Misread the title as "Working" control room, and was ready to be amazed that something like that from the first half of the last century was still in use... and not even a PC or screen to be found. But, it was decomissioned in 1997.
Really interesting how depression-era infrastructure like that was still built with so much attention to aesthetic design.
Today it would just be screens on a wall, industrial carpet floor, drop-tile ceiling with LED lights, a few Steelcase cubicles for the operators and little else.
> Today it would just be screens on a wall, industrial carpet floor, drop-tile ceiling with LED lights, a few Steelcase cubicles for the operators and little else.
Or do we only look at old things that were pretty? I bet in 100 years nobody is going to look at our drab utilitarian offices, they’re gonna share photos of the beautiful offices with great interior design (they exist) and wonder why they don’t build them like that anymore.
It's great that so much about those old control rooms is posted here lately!
One thing I notice is how much efforts had been spent to illustrate both the current status of the system, but also it's overall structure and how the two relate - i.e. the actual components of the facility.
Almost all of the dashboards here have some kind of graph, showing the wiring or plumbing between components, or in case of railway control, the railway lines. The graph acts like a map on which status indicators or switches can be placed.
Compare that to modern software "dashboards" which are full of complicated charts showing various metrics, but almost never show the structure of the system.
I feel that when you see actual plant control systems they tend to have some sort of visual design. Software might just be especially different as many times there is no clear physical things to represent.
I am an automation engineer for power generation and transmission facilities. Modern industrial HMIs that are the analogue of this always show the structure of the system. This is a weirdly common thing people have been saying on these threads and I have no idea why.
There's something very beautiful about the attention to detail and forethought that has gone into rooms like this.
The wonderful combination of beauty through a clear focus on functionality, supported by just enough of a sense of majesty to lift the whole space beyond pure functionality makes it a little more special.
This is probably a place that was always considered at least somewhat beautiful given its strong design, but more generally speaking I find it really interesting seeing how functional ~1930-1970s era industrial units like this have kinda become fascinating and (in their own way) beautiful places in the eyes of so many (me included).
I often wonder how people in the future will look back at our current humdrum infrastructure and what they might think of it. No doubt there'll be just as much nostalgia and fascination in some quarters, but i have to admit it's a little hard at times for me to see what elements of modern infrastructure will become the focal point of curious minds in, say, the 2050s.
That said, I did visit a museum last year that had some pylon insulators and some other old 1990s electric-grid equipment and I found it kinda interesting and beautiful in its own way so what do I know?!
Definitely an art deco feel to the interior when I disregarded later model telephones and apparatus. Poirot himself would waddle in and be right at home.
The photography is also beautifully done. Although mid-century and earlier industrial spaces are usually beautiful on their own, the photography really highlights that. I highly doubt I would be able to capture it the way this photographer has.
There is so much cool tech and tech spaces that have been lost in terms of the visual history and story. I wish I could go back in time and capture more of the spaces and artifacts that I was involved in. Perhaps this isn't an issue for anything created in the last 15 years since smartphones have existed.
It could just be that effect where when you see something once (again) you start seeing it everywhere, but I've seen a recent uptick in administration for old control rooms on the internet recently and I appreciate it.
In the age of digital clouds we've lost the tactile experience of managing the infrastructure we rely on to (IMHO) our own detriment.
I would like to imagine that if pushing a change to production meant a development had to walk down a wall of cabinets with blinking lights toggling chunky switches as they went the simple physicality of the act would be enough to make them pause and wonder if everything really was in order.
It's not even an outlandish ask. We know from say cars that physical interfaces are in some ways more efficient than LCD UIs. It's such a weird thing we don't actually have 24/7 physically staffed control rooms with such indicators and actuators alongside normal displays at large companies
I was wondering whether it was still in use, and if so for how much longer. Apparently it is no longer operational but, hearteningly, has been historically preserved and is now let out as a period filming location.
in that its lovely and highly functional? sure. what disturbs me is that the lit map is wrapped around this large empty room. but the operator would get the same angular view if the whole thing was just somewhat smaller and wrapped more closely around the desk. the use of space here seems extravagant and kind of unsettling
The central room feels large today, but I bet it was the right size for 1930s technology.
The space requirement comes from two things: the diagrams on the panels are actually fairly complex with lots of controls thwt fit mostly inside the diagrams themselves. Operators in the room should be able to scan the whole diagram easily from a central position.
Thw size of the room then becomes a requirement because all the panels need to be oriented inwards, not occluded and they can't shrink down too much because the controls need to fit.
If, like me, you were wondering what the room /actually/ looks like: https://www.flickr.com/photos/132123913@N03/albums/721577110...
Misread the title as "Working" control room, and was ready to be amazed that something like that from the first half of the last century was still in use... and not even a PC or screen to be found. But, it was decomissioned in 1997.
