Alpine Boarding House-why so many doors?

[Kurt Maechner]

I was looking at some photos of the Alpine Tunnel boarding house and noticed what looks like 4 doors.  Why would this building need so many doors?  Does anyone know the inside layout?  Were these separate rooms that could not be entered from inside?

[Ken Martin]

Kurt,

I don't know why so many doors either. I found this drawing on the HABS/HAER site but it doesn't show an interior.

Ken Martin

https://www.loc.gov/resource/hhh.co0774.sheet/?sp=1

[Kurt Maechner]

Wow...how have I missed this site?  Thanks for the link!  The description below the diagram spells out what each floor was for and apparently the first was mainly for the proprietor and his wife.  Still doesn't make sense that they would need all those doors (not counting the 3 in the back!).

Curiously enough, the HABS site doesn't have the stone boarding house even though it has all the other structures.

[Robert McFarland]

Check out DPL photo X-6501.

[Kurt Maechner]

I've always found this photo (X-6501) of the interior of the upstairs of the boarding house in 1940 intriguing.  Who tossed all the furniture around?  Also, why did the photographer not take any other photos of the interior (that we know of)?  

[ComoDepot]

Looks like a tenement, was it built as a Boarding House?

[Kurt Maechner]

Yes, it was built in 1907 after the fire of 1906 that destroyed the stone engine house.  Some say the fire also destroyed the stone section house too, though I am doubtful of that (there are no signs of burning on that building).  Either way the original stone boarding house became unusable for some reason or another.  Anyway, the structure was built to house the proprietor and his wife (the downstairs portion), but also included an upstairs bunk room where section workers lived while they managed that portion of the line.

[Chris Walker]

Examination of this photo will show that the old roof is badly damaged at one end only, and that the idea was destroyed in the Enginehouse fire is untrue since this photo shows both extant.  I'm surprised this wasn't reroofed.



In this view note the Windows are missing as well.  Would a snowslide have reached that far from the mountainsides, or weight of snow been a factor?  The lack of windows suggest otherwise, like a small fire but the roof timbers don't appear burnt.



Also something to note is no Train Orderboard fitted here to the Telegraph Office at this time.

[Jeff Young]

The fact that they switched to the other side of the tracks when building the wooden version give some credence to the snow slide idea....

[Kurt Maechner]

Here are excerpts from a B&L article I wrote a few years back with my theory on the boarding house:

Most assume that the original boarding, or section, house burned in the 1906 fire.  It was at this point that the C&S built the two story boarding house that stood so prominently next to the small telegraph station.  It only makes sense that this structure was built to replace the burned one…except that it never burned.  

Take a look at the bottom 1906 photo on page 282 of the DSP&P Pictorial Supplement.  The engine house is clearly blackened and destroyed from the recent fire.  The stone boarding house, however, is not charred a bit.  This picture lends an interesting clue to its story, though.  The roof, while not burned, is nearly entirely collapsed.  

Rewind to the year 1896, one year after the tunnel’s reopening.  On page 280 of the same book, one can see the roof of the boarding house in a significant state of deterioration.  No tar or shingles appear either.  

Let’s rewind once more.  Mac Poor noted that 1890 UP records indicate a “small section house” was built.  He gathers that this must be what eventually became the station or telegraph office.  So, within 8 or 9 years from the tunnel opening, there was deemed a need to replace the stone structure.  Why?

My theory is that the stone boarding house was used from the opening of the tunnel through the first closing in 1890.  The following years of idleness slowly deteriorated it.  Yet, there must have been another reason why it wasn’t deemed worth fixing upon the tunnel’s reopening in 1895.  The engine house certainly was rejuvenated.  Was a stone structure too cold?  Was there some defect in its construction?  Was it too small?  The answers to these questions may forever remain a mystery.  Whatever the reason, the company seemed okay to let it just fall apart.  

Note: I want to express my appreciation to Hart Corbett who brought many of the above details to light through a DSP&P forum correspondence several years ago.  

[Kurt Maechner]

In reference to the snow slide idea, I don't remember the hillside behind the structure being that tall or steep to be something that would create a slide able to cause that much trouble.  Even if there had been a slide, would it not have done the same damage to the engine house?  Also, the walls don't seem to be damaged beyond repair.  Only the roof seems decayed.  If some snow simply caused the roof to partially collapse, that would seem a small issue that could be easily remedied.  It seems that something else made this structure unusable and not worth refurbishing after the 1890-1895 closing.  

[Kurt Maechner]

Interesting note: notice in the photo above (that looks downgrade) there is another structure next to the telegraph office.  Could this have been the section house used (along with the telegraph office) between abandoning the stone one and the building of the two-story one?  

[Kurt Maechner]

Sorry to keep posting, but I looked again at the first photo.  It looks that the structure in the foreground is not the telegraph station but something else-it doesn't peak in the middle (maybe it's a privy?).  My guess is that the telegraph office is the one behind it (or downgrade from it).  Could a section crew have been housed entirely in the telegraph office?  Seems unlikely.

[Chris Walker]

Since there is only a short time period the line was shut down, I don't think decay....but as Kurt say's, there is no roof covering material visible.
Weight of accumulated snow during the shutdown perhaps?  That is an awfully low roof profile for such a Mountain environment, you wouldn't see that in the European Alps.  Then to be factored in is the Stone Enginehouse has differing Skylight positions and number in all the photos that show the roof.  Joe Crea pointed that out in his Gazette article or maybe in the South Park Line by Mal Ferrell.

There is one other to consider, since some of the Rafters are not sagging inwards and missing at the end closest the Enginehouse, coupled to the Windows missing in the other view, maybe the Section crew were thawing Dynamite in there.......  would that have made the Newspapers given the remoteness and location?  Just was a common accident of the era.



Other outbuildings.

[Robert McFarland]

Are you talking about a lean-to on this side of  the telegraph office instead of behind?Looks like there is a train order board  on the telegraph office

[Robert McFarland]

Notice the outfit cars parked near the stone boarding house in the post 1906 fire photo.

[Chris Walker]

What outfit cars?  There aren't any visible in any of the above.

[Jeff Young]

Why are there no capping stones on the boarding house gable walls?  Any chance it was never finished?

[Robert McFarland]

Referring  to Kurt's previous post including mention of a page from the Pictorial

[Jim Courtney]

I believe this is the photo that both Kurt and Robert are referencing:




Taken the winter after the stone engine house burned. The outfit cars accomidated railroad employees temporarily, until the boarding house could be constructed.





The telegraph office and new boarding house the following winter (1908-1909?)

Both photos in Kindig, et al., The Pictorial Supplement . . .