CP is well known to have run their C630/M630/and M636 engines in BC for a brief time in the early 70s, until reliability issues got them moved to less challenging assignments back east. But I’ve never seen (or even saw a photo of) a large CN Alco/MLW west of Winnipeg. To my knowledge CN had somewhat better luck with their big Alcos, and I remember them being a common sight anywhere east of Toronto, especially in the Maritimes where they seemed to dominate all other power.
I don’t have any pictures from the 21st Century, but from what photos I do have, your assumption appears to be correct.
On a somewhat related note from the VIA loco use thread, I found out that the first CN purchase of GE units was only made after the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement of 1988. The predecessor agreement to the NAFTA. The purchase was for 30 Dash 8-40CM’s in 1990.
Bruce
Didn’t GE lease the old MLW plant in Montreal for a time around 1990 or so to build units for CN and CP, but never did (it is gone now)? I think the idea was to use Canadian workers in the assembly at a time when EMDs were built at London as a sales pitch, not becasue of the taxes, but as I recall neither builder was selling anything and the idea died.
GE then had all production at Erie, PA. They had no GMD or MLW or CLC to build their locomotives under license in Canada. Why? I am not sure. But in order to make sure that EMD/GMD didn’t have a monopoly on the market, CN and CP bought MLWs. The lack of a Canadian GE licensee is what probably kept MLW in the locomotive business after ALCO folded. If GE did sell locomotives in Canada, later M630 and M636s as well as the HR series may not have existed.
And that would have been tragic, as bad the M series were, the U boats of the day were probably no better.
The U-boats did have issues with the oil cooler being unable to drain completely when shut down, which sometimes caused freeze damage.
It was a big enough problem that the Santa Fe changed them to the -7 oil cooler arrangement when they rebuilt the U36Cs to SF30Cs.
CPR’s M630 and C-630M were indeed used in BC in the early 70s. The M636 fleet, on the other hand, only rarely were found west of Calgary. It did happen but was highly unusual.
On CNR, the big MLWs were primarily eastern units, but could occasionally be found west of Winnipeg. I caught them on several occasions in Calgary in 1995, and about the same time at least one reached Vancouver.
http://www3.telus.net/jsuther9/rails/1995-10-21Ac-Sarcee-5202-5061-2111.jpg
John
As I recall, the MLW plant was acquired after Dash 8 orders had already happened and were in production back in Erie for Canadian customers. It was purchased primarily to be the home of the failed Super 7 rebuild program, not to serve as the GE counterpart of EMD’s London plant before locomotive assembly was discontinued at La Grange although I’m sure that they’d of been glad to assemble Dash 8’s there if it had been necessary to secure an order.
This happened in 1988. After NAFTA?
NAFTA went into effect January 1, 1994. As I mentioned earlier, its’ predecessor agreement, the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement went into effect in September 1988.
I went to the Wikipedia entry for Montreal Locomotive Works and found the whole confusing saga of MLW>MLW Worthington>Bombardier>GE. I never knew that before and after reading it I’m still not sure I know it.[*-)]
Bruce
Thanks, Bruce. It has been a while since I had read your post.
The story of MLW is very complex, especially in later years.
BBD had stopped building locomotives at the MLW factory, and so being a vacant liability, was sold to GE.
CN kept their MLW’s in relatively good shape and clean right to the end. CP for some reason let them fall apart, maybe that’s why they had so much trouble with them. I recall seeing five or six in a consist with three of them running with engine doors wide open, blowing smoke like a steam locomotive, and sounding like they were about to come apart.
Sorry, didn’t read this until now.
Sounds like they were blowing turbochargers, which ALCO/MLWs were known to do with inadequate maintenance.
ALCO/MLWs needed more maintenance than EMDs, something railroads weren’t always willing to do, with predictable results…