The Locomotive House on Novaya Basmannaya: What Remains of the Reserve Palace

Moscow’s Locomotive House is the former People’s Commissariat of Railways building at 2/1 Novaya Basmannaya Street; it retains parts of the 18th-century Reserve Palace. Its street-facing appearance, with a corner tower and clock, took shape during the 1932–1938 reconstruction designed by Ivan Fomin. Within this later shell, however, walls, vaults, elements of the layout and traces of earlier façades survive. Their age cannot be determined simply by looking at the building from Krasnye Vorota Square.

The building’s history comprises several phases of construction: the masonry provisions complex of 1753–1759, its conversion into an institute for noblewomen from 1902, the addition of an extra storey in 1929 and its transformation for the People’s Commissariat in the 1930s. These phases can be traced with the help of the 2023 state historical and cultural assessment report and the list of the monument’s protected features. These documents record the surviving structures, but do not in themselves indicate whether the interiors are accessible.

What stood on the site of the Locomotive House before the Reserve Palace?

The Sovereign’s Granary Yard, also known as the Reserve Yard, once stood at the beginning of Novaya Basmannaya Street. According to the historical account in the heritage protection document, this timber structure from the second half of the 17th century had an enclosed layout and was used to store grain and provisions. The same document states that, after the fire of 1753, construction began on a masonry Reserve Palace on this site to hold supplies for the imperial court.

The complex served as a provisions store and housed the Main Palace Chancellery. Later, it could also accommodate the imperial family and their entourage when the court stayed in Moscow: this function is noted by the editors of a resident’s published memoirs of 1812. Its use for supplies and temporary accommodation explains the complex’s original name.

The heritage protection document dates the construction of the masonry wings to 1753–1759 and names Semyon Yakovlev as the supervisor of the works. He had previously worked under Ivan Michurin and Dmitry Ukhtomsky. In the short city guide published by the Moscow House of Nationalities the latter’s involvement in the palace’s construction is presented as a hypothesis. Without further documentary evidence, it is therefore impossible to assert that Ukhtomsky designed it.

Official publications differ on the dates and the names of those responsible. The historical account in the document concerning Krasnovorotsky Passage attributes the destruction of the timber Granary Yard to the fire of 1737 and credits V. I. Kaftyrev with the design of the masonry complex. The document specifically concerning the building at No. 2/1 dates the start of work to 1753 and names Semyon Yakovlev as its supervisor; construction continued until 1759. The study of 10 Novaya Basmannaya Street cites an entry in the 1745 census register mentioning the earlier service building. The study suggests that the masonry ensemble was built after the fire of 1753 to a design by the same architect, with Ukhtomsky’s involvement. The 1745 entry alone does not establish the age of the timber buildings.

The document specifically concerning this building and the study of 10 Novaya Basmannaya Street link the masonry construction to the fire of 1753 and name Yakovlev, but describe his role differently: the former refers to his supervision of construction, the latter to his design. The document concerning Krasnovorotsky Passage gives a different date and names another architect. All three sources describe the transition from the timber Granary Yard to the masonry Reserve Palace, which subsequently evolved into the present building. The chronology used here follows the heritage protection document specifically concerning the building; the designer of the ensemble has not been conclusively established. This limitation matters when attributing individual features: they cannot confidently be linked to a particular architect solely on the basis of a later historical account.

Another source of inaccuracy is the conflation of names. ‘Granary Yard’ referred to the earlier service compound; ‘Reserve Palace’ became the name of the masonry ensemble with its chancellery and church; ‘Locomotive House’ is a later nickname, acquired after the building’s conversion for the People’s Commissariat. These names denote successive stages in the site’s history. They are useful chronological reference points, but cannot be taken as evidence that all the wall fabric or façade decoration passed unchanged from one era to the next.

How was the masonry Reserve Palace laid out?

The masonry Reserve Palace consisted of two-storey wings around a large courtyard. The historical account in the heritage protection document describes three sides of the complex as a single connected structure; the wing on Novaya Basmannaya Street was linked to them by carriage gateways. The enclosed perimeter survived changes of use and the addition of upper storeys, although the exterior finish changed almost beyond recognition.

