three tracks on 8 foot centers, which leaves about 2 feet clearance along the side walls and 4 feet of clearance between tracks on the inside. That's enough room for a brakeman to walk out of the building after riding the car or cars in. Since the coaches run between 37 and 48 feet in length and the freight cars are 30 feet or less, there remains some track space at the ends of the tracks, and perhaps the Ramsdell tip car, the compressor car, etc. could live in such a structure as well.
A building of this size would house all the present rolling stock, with room left over for another car or two. If, for example, coach 8 was in the present shop building, even more space would be available.
Mike Fox replied:What about something like Boothbay built? Only 32 x 100. And enclose it later as needed or time permits.
David Johnson replied:Tarps and other tight coverings tend to hold moisture in and not let the wood cars beathe, therefore promoting rot. As the owner of a 48' x 75' Morton building I'll pass on a few comments. First they will design and build about anything that you want. The metal skin can come in a variety of colors and the doors can be a variety of styles. If you don't like metal, they can provide a variety of skin options. This is done quite often for comercial buildings, churches, and the like. The pitch of the roof can be changed with different roof trusses. Several sidewall heights are offered as standard and others are probably an option. The buildings can be purchased as bare interior, insulated interior, or full interior finish to your requirements. I had mine built with 14' side walls, which gives about 16' of clearance to the trusses at the center and I used double rolling barn doors which gives a 20'-6" opening for two tracks to go in. For the WW&F, 12' or maybe 10' side walls would work, and I think you could get double hinged doors for each track. There would need to be a little end wall outside of the track openings for lateral stability. The lower 3' or 4' of the interior has wood panels to prevent objects from denting the metal siding, so that extra width could be used for storing car parts. You could extend one side of the building down to an 8' sidewall for the car shop and equipment. I would at least insulate the roof for moisture control and the whole building if it has the car shop. A "board & batten" metal exterior would be cheaper and it would be just as period as the type of wood siding that is on the present shop. You can also hide it away or screen it from the public if the appearance bothers you.
Stephen Hussar replied:Thanks, David. Great information.
I went to the Morton website and found a building with an extended wall just to see what it would look like. Maybe add this "shop space" onto that larger building with the celestory roof?
James Patten replied:David, how are Morton buildings for price? If you don't mind my asking, how much did your 48' x 75' cost?
The idea for the northwest corner car storage area was that it would be away from the main yard area and where most of the visitors would go, therefore it didn't necessarily need to be prototypical. We figured that would be the best use of the property space, with the remaining area east of that used for parking, and possibly bathroom and shower space.
With the WW&F campus bisected by Clarissa's house and property we do have to take that into consideration. Putting a massive building just feet from the house would kind of overwhelm the house and its inhabitants, plus it would block a view of the railroad from the parking.
Wayne Laepple replied:Hmmm. I must have missed the memo. I thought the new structure was to be for storage, not for storage and restoration. It strikes me that the two functions should take place in separate structures, since restoration or construction requires utilities such as water and electricity, while a storage building doesn't necessarily need either.
If the 32 x 100 building I advocate was erected, there would be plenty of space in the current shop for almost any conceivable restoration or construction activity I can imagine.
Stephen Hussar replied:Just throwing that out there, Wayne. It does seem like it would make sense to have some sort of side room off the main building for tools, snow shovels, a state of the art computer editing system and small screening room 
James Patten replied:Steve, you want the state-of-the-art editing system and showing room to be in the million-dollar visitors center that will be constructed (hopefully) on the corner. You'll rub elbows with the climate controlled archives and museum, the state-of-the-art gift shop, and snackbar.
gordon cook replied:Very, very nice. Will there be a Starbucks there too??
I can see it now, "Narrow Gauge Latte"....
ETSRRCo replied:Dont forget the wireless internet!
petecosmob replied:Why, yes, Mr Powers,
There will be a Starbucks,
and my plans for complete 2' domination of the world shal be COMPLETE!!
Dr. Evil 
Nyaaahaahaahaaahaa!!!
