Some CN units from my collection...
- Thread starter iomalley
- Start date
iomalley
Barely-employed Brakeman
I model 1980 (+/- 5 years) I did have a SW1200rs in green and gold, but I sold it a couple years ago, having it in 1980 era was a stretch. My dad models 1973 CN and CP, and he has a few jems, like a RSC12? (1700s) and a RSC24 (1800s). I'll see if I can dig up some pics when I visit him next...
iomalley
Barely-employed Brakeman
That was a visit to a friends layout who has pro photo equipment, so the setup was better than the digital point-n-shoot of the rest.
2003 is a Tiger Valley C630M, bloody thing weighs 3 lbs! It's been relegated to the paint shop, and waits for me to work on it.
iomalley
Barely-employed Brakeman
Here's an interesting question I've often wondered about. Why did MLW last so long in Canada. The Alco power was basically the same as what was produced in the US but it was a flop fairly early on here. Canada continued to use Alco power for decades after it was relegated to yard service or scrapped in the US. What made Alco and MLW such a success in Canada and a failure in the US?
iomalley
Barely-employed Brakeman
Well firstly, MLW was able to 'stretch' the relationship with GE a little further than Alco seeing as GE had no domestic presence in Canada to compete with EMD's Canadian arm, GMDD in London. GE told Alco to find another electrical manufacturer at the end of the 60's. Also, Alco's inability to let go of steam engines early on, and their persistence of selling 244 engines instead of the better 251 design was their downfall. MLW went to the 251, and aside from completion of a few last RS10s and wreck replacements, never looked back. (In fact the ONR sent their RS3s back to have their bottom ends '251ized' for a more reliable engine)
Another reason is that Canadian railroad equipment trusts were longer in duration than the 15 year trusts in the US, so railroads had to hold onto the equipment longer.
Also, Bombardier took over from MLW in the late 70's, losing the electrical support of GE, but still keeping a flow of engine component parts going. This kept the 'illusion' of MLWs lasting longer, but the newest BBD units were built in the early 80's...some of which were out of service before their equipment trusts expired, scrapped alongside MLWs alot older.
CP Rail took on a vigorous rebuild program of the RS18s in 1980 and extended them another 20 years. CN and CP both consolidated MLW operation/repair in the eastern provinces of the country which contributed to their longevity.
Just some insight....
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll make a stab at it, might be a bit incorrect but as I recall from somewhere Alco did re build their diesel engines but by then GM had the market share as far as RR in the US Alco was finished. Dieselization of Canadian roads came much later, CN being a wholly owned Crown Corp. purchased it's locos from MLW probable political motivated. The MLW's lasted into the 1990's when CBCNS bought a bunch of them from CN by then the useful life was pretty well wrung out of them. Maybe someone better informed can expound on that.
Cheers
Willis
NYC_George
Well-Known Member
SGS I’m with Jim the 2003 is a beauty. The crossing with the switch in it. I never seen that before.
NYC_George
NYC_George
MLW
Active Member
Politically motivated? The law was. (Buy Canadian) so yes.
CN purchased loco's made in Ontario and Quebec, beeing the only loco builders in Canada.
MLW lasted that long due to what iomalley expanded upon and also because CN (and to a smaller degree CP) had good customer relationship and a fairly reliable product that met their needs. Keep in mind MLW started has the oldest loco builder in Canada (starting in 1883 under the name -Locomotive and Machine Company of Montreal Limited-)At that time they were the principal supplier of loco to the Grand Trunk railway, Canadian Pacific Railway and the Intercontinental Railway). When BBD took over, it was the only company in Canada with expertise in building loco's still standing. Albeit their expertise were in European rr and North American subways. Still, they brougt forward lots of inovation (in common usage today) but had issues with the reliability with the -251 engine. The HR616 for example had tons of inovations, but the reliability of the 251 was it achile's heel. The LRC however was a success (started with lots of teething trouble however) and remained, until its exit from the North American market, the only builder left in Canada. MLW under it's various corporate restructuring and almagation was involved in every major Canadian loco design: The big MLW, Turbo, LRC etc.
Cartier RR ran its big MLW untill they dropped! Pulling power, reliability and access to spare parts and maintenance expertise made it so.
With the opening of the market to non domestic builders , the pressure from US builder's was such that it was inevitable that MLW/BBD would eventually fold. BBD has taken it's revenge however with numerous orders for US subway cars, US rapid transit cars and of course the ACELA (in collaboration with Alstom : TGV builder, if am not mistaken)
BBD is a leader in rr equipment in Europe and to a lesser extend in North America. In a sense you could say that MLW ghost lives on in BBD.
you milleage may vary
.
Hi MLW, and thanks, that's a good history lesson. I did read somewhere (way in the past) that a better prime mover was built by Alco before MLW started building in Canada because of the loss of sales to GM because of the origional. I could be wrong, it's been quite awhile.
If I ever get back into my Photobucket account I'll upload a photo of 2003 sitting on the scrap line
Cheers
Willis
If I ever get back into my Photobucket account I'll upload a photo of 2003 sitting on the scrap line
Cheers
Willis
