<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Nice late afternoon at Bayview. Often freight traffic was delayed until the GO rush to Hamilton was over, and as a result I often left the Junction early rather than wait around a couple of hours. In retrospect, I suppose I should have spent a bit more time and film on GO.  Here&#8217;s 9804 heading to Hamilton; this was the last year for these locomotives to be numbered in a four digit series.  Shortly after this image, 9804 became 504, as part of the series 9800-9807 becoming 500-507.
 It doesn&#8217;t quite seem like &#8216;yesterday&#8217; but it certainly doesn&#8217;t feel like 50 years ago.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.railpictures.ca/upload/nice-late-afternoon-at-bayview-often-freight-traffic-was-delayed-until-the-go-rush-to-hamilton-was-over-and-as-a-result-i-often-left-the-junction-early-rather-than-wait-around-a-couple-of-hours-in/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.railpictures.ca</link>
	<description>The BEST Canadian photos on the Internet, eh?</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2026 15:46:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ian Malenfant-Picard</title>
		<link>http://www.railpictures.ca/?attachment_id=59867#comment-70226</link>
		<dc:creator>Ian Malenfant-Picard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Aug 2026 22:27:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railpictures.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/1975-05-00-Bayview-ON.-GO-9804-to504.jpg#comment-70226</guid>
		<description>Nice catch, GO Transit sure had an interesting roster back then!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice catch, GO Transit sure had an interesting roster back then!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MrDan</title>
		<link>http://www.railpictures.ca/?attachment_id=59867#comment-70184</link>
		<dc:creator>MrDan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2026 18:21:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railpictures.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/1975-05-00-Bayview-ON.-GO-9804-to504.jpg#comment-70184</guid>
		<description>It was during the transition era when GO was renumbering a lot of its equipment, I guess they hadn&#039;t shopped it for new numbers yet (it wasn&#039;t the same unit number though, one was 50-something, the other was 980-different something).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It was during the transition era when GO was renumbering a lot of its equipment, I guess they hadn&#8217;t shopped it for new numbers yet (it wasn&#8217;t the same unit number though, one was 50-something, the other was 980-different something).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: awmooney</title>
		<link>http://www.railpictures.ca/?attachment_id=59867#comment-70179</link>
		<dc:creator>awmooney</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2026 15:40:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railpictures.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/1975-05-00-Bayview-ON.-GO-9804-to504.jpg#comment-70179</guid>
		<description>How do we get a 9800 and a 500 next to it? Now THAT is weird. They were supposed to be one and the same.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How do we get a 9800 and a 500 next to it? Now THAT is weird. They were supposed to be one and the same.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: awmooney</title>
		<link>http://www.railpictures.ca/?attachment_id=59867#comment-70178</link>
		<dc:creator>awmooney</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2026 15:39:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railpictures.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/1975-05-00-Bayview-ON.-GO-9804-to504.jpg#comment-70178</guid>
		<description>Thanks, MrDan:  I wondered; as I assumed they were that black scheme and I thought they would be renumbered when they got repainted. Not so.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks, MrDan:  I wondered; as I assumed they were that black scheme and I thought they would be renumbered when they got repainted. Not so.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MrDan</title>
		<link>http://www.railpictures.ca/?attachment_id=59867#comment-70177</link>
		<dc:creator>MrDan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2026 15:28:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railpictures.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/1975-05-00-Bayview-ON.-GO-9804-to504.jpg#comment-70177</guid>
		<description>Those were unique units.

I&#039;ve got a mid-1975 slide around here of one numbered as a 9800, parked right next to one still a 500! They came back in that green and white livery after their rebuilding/refurbishing in Montreal (at CN PSC?) still numbered as 9800&#039;s in 1974-75, but didn&#039;t last long.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Those were unique units.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve got a mid-1975 slide around here of one numbered as a 9800, parked right next to one still a 500! They came back in that green and white livery after their rebuilding/refurbishing in Montreal (at CN PSC?) still numbered as 9800&#8242;s in 1974-75, but didn&#8217;t last long.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Todd Steinman</title>
		<link>http://www.railpictures.ca/?attachment_id=59867#comment-70170</link>
		<dc:creator>Todd Steinman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2026 13:17:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railpictures.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/1975-05-00-Bayview-ON.-GO-9804-to504.jpg#comment-70170</guid>
		<description>Classic.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Classic.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