(Happy Haloween Season,)
Cosmo
Stewart Rhine replied:Here's a few thoughts since I just spent two and a half weeks at the railroad... As it has been stated - we need more indoor storage space ASAP. Last Spring a bunch of us spent much time getting coach 8 in good condition. Over the last few months (thanks to Zack's hard work) and the last two weeks (from a bunch more of us) car 103 has been rebuilt and repainted. It was VERY popular during the Halloween trips. There is a good investment of time and funds in these cars. I must also state that caboose 320 was built at Sheepscot and has been a very important car. Now the cupola is rotting out and needs attention. Zack, Marcel and I spent spent many hours on this car in 1998. Now some of the work must be done over. Each time I go to the railroad I repair and paint buildings and rolling stock. Many others do the same thing. As Wayne said, we should not have to rebuild the same cars over and over.
Building a larger version of a WW&F tool house is a good idea. The smaller rolling stock like the fire and air cars, hand car and push cars should go into a smaller building. A 5 foot tall car does not need to take up space inside our current shop. We should build a replica of the Head Tide tool/section house on the level area just North of the water tank. If the small cars were in there, coach 8 or the 320 could go into bay 2 this Winter.
I measured off 28 feet on the North side of our shop. If we build an extension it does take some of the yard but does not kill off all of our outside space. Extending bays 1,2 and 3 would solve some of our problems. At least we would not have to build any new trackage because we would be covering what is already there. The electric and fire alarm systems would also be extended and we could re-use the existing doors to same time and money.
Stewart
Allan Fisher replied:I like Stewart's idea!
If you really think about it - also extending the Car Shop someday towards Cross Rd would make a lot of sense and not ruin the aesthetics of the Sheepscot station and shop area - and would still leave a row of parking between the car shop and Cross road.
Stewart Rhine replied:Allan, Thanks for the comments. The Southward expansion of the car shop would be good as well. If we added another 12 - 16 feet towards the Cross Road it would give us room at the South end for better arrangement of equipment. We could also extend the track in bay 3 out into the parking lot, cover the rails up to the rail head (like a team track) and use it as a transfer / repair track. If no rolling stock is there, the area can be used for parking. This would require filling in the existing truck-dock. I have only seen it used 3 times in 9 years and it is usually filled with water so it should be filled in. We now have a true team track on the West side where truck transfer can take place.
If the existing shop is extended 12 feet South and 28 feet North that would give us a real nice building. Remember, we would also gain more space on the second floor.
I also favor a car storage building like everyone has mentioned. Thanks Steve for posting the pictures of good examples. A structure like this could be back-dated to blend with our other buildings. The problem is the location and the track geometry in getting to the upper lot. No matter how you run the spur, there will be tight curves. The upper lot should be cleared soon to use as parking until a final decision is made.
Here's a bit more about a new section house. The track from the door to the mainline runs out and fits against the outside of the East rail of the mainline. The area is then planked over to allow for the turning of cars by hand. I know the fire car is on a heavy frame and the air car has some weight as well. These cars could be brought out and turned with 4 to 6 people like we have on the track weekends. If it doesn't work then the new section house will hold the hand car, yellow car and the wooden push car. It would get these cars out of the weather.
Stewart
Dave Buczkowski replied:Stewart;
I think you're on to a good idea that's historically accurate. As to the car barn, I like the one that's been suggested. Last week I thought that John McNamara made a good suggestion about using a turntable. To paraphrase Donkey in Shrek "Nobody doesn't like a turntable" We talked about doing it the yard long ago but we went in another direction. Having a turntable at Sheepscot that's actually used would be of interest to our guests. As far as keeping the snow out in winter, we could cover it with a plywood cover that could be easily shoveled off.
BTW, nice job on Car 103. I appreciate all the work you do painting and scraping.
Dave
Wayne Laepple replied:I will reiterate my concerns about enlarging the current shop building to provide more car storage. While that is certainly the most expedient solution, it would potentially expose our entire fleet to destruction by fire. I feel very strongly that we must provide fireproof structures to house our precious artifacts. As for how we access the Percival/Boudin sites, we may have to do some serious earth moving and perhaps even some blasting to construct a right-of-way, or we may have to reconfigure the yard to afford access.
I like Stewart's idea of a tool house across the track from the section house and to the north of the water tank, at least for now. Perhaps in the future, it could be moved to another location along the new car house lead track. As Stewart pointed out, by planking over an area in front of it, the smaller cars can be turned 90 degrees and rolled inside. Another options would be a track car turntable, such as is pictured on page 63 of "Two Feet to Tidewater." This type of turntable is movable and can easily be fabricated from wood, steel or a combination of the two. It would easily handle all our small cars except for the compressor car.
