Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-02-24
The Train-shed Question.

In the final consideration of the train
shed question now pending before Congress
With reference to the new railroad terminal
in this city. the item Of the relative cost
of the two forms proposed must be taken
into account. The great arch shed will cost
about 100000 more than the umbrella shed
system The railroad company is now ad-
vocating the latter, but contends that it
is not actuated by the economy of the UNI
brella shed construction, but by the supe-
riority of that method of protecting the
travelling public from the elements. This
same plea was made by the corporation
when 1t urged that granite be substituted
for white marble for the station building
That change involved considerable saw
ing. but the railroad company insisted that
1t was not moved by such a consideration
but by the superior quality of the granite
as a material for such a building as a rail-
road terminal Its argument to this eff
feet finally prevailed, and granite was ac-
cepted In the same way and degree, the
burden of proof rests upon me railroad
company TO demonstrate positively that the
umbrella shed, despite It's greater economy.
is actually and to a material degree a bet
ter shed for the protection of the public
than the great arch shed In common use.
Thus the cost question does operate in
the last analysis OF the question.
The District committee of the House is
in position to conduct a thorough investi-
cation OF this matter 1t can, and should,
seek testimony on the subject from railroad
authorities in different parts of the country,
putting the question squarely on the ground
of the relative utility and comfort of the
two types. 1t can. and should, seek advice
from architects not connected with railroad
works as to the artistic effect of great
train shed in connection with the monu-
mental station building row under construc-
ton and in relationship to the public build
ings not far distant. The committee, III
short. should not rest content with receiving
merely the dictum of the railroad companys
own representatives. nor should it follow
its own unguided inclinations in the case.
The issue of prime importance is whether
the great arch shed or the umbrella shed
VIII be the better for Washington, the more
convenient for the public. the surer safe
guard to health and in combination with
all other elements, the more certainly a
contribution to the monumental effect con-
templated for the station building. The
railroad has formally waived the question of
cost. and has therefore assumed the respon-
slbility of proving positively that the cheap
these points of view, Notwithstanding the
economy.
Arguments in favor of one or the other
form of construction that are based upon
the theory that the locomotives in the tun-
nels, station and other terminals at Wash
ington are to be permitted to emit vast
volumes of dense smoke should be peremp-
torily pushed aside at the very outset. Con-
gress will be derelict If 1t fails to reduce to
q minimum the local railroad smoke nuis-
ance (even now the most extensive and Of
tensive from which the community suffers)
by compelling the use of electricity or some
other smOkeless motive power in the tun-
uels and other terminals at Washington.
The railroads saved a very large sum of
money from what they agreed to expend by
building a granite instead of marble sta
ton If they now save an additional $780,
900 by substituting low umbrella sheds for
the lofty continuous and imposing roof or
the promised vast train shed, they can af-
ford. and fairly be required to go to
very large expense TO render their iocomo-
tives In the Washington terminals practi-
Cally smokeless.