The dome of the palace chapel rose above the central section of the wing facing Novaya Basmannaya Street. Three tiers of windows and pilasters with Corinthian capitals distinguished the chapel’s structure; Baroque window surrounds and panels gave rhythm to the adjoining surfaces. A cartouche bearing a double-headed eagle signalled the complex’s connection to a government department. This architectural vocabulary was progressively altered during later works, so the present street frontage cannot offer a complete picture of its mid-18th-century appearance.

The chapel was first consecrated in honour of the martyr St Sebastian, then rededicated to St Januarius. The historical account links these dedications to commemorative dates associated with Empress Elizabeth Petrovna and Catherine II. For the building’s history, another point matters more: the chapel formed part of its central structure, rather than standing separately in the courtyard. This is why its surviving traces were included in the list of features to be preserved within the present complex.

The Main Palace Chancellery, housed here since the mid-18th century, was abolished in 1786; its functions passed to the Court Office. This is a documented change in the complex’s use long before the war of 1812.

The Reserve Palace survived the Moscow fire of 1812. According to the heritage protection account, only 12 masonry houses on Novaya Basmannaya Street survived at that time. During the war, the palace became a hospital for soldiers from both sides, and after the French army’s departure it housed people who had lost their homes. Later, some rooms were used as flats, offices and storerooms. By the time the complex was transferred to the Moscow nobility in 1890, its purpose had long extended beyond storing provisions for the palace.

What does an eyewitness of 1812 tell us about the Reserve Palace?

The published ‘Notes of a Moscow Resident Living in the Reserve Palace’ describe how people sheltered in the masonry building and fought the flames during the Moscow fires of September 1812. The anonymous author witnessed these events; his account helps establish how the complex was used, but does not date the surviving vaults and walls.

The account of the fire near the Red Gate states that the palace’s window frames and roof caught fire; residents fought the flames, and the building survived. The eyewitness credits Court Councillor Gavrila Vishnevsky with helping to save people and writes that the complex sheltered around five hundred people. This figure comes from the author’s own testimony, rather than a later verified register. For the building’s history, the significance of this episode lies in what can be substantiated: the masonry enclosure became a refuge during the fire, surviving where the street’s timber buildings were being destroyed.

The historical account in the heritage protection document independently states that the palace housed a hospital and people left homeless in 1812. The editors of the published memoir note that the manuscript is unsigned and that its attribution to Vishnevsky is doubtful; the text itself refers to Vishnevsky in the third person. It would therefore be incorrect to claim that the official’s own personal notes have survived. This is an account by an unidentified resident, published alongside the editors’ analysis of the manuscript’s origins.

The eyewitness account of 1812 also highlights the distinction between the history of events and the history of construction. The phrase ‘the palace survived’ means that the complex was not destroyed by fire; it does not mean that all its floors and architectural details reached the 21st century without replacement. The addition of upper storeys in 1902–1938 altered its height, façades and some interior spaces. The survival of each physical element is established through heritage studies, rather than a phrase in a memoir.

What changes did Alexander Meisner make from 1902 onwards?

Alexander Meisner adapted the former Reserve Palace for an institute for noblewomen. In 1890, the Palace Department transferred the complex to the Moscow nobility for this institution; major reconstruction began in 1902. A third storey was added to the wings, while the building along Novaya Basmannaya Street was extended and given a double-height hall. This was a substantial transformation of the spaces, rather than simply a new decorative scheme.

On the Sadovaya-Chernogryazskaya Street side, Meisner added a carriage archway, and a garden was laid out in the courtyard. According to the heritage protection account, the façades acquired restrained Classical detailing after the works. The additional storey changed the proportions of the old ensemble: the two-storey provisions complex became a three-storey educational building, designed for a different arrangement of rooms and circulation.

Classes at the institute began in autumn 1906. The heritage protection document dates the surviving ceremonial hall on the first floor, elements of the interior decoration and some staircases to the early 20th century. These features belong to Meisner’s reconstruction. Their age cannot be determined from the Commissariat’s 1930s façade.