We're still left with the question of how we protect the cars Stewart, Zack and many others worked so hard on from the ravages of the coming winter. While tarps or even shrink wrap may not be esthetically pleasing or the "best" way, that may be the only option for the short term. As close as I can guess, without some very creative stuffing of the current shop building, at least three and perhaps four cars will remain outside. Some cars must be housed under roof under the provisions of their lease agreements, so I don't see how much can be done to redistribute the available under-cover track space.
James Patten replied:This past weekend Rick told me he had surveyed a curve into the new property. It was a tight 90-degree curve to the west then another tight 90-degree curve to the south to get to the east side of the Boudin Property.
I think that one weekend when a bunch of us are around let's put our heads together and think up ways to get into the property.
Recalling Gordon's comment about moving the north Sheepscot switch further north, I spent some of my idle time between trains on Saturday evening looking the situation over. The 3-way stub switch would go away, it probably could be moved to the throat of the yard tracks for the new building. Somehow the track 7/Bay 3 & 4 track would have to be swung around pretty severely to tie into the extended siding. The section house would need to be moved further north.
elecuyer replied:Hi all,
I've been following this thread for a while and it seems to me that we need a detailed site plan of what the Sheepscot facility should look like in 10 - 20 (or more) years.
Recently, I was at a botanical garden (hey, my wife lets me go to the WW&F every once in a while, I can go to look at some flowers if it makes her happy :-) that had posted for all to see their 50-year site plan for the property. It was divided into four phases and they had mapped out every last shub they planned to landscape, all the various structures, etc. It is quite ambitious.
While the WW&F Long Range Plan is an exceptionally excellent piece of work, there are many ideas (car storage, rest rooms, vistor's center, coal dock, etc.) but no "map" as to how to make them fit into the property. I suggest that it is time to come up with a detailed site plan, and then let it dictate where the car storage barn should go. The last thing we want to do it to construct something now that will hinder our ability to expand in the future.
I have some mapping tools at my disposal. Unfortunately, they are not detailed enough to do the sort of layout this project would require. But if I can help, I will.
Thanks,
-Ed Lecuyer
Stewart Rhine replied:There have been alot of good ideas posted here. At the top of the list is the need for a good land plat with future structure/track location plans. The steel building to house historic rolling stock should be the first structure on the new property. As has been said, the sooner coach's 3 and 8, box 309 and caboose 320 are inside a steel building the better.
I still favor expansion of the existing shop building because of it's central location and electric service. Bays one and two are our lifting bays and expanding them would give us more flexability with repairs. It would be good to have concrete floors in these bays as well. Bay two's overhead crane could be extended. A wood shop could be set up in the south end of bay 3. My thought is that the expansion is more for restoration/shop work than car storage.
Stewart
Mike Fox replied:I thought of possibly another approach as far as looks go. Today I saw a Red Metal Barn. About the right size. And it got me thinking. Ther has also been talk of some kind of sleeping quarters also down the road. Why not Build the car barn to look like a barn and when the time comes to build crew quarters or whatever, build it like a farmhouse next to the carbarn, wherever it fits. Just a thought I came up with today.
Mike
Wayne Laepple replied:How about this as a compromise? We add a one story, shed roof addition to the south side of the shop from the back of Bay 1 to the back of Bay 3, with a double door leading into the shop where the track 3 doors are now. This addition would be insulated and heated and set up as a woodworking shop. If it was 12-16 feet wide, it would provide space for woodworking machinery as well as a shop office, varnishing room, or possibly restroom facilities.
Also, if the track in Bay 1 was shortened and walled off, the kitchen area could receive a concrete floor and could also be heated if desired. The remaining track space could house the fire train or the two internal combustion locomotives.
The above scenario envisions the shop building reguarly housing locomotives until such time as a separate enginehouse is built. One of two tracks in Bay 2 and 3 would house one steam locomotive, while the other would be in the machine shop. One bay would be clear for car work, along with the rest of the other bay not occupied by a locomotive.
The proposed 32 x 100 carhouse would ordinarily house the entire current fleet of rolling stock, in addition to at least some of the auxiliary four-wheel equipment.
Glenn Christensen replied:Hi Guys,
If you're interested in manufacturing a diamond (or 90 degree) crossing, building two bridges and buying the corner lot ... there's another alternative, albeit one *FAR* more expensive and complex than anything we have yet mentioned here.
