Jason Midyette Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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
I agree with you there that publishing this story as fact would be hasty and illogical at this point, but I have experienced some similar hostility for presenting a concept that went against the grain of the "common knowledge" of our hobby a few years ago. I found evidence that a standard gauge third rail was added to the narrow gauge D&RGW line between Salt Lake City and Ogden in 1883, six years before the well-known standard gauge rush of 1889, and after presenting it I received several messages boldly proclaiming to me that I was dead wrong, and that previous D&RGW histories clearly proved that no standard gauge track was every built on the Rio Grande system in Utah before 1889. Even though I had primary source documentation, those folks would have none of that because it contradicted their set of knowledge accrued from reading the canon Rio Grande history texts.
It would be nice if more people would recognize that history is constantly evolving and even Athearn and LeMassena made mistakes; as thorough as their (and others') histories are, there were thousands of documents that were not available to them but are now available to us, and it will be natural that new evidence will challenge previous and current accepted premises. The difference between my case and the Como depot is that I actually had written documentation. In the case of the Como depot, there is some good physical evidence for the idea but plenty against it as well, so it is still too early to promote it as fact as you said.