Really interesting how depression-era infrastructure like that was still built with so much attention to aesthetic design.
Today it would just be screens on a wall, industrial carpet floor, drop-tile ceiling with LED lights, a few Steelcase cubicles for the operators and little else.
> Today it would just be screens on a wall, industrial carpet floor, drop-tile ceiling with LED lights, a few Steelcase cubicles for the operators and little else.
Or do we only look at old things that were pretty? I bet in 100 years nobody is going to look at our drab utilitarian offices, they’re gonna share photos of the beautiful offices with great interior design (they exist) and wonder why they don’t build them like that anymore.
It's great that so much about those old control rooms is posted here lately!
One thing I notice is how much efforts had been spent to illustrate both the current status of the system, but also it's overall structure and how the two relate - i.e. the actual components of the facility.
Almost all of the dashboards here have some kind of graph, showing the wiring or plumbing between components, or in case of railway control, the railway lines. The graph acts like a map on which status indicators or switches can be placed.
Compare that to modern software "dashboards" which are full of complicated charts showing various metrics, but almost never show the structure of the system.
I feel that when you see actual plant control systems they tend to have some sort of visual design. Software might just be especially different as many times there is no clear physical things to represent.
I am an automation engineer for power generation and transmission facilities. Modern industrial HMIs that are the analogue of this always show the structure of the system. This is a weirdly common thing people have been saying on these threads and I have no idea why.
There's something very beautiful about the attention to detail and forethought that has gone into rooms like this.
The wonderful combination of beauty through a clear focus on functionality, supported by just enough of a sense of majesty to lift the whole space beyond pure functionality makes it a little more special.
This is probably a place that was always considered at least somewhat beautiful given its strong design, but more generally speaking I find it really interesting seeing how functional ~1930-1970s era industrial units like this have kinda become fascinating and (in their own way) beautiful places in the eyes of so many (me included).
I often wonder how people in the future will look back at our current humdrum infrastructure and what they might think of it. No doubt there'll be just as much nostalgia and fascination in some quarters, but i have to admit it's a little hard at times for me to see what elements of modern infrastructure will become the focal point of curious minds in, say, the 2050s.
That said, I did visit a museum last year that had some pylon insulators and some other old 1990s electric-grid equipment and I found it kinda interesting and beautiful in its own way so what do I know?!
Definitely an art deco feel to the interior when I disregarded later model telephones and apparatus. Poirot himself would waddle in and be right at home.
The photography is also beautifully done. Although mid-century and earlier industrial spaces are usually beautiful on their own, the photography really highlights that. I highly doubt I would be able to capture it the way this photographer has.
There is so much cool tech and tech spaces that have been lost in terms of the visual history and story. I wish I could go back in time and capture more of the spaces and artifacts that I was involved in. Perhaps this isn't an issue for anything created in the last 15 years since smartphones have existed.
It could just be that effect where when you see something once (again) you start seeing it everywhere, but I've seen a recent uptick in administration for old control rooms on the internet recently and I appreciate it.
In the age of digital clouds we've lost the tactile experience of managing the infrastructure we rely on to (IMHO) our own detriment.
I would like to imagine that if pushing a change to production meant a development had to walk down a wall of cabinets with blinking lights toggling chunky switches as they went the simple physicality of the act would be enough to make them pause and wonder if everything really was in order.
It's not even an outlandish ask. We know from say cars that physical interfaces are in some ways more efficient than LCD UIs. It's such a weird thing we don't actually have 24/7 physically staffed control rooms with such indicators and actuators alongside normal displays at large companies
I was wondering whether it was still in use, and if so for how much longer. Apparently it is no longer operational but, hearteningly, has been historically preserved and is now let out as a period filming location.
https://filming.networkrail.co.uk/filming-locations/woking-e...
This is awesome, seems like a room I would, or should, find in a video game.
I bet an AI could turn it into a simulation or a game, easily. The question is if it would be fun to play.
It's funny how the appeal/aesthetic to these environments is almost the exact inverse of "liminal spaces".
in that its lovely and highly functional? sure. what disturbs me is that the lit map is wrapped around this large empty room. but the operator would get the same angular view if the whole thing was just somewhat smaller and wrapped more closely around the desk. the use of space here seems extravagant and kind of unsettling
The central room feels large today, but I bet it was the right size for 1930s technology.
The space requirement comes from two things: the diagrams on the panels are actually fairly complex with lots of controls thwt fit mostly inside the diagrams themselves. Operators in the room should be able to scan the whole diagram easily from a central position.
Thw size of the room then becomes a requirement because all the panels need to be oriented inwards, not occluded and they can't shrink down too much because the controls need to fit.
The font on that website is unreadable, but the photos are OK.
Yup. Do what you do best. Though I find the photos better than OK.
Its Furtura https://fonts.adobe.com/fonts/futura-pt
Well it is from 2016....
looks very normal to me