You could swing left off the main line just north of the first grade crossing, bridge the stream, start your curve, cross back to the RR side of the stream, cross the mainline on the diamond (or 90 degree) crossing and head up toward the Boudin property. A car house could be built large and perpendicular to the mainline on the newly acquired Percival property and a path could be built alongside the tracks towards the Boudin property for visitors who park over there.
As I said, the whole project would be considerably more expensive than either lengthening the existing shop or building parallel to the mainline. I'm not *REALLY* recommending it, but it *IS* another option. One "plus", it *WOULD* provide direct rail access to any facility that might be built on the corner lot. Another plus is that it make better use of the newly purchased Percival property and would leave more room for parking.
My two cents and worth everything you paid for them.
Best Regards,
Glenn
James Patten replied:The Long Range Plan deliberately did not provide a map of where things ought to go (bathrooms, coal storage, parking, roundhouse, carhouse, etc.) because a) there was no consensus among those of us who wrote it, and b) we didn't really know the lay of the land.
For instance, bathrooms. I believed the bathrooms should come off of Bay 1 to the east (sort of a blister off the building) and extend south. Another idea was putting them north off of the passenger shelter. Build them where the coal storage is now. Put them on the other side of Clarissa's between the parking and the road. Stick them on the far northwest corner of the Boudin lot. The possibilities go on and on.
Ira Schreiber replied:I have followed this discussion for the past few weeks. Now that I am back in Colorado (8" snow predicted for Denver, tomorrow), I have a chance to ruminate.
First issue in my mind. FIRE
It has been covered throughly and the bottom line is to segregate as much as practical.
New buildings and locations.
I have visited many other sites in the last few weeks while driving New England leaf peeper tours, and my observation is that a 200'-1,000 walk is neither impractical nor rare.
I built a Morton building for my bus collection in 1976.
It was 44'x60' with 14' side walls and two 16' wide rolling doors. I had the roof insulated and soffit and roof cap vents for the moisture problem.
There was one side door.
Many designs were available as well as simulated wood siding.
Bottom line cost in 1977 was $7,400. turn key.
petecosmob replied:I'm liking the idea of an enginehouse and turntable more and more. I always felt, (as a visitor) that a turntable was one thing the RR was missing. And if you're gonna build a turntable, you might just as well build a roundhouse to go with it!
Such a structure shoulld be cinder block with either "curtain brick" or stone veneer for fireproofing. It does not take much space for a 2'er roundhouse, and it need not be built all [eight-or-however many] stalls at once.
I'm sure most folks on this forum are familiar with the Sandy River Park's eight staller, and how it fits quite nicely in a fairly compact space.
Probably only need three or four stalls, at least to start with, and leave space for more if the need ever arises.
Annother advantage would be that some loco's couldbe stored in the roundhouse and some in the shop, in case some disaster did (Gods forbid,) take out one or the other of the two buildings there would be a better chance of some equipment surviving.
Again, just my thoughts.
Cosmo
Bill Reidy replied:Two questions come to mind:
1) What were the size (length) of the WW&F turntables? Long enough to accommodate a car like coach 3?
2) Is there a practical way to install a fire suppression system in the engine house and a new car storage building (realizing these are not heated buildings, aside from bay 4)?
Bill
petecosmob replied:I can't actually answer question 1 myself,...but I do know there's a turntable in Portsmouth NH just sitting there. It's not that big as turntables go, maybe 40-50'. i dunno who owns it, but it needs love.
Fire supression? Well, yeah, it just depends on a) the space you want to protect, b) the particular type(s) of systems, and c) how much $$ you wanna spend.
Several companies do this and will tailor/install to the customer's needs.
Cosmo
Stephen Hussar replied:You mean this one? It's the B&M's Portsmouth turntable, and it's 60 feet long. Amazing it's STILL there.
Ira Schreiber replied:Generally, turntables for the 2' RR's were about 30' in length. There is nothing to say a 40' or longer could not be used. 60' is getting fairly large for a 2'.
They generally can not be shortened. easily.
The WW&F tables were wood, gallows types, IIRC.
Ira
James Patten replied:If anyone's ever noticed the steel girders in the grass south of Cross road, those were originally from the MEC turntable in Woolwich. They then became part of a highway bridge and arrived several years ago. They MAY get used as a bridge someday. IMHO, they are way too big to be a turntable at the museum (I'd like a gallows style turntable myself).
There was some semi-idle talk a year or two ago about installing a dry pipe system in the shop building, rigged up so that the VFD could back up to the pipe, hook up, and let loose. I wonder if somehow we could rig up a way to pump directly from the fire pond across the road from us (through underground piping of course). Nothing ever came of the semi-idle talk.
petecosmob replied:Yep, that's the one.