Meisner was not the only person involved in the early 20th-century reconstruction. The historical account in the heritage protection document names Nikolai Nikitin and Nikolai Chernetsov, specialists in architecture and restoration. Meisner himself worked for one of the institute’s trustees, Sergei Sheremetev. This matters for attribution: his name represents the guiding design concept, but does not encompass everyone involved in the work.

The terms of the complex’s transfer in 1890 also reveal the nature of the change. The Palace Department made the building available to the Moscow nobility for the institute, on condition that it be returned if the institution closed or moved elsewhere. The work adapted the existing complex for educational use rather than building on an empty site, while retaining the departmental ownership recorded in the document. The wings accommodated a different type of communal space, with the double-height hall becoming one of its defining spatial features.

In autumn 1906, when classes began at the institute, the chapel originally established in the Reserve Palace was consecrated. Its dome was dismantled when upper storeys were added in 1929. Nevertheless, the 2012 list of protected features records part of the former chapel’s structure within the building’s layout, extending up to the second-floor level.

What changes did Ivan Rerberg make in 1929?

In 1929, Ivan Rerberg designed two additional storeys above the main wing of the former Reserve Palace, bringing it to five storeys. The chapel’s dome was dismantled during this work. This preceded Fomin’s project, which transformed the street façades and the other wings in 1932–1938.

The People’s Commissariat of Railways occupied the building in 1919. At that time, the cross was removed from the dome, and the department’s emblem replaced the double-headed eagle on the façade. Rerberg’s addition subsequently brought the main wing to five storeys; Fomin incorporated this wing into a new composition for the entire building.

What did Ivan Fomin and Vyacheslav Oltarzhevsky create in 1932–1938?

Ivan Fomin was the architect whose remodelling of 1932–1938 created the street-facing appearance that earned the building its nickname, the Locomotive House. The design was developed with Vyacheslav Oltarzhevsky, a specialist in structural frames of steel and reinforced concrete. The wings were brought together in a unified five-storey composition with a strict rhythm of windows, while a clock tower rose at the junction of the streets.

The tower stands where the two long façades along Novaya Basmannaya and Sadovaya-Chernogryazskaya meet; paired columns frame the entrance at its base. The historical account in the heritage protection document describes it as nine storeys high, while the statement of protected features describes it as eleven storeys. The document does not explain the different counting methods. Without a separate measured survey, it is best not to state the tower’s exact number of storeys.

The design is often associated with Constructivism, and the historical account in the heritage protection documentation uses that term. Yet the same account notes Fomin’s characteristic engaged columns without bases or capitals on the lower floors, as well as columns beside the carriage archway. The building combines spare planes with simplified classical motifs. This combination offers a more precise understanding of Fomin’s architecture than a single stylistic label.

The tower clock has changed too: the historical account records Roman numerals when it was installed and Arabic numerals by the 1950s. Even this recognisable feature of the silhouette therefore differs in some respects from the original 1930s design. The façades were restored in 1988–1989. To understand the building, it is important to distinguish the date of the design, subsequent alterations and its present condition following restoration.

Why does a stylistic label fail to explain the building as a whole?

The document for building 2/1 describes the remodelling design as Constructivist. Yet the same document describes engaged columns and freestanding columns: elements of the classical orders. The heritage study of the People’s Commissariat of Railways polyclinic at 5 Novaya Basmannaya places Fomin’s work within the history of ‘proletarian classicism’. There, the architect combined simplified forms of the classical orders with a structural frame and extensive glazing. The study concerns a different building: its structural solutions cannot automatically be attributed to the Locomotive House, but the comparison helps explain the design’s stylistic character.

In Fomin’s composition, the long wing and the tower serve different purposes. The five storeys of the elongated façades maintain the horizontal lines of the streets; engaged columns at the lower level establish a broad rhythm. The clock tower marks the corner of Novaya Basmannaya and Sadovaya-Chernogryazskaya. The study of the neighbouring polyclinic identifies the contrast between a horizontal volume with paired classical columns and a vertical volume without divisions based on the classical orders as characteristic of Fomin’s work at this time.

