GE in Canada?

[trolleyboy]

I think CN being a crown corporation was expected (required) to buy Canadian and I don't think GE built locomotives in Canada.

Barry, Regina

  That only would have been part of it. As a crown corperation they were expected to get teh best deal for tax payers dollars,having no Canadian subsidiary didn't help, but it wouldn't have been the only reason that the orders didn't happen. CN did buy 44 tonners and 70 tonners in the 50's to finish the diesilization of PEI where light rail dictated the type of locomotives that were bought.Once Bombardier was out of the business CN did buy the draper tapered dash 8's. I think more or less they wanted to have a streamlined parts and repair system so MLW and GMD were the two big winners during the early diesel buying stages. When replacement time came MLW was still in the business so even though GE's U-boat line was in production CN went with the "known quantity" of the EMD and MLW.Now that they are a public comapany free from the governments pocket book, they still look for the best price. EMD having Canadain plant still gets a lot of orders but those draper dash 8's won enough points to allow for follow up dash 9 and beyond orders.It keeps the builders honest as well, you figure that if they but from both companies it keeps a healthy competition going on between them.

Rob

[williamsb]

I think CN being a crown corporation was expected (required) to buy Canadian and I don't think GE built locomotives in Canada.

Barry, Regina

[al-in-chgo]

IIRC, Alcos used GE electrical components, which caused problems when GE decided to enter the locomotive market themselves?

 

Are you asking or telling?  - a. s.

 

[Lyon_Wonder]

IIRC, Alcos used GE electrical components, which caused problems when GE decided to enter the locomotive market themselves?

[Newyorkcentralfan]

From what I've read, supposedly MLW was the only builder that would finance locos for the fledgling Providence and Worcester. Or perhaps they offered the best terms. But money was the deciding factor. 

 

That's interesting. It was around that time that Providence & Worcester bought the only MLW locomotives acquired new by a US RR. I know the appeal for them with the M420Ws they ordered was the extensive re-use of components from traded in RS-3s. I guess that offset the Tariff.... 

[Andrew Falconer]

Check this Canadian National page:

http://www.nic.funet.fi/index/railways/Canada/Canadian_National/

It shows the last MLW Locomotives built for CN in 1982 have cabin, or hood designs just the first GE Locomotives built for CN in 1990. Apparently MLW kept the competion alive as long as possible, until GE could step into the picture.

Andrew

[trolleyboy]

Another factor to keep in mind in those pre-NAFTA days was tariffs.  I don't know the Canadian tariff on locomotives but the tariff in 1976 on locomotives brought into the United States was 3% based on the ad valorem worth of the locomotive.  That can increase the price of a locomotive quickly. 

 The tarriffs were indeed high , which made most of the locomotive builders find a compatible manufacturer in Canada. Alco set up MLW , GM built the plant in London from scratch which is why early Alco designs FA's S switchers RS3's and some RS2's were so common. MLW had a leg up while the GM plant was underconstruction. FM and Baldwin kept using CLC ( Canadian Locomotive Company ) in Kingston ontario fior their designs. CLC was building Baldwin and Lima steam engines in Canada under licence as well as MLW was building Alco Steam engines in Canada since the early part of the century. GE was the new guy on the Block and with three long established locomotive companies already serving the low number of railways up here. GE was a non-player until  after Bombardier pulled the plug on the MLW plant in the late '84.By that time NAFTA happened and GE was able to finally crack the market.

Rob

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

I don't think the RS-3 trade ins were a factor as EMD was accepting Alco trade ins as well...EMD took in Ann Arbor FAs on new GP35s for example.

By the time the M420W's were ordered, EMD was only accepting EMD trade-ins.

[Ulrich]

I don't think the RS-3 trade ins were a factor as EMD was accepting Alco trade ins as well...EMD took in Ann Arbor FAs on new GP35s for example.

[carnej1]

Another factor to keep in mind in those pre-NAFTA days was tariffs.  I don't know the Canadian tariff on locomotives but the tariff in 1976 on locomotives brought into the United States was 3% based on the ad valorem worth of the locomotive.  That can increase the price of a locomotive quickly. 

 That's interesting. It was around that time that Providence & Worcester bought the only MLW locomotives acquired new by a US RR. I know the appeal for them with the M420Ws they ordered was the extensive re-use of components from traded in RS-3s. I guess that offset the Tariff.... 

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Another factor to keep in mind in those pre-NAFTA days was tariffs.  I don't know the Canadian tariff on locomotives but the tariff in 1976 on locomotives brought into the United States was 3% based on the ad valorem worth of the locomotive.  That can increase the price of a locomotive quickly. 

[Ulrich]

That makes sense..thanks Dale. It probably also explains why sales of GP30s and GP35s weren't that great. Both railroads' first generation power was still relatively new.

[nanaimo73]

CN had GE 70 tonners in PEI, and 44 tonners as well.

As for U Boats, I think it was a combination of several factors. Since CN and CP dieselized later than most American RRs, there wasn't the need in the early 1960s to replace diesels from the 1940s. As well, there were dozens of Class 1s in the USA, but only two up here.

Was there room for a forth builder, after GMD (EMD), MLW (Alco) and Canadian Locomotive Works (FM) ? I'll guess import duties played a part as well. 

[Ulrich]

Why did GE not sell any locomotives in Canada until the 1990s?. Neither CN or CP bought any U Boats...one would think that Alco's offshoot MLW would have looked at this as a "second chance" to reinvigorate itself without GE as competition.