Yeah, I guess 60' WOULD be a bit much! (Chuckle,) I thought it might turn out to be as big as that. (Sigh) But HEY, Thanks for taking the idea seriously!
So,....a gallows table then? Cool! Tou ought to be able to find much of the lumber you'll need for it growing "in the back 40."
Now wouldn't that be a great early-on project for the Alna Ctr lumber mill?
Cosmo
James Patten replied:Well I finally got rough property dimensions from Zack this weekend (thanks to Steve Smith's prodding), and tonight I took an image from Google Earth and roughly drew out Clarissa's property next to the railroad, outlined in blue. The map is aligned so that the road is generally parallel to the bottom of the map.
The Boudin property is to the west (left) of Clarissa's property. It is 310 feet wide, and about 700 feet long.
The northern boundary should parallel the northern boundary of Clarissa's property, all the way to the railroad.
Somewhere north of that is the Stockford property. I cannot recall where his driveway comes out on Rt 218 relative to the house in the upper right corner. My guess is that the line in the trees, so to speak, halfway up the image is the northern boundary.
To give you some dimensions of existing things, the car shop is about 50 feet long north to south. You can make out the caboose in front of the station which is 30 feet long. I generally guestimated where the section house is, because the northern border of Clarissa's property is at the northwest corner of the section house.
So, for those of you able to map out tracks, find us a way to get car storage!
John McNamara replied:As a clarification of James's aerial photo, please note that the area outlined in blue ("Clarissa's property") is not available. The areas available are the "Boudin property" that he describes to the west (left) of Clarissa's property and the "Percival Purchase" which is an area immediately north of the blue outlined area. The northern boundary of the Boudin property is north and west of the blue outlined area. Thus the available property is L-shaped, both west of (Boudin) and north of (Percival purchase) the blue outlined area.
Unfortunately, this being a picture taken at an angle relative to the ground below, it is nearly impossible to determine the dimensions, as the scale changes as one moves up the picture. The picture does give a nice "lay of the land" view, however.
James Patten replied:I guess I wasn't entirely clear in my message.
I didn't have a way of determining distance with my drawing tool, other than using my thumb as a general width device. So I need somebody who DOES have a ruler in their drawing tool to draw in the property boundaries. The dimensions won't be exact but they'll be close enough.
Frank Knight offered to attempt a scale layout drawing, so this image is the purpose of that.
Wayne Laepple replied:Just for anyone who tries to lay out the curve from the main track through the Percival/Boudin sites, a 20 degree curve requires a radius of about 287 feet. (286' 11-1/4" to be precise)
fjknight replied:I guess I wasn't entirely clear in my message.
I didn't have a way of determining distance with my drawing tool, other than using my thumb as a general width device. So I need somebody who DOES have a ruler in their drawing tool to draw in the property boundaries. The dimensions won't be exact but they'll be close enough.
Frank Knight offered to attempt a scale layout drawing, so this image is the purpose of that.
James,
I will try to take your picture and turn it into a 3rd PlanIt drawing of the site. With all of the odd angles involved this will only be a rough drawing at first but when I have something completed I will post it on here. With enough people looking it over hopefully we can make it accurate enough to be useful.
Frank Knight
Dave Crow replied:James,
When I was up for the Fall work weekend, I noticed there was an easel in the freight station that shows the survey of the right-of-way through the town of Alna. The survey shows the adjoining land owners; I remember you telling me about the three owners that now have portions of the right-of-way between Top-of-the-Mountain siding and Rt. 218.
I can't remember if the map goes all the way south to Cross Road, but if it does, wouldn't that be an accurate map to use?
Dave Crow
James Patten replied:The map on the easel goes from Wiscasset in the south to Head Tide in the north. It's about 15 years out of date, as far as property lines go. I don't think it's accurate enough because of the scale.
Ira Schreiber replied:Go to the Lincoln County Courthouse and look at the maps. I did this when researching the other property in Wiscasset.
All legal descriptions are there and they then can be crossed to the Alna tax maps.
Ira
fjknight replied:Here is a rough sketch again using Google Earth based on what I think James said. I have redrawn Clarissa's property and then added the Boudin property just to the west of it. I don't see how the northern property line of the Boudin parcel is supposed to extend to the railroad. I did draw a line extension to the tracks and it is about 180' long.
