Alain Gelly

A Precipitous Decline, Steam as Motive Power in Montreal: A Case Study of the Lachine Canal Industries

On the eve of World War I, steam was the most important source of power in Montreal's industries. This situation could be explained by the competitive price of coal and by the monopolistic practices of a hydroelectric company more inclined to generate profits than to offer competitive industrial power rates. Even industries desiring to change their sources of energy went towards thermoelectricity rather than hydroelectricity.¹ Promising years still lay ahead for coal. Nevertheless, as early as the 1920s, steam had become outmoded. How did this occur? This paper will try to explain what happened.

À l'aube de la Première Guerre mondiale, la vapeur demeure la force motrice la plus en vogue dans les établissements industriels situés le long du canal de Lachine, comme ailleurs à Montréal, bien que la thermoélectricité y opère une percée tandis que l'hydroélectricité tarde à réaliser son plein potentiel. Le prix concurrentiel de la houille à Montréal ainsi que la politique tarifaire pratiquée par un monopole, plus enclin à engranger les profits qu'à offrir des taux préférentiels à ses clients industriels, explique en bonne partie cette situation. Dans de telles conditions, la domination exercée dans le monde manufacturier par la vapeur comme force motrice semble pouvoir perdurer pendant encore plusieurs années. Pourtant, dès la décennie 1920, la vapeur est en déclin tant à Montréal qu'au canal de Lachine. Comment une telle chute a-t-elle pu se produire aussi rapidement? Tout ceci se situe au cœur de cet article.

From "Little Lowell" to "Smoky Valley"

As an artificial waterway, the Lachine Canal was the earliest of a series on the Saint Lawrence River at least in the up-bound direction. As a maritime terminal, it served as a port for high-seas boats as well as the interior Great Lakes fleet. By the economic activity it generated, the canal stimulated the urbanization of the southwest part of the island of Montreal. Most of all, the Lachine is considered the birthplace of Canadian manufacturing, a unique Canadian industrial corridor. On its shores, more than 600 different companies produced all kinds of goods, both industrial and domestic, between 1846, the date when the first hydraulic lots were leased, and 1946. From the outset, Lachine industries were a mix of both heavy and light producers, ranging from chemicals to rolling stock to food and beverages.

Aside from its historicity, its remarkable diversity, and its extraordinary industrial concentration, this industrial complex offers an exceptional opportunity for the study of Canadian industrial history. It provides a diversified field of analysis while maintaining a realistic scope of investigation. As early as the 1850s, the number of companies operating along the Lachine varied between 50 and 100 any given year. Moreover, these companies had access to a common pool of manpower, to the same railroads and maritime routes, as well as to a common energy pool. Among the various companies were the lessees of hydraulic lots—approximately 40 annually from the 1850s until the beginning of the 20th century—who used the thousands of horsepower afforded by direct waterpower to operate their machinery.² The use of waterpower on the Lachine earned the Lachine Canal corridor the nickname "Little Lowell."³

This hydraulic complex also competed with steam-powered industries in the same corridor. Limited at first, the use of steam eventually came to dominate the corridor by a proportion of roughly 60 percent at the turn of the 20th century, so much so that Montrealers nicknamed the canal "Smokey Valley" (figure 1).⁴ In 1911, Édouard Octave Champagne, the boiler inspector of the city of Montreal, asserted that "steam was by far the main source of power in the city's plants," although thermoelectricity and, to a lesser extent, hydroelectricity had made some progress.⁵ However, in the following decade, electricity replaced steam as the most prominent source of power in Montreal's industrial plants. This paper will focus on the rise of steam as motive power in the 1850–1914 period and then analyze the electrification of the canal's industries (both thermoelectricity and hydroelectricity) from the 1880s up to the 1920s.

Figure 1. Panoramic view of the Montreal portion of the Lachine Canal, 1896. This view clearly shows the diversity of functions around the canal, depicting a sugar refinery, a rolling stock plant, a paint factory, a textile plant, and flour mills. It also suggests why the Lachine canal was nicknamed "Smokey Valley." Note that the only part of the photograph without smoke is on the right where the St. Gabriel hydraulic lots were located. William Notman & Son, "Montreal from Street Railway Power House Chimney, QC 1896," Musée McCord d'histoire canadienne, Montréal, Notman Photographic Archives, VIEW-2942, VIEW-2943, VIEW-2944, 1896.

The Coal Market: Beyond Dales's Interpretation

According to John Dales, the superiority of electricity (because of its flexibility and decentralization) over steam and direct-drive waterpower as a source of motive power justified such a conversion.⁶ However, this explanation is too simplistic. On the one hand, the superiority of electricity was not so obvious before World War I. Steam was a technology well mastered, whereas hydro- and thermoelectricity had a number of shortcomings. On the other hand, at that period, coal offered greater flexibility than hydroelectricity.⁷ Its versatility was demonstrated when industrialists used it as a source of energy, when they referred to its thermic value in any given production process, when they distilled it to produce manufactured gas, when they coked it, and when they used it as a heating source for their plants, a number of these uses being unsuitable for electricity. Before World War I Montreal industries limited the use of electricity to lighting and motive power.⁸ Even if a manufacturer resorted to electricity rather than steam as motive power, coal would still be used for certain purposes such as heating the plant. In the coal market, volume determined price.

Since numerous factors were involved in changing motive power, manufacturers had to consider not only acquisition costs but also operating costs.⁹ From this perspective, Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company (hereafter MLHPC) electric rates repelled manufacturers, as it was more inclined to make profits than to offer industrial competitive rates.¹⁰

Beyond technical considerations and economic rationality, however, keeping control over energy issues also has to be considered in the conversion business. Many industrialists had to choose between steam, a mastered technology in which competition existed in boiler construction and in the coal market, and hydroelectricity, a new form of energy that offered greater flexibility, greater motive power, and a more decentralized infrastructure in terms of transmission.¹¹ If the industrialist chose hydroelectricity, some precious autonomy could be lost as MLHPC imposed its voltage standards. However primary electric motors, by the sheer variety of outputs available and their fractionalization, "brought the reality of cheaper power to plants whose low power requirements or vulnerable finances might previously have invested in the larger steam units."¹² For a number of industrialists along the Lachine who wanted to preserve autonomy, thermoelectricity was an attractive alternative.¹³ This hybrid technology offered many of the advantages of hydroelectricity while relying on the dependable technology associated with steam. Thermoelectricity thus became the choice of numerous industries.

On the eve of World War I, steam still dominated the shores of the Lachine Canal, while thermoelectricity had made a breach in this landscape and hydroelectricity lagged. The conversion movement towards other forms of energy had started, but it was going slowly. What accelerated the movement?

Neither the MLHPC's rates nor hydroelectricity's alleged technical superiority can alone account for steam's decline as a motive power in Montreal after World War I.¹⁴ Although many factors could account for the decline, they do not explain why the movement accelerated during World War I. Since the advantages hydroelectricity offered had not changed dramatically, the impetus for change lay in the rapid rise of coal prices during the Great War, which affected both steam technology and thermoelectricity, as coal was one of the major costs in steam production.¹⁵

Domination of Steam in Montreal: 1870s to World War I

Steam was first used in Montreal in 1812, but it would only be in the 1850s, when the hydraulic complex on the Lachine was beginning to grow, that steam would emerge as a significant industrial power source.¹⁶ Although small shops were already using steam, the Canada Sugar Refining Company (hereafter Redpath) and the Grand Trunk Workshops in Point St. Charles were the first major manufacturers to resort to steam in 1854 (figure 2). Industrial flour millers, such as City Flour Mills or Glenora Flour Mills, and rolling mills, such as Peck and Benny, depended instead on direct waterpower. After several decades of dominating the Montreal energy pool, hydraulics gradually lost importance, placing second in the broader Montreal area around 1871 and at the very beginning of the 20th century for Lachine Canal installations (figure 3).¹⁷ In 1871, the various industries along the Lachine generated 900 hp by steam and 2,255 hp by hydraulics. By 1910, this situation had reversed: hydraulic turbines generated, in the most optimistic calculations, roughly 5,600 hp, while steam engines, a number of which were used as motive power, generated around 16,000 hp.¹⁸ Even if there was a phase differential between when the Montreal area shifted to steam and when the same occurred in the canal's industrial complex, steam had clearly come to dominate industry generally in Montreal in the decade preceding World War I.

