GTP/CN-Graham Subdivision MP 22.8-26 VIII (Strawberry Creek Bridge) 

You're welcome and thanks for following along. It certainly would have been a lot of work back then and it was obviously built to last!

I was little young for that timeframe, but it certainly is a unique structure. Sad that it was only used for a short period of time before it was abandoned.

Thanks. Which station was that? This part of the line was abandoned in 1925, so the closest operating station would have been at Ellis.

@@padwrr sorry I posted on the wrong video. I was referring to the Kinghorn subdivision video

It is something to see. And it is better to see it now rather than later as I'm not sure how much longer it will be around for sadly.

It is an interesting nickname. Not associated with this particular line (just the PAD&W), but very unique nonetheless.

Sadly, I'm not sure how much longer it is going to hold out for. Seems like it deteriorated a lot since I last saw it in 2019.

Thanks. This one was a bit tough with the drone because it's not an overly long bridge and there is so much growth around it. You can't see as much of it as you would think. Don't worry, there wasn't as much looking over the edge as you think. Lots of sticking the camera over the side and hoping it turns out okay. I actually get nauseous watching the video back and seeing the height. That being said, despite its outward appearance, that bridge is pretty solid. I don't think they were fooling around when they built it. I doubt anything built today would last that long without any maintenance. Not sure about where that aggregate is from. Could have been brought in from somewhere else. I was just reading yesterday that they imported ties from Minnesota when they were building the line. I know the old Canadian Norhern station here was faced with stone from Manitoba and brick from the US. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Qb8pzEG1hsA.html

You're welcome. I'm not an engineer or an expert on railway construction, but I've never seen the ties bolted down on a gravel pan bridge/trestle. They may have been used to secure the concrete forms when they were pouring the bridge.

I have to agree with L72. I didn't do forming, but I did work in construction for near 35 years. I think what they may done is use the bolts to hold wooden cribbing to keep the road bed materials in place, running the length of the bridge and also use them to spike the ties to. It wouldn't be normal to use them for forming, strip the forms and leave the bolts. One of the main issues with this structure is, lack of drainage of the deck. It's all very well to make it out of concrete and fill the deck with ballast, but where a regular section of roadbed can drain moisture away, this bridge deck can't. There is no means of any kind to allow moisture to not get trapped. I would bet if drainage had been accounted for it would be in much better condition today. That or a different design to the deck. As for all the extra concrete piles. It occurs to me they are primarily on the up river side. I think perhaps the engineers may have tried to account for the river flow and ice and debris. Piles may have been installed at the riverbank to steer things into the main channel and it's all deteriorated. The concrete in under the base of the one pier may have been pushed there during many winters or during a very high water event.

The only way to know for certain is to dig down and see what those bolts are doing on the up side. This is the only structure like this around, so there is nothing to compare it to. I tried running it by my brother who is an architect, but it's hard to make a determination without seeing it up close. There were a few things underneath the bridge that could have been drains, but it hard to know for certain as it is difficult to see and there is a lot of deterioration.

Thanks for the info!