Krasnye Vorota Square had already changed before Fomin’s remodelling: The Museum of Moscow dates the demolition of the Red Gate to 1927. A high-rise was later built nearby: its heritage protection document dates its construction to 1949–1953. The Commissariat tower can therefore be considered in two urban settings: as a vertical accent in the square of the 1930s, and as part of a post-war ensemble in which it was no longer the sole dominant landmark. These sources do not establish that Fomin deliberately ‘replaced’ the demolished gate.

The decorative treatment of the Locomotive House offers another indication of how old and new were combined. Alongside the 1930s silhouette, the statement of protected features lists a Corinthian portico, rustication, pilasters, window surrounds and a string course between floors. This list does not mean that every detail has survived equally on every façade. It records elements from different periods that the commission considered part of the heritage building. In the description of its condition in 2023, the paired columns of the northern portico continue along the façade of the southern wing. The repetition of this form unites the two street-facing volumes within the 1930s composition. The ensemble appears to be a single design, but an examination of its legal documentation and building history reveals several eras behind that unity.

The architectural historian Viktor Mzhelsky, in his article on the stylistic trends of the 1930s examines the Ministry of Railways building as a work by Fomin. He connects the architect’s ‘Red Doric’ with a reinterpretation of the classical orders, while noting the Locomotive House’s affinity with Constructivism: its clock tower, corner balconies, vertical glazing and simple cornice. These observations clarify the design’s stylistic character: the engaged columns evoke classicism, while the silhouette evokes the architecture of the 1930s.

How are the building’s historical layers distributed across its height?

In the basement and on the first and second storeys, the heritage protection document safeguards elements of the eighteenth-century palace layout and vaulted structures from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The third level includes part of the former church space and rooms created for the institute. Rerberg added the fourth and fifth storeys above the main wing in 1929, and Fomin subsequently gave the ensemble a unified façade treatment. This vertical outline helps make the sequence memorable, but it does not replace a measured survey of individual elements: different parts were remodelled in different ways.

The list of protected features distinguishes staircases from the 1900s on the first three storeys from those of the 1930s on the fourth and fifth storeys and in the corner tower. This reveals the sequence of alterations. The staircases’ different ages show where the building’s expansion required new circulation routes and where the institute’s arrangements survived. Early twentieth-century chandeliers in the grand hall on the second storey demonstrate that the conversion for government use did not erase the earlier institution’s entire interior scheme.

Why do sources give different dates for the Commissariat building’s appearance?

Sources give different dates for Fomin’s remodelling and do not always specify which stage of the work a date refers to. A photograph caption in the Department of Cultural Heritage’s magazine Moscow Heritage dates the creation of the building’s Constructivist appearance to 1932–1933. The historical account for Krasnovorotsky Proyezd gives the period as 1933–1936. The dedicated heritage protection document for building 2/1 describes the transformation of its appearance in 1932–1938, while the heritage building’s official name includes the year 1934. These dates cannot be presented without explanation as though they all identify a single year in which all construction work was completed.

These sources cannot establish the exact completion date. For an architectural analysis, it is more reliable to give the remodelling period recorded in the dedicated heritage protection document and to note separately that Fomin died in 1936, according to the heritage study of the neighbouring polyclinic. Completion after the designer’s death does not invalidate the attribution, but it does prevent us from claiming that he personally supervised every later stage of the work. The documents do not fully explain how tasks were divided among those who continued the project.

The dedicated document records the restoration of the façades in 1988–1989 and separately lists proposals for façade and other works approved in 2015 and 2017. Approval alone does not confirm that everything planned was carried out. The document therefore cannot be used to assign a single year to the restoration of the entire complex or to conclude that all the interiors have been restored.

Which eighteenth- and early twentieth-century features survive inside?