Figure 2. Redpath Sugar Refinery along Lachine Canal. When John Redpath built his sugar refinery near St. Gabriel locks in 1854, he did not intend to use water to power his machinery but, rather, to use steam. Using steam engines that generated initially 50 hp and then 100 hp in 1861, Redpath was the canal's major industrial plant up until the Grand Trunk workshops and the Montreal Rolling Mills appeared on the landscape and relegated it to third place in the 1860s. In 1908, this ranking was still intact (Grand Trunk Workshops 2,080 hp, Montreal Rolling Mills 2,000 hp, and Redpath 1,960 hp). "Accident to St. Gabriel Locks by Steamer Nevada," Canadian Lake Line, Lachine Canal, PA 110111, 1912, LAC.

Figure 3. Panorama of Lachine Canal in 1882. By the early 1880s, the Lachine Canal was more than a mere hydraulic complex. Steam was dominant in many industrial plants. Canal-side locales were advantageous to steam as well as waterpower. Water provided feed material for steam boilers and allowed coal, which generated steam, to be brought in cheaply. Water was used to cool, whiten, bleach, and clean; the waterway allowed used water to be disposed of easily. Eugène Haberer, "Montreal: Panorama of the Lachine Canal," C 077224, July 1882, LAC.

Witness to this situation was the city's boiler inspector. In his 1905 report, Champagne noticed the "ever growing number of plants in which steam is resorted to."¹⁹ In his 1906 report, he remarked "that the widespread use of steam boilers within the city limits far surpassed the steam output of any other city of comparable size on the continent."²⁰ In the following year's report, Champagne wrote, "many major installations have been put up during the last year and that others will be in the near future so that 1907 represents one of the most remarkable growth for steam engines and boilers."²¹

Table 1. Power Generated by Industries along the Lachine Canal, 1848–1910

Year	Hydraulic hp	Steam hp

1857 1861 1871 1897 1908 1910	1,460 2,255 4,030 2,570* 4,000**	253 900 16,540
Power declared by hydraulic lessees. This number is derived from data from two sources in 1910 and from a 1914 estimate. Sources: Library and Archives of Canada, Department of Public Works fonds (RG 11), vol. 64, file 12, and vol. 92, file no. 3 and Department of Railways and Canals fonds (RG 43), file 1998–01757–5; Census districts: Canada, St. Anne, St. Henri, Montreal West, 1871 Canada census; Report of Royal Commission on the Leasing of Water-Power. Lachine Canal* (Ottawa, Maclean, Roger & Co., 1887); Robert C. Douglas, "Report of Robert C. Douglas, 4 October 1897," Parks Canada, File 37–61–0; Édouard Octave Champagne, Rapport annuel ... 1907 (see n. 21); Hydraulic Leases Inventory 1910; Report by J. H. Hunter on hydraulic power at Cote St. Paul, 1914.

A table included in his 1908 report established at approximately 58,000 hp the steam power output for 333 Montreal manufacturers.²² The situation had evolved considerably between 1871 and 1908; industries in 1908 produced 174 hp on the average compared to only 5.8 hp earlier. Moreover the list allows us to distinguish those industries located beside the Lachine Canal. These plants generated 16,015 hp or approximately 28 percent of Montreal's total industrial energy output. As had been the case for a number of years, Redpath (1,960 hp), the Grand Trunk workshops (2,080 hp), and the Montreal Rolling Mills (2,000 hp) were the larger producers.²³ Two new players had joined this select club: Dominion Textile (1,975 hp) and Northern Electric (1,000 hp). In the latter case, part of its steam power output might have served an electric motor to produce electricity for lighting purposes or even for motive power.

In his 1911 report, Champagne not only remarked on the supremacy of steam power but also commented, "the number of boilers will grow constantly until a cheaper and easier form of energy is found."²⁴ He repeated this assertion the following year. The preceding examples also show that nearly all industrial sectors used steam as a motive power.

Thermoelectricity, Steam, or Hydroelectricity?

The boiler inspector, however, had missed signs of the relative decline of steam power. Moreover, in his reports Champagne did not distinguish between motive power produced by a steam engine and power produced by electric motors. Thus part of the total output was in fact already produced by thermoelectricity.²⁵ By 1907, a few companies such as the Canada Car Co. had completely turned to electric generators.²⁶ The administrators of the Dominion Wire Co. claimed that the electric motor was cheaper to use than steam.²⁷ This hybrid technology, however, was more in use in the bigger companies.²⁸

In making energy choices, company administrators had to choose between a proven technology, steam, a source of power for which there was competition not only within the ranks of machinery suppliers but also in the coal market; a hybrid technology, the electric motor; or a new source of power, hydroelectricity. In the early-20th century, MLHPC had a nearly monopolistic hold on the electricity market in the Montreal area, which allowed the company to impose its rates and its voltage standards.

Thermoelectricity: From Lighting to Power

For a resident of the province of Québec today, where hydroelectricity represents the dominant form of energy, it may be difficult to understand that such was not the case in the industrial sphere from its beginning in the 1880s. The rapid eviction from the lighting scene of the Montreal Gas Company and its replacement by electric companies resorting to thermoelectricity has led historians to believe that electricity quickly dominated the energy pool once it appeared.

However this image, based largely on happenings in domestic and municipal energy use, must not be imposed on the industrial world. On the contrary, the electrification of Montreal industries was slow and very partial. At first electricity was only resorted to for lighting in Montreal's industrial plants; the use of electricity to power machinery came only later. Just to complicate matters, the drive towards thermoelectricity was two pronged: on the one hand, equipment producers like the Royal Electric Company (hereafter REC) produced electric motors; on the other hand, as an electric distribution company, REC simultaneously sought to persuade customers to tie into its distribution grid. Unfortunately, both electric motors and the small electric hydroelectric distribution grids available at the time had numerous shortcomings that discouraged manufacturers from resorting to hydroelectricity.

Electric Motors

In the 1880s the poor technical performance of the first electric motors fed by direct current from steam engines linked to dynamos explains rather eloquently the near absence of thermoelectricity in industrial plants.²⁹ Their output was limited when compared to steam engines.³⁰ How could they generate sufficient power to fuel the machinery when they had problems generating sufficient energy for lighting purposes? In 1893, Redpath was the first major industrial establishment to resort to an electric motor to activate a minor portion of its machinery.³¹ The following year, REC advertised alternators designed by the Stanley Electric Manufacturing Company that could be coupled with steam engines.³²Canadian Electrical News considered this combination a major competitor to direct-drive steam engines.³³ The new technology had few takers. Only the Dominion Cotton Mills and the Montreal Street Railway Company (hereafter MSR) bought the equipment. While REC was not the only electrical equipment manufacturer, the situation does not seem to have been brighter for other manufacturers.

Manufacturers of thermoelectric equipment fared no better among those industries on the banks of the Lachine Canal before 1900. Only two sales were recorded for Lachine canal industries. The Dominion Bridge archives confirm that this company purchased electrical equipment from Westinghouse and that it built a powerhouse in January 1890 to produce lighting for its Lachine plant.³⁴ In 1897 Canadian Electrical News indicated that the Belding Paul silk manufacturers had ordered a 25 kW generator from the Canadian General Electric Company (CGE).³⁵

The sale in 1900 of REC's electric motors division to CGE further impeded the adoption of locally generated thermoelectricity.³⁶ Beyond the two previous examples, only two other plants seem to have resorted to thermoelectricity later. In 1908 Pillow & Hersey Manufacturing Co. (newly incorporated as a division of Montreal Rolling Mills) resorted to steam-powered dynamos for the lighting of its St. Patrick Street facilities.³⁷ In 1910 the Canada Car and Foundry Company, specializing in rolling stock material, produced its own electricity from generators in its Turcot plant.³⁸

Wired to the Thermoelectric Grid

Notwithstanding the shortcomings of its small grid system, REC did make a breakthrough with the public utilities in the mid-1890s. It was awarded the contract to furnish the necessary energy for MSR's trams and also to power the pumps of the Montreal Water Company.³⁹ Moreover in June 1893 REC's thermoelectric installations provided lighting to 53 establishments using direct current motors; unfortunately, the documents do not specify whether or not these were industrial clients.⁴⁰ Even if these were exclusively industrial clients, the number would have to be considered marginal considering the nearly 2,000 industrial plants in Montreal.