According to John's post the area outlined by the track to the east, my 180' line extension to the north, Boudin's to the west and Clarissa's to the south is the Percival Purchase. If that is correct I will use this sketch to create a 3rd PlanIt drawing. If I'm off please let me know how to correct it.
Frank Knight
John McNamara replied:Frank,
Your concept of the Boudin property and Percival purchase is correct. I don't know about the dimensions, however.
-Joh
James Patten replied:Frank, your dimensions look generally correct.
fjknight replied:OK. I will use those dimensions and try to have something on here this weekend. My only concern is that these are really rough dimensions but when people see the site in a computer drawing they look at it as being definitive. The old computer axiom is GIGO. Garbage In = Garbage Out.
Frank
Mike Fox replied:One thing someone has not mentioned. Elevation change. The picture does not show the small rise in the land. I believe when done though it should be roughly the same height as the grade north of the yard switch. But the farther west you go from Clarissa's, the higher you get. Not much but will need to be dealt with.
Mike
Wayne Laepple replied:That's what they make bulldozers for. I walked around on the Percival/Boudin site a bit last month, and if a switch came off the main track at Stockford's and a track curved back toward the western boundary of the Boudin property, the material removed from the bank next to the main track could be used as fill further on.
fjknight replied:My intent is to do the initial drawing assuming flat terrain but 3rd PlanIt makes it fairly easy to adjust elevation. We would definitely need some surveying done to get accurate elevations but once we had the data it would be easy to update the drawing and read off the grades.
Frank Knight
fjknight replied:Here is my first attempt at a 3rd PlanIt drawing showing the Boudin property. Remember all of the dimensions that I used are suspect at this time and should be verified before we go to far with any possible solution. Location A and Location B show a 32' x 100' building to house rolling stock as described in Wayne's postings. Those are 20 degree (287' radius) that I used to reach them. I also used #8 turnouts everywhere. The dark squares in the grid are 64' on a side and the light squares are 16' per side as this is drawn in S scale.
The next steps will be to get some feedback here then refine the drawing with a couple of final possibilities. If we get something that we like I would also like to print it off at a reasonable scale (1/4" = 1' perhaps) and then get some help to verify that the dimensions I used actually match the real world.
Your turn,
Frank Knight
Wayne Laepple replied:Good morning --
Frank -- thanks for the drawing of possible carhouse locations. Seeing it on paper, even though we know it may not be quite the "real" lay of the land, is very helpful.
Would it be possible to add in a Plan C location? That would be north of the notation on the drawing for the Boudin property, at the end of the north to south curve off the main track and near the west boundary of the property, perpendicular to the main track. And while you're at it, please add a fourth track outside as a possible location for a coal storage shed. This eliminates the S-curve to reach the Plan B location and leaves the south end of the Boudin site for potential parking.
Again, thanks.
Cheers -- Wayne
gordon cook replied:My 2 Cents,
Nice Job Frank! Excellent ideas everyone. It is soooo much easier when we can all see a plan. I think that we have to make sure it is accurate before anybody gets too excited about a specific layout, however. Can that happen with an on-site survey soon? I can run a tape measure, but that's the extent of my survey capability. Mr. Sisson? Or is that info available at the county registry of deeds, as Ira suggested?
We might want to rethink some of the existing yard layout in terms of current and future needs and think about how it might be improved:
Is the mainline switch in the right place?
Should there be a longer yard lead?
Should the mainline switch be under the water tank?
Can the stub switch be used for the storage yard if it is in the way of improving operations in the main yard?
Why does the car storage have to be so far away? Could it be simply pointing towards the northwest corner of the Percival purchase with a north facing switch as in location 'B'?
If the yard lead were extended north, then the switch to the car storage could come off the lead instead of the main line.
One problem with this is that the land in the "PP" is about 5-6 feet above the current elevation of the main line, IIRC and as Mike pointed out. This would mean that a building and track would have to be at that level, or 5-6 feet below the current land elevation.
I didn't go through all the moves to get cars out and put away, but it would seem as though it works OK.
Gordon
fjknight replied:Good morning --
Frank -- thanks for the drawing of possible carhouse locations. Seeing it on paper, even though we know it may not be quite the "real" lay of the land, is very helpful.
