About a year ago I was doing a blog explaining what I understood about the Denver D&RG station being moved to Como to become the current depot there.
Recently, I decided to continue with the blog. I suggest that for people who are unfamiliar with it to start with my first recent post to start with this one
I am new to this group and have a general interest in Colorado RR history.
There is one building of particular interest to me at the moment that I would like to learn more about and that is the Colorado Central station that sat east of 16th street for as far as I know only a few short years 1876 to 1879. In the later period it was shared with the DSP&P and the DRG. I know that the building was a small wooden construction and that its shared facilities were crowded. The building sat on what became the grounds of the Denver Union Station.
I would love to see some pictures of this building. Would like to know its dimensions or preferably a plan. Did the building have a pre history, post 1879 history or both?
It is hard to imagine that such a building would be destroyed after a few short years of use and therein lies the main avenue of my pursuit.
I would greatly appreciate any leads to further information.
Wasn't there a book written several years back about the history of Denver Union Station?Would there be any info about the CC depot in that book.What about Union Station's pioneering use of electric lighting-both inside and arc-light floodlamps outside on the tower?
Let me get this straight .... you are suggesting the depot currently at Como was moved there
from Denver, and was originally a D&RG depot ? Have I got this right ?
In my 40+ years of knowing the Como depot and studying DSP&P history, I have never heard
of a depot being moved in to Como.
Also of interest is the window header woodwork that is peculiar to pre-1880 DSP&P depot
contruction. Had the depot come from D&RG/Denver, when did it come ? Is there documentation
to support this .... newspaper ? AFE ? And how did the early South Park woodwork get transferred
on this "new" depot ?
This is all news to me. Let's see your supporting evidence.
Hello south park, or whatever your name is,
I am well aware that you would not have read of this anywhere before. I have not read it myself.
It is unfortunate that there are 'historians' out there who can only believe things if they have read it somewhere, and have no capacity for analysis. They are not historians, they are just muppets!
But that is what I have been doing. Analysing matters in a logical processing manner, on this subject, for years.
You did get it straight. Go and make a study of my blog. If you yourself have the intellect to find flaws with evidence, I will welcome it.
Because, I make mistakes, and I would like to correct them where I can.
I am showing you what I am seeing with explanation. I am not that clever that I could make this up and expect to fool everybody involved.
Read my blog first before dribbling from the lip, come back with intelligent discussion on the matter then.
Show me that what I am saying can not be true. I am looking for people that can either do that or either substantiate what I am saying. People with a full capacity for logical analysis.
I am actually interested in seeing a DSP&P building pre 1881 that has the woodwork you are mentioning. Maybe there are lots out there. It has not been the focus of my attention, to be honest.
Not that it would mean a great deal anyway. There was a hotel in Leadville that I recall had the same type of windows. Heaps of em!
It would have been a standard profile by window and doorframe manufacturing company and not under license to a railroad company.
Does that make sense to you, maybe?
The evidence should be there in the logical processes that I use and what I am showing you in the photos. Yours is only what you were brought up to believe. Huge Huge difference there pal.
I might just mention that Mike, a moderator of this group, asked me to post here.
Also, I have tried on numerous occasions before to explain the matter of the Como depot, only to be shot down by reactionary comments.
This time, I decided before trying again, that I would need to be a little more forthright in order to break through. Unfortunately, SouthPark became victim of that forthrightness. I regret that things HAD to happen this way. It is not my character to be so forthright, so I hope that you will all understand that I can not apologise to SouthPark as much as I regret the incident, for I planed to react to hostility in this way.
I have made another post discussing a lost doorway in the Como Depot office.
Also, a while back I did make another post here with a link describing how the Como depot was reassembled, in the same manner that it was reassembled in Denver when it was moved across 19th street.
I think the post was removed because it referred to D&RG in the title.
So you may wish to look back into my past blog too.
It is with great reservation that I say anything about Como in time gone by. The following is all in the "for what it is worth" department.
In 1985 the Colorado Historical Society, now History Colorado, had a Historic Building Inventory of Como done by Hugh Gardner. It does need to be noted that "railroad buildings" were not included in the report.
The "Pink House" is known as the Pat Gibbony house. The construction dates of the home are 1883-1886 based on Park County Clerk and Assessor records. The home was purchased in 1896 by Gibbony from K.J. Wallace for $700. Indications are the home was not on the property in 1883. By 1956 the home was sold by the Gibbony estate to George Hart. It is now owned by Carl Zimmerman and his wife and is open for tour during the August Railroad Days.
There can be no denying your photo. I was wrong, you are correct.
I will share a link to your post in the groups that I announced this blog.
Apologies to all for my unintended misrepresentation.
I need to thank you too for your input, at least on this occasion.
And to add to that, I would like to add a little story.
I have a friend who is a doctor, we attended yoga class together and after class we occasionally broke bread together.
She told me that at her graduation ceremony, the head of the faculty addressed the group and said something like, "We know that half of what we have taught you is wrong. We just don`t know which half that is."
Thank you for demonstrating the flaws in my post. And should you be able to demonstrate flaws on my study of the Como Depot and the D&RG Station, I would welcome it as openly as I do your last post here.
Although I may perhaps be wrong in my assertions, I do believe in them enough that I wish to share my observations in the hope of gathering further information.
Last of all, when links to the past are being lost daily, I find it to be an immorality not to share such ideas for discussion, or indeed known information that would promote further investigation.
I have been looking at just how the Como depot was assembled in Wynkoop Street as it was not in an L shape at that time.
I have made some fascinating discoveries this week that helps explain the changes.
I came to realise that I had got something wrong in the Denver observations regarding how the buildings were situated before they were moved to Como.
I am going to do this in two blog parts. This is the first.
I would not be so smug South Park. I did demonstrate that the second addition was made up of a wall that was the inside width of the office north south and pieces of wall that equaled the inside depth of the depot east west. I pointed out how these two walls were used to to make up the second office extension walls running east west. THEREFORE, the entire Como Depot must have been built all in one go, if you are able to work that out. Go back and read my blog where I explain in detail.
ALSO THEREFORE, it means that the depot was entirely made up of reconstituted buildings!
I can not say that the buildings came from Denver with absolute certainty, but they came from somewhere. I was looking for help to find out where they came from!
Really, it is simply up to you to make that leap of understanding.
Don`t be so smug! Because I am not the fool. Go back and read my last blog posts.
David, why do you continue to pretend that the Depot was extended?
I have shown you using your own architects drawings and photographs that the so called second addition is exactly half the length of the internal width of the office and the internal width of the depot, combined. That is because the walls are cut and joined from a section of each! I have shown where the joins are with photos!
It can only mean that the depot was built entirely in one go, there is no escaping that fact!
So there can be no escaping the fact then either, that the entire building has been rebuilt from other buildings!
I point it all out in this blog for everyone to read and you can not refute the evidence. Everybody, it is a long read but the facts are there.
To persist with the notion that the office was a latter extension means that you have NFI or that you are simply being a liar. You have to choose which it is now.
Also everybody, I am trying to show you some truths. I do not believe in making versions of history that are not truthful, new realities some might say, which in truth is deception. And you can hate me for my honesty. I know why and how that works and I don`t care. Understanding history is the point.