Considering the amounts of hp sold (Table 2), it seems that only small-scale industries were wired to REC's grid. Furthermore, considering the mediocre quality of the transmission system, these companies would be situated close to the Faubourg des Récollets (Wellington Street) installation or that of Hochelaga in east end Montreal. Moreover, these companies were only lighting their premises, or otherwise REC would have mentioned it in its publicity or elsewhere. Whatever the case, the Wellington Street thermoelectric station burned in 1893, and in 1894 a boiler exploded in the Hochelaga facility, thus forcing REC to buy electricity from its competitors.

Table 2. Number of Lamps and Electric Motors Wired to REC's Thermoelectric Grid⁴¹

Years	DC Arc Lamps	AC Arc Lamps	DC Motors (hp)	AC Motors (hp)

1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899	1,287 1,523 1,554 1,573 1,617 1,666 1,647 1,651 1,842 1,862	1,835 2,055 11,110 28,110 40,013 53,977 58,516 62,353 70,089 79,038	50 170 347 698 645 632 842 1,137	18 399 1,241
Source: Annual Reports of the Royal Electric Company, 1896 and 1899.

The same year as the boiler explosion, REC started selling alternating current motors, but this activity remained marginal. In order to stimulate sales, REC even offered to rent these motors to both actual and potential clients.⁴² According to company minutes dated 12 April 1898, REC supplied 111 motors generating 856–1/2 hp with direct current and only 60 alternating current motors representing 303 hp. A year later, the situation was reversed. While these numbers confirm the ascendancy of alternating current over direct current motors, they also demonstrate that electric companies had not made a major breakthrough on the Montreal market, whether domestic or industrial, by the turn of the century.

Hydroelectricity

At the dawn of the 20th century, the shortcomings of the distribution grid of thermoelectric companies represented a threat to the growth of electric companies. How were they to gain new customers if the reliability of their grids was problematic? For Montreal's distributors of electricity, the time had come to replace the old thermoelectric model of power distribution; the new model was to rely on massive production of electricity by great dams and a robust transmission system linked to a vast grid. As early as 1894, the Lachine Rapids Hydraulic and Land Company (hereafter LRH&LC) had started building what would be for some time Canada's largest hydroelectric dam.⁴³ For its part, REC, newly associated with the Stanley Electric Manufacturing Company, restarted operations of the Chambly Manufacturing Company.

The new company had an ambitious scheme: to build a huge dam capable of generating 20,000 hp (or 14,914 kWh); to install four-2,650 hp S.K.C. generators in its Chambly power station; and to transport alternating current over 15 miles (27 km) with a 12,500 v transmission line all the way to its canal-based Prince Street substation.⁴⁴ Moreover, according to REC's administrators, the Chambly operations would produce power at rates that would render it profitable for users of steam power to abandon it, attract numerous new industries to Montreal, and make power as inexpensive to manufacturers as if they were located directly upon some water fall without the usual disadvantages and expenses of inaccessibility and inconvenience that often accompanied such locations.⁴⁵

The production of electricity at LRH&LC's dam was expected for 1897 while Chambly's dam would not be completely operational before 1899, thus giving LRH&LC an edge over REC. In order to keep or to win over customers, the two competitors tried to secure long-term contracts with power customers. In April 1898, REC signed an agreement with the Dominion Cotton Mills Company in Hochelaga.⁴⁶ For REC administrators this breakthrough in a major industry forecast a bright future. By 1900 REC was focusing its activities on the distribution of electricity rather than motor sales. In 1901 it merged with a fierce competitor, the Montreal Gas Company, creating the giant Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company.

During the next decade in Montreal, this new company secured a near monopoly over the distribution of electricity. It gained the lion's share in lighting and made important breakthroughs in the public utilities, although it had to share part of this market with the Shawinigan Water and Power Company.⁴⁷ However, on the industrial front things were less glittering for MLHPC and its rivals as Table 3 demonstrates. MLHPC did light up public spaces, but only on a very limited basis did it provide power to electric motors. Even though the numbers for electric motors grow over the decade, these statistics deal with electric motors in all kinds of establishments: administrative, commercial, institutional, and industrial.

Table 3. Number of New Incandescent Lamps and Electric Motors

Financial Years	Incandescent Lamps	Electric Motors	HP Equivalent

1901–02 1902–03 1903–04 1904–05 1905–06 1906–07 1907–08 Cumulative	13,918 17,806 34,501 24,842 39,448 41,655 47,313 219,483	79 210 53 342	756 hp 5,093 hp 2,303 hp 4,793 hp 6,386 hp 4,884 hp 8,584 hp 32,799 hp
Source: "Minutes of the Board and Annual Reports," MLHPC, 1901–1902 to 1907–1908, Hydro-Québec Archives, F9/3410/12094 and 12096.

In November 1903 MLHPC and the Canadian Rubber Company reached an agreement for electricity, both for lighting and power.⁴⁸ That same month, the Canadian Electrical News and Engineering Journal wrote:

Prominent among such users of power are: Montreal Street Railway Company, using 4000 kW; Dominion Cotton Mills, 2500 kW; Canadian Pacific Railway Company, general shops, 1500 kW; Canadian Rubber Company, 1000 kW; Montreal Water and Power Company, 1000 kW; Montreal Water Work, municipal 500 kW. The above represent the large users of power and the list is continued down to small but very numerous users, having motors for ice-cream freezers, dental laboratories, fans for cooling, horse clippers, wood chopping establishments, church organs, laundries in private residencies, etc.⁴⁹

If these numbers are apportioned, industrial customers bought 4,100 kW, or 5,574 hp, while public utilities consumed 5,550 kW or 7,545 hp. Furthermore if only the number of signed industrial contracts is taken into consideration, then connections were slow and would remain so for a number of years.⁵⁰

The situation was similar along the canal. Only a few contracts linked industries to electric companies. In 1902, Montreal Rolling Mills (MRM) signed a general lighting contract with LRH&LC at a high price and a contract that called for a maximum of 150 hp for its main operations on Notre Dame Street.⁵¹ In July 1904 MLHPC's board ratified two lighting contracts with Colonial Bleaching and Printing Company and Grand Trunk Workshops in Point St. Charles, the first to last two years and the second, five years.⁵² Moreover Grand Trunk had a clause calling for 200 hp in a 10-hour span with an option to remain connected for 24 hours; it also insisted on having a clear option for a 500 hp block of power in the contract.

In September 1904, the Phillips Electrical Works of St. Gabriel signed an agreement to buy from 150 to 200 hp a year for the next five years. In 1908 the Lachine-based Dominion Wire Company signed a five-year contract with MLHPC for an 800–1,000 hp block.⁵³ In October 1911, MLHPC secured a lighting and power contract to provide 900 hp to Dominion Flour Mills Company of St. Henri.⁵⁴ Compared to the amount of steam power being generated, these were small contracts; hydroelectric companies made no major breakthroughs in Montreal's industrial world. Moreover, hydroelectricity had to compete with an unforeseen adversary in its quest for industrial contracts, thermoelectricity.

Electric Motor or Hydroelectric Grid?