Would it be possible to add in a Plan C location? That would be north of the notation on the drawing for the Boudin property, at the end of the north to south curve off the main track and near the west boundary of the property, perpendicular to the main track. And while you're at it, please add a fourth track outside as a possible location for a coal storage shed. This eliminates the S-curve to reach the Plan B location and leaves the south end of the Boudin site for potential parking.
Again, thanks.
Cheers -- Wayne
Hi Wayne,
Yes, it would be easy to put in a Location C where you suggested. I'd rather wait until there is more feedback and possibly we can have some kind of consensus location. I'd just like to point that the S-curve has a 35' straight section in the middle of the S which is not obvious at this scale. Another point in favor of Location A that it is close to the other structures and it would be easy to run power to the building. Location B leaves the rest of the Boudin property available as one contiguous parcel. Gordon's solution (let's call it Location D) leaves the whole Boudin property free but his turnout looks like a #4.
Frank Knight
gordon cook replied:I basically cut and pasted Frank's map on Photoshop. It was just an attempt to roughly show what I was thinking, not to scale, etc.
I'm sure that there are lots of other considerations that I didn't know about.
Sure is fun, tho', kind of like Railroad Tycoon!
James Patten replied:Frank, how sharp are the curves to Locations A & B? (i.e., 10%, 20%)
As Wayne suggested, would you continue off the first curve to Location A into a Location C?
fjknight replied:James,
All of the curves are 20 degrees (287' radius). I will work on a drawing that has Location C and also try to duplicate Gordon's drawing of Location D.
Frank
James Patten replied:Frank,
Also try a 15 degree and a 12 degree curve to "Location C", if you would. 12 degrees because it's currently the sharpest on the railroad.
Gordon's "Location D" is a prime location for septic output, because it is high on a hillside. Without putting septic there, we could almost put in an underground storage area (Location B as well).
fjknight replied:Sometimes everything works right on the first try. Here is a new drawing with Location C and Location D. The curve to Location C is a 20 degree curve.
Location D will not fit in the boundaries of the Percival Purchase the way I have them drawn without some changes. Possibly #6 turnouts in the ladder would do it but that is for another time.
Any more ideas?
Frank
Wayne Laepple replied:Just for comparison's sake, when you lay out a 15 degree curve, the radius is about 380 feet. For a 12 degree curve, it's 477 feet. Curves like that will make track access to the Percival and Boudin sites almost impossible to achieve.
Ira Schreiber replied:Very interesting proposals. How about adding the South switch at Sheepscot, installed over Labor Day weekend?
Ira
Dave Olszewski replied:Why can't they build new storage building on old track across from Sheepscot Depot? Also they may have more room for parking lot there.
James Patten replied:Here's some more ideas.
What happens when you start switches into buildings while still on the curves?
What if instead of a ladder track both switches come off the track from the main line in (i.e., one left and one right)? How much room do we gain?
Unfortunately expressing a curve in feet radius doesn't mean anything to me. I need to see it to understand it.
Stewart Rhine replied:James, My experience with switches on curves is that they take more work. You have to check the switch points regularly to see that they stay tight against the rail. If they start to gap a car or engine can pick the switch. If a stub switch was built, two/ three tracks could feed into the building with less space for the turnouts.
Stewart
Ira Schreiber replied:Stewart is right, avoid switches in curves at all costs.
In a perfect yard, all tracks are parallel, with adequate center to center spacing and a very slight downgrade to the stub end to avoid runaways.
Ira
fjknight replied:Very interesting proposals. How about adding the South switch at Sheepscot, installed over Labor Day weekend?
Ira
Ira,
The Sheepscot yard is actually lifted from the track plan I did for my Sn2 module this past summer. I will add the switch to my to do list when it is closer to being a finished drawing.
Frank
fjknight replied:Here's some more ideas.
What happens when you start switches into buildings while still on the curves?
What if instead of a ladder track both switches come off the track from the main line in (i.e., one left and one right)? How much room do we gain?
Unfortunately expressing a curve in feet radius doesn't mean anything to me. I need to see it to understand it.
James,
Good questions. As already stated switches on curves can be tough to build and maintain.
I drew kind of a worse case ladder. Figuring if we needed more space we could do some things such as go left and right from a center lead or even do another 3-way stub and gain a lot of space.
I have the drawing you suggested with 12, 15, and 20 degree curves going to Location C roughed out at home. It will be later tonight before I can get the time to finish it. You should find the comparison interesting.
Frank
MikeW replied:Frank -
Your drawings are really helpful to understand what the pos
