Como Roundhouse Addition

[Jeff Ramsey]

Like this image of the "rotary extension". Notice how wide the door is what is that stuff on the right against the stone wall?

[ComoDepot]

Looks like somebody came up from Denver to have his photo taken.

[Jeff Ramsey]

How about a new Como roundhouse image circa 1899-1900? Notice the front of the 6-8 stalls from the right are in line with each other and  don't follow a set radius from the turntable suggesting salvaged engine house material.

[Jim Courtney]

Great photo, Jeff!

Thanks

[Chris Walker]

Wonderful image  Jeff.

Take note of the Headlight on the left is mounted on a Post, not on the Roundhouse wall.  :)

[Jeff Ramsey]

More like someone staying at the Kelly Boarding House. Looks cold like last night .

[Jeff Ramsey]

And the distant back wall in this image. Notice the transition between the circa 1893 addition and the 1897 one.

[ComoDepot]

Courtesy of the CRRM.

[ComoDepot]

[ComoDepot]

[ComoDepot]

[Jeff Young]

Great stuff, David!

[SteveG]

I noticed in Rick Steele's posted D&LG roster of 1893 that Como is listed (page 12) as having 14 stalls: 6 stone and 8 frame, which would appear to be yet another configuration.
I've always been a bit surprised by the orientation of the original 6 stone stalls, as none of the stalls align with any of the approach tracks, but the whole structure faces pretty much directly east. I'm going to hazard a guess that that was an  attempt to minimize snow drifts against the doors and turntable pit, but would be curious to learn of any other less conjecture-based rationale.(Edit--deleted comment about the diagram above as a half-circle, since--ooops-- I misread it.) It does look like the average track separation was 10 degrees.
 The Model Masterpieces kit I have for the stone roundhouse specifies 12 degrees per stall, which is a good argument for some selective compression when I get to building the frame additions to model Como circa 1910.

Steve Guty.
Lakeway, TX

[ComoDepot]

To my knowledge the Roundhouse was extended 3 times to reach its 19 bays, which it would have been in 1910

If you look along Park Gulch you can see that at least the third extension must have been built on fill material. So why did they position the first section the way they did knowing the issues that would arise if it was extended significantly.

In crude terms the stone section would need to  be rotated about 6 bays clockwise to block the wind blown winter snow. They did have a snow fence incorporated into the 3 bay extension and after that burned in 1935 they did build one across, last week the turntable would have been inoperable due to snow in the pit.

I have never been able to find out why they put it where they did, a long way from a water source, expansion would have been difficult, they had plenty of other options.

I can think of other situations where the head office did not take much notice of local knowledge so perhaps it looked good on paper?

[ComoDepot]

Ohh and I forget the numbers but the rest of the tracks were not laid out to a standard separation like the stone section, my recollection is that they were a bit more cramped.

[SteveG]

Thanks for the additional info! While it's great to know, I'm thinking about what would be involved in indexing a model turntable for variable separation tracks, and am probably going to fake it and go with uniform separation.
Unless I can figure out a way to make the 'Armstrong' method compatible with DCC.