A number of Montreal's industries preferred to use electric motors tied in to their own steam engines, rather than be connected to MLHPC's distribution grid.⁵⁵ For example, two of the companies situated alongside the Lachine Canal were hesitant either to connect or to renew their contracts. Both belonged to the light industry group. In 1903, the St. Henri-based Merchants Manufacturing Company decided not to renew its contract supposedly because of MLHPC's high rates, a false pretext under these circumstances as it did not require power except for "the furnishing of light at such time as our own dynamos are not running. [The director general then suggested] additional dynamos engine combined at an estimated cost of $3,000. Which expenditure would be thought soon offset by the saving in Light Bills" (figures 4 and 5).⁵⁶ MLHPC could ill afford to lose a customer, especially if it gave others an example to follow. It thus offered Merchants Manufacturing "unbeatable" rates, but, nevertheless, its board kept open the option of installing a supplementary dynamo.⁵⁷ Producing electricity in situ thus proved to be a profitable bargaining tool.

Figure 4. Interior of Montreal textile mill, 1905. During the 20th century, industries progressively replaced the inextricable entanglement of shafts and pulleys so closely associated with the use of direct-drive steam and waterpower with electric motors and group drive (see fig. 5). "Employees of the Merchant's (Dominion Textile)," St. Henri Historic Society, 42-ph-2, 1905.

Figure 5. Printing machines in Montreal textile mill, early-20th century. When they converted to electricity, industries resorted to group drive with strategically placed electric motors, driven by power transmitted from a central electric power plant. The absence of belts in this photograph of a printing department within a textile industry indicates the use of electric motors. "Printing: Front View of Printing Machines," Dominion Textile Co. Ltd., "Annual Report for Year Ended March 31st, 1928," file H.S-4 Annual reports, pt. 1 1905–1949, c. 1928, LAC.

Something similar occurred in 1911 with different actors. The administrators of the Imperial Tobacco Company of Canada Ltd. of St. Antoine Street questioned their association with MLHPC. At that date the company was paying $1.75/kWh for the electricity it bought but received a rebate of 5 percent for 200 kW, of 7–1/2 percent for 250 kW, and 10 percent for 300 kW. However, the company had had to install its own alternators to supply motive power because of voltage insufficiencies in MLHPC's distribution system. MLHPC offered Imperial Tobacco a rate of .02¢/kWh, plus $15/hp yearly. Even at those rates, the company considered the price too high and decided to negotiate lower rates.⁵⁸ Since the company needed a minimum of 500 hp to run, that meant a minimum payment of $625 monthly. Although the outcome of this negotiation is unknown, the example shows those companies that had electrical production equipment and the potential to disconnect from the grid and produce electricity for their own needs had significant bargaining power in dealing with MLHPC's dominant electrical grid.

Example of Choices Faced: Redpath

Redpath offers a good example of the energy choices facing Montreal's manufacturers in 1911. That year Redpath's administrators were confronted with three choices to light their premises and to provide motive power. The first was to generate electricity from a generator coupled with a steam engine, while two involved connecting to MLHPC's grid using two different electric motors. A committee of experts examined the costs of each alternative. Option 1 was evaluated at $8,000, option 2 at $5,000, and option 3 at $4,500. Even though the option of a local steam engine coupled to a local electric generator did not seem economically competitive against connecting to MLHPC's grid, the committee proposed this solution to Redpath. How did these experts reach this conclusion?

An answer to this question is two pronged. On the one hand, according to the company, the three electrical systems' outputs were different, 100 kWh (around 134 hp), 75 kWh (100 hp), and 45 kWh (60 hp). On the other hand, the cost of steam Redpath had used as motive power for the last three years had been $40 a year on a 24-hour, 365 days-a-year basis.⁵⁹ The real cost was cut to $27 per annum if only the steam produced by the company's boilers was taken into account because "as we use the exhaust steam from our engines for boiling purposes, it reduces the cost of motive power to approximately one-half the above rate [that is $40] and adding to this the expense of attendants, upkeep, oil, etc. and interest on money invested."⁶⁰

Given this information, the experts estimated the real cost of steam-generated electricity at $27 per hp for 175 hp, to which had to be added 19 percent in lost efficiency, for a grand total of $5,622. In the other two scenarios, the cost of electricity was established at $32.50 per hp for 225 hp. However because of efficiency losses of 11 percent and 19 percent, the costs would rise to $9,325 for one option and to $10,137 for the other annually. Thus the experts recommended that steam coupled to an electric generator be used.⁶¹ Even though an electric motor cost more to install, this solution offered the maximum energy at the lowest cost and, furthermore, allowed the company to stay autonomous.⁶² Redpath followed the expert's advice.

Another example of thinking along these lines was Mathews Blackwell Ltd., a meatpacking firm located on Mill Street on reach no. 2 of the Lachine Canal since the beginning of the 20th century. The company decided to build a thermoelectric station on its premises rather than to connect to MLHPC's distribution grid.⁶³ This may have been the case with two other meat-packing firms established in nearby "Little Chicago": William Davies & Co. and Montreal Abattoir Ltd.⁶⁴

Meanwhile, at the other end of the Lachine Canal, electricity as well as steam were used. For instance, Dominion Bridge and Allis-Chalmers Bullock Co. resorted to both forms of energy, even though Dominion Wire Rope and Dominion Wire used only electricity.⁶⁵

Table 4 shows that one of the first areas where steam started to lose popularity was among the steel-producing companies of Montreal. Even on a partial and reduced scale, this is somewhat of a surprise, for steel producers were known for their intensive use of coal. It was in the steel industry that hydroelectricity made its first major breakthrough in a sector previously renowned for relying on coal and steam.⁶⁶

Table 4. Type of Energy and Combustible Used by Industries in 1912 (Lachine and St. Joseph streets near the Lachine Canal)

Name of Company	Industrial Group (SIC 1948)	Type of Energy Used	Type of Combustible

Dominion Bridge Co., Ltd. Dominion Wire Rope Allis-Chalmers Bullock Co.* Stelco (Dominion Wire)	Iron and steel products Iron and steel products Electrical appliances Iron and steel products	Steam and electricity Electricity Steam and electricity Unknown	Unknown Unknown Coal Coal and petroleum

Producer of electric and mining appliances Source: Charles E. Goad, Insurance Plan of the City of Lachine, Quebec*, sheets 11, 12, 21 (see n. 64).

The massive use of coal as a thermal source within the various phases of production made steam more attractive than electricity (figure 6). But this did not seem to be the case in 1910. The administrators of the Dominion Wire Company, a future component of Stelco's, wrote that their recent conversion to hydroelectricity had been profitable as

the saving affected in production largely due to the improvements and additions to the Plant, including the substitution of Electric for Steam power and amply justifies expenditures made in bringing the plant up to a better state of efficiency. The saving affected by Electric Power alone being practically $29,000 equal to $1.10 per ton.⁶⁷

Figure 6. Electrically powered Montreal Stelco blooming mill, c. 1935. Until the mid-19th century, Montreal nail works purchased nail plates in Great Britain where this product was cheap. When prices shot up, nail makers sought to roll metal locally. No one had ever rolled iron in Montreal before. Mansfield Holland, on reach no. 2 of the Lachine Canal, was the first to roll iron plates in 1859 with waterpower. In 1862, he built a new, steam-operated rolling mill and a smelter that merged in 1868 to become the Montreal Rolling Mills Company. When this company was merged into the Steel Company of Canada Ltd., it became the Notre Dame Street Shop and in the 1910s replaced its steam rolling facility with an electric rolling and blooming mill. "Blooming Mill," Musée McCord d'histoire canadienne, Montréal, Archives, C069-C/20–1534.38, 1935.

If these examples give indications as to the context in which the bigger industrial plants connected to MLHPC, they tend to obscure the situation with smaller and medium-sized industries.⁶⁸ Even though the electricity consumption of the smaller companies might seem negligible, considered collectively it was significant. The smaller companies of the Lachine Canal complex probably followed the American example and switched over to hydroelectricity.⁶⁹ Smaller companies seldom resorted to energy converters as powerful as those of the bigger companies. If one were to add the smaller companies' energy needs to those of the larger companies, then hydroelectric power consumption rose in the first 10 years of the 20th century.⁷⁰ In fact, notwithstanding the domestic market, industrial clients had become MLHPC's most important source of revenue by 1911.⁷¹ Was this really surprising when only one major industrial client, such as Dominion Flour Mills or Dominion Cotton Mills, bought more electricity than hundreds or even thousands of households? Be this as it may, on the eve of World War I steam still dominated as a motive power in the manufacturing world.

Because of MLHPC's problems, current boosting, and bad press associated with electric motors, only a few industrialists converted to hydroelectricity as motive power.⁷² Two explanations account for this: the steam engine was an established technology, and it was linked to a competitive coal market. In other words, the technology was proven, and the cost of coal-generated steam was competitive with MLHPC's rates. Champagne's list for 1912 confirmed this as 75 out of approximately 100 or so of the plants in the Lachine Canal's complex still relied on steam for motive power.⁷³

Decline of Steam: Corollary to the Coal Market Crisis

The domination of steam as a motive power in Montreal until World War I is mostly explainable by the dynamics of the coal market in which wholesalers relied on the city's position as a hub for continental and overseas trade in order to obtain competitive prices for coal.⁷⁴ In other words, steam had a future as long as the price of coal, which represented a substantial variable in the cost price of 1 hp produced by steam, remained competitive.

World War I changed everything. Many of the vessels that had brought coal from Nova Scotia down the St. Lawrence to Montreal were diverted to war service. The alternative, rail shipments, was not economical, especially since the capacity of this route was limited by the Canso Strait.⁷⁵ Since bituminous coal from Nova Scotia had been used in Canada mainly for industrial purposes, Montreal manufacturers lost one of their prime suppliers, Nova Scotia coal dealers.⁷⁶ Thus Montreal manufacturers had to turn to American suppliers (figures 7 and 8).

Figure 7. Coal barges on the Lachine Canal, 1863. During the 19th century, the use of coal crept into all spheres of activity until it became indispensable. In this new state of affairs, Montreal industry appeared to be cast in the loser's role, since no coal mine was to be found within a 600-mile (1,000 km) radius, and transportation costs accounted for a significant portion of the price of coal. Fortunately, Montreal was able to turn this handicap into an asset by taking advantage of its location on the St. Lawrence and its position as hub of the continental import-export trade. In this respect, the Lachine Canal was particularly blessed, since as an industrial zone it also served as the focal point of ship and rail transportation in Montreal. "Barges Scotland and Isaac Stephenson of the Ogdensburg Coal & Towing Co. in Company's Slip near McCord and William Streets, Lachine Canal, Montreal," Andrew Merrilees collection, PA 202637, 1863, LAC.

Figure 8. Coal dock, Montreal, 1894. Coal ranked second among commodities in terms of the quantities trans-shipped at locations along the Lachine Canal. After a few years of sharing space with wood and grain, and after bitter discussions with lumber merchants and grain millers, coal companies were assigned specific areas where they installed their coal derricks to unload their cargo boats. "S.S. Bonavista at Coal Towers, Pointe St. Charles, Montreal QC, 1894," Musée McCord d'histoire canadienne, Notman Photographic Archives, II-106286, 1894.

Because of higher transportation costs, American coal was more expensive in Montreal than in Toronto, while the cost of Nova Scotia coal rose sharply. The price of coal was no longer competitive. Furthermore, during the war, coal was considered a strategic product. In order to send as much coal as possible overseas, the Canadian government urged industrialists to convert to electricity. MLHPC joined the choir. It was during these years that electrometallurgy, which had been nonexistent in Montreal before the war, appeared on the Montreal landscape.⁷⁷ It did so well that by 1917, there were 11 electric furnaces in Montreal requiring 17,000 hp.⁷⁸

Except for fragments, the archives are silent about industrialists' choices in response to this situation. Fortunately, fire insurance plans come to the rescue, namely Goad's of 1909 (revised 1916). An exhaustive study of these plans led to compilation of a list of the motive powers resorted to by various companies alongside the Lachine Canal.⁷⁹ This analysis rests upon data from only 30 plants out of 54. Moreover, the list does not distinguish between users of thermoelectricity and MLHPC's hydroelectricity, with one exception. However imperfect the data, they still provide us with a measure of the penetration of electricity in the canal plants and a chance to quantify the relative importance of steam and hydraulic energy.

Figure 9. Declared values of Nova Scotia coal per net ton 1900–1930 and values of Nova Scotia coal per net ton as determined by application of (A) coal mining wage index to 1913 declared value; (B) wholesale price index to 1913 declared value; (C) coal mining wage index to 60% of 1913 declared value and wholesale price index to 40% of 1913 declared value.

Figure 10. Quebec's coal supply, 1913–1921. Source: Dominion Fuel Board, Interim Report of the Dominion Fuel Board of Canada, 1923, Ottawa, RG81, vol. 54, file 52–4–1, Library and Archives Canada.

Figure 11. Price of Canadian coal in Montreal (run of mine) and of American coal in Toronto from 1911 to 1936. Dominion Fuel Board, "Prices of Bituminous Coal at Montreal and Toronto 1911–1936," RG81, vol. 81, file 59–3–1, Library and Archives Canada.

Out of 30 industries for which the type of energy was identified, electricity with 12 companies was ahead of steam and direct-drive waterpower. However six industries resorted to more than one type of energy as motive power. Among the 12 companies using electricity, 7 were in the iron and steel sector and 2 produced leather goods. None of these, except the Saint Lawrence Flour Mills and electrical appliance maker CGE, were major actors on Montreal's industrial scene.

Steam was better represented among the major actors, for two major companies, one from the rolling stock sector (the Grand Trunk workshops) and the other from the iron and steel sector (Canadian Steel Foundries, formerly known as Canadian Switch and Spring Company) still resorted to it. Goad's insurance plans also confirm that at least six companies were still resorting to direct-drive waterpower at reach no. 2 and at St. Gabriel. At reach no. 2 these were Ogilvie's two flour mills (City and Royal Flour Mills) and an iron and steel producer (the Mechanical Engineering Company), while at St. Gabriel, the Grier Timber Ltd. (wood sector) and the Holsworth Company (garment industry) were still dependent on hydraulics.

The companies using multiple forms of energy had a variety of pairings. Thus three companies at the St. Gabriel hydraulic site used steam and hydraulics; they were Ogilvie's Glenora Flour Mills, the Canada Paint Company, and door-and-sash producer, James Shearer Company Ltd. At St. Gabriel, Canadian Jewellers Ltd., which took over the Phillips Electrical premises, resorted to all forms of energy, a unique situation.⁸⁰ Finally, the Northern Electric Company and the Montreal Box and Paper Company combined electricity and steam. If as early as 1916 electricity seemed to be winning the battle for motive power in this area of the island of Montreal, the war was not over yet. Furthermore, there were still 10 companies resorting at least partially to hydraulics.

At the end of World War I coal prices did not return to prewar standards, and Nova Scotia coal did not regain domination over the Montreal market because American coal producers, stuck with surpluses, offered their coal at cheaper rates than Nova Scotia coal operators. Moreover, "high prices in the postwar bunker trade" and the potential export market in Europe "tempted the coal operators more than the resumption of sharp competition."⁸¹ As a result, coal prices did not return to prewar levels. At a price fluctuating between $5 and $7 a ton, coal was not as attractive as before for manufacturers. Thus steam lost more and more "worshippers," and by the 1930s steam as a motive power had become marginal in Montreal's industrial world.⁸²

The conversion from steam to electricity thus took place in the 1920s when the price of coal remained more expensive than before World War I. This situation was due to the high price of coal and to the difficulty of getting it. In the 1930s government subsidies to Nova Scotia coal and massive arrivals of British coal finally dropped the price under the $5 mark, but it was too little, too late. Electricity and, most probably, hydroelectricity had won. The Great War thus signaled a new phase in steam power, its disappearance as a producer of motive power, even though coal was still the privileged means of heating buildings, for lack of better technology. With the decline of steam, Smoky Valley lost its identity.

Conclusion

In the last two decades of the 19th century, thermoelectricity had difficulty in winning over the industrial world. Even when it achieved success in lighting, it did not win over the area of motive power. The steam engine was a proven technology, while the performance of the electric motors varied. The situation was somewhat identical with the early thermoelectrical grids. Furthermore, the output available from grids was limited because of technical shortcomings and, even more, because early thermoelectric companies focused on public lighting contracts more than other potential markets. Lastly, coal suppliers were numerous, which kept the price of coal low, thus creating a more competitive market than for electricity.⁸³

Figure 12. Paper board mill, Montreal, 1942. In 1916 this mill operated its cardboard machines using all three forms of available energy: water, steam, and electricity. In 1924 it abandoned waterpower, but it was still using both steam and electricity for motive power in 1940. "Lower Entrance to North Lock No. 3, Gair Co. Ltd., Paper Board Mill (Looking North West), Lachine Canal," Parks Canada, Quebec Canals, 1942.

In spite of technical enhancements to electric motors in the mid-1890s and the appearance of a hydroelectric grid in the 1900s, electricity, both thermoelectric and hydroelectric, still experienced difficulties in penetrating Montreal's industries in the first decade of the 20th century. The pace of conversion was slow, even though a number of companies switched over to electricity. Even when the bigger industrial plants were willing to adopt electricity, they hesitated between two options: to connect to a grid or to stay independent by producing their own power through electric motors linked to their own steam engines.

Local production of thermoelectricity offered numerous technological advantages. It relied on proven steam technology for generation. It also allowed companies to remain independent of MLHPC, a nearly monopolistic company trying to keep rates as high as possible in order to pay its shareholders good dividends. Moreover, MLHPC was not inclined to offer reduced industrial electrical rates, current practice in the coal market.⁸⁴

After having dominated the Montreal landscape at the end of the 19th century, steam's position as motive power eroded slowly but surely in the first decade of the 20th century, a situation profitable to both thermo- and hydroelectricity. The bigger industries sought to preserve their autonomy as much as possible, either by installing electric motors run by their own steam engine-dynamo units or by using the threat to do so in negotiating with MLHPC to obtain the best price.

World War I marked a sharp decline in steam's status as a motive power, and hydroelectricity, largely generated at distant waterpower sites, had become the primary energy form in Montreal's manufacturing world by the 1920s. Although many factors explained this turnabout, one stands out: the effect of war on the price of coal. In other words, the acceleration of conversion to electricity, and especially hydroelectricity, cannot be explained by the sudden attraction of this new form of energy but, rather, by a substantial hike in coal prices. For the same reason, manufacturers probably also stepped away from thermoelectricity as even the cost of producing electricity in this manner went up.

Notes

^1. The transition from steam to electricity implies that the choices made by industries rely on the availability of production technologies, of various power alternatives, and a comparison of their costs as pointed out by Louis C. Hunter in his voluminous study on energy. Also read Martin V. Melosi, "Energy Transitions in the Nineteenth-Century Economy," in Energy and Transport: Historical Perspectives on Policy Issues, ed. George H. Daniels and Mark H. Rose (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1982); Jeremy Atack, Fred Bateman, and Thomas Weiss, "The Regional Diffusion and Adoption of the Steam Engine in American Manufacturing," Journal of Economic History 40 (June 1990): 281–308, or Charles Main, "Cost of Steam and Water Power," Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers 11 (1889–1890): 108–25.

Thermoelectricity is the coupling of steam, at first engine and ultimately turbine, with an electric generator, at first a dynamo and afterwards alternator. In this hybrid form, steam transmitted energy to a generator, which transformed it into electricity. Thus it can be viewed as direct power in which the electric generator coupled with a steam engine furnished the means to transmit energy to light lamps or to power a machine by way of an electric motor. Whatever the case, electric generators, either dynamos or alternators, were viewed as generating power directly. This characteristic distinguished thermoelectricity from hydroelectricity as this latter form of power had to rely on a series of dams, a sophisticated transmission line with transformers, and a very complex distribution system. This is not to mention the need for an integrated and centralized management system for both production and distribution, which plays a key role in the performance of the electric grid. Without it, distribution could be very uneven from one area to another. Yet one more thing must be added: a distributor of electricity had to have more than one source of supply to prevent an interruption in service. From a historiographic point of view, there are some publications on the growing use of electricity. However, in most cases, their analyses of the transition to electricity as a motive power is very limited. In fact, historians working on the electrification of Montreal were mainly interested in the evolution of hydroelectricity and its organization into production and distribution systems and particularly in the finances and politics related to hydroelectric companies

Because industries were massive consumers of electricity, these works have some hints as to their electrification, but none deal with this question specifically, albeit two researchers have given the matter a little more attention. On one side, Claude Bellavance, in Shawinigan Water and Power, 1898–1963: Formation et déclin d'un groupe industriel (Montréal: Boréal, 1991) analyzed the position of Shawinigan Water and Power towards industries and its sales of electricity for industrial purposes. On the other hand, John H. Dales in Hydroelectricity and Industrial Development: Quebec 1898–1940 (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1957) has evaluated in his last two chapters the advantages of resorting to coal and, thereby, steam versus hydroelectricity in industrial plants. Dales argues that the existence of hydroelectric power resources along with agricultural and industrial raw material bases explains the growth of industry in Central Canada. He argues that Quebec's and Ontario's abundant hydroelectricity made up for their deficiency in coal and iron ore and gave them their industrial boost once long distance transmission of hydroelectricity became technologically feasible in the early-20th century. In 1987, Peter J. Wylie argued that the electrification of manufacturing was important to explaining relative regional industrial development, and he argued that the Maritime provinces lagged in developing central electrical power systems and in the conversion of industrial plants to purchased electrical power. See Peter J. Wylie, "When Markets Fail: Electrification and Maritime Industrial Decline in the 1920s," Acadiensis 26, no. 1 (1987): 79–80. See also Christopher Armstrong and H. V. Nelles, "Contrasting Development of the Hydro-Electric Industry in the Montreal and Toronto Regions, 1900–1930," Journal of Canadian Studies 18, no. 1 (1983), and the more recent study by Claude Bellavance and Paul André Linteau, "La diffusion de l'électricitéà Montréal au début du XXe siècle," in Colloque international: desarrollo urbano de Montréal y Barcelona en la época contemporánea: estudio comparativo (1997) (Barcelona: Publicacions de la Universitat de Barcelona, 1998).

^2. This hydraulic power was present only in the Montreal sector of the canal, that is, on reach no. 2 near the harbor, at lock St. Gabriel, and at lock Côte St. Paul.

^3. See Larry McNally, Water Power on the Lachine Canal, 1846–1900 (Quebec: Parks Canada, 1982); John Willis, The Process of Hydraulic Industrialization on the Lachine Canal 1840–1880: Origins, Rise, and Fall, 2 vols. (Quebec: Environment Canada/Parks Canada, 1987); Alain Gelly, De l'eau et de la fumée. Forces motrices au canal de Lachine 1846–1940, 2 vols. (Québec: Parks Canada, 2001).

^4. Two authors have given attention to the rise of steam in Montreal before the 1870s: Larry S. McNally, "Montreal Engine Foundries and Their Contribution to Central Canadian Technical Development" (master's thesis, Carleton Univ., Ottawa, 1991), and Robert Tremblay, "Du forgeron au machiniste: l'impact social de la mécanisation des opérations d'usinage dans l'industrie de la métallurgie à Montréal de 1815 à 1860" (doctoral diss., Université du Québec à Montréal, 1992). A recent study deals with the geography of industrial Montreal: Robert Lewis, Montreal Manufacturing: The Making of an Industrial Landscape 1850 to 1930 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 2000). In his essay, the author studies the formation and specialization of manufacturing districts, six of them being situated along the canal in 1890 and seven in 1929.

^5. Édouard Octave Champagne, Rapport annuel de l'inspecteur des chaudières à vapeur de la cité de Montréal pour l'exercice 1911 (Montréal: A.-P. Pigeon, 1912), 4, located in Archives de la Ville de Montréal [hereafter AVM].

