Trains.com

Why did the GTW fall?

4121 views
13 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    January 2019
  • From: The one state that really sucks for railfanning. Clue, its in the midwest
  • 30 posts
Why did the GTW fall?
Posted by ThamasTehTrain on Thursday, February 28, 2019 9:28 PM

i ask myself that alot.

How did they go from owing almost all Michigan trackage to being a mere few locomotives that are owned by CN?

One of the only railfans who gives a crap about the MMA, despite not living IN the northeast.

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,021 posts
Posted by tree68 on Thursday, February 28, 2019 9:32 PM

GTW has been owned by CN since something like 1923.

Wikipedia has a nice article that explains the lineage of GTW.

LarryWhistling
Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) 
Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you
My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date
Come ride the rails with me!
There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...

  • Member since
    October 2008
  • From: Calgary
  • 2,047 posts
Posted by cx500 on Friday, March 1, 2019 12:06 PM

The Grand Trunk dates back to the 1850s, developing into a main line running from a seaport at Portland, Maine, to Chicago, through Canada between Vermont and Michigan.  It, along with several other major Canadian railways, ran into major financial difficulties by the end of World One One, and CN was formed to save the situation.  The reasons were probably very similar to what caused the formation of Conrail in more recent times.

On paper, railroads (and probably all businesses) operating in different countries are separate corporations for accounting, tax and regulatory purposes, even if they actually operate as if it is one company.  At the time Canadian National Railways was formed it was thought that name might meet with some controversy and so the US lines operated under different names.  

The Grand Trunk name was used for the eastern segment from Portland, and so the western portion became GTW.  Other segments were the Central Vermont and the Duluth Winnipeg & Pacific.  Potential import duties meant US built locos and cars tended to be assigned to the US operations and the Canadian built locos and cars on the Canadian side, although they could always operate through, just not stay long.  (With NAFTA I think that no longer matters.)

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Friday, March 1, 2019 8:37 PM

cx500
(With NAFTA I think that no longer matters.

I think GRUPO MEXICO was pushing this but I read somewhere they are actually working on an agreement internationally where Mexican Locomotives and crews can run through into the United States.   If that ever passes the same would be true of Canadian crews and trains.   KCS did this on a smaller scale at it's Mexican border crossing, it was challenged in court and I think KCS won.   I think now they are attempting to extend it beyond the immediate border area.

  • Member since
    October 2008
  • From: Canada
  • 1,820 posts
Posted by cv_acr on Thursday, March 7, 2019 2:31 PM
What makes you think the GTW "failed"? It was a CN subsidiary, CN has simply slowly erased it as a visibly and operationally distinct entity, integrating it more with the rest of the system.
  • Member since
    January 2019
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 9,728 posts
Posted by Flintlock76 on Thursday, March 7, 2019 3:32 PM

In my humble opinion anyone who operated steam as late as the Grand Trunk did (1960) is anything but a failure!

In addition to which their station at Durand Michigan was a great action spot for railfans.  Still is, from what I understand.

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Mpls/St.Paul
  • 13,892 posts
Posted by wjstix on Thursday, March 7, 2019 3:44 PM

CN bought Great Lakes Transportation, who owned the DM&IR, B&LE and some other railroads. CN then put those railroads and their other US railroads (like IC) together into a US holding company called Grand Trunk Corporation.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2003/12/05/03-30090/canadian-national-railway-company-and-grand-trunk-corporation-control-duluth-missabe-and-iron-range

Stix
  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,669 posts
Posted by Overmod on Thursday, March 7, 2019 3:52 PM

Flintlock76
In my humble opinion anyone who operated steam as late as the Grand Trunk did (1960) is anything but a failure!

In addition to which they had streamlined 4-8-4s better than their Canadian 6400 counterparts...

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,021 posts
Posted by tree68 on Thursday, March 7, 2019 4:48 PM

Flintlock76
In addition to which their station at Durand Michigan was a great action spot for railfans.  Still is, from what I understand.

Worth the trip, and not all that far from Owosso and PM 1225...

LarryWhistling
Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) 
Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you
My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date
Come ride the rails with me!
There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...

  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 6,199 posts
Posted by Miningman on Thursday, March 7, 2019 4:49 PM

Overmod trying to bait me again! Nice lure though and I don't have my French taunters with me today. 

Well I'll say then CNR did all the hard work in developing the beast in the first place and Lima along with CNR ( GTW) had the benefit of 2 years of running and working out the bugs and obvious improvements. So not really a fair comparison. 

It's a dog gone shame that not one was saved and so late in the game too! 1960-61 folks should have known better. Looking at the last year and half of service a lot of the pictures show them cosmetically neglected and they looked kinda rough and unkempt. 

  • Member since
    January 2015
  • 2,678 posts
Posted by kgbw49 on Thursday, March 7, 2019 7:06 PM

Those Grand Trunk Western K-4-b 4-6-2 Pacifics with the vestibule cabs were also some very classy and dapper machines. However, they also delivered a hefty 49,590 lbs of tractive effort at 215 psi.

https://www.railarchive.net/randomsteam/gtw5632.htm

https://www.railarchive.net/randomsteam/gtw5633_jt.htm

Thankfully 5632 is on display in Durand, MI.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,669 posts
Posted by Overmod on Friday, March 8, 2019 7:01 AM

Miningman
Well I'll say then CNR did all the hard work in developing the beast in the first place and Lima along with CNR ( GTW) had the benefit of 2 years of running and working out the bugs and obvious improvements. So not really a fair comparison.

The only point I was making is that GTW got the details of the streamlining right.

The U4bs were Canadian locomotives that only incidentally (and probably for political reasons) were built in the United States.  If nothing else, the number series continuity establishes the moral point. 

Compare the "business end" of the smoke-lifting arrangement between the original Parkinesque nostrils on 6400 and this

It does need to be added that I couldn't use one of the pictures on Dr. Leonard's site for precisely the reason Miningman indicates: they show the service unkemptness.  But even so: perhaps the best of the streamlined 4-8-4s; I certainly think so.  And ain't nobody going to claim the design isn't fundamentally Canadian.

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Friday, March 8, 2019 7:21 AM

The U-4b's were built in the United States for financial reasons.  Consider the duty that would have been paid if they were built in Canada.  I believe that BN paid duty on the SD40-2's that were built in London prior to NAFTA.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,669 posts
Posted by Overmod on Friday, March 8, 2019 7:35 AM

Customs matters -- on the Canadian as well as United States side -- are political issues first and foremost.  They only become "financial" when railroads consider the practical trade equivalent of tax avoidance.

A point here is not that the U4bs happened to be built in the United States, it is Miningman's assumption that I was saying (the part that hurts being the implication of chauvinism) part of the 'superiority' of the U4b design involved construction (or 'improvement') by Lima.  That was neither my intent or concern here, whether or not Lima may have actually improved functional aspects of the locomotives themselves (in part with the benefit of several extremely critical years of experience in modern steam design and practice) over the original 6400s.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy