<?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: Skycover conditions improved dramatically by the time we reached this location. This is the largest wooden trestle that I have seen (likely will ever see). I had every intention of returning here, but that never happened. It would have been nice to chase a loaded sulphur train on this line. There are a number of wooden trestles on this line, including one at Sangudo, just a few miles to the east of this location. We decided to forgo that one in order to get Rochfort Bridge and with a quick escape, the next on further west.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.railpictures.ca/upload/skycover-conditions-improved-dramatically-by-the-time-we-reached-this-location-this-is-the-largest-wooden-trestle-that-i-have-seen-likely-will-ever-see-i-had-every-intention-of-returning-here-but/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.railpictures.ca</link>
	<description>The BEST Canadian photos on the Internet, eh?</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 May 2026 15:18:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: NiagaraMike11</title>
		<link>http://www.railpictures.ca/?attachment_id=38602#comment-48134</link>
		<dc:creator>NiagaraMike11</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Sep 2021 10:32:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railpictures.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/1996-06-30-8-CN-515-X4780W-4778-4789-4712-Sangulo-Sub-Local-Rochfort-Bridge-1-AB-Medium.jpg#comment-48134</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s a big bridge, how does it compare to the long gone Hog bay trestle near Port McNicoll it was a huge one?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s a big bridge, how does it compare to the long gone Hog bay trestle near Port McNicoll it was a huge one?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Larry Parks</title>
		<link>http://www.railpictures.ca/?attachment_id=38602#comment-34588</link>
		<dc:creator>Larry Parks</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Aug 2019 13:20:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railpictures.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/1996-06-30-8-CN-515-X4780W-4778-4789-4712-Sangulo-Sub-Local-Rochfort-Bridge-1-AB-Medium.jpg#comment-34588</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the correction Matt. I&#039;ve been going on the wrong belief all this time. Even now, typing in this fire and it is referred to as the &quot;Rochfort Bridge&quot;. Or big bridge by Mayerthorpe. Leading one to think of &quot;The Bridge&quot;. Having checked a number of stories, you have to watch the length quoted. 366m for the bridge that burned and over 700m for the Rochfort. Quite honestly, I&#039;m glad this has a happy ending, sorry for the misinformation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the correction Matt. I&#8217;ve been going on the wrong belief all this time. Even now, typing in this fire and it is referred to as the &#8220;Rochfort Bridge&#8221;. Or big bridge by Mayerthorpe. Leading one to think of &#8220;The Bridge&#8221;. Having checked a number of stories, you have to watch the length quoted. 366m for the bridge that burned and over 700m for the Rochfort. Quite honestly, I&#8217;m glad this has a happy ending, sorry for the misinformation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mattwatson</title>
		<link>http://www.railpictures.ca/?attachment_id=38602#comment-34585</link>
		<dc:creator>mattwatson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Aug 2019 12:23:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railpictures.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/1996-06-30-8-CN-515-X4780W-4778-4789-4712-Sangulo-Sub-Local-Rochfort-Bridge-1-AB-Medium.jpg#comment-34585</guid>
		<description>Larry- wrong bridge, wrong town, this bridge is absolutely still standing ! 

Steve- 515/516 are indeed still the regulars on this line. Unit trains of frac sand have also become a thing on this line in recent years with 763 being a frequent number used.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Larry- wrong bridge, wrong town, this bridge is absolutely still standing ! </p>
<p>Steve- 515/516 are indeed still the regulars on this line. Unit trains of frac sand have also become a thing on this line in recent years with 763 being a frequent number used.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve Young</title>
		<link>http://www.railpictures.ca/?attachment_id=38602#comment-34584</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Young</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Aug 2019 11:33:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railpictures.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/1996-06-30-8-CN-515-X4780W-4778-4789-4712-Sangulo-Sub-Local-Rochfort-Bridge-1-AB-Medium.jpg#comment-34584</guid>
		<description>As MWatson says, the Sangudo sub sees regular service. The 515 (probably, the same number these days) runs out that way (every second day?).
Then there are the sulphur trains. I recently heard that these sour gas fields are still going strong.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As MWatson says, the Sangudo sub sees regular service. The 515 (probably, the same number these days) runs out that way (every second day?).<br />
Then there are the sulphur trains. I recently heard that these sour gas fields are still going strong.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve Young</title>
		<link>http://www.railpictures.ca/?attachment_id=38602#comment-34583</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Young</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Aug 2019 11:19:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railpictures.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/1996-06-30-8-CN-515-X4780W-4778-4789-4712-Sangulo-Sub-Local-Rochfort-Bridge-1-AB-Medium.jpg#comment-34583</guid>
		<description>Augh! I saw that one of the trestle burnt, but I thought that it was Mayerthorpe. 
Google Street view still shows the wood trestle, albeit with a second steel section for the &quot;double tracked&quot; highway.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Augh! I saw that one of the trestle burnt, but I thought that it was Mayerthorpe.<br />
Google Street view still shows the wood trestle, albeit with a second steel section for the &#8220;double tracked&#8221; highway.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Larry Parks</title>
		<link>http://www.railpictures.ca/?attachment_id=38602#comment-34579</link>
		<dc:creator>Larry Parks</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Aug 2019 04:13:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railpictures.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/1996-06-30-8-CN-515-X4780W-4778-4789-4712-Sangulo-Sub-Local-Rochfort-Bridge-1-AB-Medium.jpg#comment-34579</guid>
		<description>In April of 2016, this bridge was burnt down. 20 days later CN had a new bridge erected. Sadly, no more photos like this. :-(</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In April of 2016, this bridge was burnt down. 20 days later CN had a new bridge erected. Sadly, no more photos like this. <img src='http://www.railpictures.ca/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_sad.gif' alt=':-(' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: awmooney</title>
		<link>http://www.railpictures.ca/?attachment_id=38602#comment-34575</link>
		<dc:creator>awmooney</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Aug 2019 01:41:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railpictures.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/1996-06-30-8-CN-515-X4780W-4778-4789-4712-Sangulo-Sub-Local-Rochfort-Bridge-1-AB-Medium.jpg#comment-34575</guid>
		<description>Tremendous photo, and a very intriguing bridge.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tremendous photo, and a very intriguing bridge.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephen C. Host</title>
		<link>http://www.railpictures.ca/?attachment_id=38602#comment-34573</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephen C. Host</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Aug 2019 01:24:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railpictures.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/1996-06-30-8-CN-515-X4780W-4778-4789-4712-Sangulo-Sub-Local-Rochfort-Bridge-1-AB-Medium.jpg#comment-34573</guid>
		<description>On my way...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On my way&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mattwatson</title>
		<link>http://www.railpictures.ca/?attachment_id=38602#comment-34571</link>
		<dc:creator>mattwatson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Aug 2019 00:51:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railpictures.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/1996-06-30-8-CN-515-X4780W-4778-4789-4712-Sangulo-Sub-Local-Rochfort-Bridge-1-AB-Medium.jpg#comment-34571</guid>
		<description>Mr Host:  It is still used daily.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mr Host:  It is still used daily.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephen C. Host</title>
		<link>http://www.railpictures.ca/?attachment_id=38602#comment-34568</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephen C. Host</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Aug 2019 23:45:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railpictures.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/1996-06-30-8-CN-515-X4780W-4778-4789-4712-Sangulo-Sub-Local-Rochfort-Bridge-1-AB-Medium.jpg#comment-34568</guid>
		<description>Sweet merciful crap that&#039;s quite the bridge. What&#039;s the status of it today?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sweet merciful crap that&#8217;s quite the bridge. What&#8217;s the status of it today?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