^6. "Because of the technical efficiency and convenience of the electric motor as compared with the cumbrous apparatus of belts and shafting necessary to operate machinery when a steam engine or waterwheel is used, electricity is, as we have already noted, the predominant form of energy used for motive power in modern industry." See Dales, Hydroelectricity, 158 (n. 1).

^7. In the United States, the main argument behind the slowness of conversion "was the general unavailability of cheap electricity." Richard B. Du Boff, "The Introduction of Electric Power in American Manufacturing," Economic History Review 20, no. 3 (December 1967): 509. However, Montreal's adoption of a model based upon the massive production of electricity through either major dams or large steam-powered plants and its transmission by a grid at the beginning of the 20th century did not preclude continued recourse to steam, contrary to the American situation.

^8. "Because electric heat is more expensive than fuel-generated heat on a B.T.U. basis, it is not normally used for industrial heating. The use of electricity in the production process was rather a rarity in Montreal at the beginning of the 20th century." Du Boff, 158–59 (see n. 7).

^9. These factors included technology (dimensions, horsepower, reliability, efficiency, output, and limits) as well as the costs (transportation, infrastructure, maintenance) associated with each form of energy, the type of industrial production, the size of the plant, the kind of organization (workshop, manufacture, industry), and the environmental dynamics of the company. As Martin Melosi pointed out, "the energy transition influences and is influenced by the technical, economic, political, environmental and social forces which also shape society" (Melosi, "Energy Transitions," 55 [see n. 1]). Richard Du Boff writes, "the overriding reason for adoption of electrical systems by a minority of plants between 1897 and 1900, and by growing numbers thereafter was the expectations of large cost savings" (Du Boff, "Introduction of Electric Power," 510 [see n. 7]). Furthermore, "savings in energy and capital were the primary stimuli behind the introduction of electric power in plants" (Du Boff, 513 [n. 7]).

^10. Regarding motive power rates, MLHPC seemed to have had a rule not to disclose any information on the subject, either to companies who desired to be connected or to those who wanted to renew their contracts, except for specific points dealing with their situation. A few contracts do, however, exist, and one thing emerges: rates varied a great deal. For instance, in 1907 one company signed up at $20/hp; another one contracted at $19 four years later; while a third paid $26 that same year. Aside from the rates, another point has to be made: the interconnection between the hydro company and plant equipment was a difficult thing to achieve because of voltage, cycles, and the necessity of synchronization with alternating current.

^11. Aside from the acquisition cost, steam engines needed costly maintenance, experienced mechanics, and great quantities of coal and water. According to Édouard Octave Champagne, Montreal's steam engines were in good working condition. Moreover, he added, Montreal was free "from explosions and other accidents related to steam boilers." Édouard Octave Champagne, Rapport annuel de l'inspecteur des chaudières pour 1888 (Montréal: Sénéchal, 1889), 4, AVM. Champagne repeated these words until World War I. Regarding water, the Lachine manufacturing complex pumped water directly from the canal and back into the canal after use. This form of energy required "a rather complicated steam-generating system-furnace, boiler, stack, fuel storage, water supply—as well as a steam engine" and a rather sophisticated transmission system by gears or belts conveying the power to the machinery. Because of this complexity, the system was subject to numerous breakdowns, hence substantial maintenance costs. Louis C. Hunter and Lynwood Bryant, A History of Industrial Power in the United States. 1780–1930, vol. 3 of The Transmission of Power (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1991), 53.

^12. "Electric motors could be used to drive machinery in place of the old system of belts, pulleys, and shafts that transmitted power from the prime mover, usually a steam engine or water wheel, to each machine in the factory." See Arthur G. Woolf, "Electricity, Productivity, and Labor Saving American Manufacturing, 1900–1929," Explorations in Economic History 21, no. 2 (April 1984): 177; Du Boff, "Introduction of Electric Power," 516 (n. 7).

^13. Until World War I the internal combustion motor appeared as an alternative to steam. According to Richard Du Boff, "it was believed that the internal combustion engine would prove able to furnish manufacturing plants with smaller, divisible power units that could replace the heavily centralized processes typical of the steam power with its belts and shafting." Du Boff, "Introduction of Electric Power," 514 (see n. 7).

^14. One needs only to assess the improvement of MLHPC's distribution system or even the Trojan horse that electric motors represented. Richard Du Boff wrote that once the incorporation of electric motors directly into each tool and machine (unit drive) of a number of industrial plants was achieved, the cycle of material and capital cost reduction would be completed only when the growth of public utilities allowed industries to buy electricity from central stations. In the United States as in Montreal "this final step extended through World War I, and it heralded the virtual disappearance of steam-power practices in American manufacturing," ibid., 512.

^15. Aside from works by Louis Hunter and Martin Melosi, those by Jeremy Atack and Charles Main contain valuable considerations. For coal costs, works by George H. Dobson, W. C. Milner, and Richard Brown, the Dominion Fuel Board reports, and the evidence brought forward at the 1877 Senate's Special Committee on Coal give good indications as to the coal market in the province of Québec. The cost of coal, as well as the ratio of coal consumed per hp, represents a major component in the cost of steam hp. According to Charles Main, a patent holder for a governor valve on a compound engine, the comparison between two identical steam engines in two different locations had to take into account the price of coal in both areas to explain variations in costs (Main, "Cost of Steam," 108 [see n. 1]). According to Alfred Chandler, the variation of steam operating costs between Great Britain and the United States "was nearly all in the fuel cost." See Alfred D. Chandler Jr., "Anthracite Coal and the Beginnings of the Industrial Revolution in the United States," Business History Review 46 (Summer 1972): 145. For Gerald Gould, "the largest single element in the cost of power is coal." See Gerald B. Gould and Carleton W. Hubbard, The Cost of Power. A Big Business Problem. A Manual of Valuable Information for Business Executives (New York: Fuel Engineering Co. of New York, 1914), 14. For their part Jeremy Atack and his colleagues did not venture so far; while they did not negate the importance of coal cost, they rather integrated it into the following equation: Cost of steam power/hp = original cost of steam engine, boilers, etc./hp × [rate of interest (discount) + depreciation rate on steam engine, straight-line, no scrap value + repair rate for steam engine as a percent of original cost + insurance rate on original cost of steam engine] + [(coal consumption pounds/hour/hp) × (bituminous coal price/pound) × (days of operation/year for steam-powered plant) × (average daily hours of operation)] + [2.0 × (daily wage [semi-skilled]/hp) × (days of operation/year for steam-powered plant)] (Atack et al., "Regional Diffusion," 291–92 [see n. 1]).

^16. Molson's brewery installed a stationary steam engine in its facilities in 1812. In the 1840s when steam was dominant in Great Britain, only two breweries, a distillery, two nail producers, a naval yard, and a "virtual" grain miller resorted to steam in Montreal. How could this situation be explained when Montreal had knowledgeable mechanical engineers and coal coming in as ballast could be bought at a cheap price? According to Larry McNally (Water Power, 9 [see n. 3]), it was a question of operating and maintenance costs with stationary engines. To this could be added the fact that British manufactured products were readily available on the Canadian market. These two situations were complementary: without a strong interior demand there was no need for mechanization, and, on the other hand, the maintenance costs of a steam engine necessitated the use of a 5 hp motor or better for operating costs to become worthwhile. There was some demand for Canadian-made products, but as the example of the slow start of the hydraulic complex of the Lachine Canal demonstrates, the economic context of the 1846–49 period was a difficult one. In the 1850s the situation within the manufacturing sector was modified considerably as Canada witnessed one of its stronger gross national product growth periods ever. When this growth was added to greater access to coal and the establishment of the Grand Trunk Railway workshops, a number of Montreal industrialists decided to switch over to steam. Hydraulic lots furnished an estimated 240 hp in 1848 and 1460 hp in 1857.

