This monumental bridge that carries a railway over the entirety of an expansive river valley (although the river itself is very small) is the centerpiece of the community of Cap-Rouge and was built as part of the same transcontinental railway that required the construction of the nearby Pont de Québec. As a result, Tracel de Cap-Rouge's construction was undertaken at the same time as the first Pont de Québec and the two bridges likely would originally have been completed at around the same time. Tracel de Cap-Rouge was scheduled to have been completed in 1907, however the superstructure was not completed until 1908 due to unforeseen substructure construction challenges. However, since the first Pont de Québec collapsed and the existing was not completed until 1917, Tracel de Cap-Rouge is actually 10 years older than the existing Pont de Québec. When the first Pont de Québec collapsed, delayed completion of Tracel de Cap-Rouge's superstructure until 1908 suddenly did not matter anymore. In fact, rails were not placed on the deck until between 1908 and 1911, and the entire bridge was not totally completed until 1913.
Tracel de Cap-Rouge is a tall bridge, and its height makes it a very imposing landmark. However the combination of this height with the extreme length of the bridge that make it one of the most impressive example of this bridge type to be found. It may have briefly been one of the longest railway bridges in Canada when it was built, however the even taller and much longer Lethbridge Viaduct in Alberta, built around the same time and completed a year after Tracel de Cap-Rouge in 1909 became the largest in Canada with a length of 1623.8 meters (5327 feet). Regardless, Tracel de Cap-Rouge holds its own as one of the most significant steel "trestle" types of railroad bridge in Canada. Another interesting fact is the bridge is very similar in length to nearby Pont de Québec, however Tracel de Cap-Rouge is actually 29 meters (95 feet) longer! However, Tracel de Cap-Rouge lacks the world-record cantilever truss spans of Pont de Québec, and is instead composed of dozens of shorter simple spans.
The construction of Tracel de Cap-Rouge apparently encountered some difficulties. The soil was found to be unstable in some areas and as a result, some of the bents (particularly those directly beside the river) rest upon massive piers that were constructed with the caisson method. Other bents appear to rest on more traditional and simple concrete foundations. The soil problem also appears to have been dealt with by including a longer deck truss span which moved one of the bents further away from the river where caissons were not required. There are two other deck truss spans on the bridge, one spans the river itself, and the third was used where a longer span prevented the need to construct a bent near the eastern end of the bridge where an extremely steep cliff is located.
The steel bents of this bridge have bracing that includes v-lacing on all four sides. This technique is unusual; usually v-lacing or lattice are found on only two sides of a built-up beam. The use of the v-lacing on all four sides gives the bridge a much lighter yet more complex appearance. Interestingly, the second (existing) Pont de Québec also makes use of built-up beams with lacing and lattice on all four sides. This may not be a coincidence;The steel bents of this bridge have bracing that includes v-lacing on all four sides. This technique is unusual; usually v-lacing or lattice are found on only two sides of a built-up beam. The use of the v-lacing on all four sides gives the bridge a much lighter yet more complex appearance. Interestingly, the second (existing) Pont de Québec also makes use of built-up beams with lacing and lattice on all four sides. This may not be a coincidence; Tracel de Cap-Rouge was built by the Dominion Bridge Company, and some of their engineers may have decided to use this detail. Engineers from Dominion Bridge Company later worked on the design of the second Pont de Québec and they may have simply continued this practice in designing that bridge as well.
The unusual name of the bridge "Tracel" is derived from the English word "trestle."
It is difficult to find a lot of information and history about this bridge, which was likely overshadowed by the construction of Pont de Québec. The below letter from a labor union of bridge workers involved with Pont de Québec briefly mentions Tracel de Cap-Rouge, described in the letter as the "viaduct at Cape Rogue". The letter touches not only on the relationship between Tracel de Cap-Rouge and the construction of the first Pont de Québec, it also hints at a possible conflict with the union.
A Letter From Local Union No. 87 Mentioning The Bridge. The letter is dated 1907.
New Liverpool, P. Q., Can.
Click on a thumbnail or gallery name below to visit that particular photo gallery. If videos are available, click on a video name to view and/or download that particular video.
Original / Full Size Photos
|A collection of overview and detail photos. For the best visual immersion and full detail, or for use as a desktop background, this gallery presents the photos for this bridge in the original digital camera resolution.|
Mobile Optimized Gallery
|A collection of overview and detail photos. View the photos for this bridge in a reduced size which is useful for mobile/smartphone users, modem
(dial-up) users, or those who do not wish to wait for the longer
download times of the full-size photos. Alternatively, view this photo gallery using a popup slideshow viewer (great for mobile users) by clicking the link below.
Browse Gallery With Popup Viewer
© Copyright 2003-2018, HistoricBridges.org. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer: HistoricBridges.org is a volunteer group of private citizens. HistoricBridges.org is NOT a government agency, does not represent or work with any governmental agencies, nor is it in any way associated with any government agency or any non-profit organization. While we strive for accuracy in our factual content, HistoricBridges.org offers no guarantee of accuracy. Information is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. Information could include technical inaccuracies or errors of omission. Opinions and commentary are the opinions of the respective HistoricBridges.org member who made them and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone else, including any outside photographers whose images may appear on the page in which the commentary appears. HistoricBridges.org does not bear any responsibility for any consequences resulting from the use of this or any other HistoricBridges.org information. Owners and users of bridges have the responsibility of correctly following all applicable laws, rules, and regulations, regardless of any HistoricBridges.org information.