The statement of protected features explicitly includes elements of the Reserve Palace’s layout in the basement and on the first two storeys, as well as the former private chapel, part of which extends to the third storey. The protected structures include sections of white-stone masonry in the southern wing and vaults with lunettes. More than the outline of the site and the memory of its former name have survived: the documents record physical parts of the old building.

The historical account states that the vaulted structures in the main wing were left untouched during the remodelling of the 1930s. The statement of protected features dates the old vaults to the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and the flat floor structures to later periods. This distinction is fundamental. Describing all the rooms simply as ‘historic’ obscures the coexistence of different phases of construction.

The grand hall on the second storey, decorative interior details and staircases survive from the institute’s time. The list of protected features mentions the entrance vestibule’s artificial marble finish, the hall’s early twentieth-century chandeliers, cornices, panelled doors and staircase railings from different periods. A survey in February 2023 also recorded the grand staircase, a lobby and two halls on the second storey. Some courtyard façades retain window surrounds, rustication, pilasters and stucco decoration. This historical layer is less evident on the street side: it was precisely the building’s outward appearance, facing the city, that Fomin changed.

The statement of protected features describes what must be preserved; it does not promise visitors access to every room. Documentary evidence about the internal structures therefore cannot be replaced with a claim that ‘they can be seen from the street’. The tower, clock, length of the wings and composition of the façades are visible from outside; readers learn about the old vaults, white-stone masonry and early twentieth-century hall through research and heritage protection documentation.

What exactly does heritage status protect?

The heritage asset is named in the document as the ‘Ministry of Railways’, with the date 1934 and Ivan Fomin’s name. This wording may give the misleading impression that the state protects only the Commissariat façade. The statement of protected features itself, approved by the city department in 2012, is broader: it includes the building’s form, layouts from different centuries, old walls, vaults, interiors, and details on both the courtyard and street sides. The year in the asset’s name does not indicate the age of every stone.

For the façades, the list includes both the 1930s composition and individual surviving details of earlier origin. For the interiors, it names structural walls and partitions, vaults, the grand hall, the entrance vestibule, decorative finishes and staircases. Even the tower clock is listed as a protected feature from the 1930s. Heritage status thus applies to the building’s fabric, rather than to a photograph of it taken from a single viewpoint.

The 2023 document itself assessed a proposal to modernise the CCTV and access control systems. It is not a report on a completed restoration of the palace, nor does it establish that the interiors have opened to visitors. The document includes a historical account, the approved statement of protected features and a finding that the project documentation under review meets heritage conservation requirements. The proposal does not provide for new cameras in the grand hall; where cameras are replaced on walls and ceilings with stucco decoration, it proposes reusing the existing wiring. These restrictions show how the protected finishes were taken into account; the document does not report the completion of the work or provide visiting hours. Repairs to the render and repainting of the exterior walls are not included in the proposal under review; its scope is limited to modernising equipment.

The statement of protected features specifically notes that the façade colour scheme is to be clarified through restoration research; terrazite render is among the materials listed. The current paintwork should therefore not be confidently described as an exact reproduction of an eighteenth-century or 1930s scheme on the basis of a photograph alone. Any claim about the original shade requires a specialist colour analysis of the relevant layer. Unlike the colour, the survival of the old quadrangular layout, clock and vaults is explicitly confirmed in the published list.

Does a timber section of the Zhitny Dvor survive in the Locomotive House?

The published heritage protection document of 2023 does not confirm that a timber section of the Zhitny Dvor survives in the Locomotive House. A short guidebook from the Moscow House of Nationalities claims otherwise, stating that an element of the earlier structure forms part of the present building. However, the list of protected structures names masonry and vaults, while the supposed timber fragment is not located.

The guidebook provides neither measurements nor a date, and does not specify where this element is located. Its survival cannot be verified from the published material. The stone-built parts of the eighteenth-century Reserve Palace, by contrast, are explicitly included in the heritage building’s statement of protected features.

The differing dates given by the sources also require care. The guidebook dates the stone building to 1750, whereas the detailed historical account in the heritage protection document links its construction to the fire of 1753 and the period 1753–1759. This article follows the chronology in the dedicated document, which identifies the construction work undertaken; the earlier date in the short brochure cannot be combined with it without explanation.

