In his blog and other places, Mr. Droste does bring up some interesting points, raises legitimate questions about the Como depot and discusses much circumstantial evidence to back his theory. That said, I do not see enough concrete evidence to publish the theory as absolute fact.
For what it is worth here are my thoughts on the subject;
On the plus side –
Railroads moving depots around was not uncommon and there are numerous documented incidents of it happening. For railroad buildings built in the 1870’s/1880’s, foundations were usually just logs of heavy timbers ,laid on the ground, so lifting the building up and putting it on a flatcar was relatively easy.
In 1880’s terms, labor was cheap relative to the cost of materials. Thus the expense of moving a building was usually less that the cost of building a new one, so moving depots was feasible and economically sound.
I do not know of any documented instances of a railroad buying or otherwise obtaining a building from another railroad and then moving it a fairly long distance for another use. That does not mean it did not happen and I would say it is within the realm of possibility that it could have happened.
On the negative side –
The idea that the DSP&P would buy a building from the D&RG and cart it from Denver, up and over the pass to Como seems a bit of a stretch. Not out of the realm of possibility, but certainly not a standard practice. It would make more sense if it were a smaller building at some marginal on line town rather than a substantial building at what was intended to be a division point. There is no evidence that the South Park reused older buildings obtained elsewhere anywhere else when it was building the highline over Boreas Pass.
Moving a small depot between two points on a railroad without clearance issues is one thing. Moving a building the size of the Como Depot, or D&RG Denver freight depot from Denver to Como is another thing entirely. The bridges along the line severly limited the height and width of what could pass through. (look at the surviving bridge displayed in Bailey and try to visualize moving the Como depot through it).
Moving what is now the Como depot from Denver would have involved cutting the building into many smaller pieces. If this had been done the building would still show the evidence today. In his “smoking gun” blog post, Mr. Droste indicates that the holes are still in the wall where the semaphore linkage would have passed through it when the building was in Denver and that these holes were merely covered up with newer boards. This would indicate that the interior siding in the building is original. As such, it should show evidence of where the building was cut so that it could be hauled up from Denver on several narrow gauge flatcars. It is a stretch to believe that the DSP&P would have taken the time to repair this damage, yet hastily covered over some small holes with random boards.
To my knowledge, the recent restoration work on the Como depot uncovered no evidence of the building having been cut into smaller pieces and then put back together. The foundation sills and wall beams would have been cut in order to separate the building into pieces small enough to be moved. Evidence of those cuts would still be there today.
Point blank, if all of the structural beams and sills of the Como depot are solid timbers without evidence of having been cut and then put back together , it is physically impossible for the building to have been moved from Denver by rail. (the idea of moving it intact on wagon wheels pulled by a whole bunch of mules, while I suppose to be physically possible, is too preposterous to even consider). If evidence of the building being cut into smaller pieces and then reassembled is found, then the idea that the building was moved from somewhere else becomes a great likelihood.
For the record I do not speak for the DSP&PHS, but I find the idea that the Society would try to suppress the idea that the Como depot may have a very different history that previously thought without merit. If the Como depot were truly the D&RG freight depot from Denver, how could this be a bad thing?!?!? It would only mean that a really neat and historical building was only that much neater and more historical, and had one hell of a story to tell. Publishing that theory and passing it off as fact without concrete evidence of its truth would be a poor choice for a Historical Society to make.
Jason Midyette