When assessing this claim, it helps to distinguish three statements. First: a timber Zhitny Dvor existed on the site; historical accounts confirm this. Second: the stone palace inherited its location and service function; this follows from the sequence of buildings. Third: a specific timber wall from the seventeenth or first half of the eighteenth century physically forms part of the present building. This hypothesis requires other evidence: its location on a plan, a structural survey and dating. Neither similar names nor continuous use of the site can replace that work.

When comparing photographs from different years, choose enduring features that can be dated using the heritage protection document. The addition of the fourth and fifth storeys to the main wing belongs to Rerberg’s 1929 design; the corner tower and façade treatment belong to Fomin’s work of the 1930s; the quadrangular layout and lower structures date back to the earlier palace. A street photograph, however, does not reveal exactly which part of a wall survives from the eighteenth century. Such a conclusion requires plans, an on-site survey and the statement of protected features, rather than similarities in colour or window shape.

The silhouette visible in old images does not reveal what happened to the interior spaces. The dome did disappear when additional storeys were built in 1929, but its loss does not mean that the entire former church space disappeared: the dedicated document protects part of it within the layout up to the third storey. The opposite mistake is to regard every decorative motif now present on the lower tier as a church detail. The list of protected features names various elements, but linking them to a specific phase without measured surveys requires caution.

How can you read the Locomotive House from the street?

Start at the corner of Novaya Basmannaya and Sadovaya-Chernogryazskaya: the clock tower expresses Fomin’s vision, while the wings convey the scale of the government building. Then imagine removing the upper storeys. The lower parts of the perimeter belong to the history of the Reserve Palace, although the present finishes visible from the street make it impossible to assign a precise century to each wall. This is a way to compare the documents with the visible form, rather than a promise of seeing the eighteenth century exposed in a layer of masonry.

The next landmark is the carriage archway on the Sadovaya-Chernogryazskaya Street side. The historical account links it to Meissner’s alterations and Fomin’s later treatment. This single feature thus connects two different projects. The visible details prompt questions about the sequence of work, while heritage protection documents and information about the internal layout provide the answers.

The main conclusion from reading the building in this way is that the Locomotive House cannot be dated to a single era. The eighteenth-century masonry palace survives in its layout and structure; the institute added a storey, a hall and new interiors; Rerberg extended the main block upwards; Fomin brought together sections from different periods to create the recognisable silhouette of the People’s Commissariat for Railways. The nickname captures the impression made by the later façade, but does not tell the building’s whole story.

The Locomotive House is included on the ‘Architecture, Moscow Style’ tour route from the Red Gate to the Yauza Gate. After reading this account, you can compare its façades with the Centrosoyuz Building and the Volkov-Yusupov Palace, both also listed in the programme. The published route description does not promise access to the Locomotive House’s historic interiors.

Sources

1. State Historical and Cultural Expert Assessment Report on the Building at 2/1 Novaya Basmannaya
2. Moscow House of Nationalities. Basmannaya Sloboda. Novaya Basmannaya Street
3. Architecture ‘Moscow Style’ — an Architectural Tour of Moscow
4. State Historical and Cultural Expert Assessment Report on Krasnovorotsky Proyezd: Historical Background on the Surroundings of the Reserve Palace
5. 1812 in Contemporary Recollections. Notes of a Muscovite Living in the Reserve Palace (Published with an Editor’s Preface)
6. State Historical and Cultural Expert Assessment Report on the People’s Commissariat of Railways Polyclinic at 5 Novaya Basmannaya
7. V. M. Mzhelsky. On Stylistic Changes in Soviet Architecture of the 1930s
8. Moscow Heritage. No. 1 (55), 2018. Moscow Department of Cultural Heritage
9. State Historical and Cultural Expert Assessment Report on the Building at 10 Novaya Basmannaya Street: Historical Background on Zhitny Dvor
10. State Historical and Cultural Expert Assessment Report on the Red Gate Building
11. Museum of Moscow. The Red Gate