^17. In 1857, 34 hydraulic leases generated between 828 and 1,460 (Gelly, De l'eau, 1: 111 [see n. 3]). Steam technology produced only 253 hp in 1861. Canal engineers who tried to calculate hydraulic power generated within the various industries had to face two problems. First, they had to convert "runs of stone" (which was the unit indicated by the owners of hydraulic lots) into hp. In spite of unavoidable misinterpretations on calculations, they finally agreed that a run of stone was equal to something between 6 and 10 hp and most probably closer to 10 hp. The number of runs of stone available was estimated between 138 and 146, which thus corresponded to a number between 828 and 1,460 hp, depending on the conversion rate chosen. The second problem was more fundamental: more often than not, the lessees generated more power than their rents would allow. Thus the challenge faced by the engineers was to establish the real output generated as industrialists were quite silent on this point. In other words, in 1871 Montreal industries were generating the equivalent of 2,559 steam hp while hydraulic plants were generating around 2,255 hp (Gelly, De l'eau, 2: 454 [see n. 3]). For instance, in 1908 at least 17 companies situated within the Lachine's hydraulic infrastructure and holders of hydraulic privileges also resorted to steam.

^18. As many industrialists rented their hydraulic lots not for power purposes but, rather, for the water consumption they afforded, then the real hydraulic output would be more limited.

^19. Édouard Octave Champagne, Rapport annuel de l'inspecteur des chaudières à vapeur de la cité de Montréal pour l'année 1905 (Montréal: A.-P. Pigeon, 1906), 5, AVM.

^20. Édouard Octave Champagne, Rapport annuel de l'inspecteur des chaudières à vapeur de la cité de Montréal pour l'année 1906 (Montréal: A.-P. Pigeon, 1907), 4, AVM.

^21. Édouard Octave Champagne, Rapport annuel de l'inspecteur des chaudières à vapeur de la cité de Montréal pour l'année 1907 (Montréal: A.-P. Pigeon, 1908), 4, AVM.

^22. This document identified the kinds and outputs of boilers used in the Montreal plants visited by the civil servants. Where retail shops and public buildings could be clearly identified, they have been struck off, but there might still be some furnaces included in the list.

^23. In 1871, Canada Sugar (110 hp), the Grand Trunk (185 hp), and Montreal Rolling Mills (200 hp) produced a total of 495 hp.

^24. Champagne, Rapport annuel ... 1911, 4 (see n. 5).

^25. For instance, in 1908 Pillow Hersey, one of the Montreal Rolling Mills' components, used dynamos to light its installations on St. Patrick Street. See "Minute Book of the Board [of the Montreal Rolling Mills]," 15 February 1907, box 113, file Pillow Hersey, 1908, The Steel Company of Canada, Stelco Archives, Hamilton [hereafter Stelco].

^26. Charles E. Goad, Insurance Plan of Montreal Island and Vicinity of Montreal, Quebec, Canada, sheet 542, surveyed March 1894, rev. 1907, Archives nationals du Québec, Montréal [hereafter ANQ].

^27. According to one of the company's annual reports, its conversion to electricity in 1910 was very profitable. "The saving affected in production was largely due to the improvements and additions in the Plant, including the substitution of Electric for Steam power and amply justifies expenditures made in bringing the plant up to a better state of efficiency. The saving affected by Electric Power alone being practically $29,000 equal to $1.10 per ton." See "Report to the Shareholders [of the Dominion Wire Company Limited assembled at 27th Annual Meeting] February 2nd 1910," box 252, file Dominion Wire Company Limited, Stelco.

^28. The greater the production output, the faster the conversion to electricity (acquisition of the electric motor, installation of the transmission line, maintenance, etc.) became profitable. "Reduction in capital costs as the larger direct saving appear to be common to technological change involving power machinery" (Du Boff, "Introduction of Electric Power," 512:note 1 [see n. 7]).

^29. As early as 1880, even earlier than Edison's electric grid, Montreal was home to a premiere, when J.-A.-L. Craig's "four story furniture factory [situated at 31 Williams street in St. Ann's ward] was lighted with arc-lights while the Grand Trunk workshops in Pt. St. Charles would be lit by arc-lamps also a few months later." See André Bolduc et al., Québec: un siècle d'électricité (Montréal: Libre Expression, 1979), 25. Both companies used American-built dynamos linked to steam engines. Except for these examples, indications on the use of thermoelectricity in Lachine canal industries are scarce.

^30. As Kenneth C. Dewar wrote, in Canada, "the electrical motive power in manufacturing developed much more slowly. Early motors, though relatively inexpensive, were not particularly efficient. Their attraction was based mainly on convenience. Where current was already being consumed for lighting purposes, their convenience was further enhanced." The Manufacturer remarked a few years later on the proliferation of electrical inventions. Once wires were introduced to a building for lighting, it was soon possible to use it for other things such as burglar alarms and communication, sometimes for heating and for driving machinery "where the use of any other power would be practically impossible." See Kenneth C. Dewar, "State Ownership in Canada: The Origins of Ontario Hydro" (doctoral diss., Univ. of Toronto, 1975), 83–84.

^31. By comparing indications on both Redpath and the Montreal Rolling Mills, it seems clear that Redpath was resorting to thermoelectricity in 1893. According to Richard Feltoe, a thermoelectric plant powered a pair "of overhead traveling electric cranes to lift the bags of raw sugar." Richard Feltoe, Redpath: The History of Sugar House (Toronto: Natural Heritage/Natural History, 1991), 160.

^32. With the creation of the General Electric Company and its Canadian parent, the Canadian General Electric Company, companies such as the Royal Electric Company (REC) lost rights to use patents by Thomson, Brush, Sprague, Van Dapeole, Rice, Bentley, Knight, and others. See Victor S. Clarke, History of Manufactures in the United States, vol. 3, 1893–1928 (New York, P. Smith, 1949), 383. After it had lost its rights to Thomson-Houston patents, REC announced its association with the Stanley Electric Manufacturing Company, a Pittsfield, Massachusetts-based electrical engineering firm.

^33. Canadian Electrical News and Steam Engineering Journal (November 1894).

^34. "Minute Book: Board of Directors. Dominion Bridge," Lachine, January 1890, MG28 III, 100, vol. 1, no. 8, Library and Archives Canada, Ottawa [hereafter LAC].

^35. Canadian Electrical News and Steam Engineering Journal (November 1897).

^36. This same day, 5 December 1900, REC gave up all its rights to the Stanley Electric Manufacturing Company patents it held for Canada. See REC, "Minute Book of Meetings of Directors and the Shareholders. With Index," Montreal, December 1900, localization 20,010, box 625, AHQ/F9/3410, Québec Hydro archives, Montréal. [hereafter AHQ]

^37. Assessment of damage done by fire at the St. Patrick street plant read thus: "the only machinery damaged was two dynamos used in transmitting electric light to St Patrick Street works and was assessed at 315$" ("Minute Book,"1908 [see n. 25]).

^38. Goad, Insurance Plan, sheet 542 (see n. 26).

^39. As noted by David S. Landes, "if the major factor for mass production was at first electric lighting, this was soon to be surpassed by other applications like traction." See David S. Landes, L'Europe technicienne. Révolution technique et libre essor industriel en Europe occidentale de 1750 à nos jours (Paris: Gallimard, 1975), 394.

^40. Bolduc et al., Québec, 42 (see n. 29).

^41. While REC's statistics may give some insight into the electric consumption of industries in Montreal before 1900, they do not account for all the electricity consumed along the Lachine Canal. REC was not the only equipment manufacturer, and its grid did not cover the whole length of the canal.

^42. The specific date is unknown. Bolduc et al., Québec, 42 (see n. 29).

^43. With an output of 9,000 kW, it would be for a few years Quebec's and Canada's biggest dam, the second major hydroelectric dam built in America after the Niagara station. It would be enlarged in subsequent years and make the fortune of its promoters. Jean-Louis Fleury, Les Coureurs de lignes. L'histoire du transport de l'électricité au Québec (Montréal: Stanké, 1999), 13.

^44. REC, "Minute Book of Meetings of Directors and of Shareholders," Montreal, 1896, localization 20,005, box 629, AHQ/F9/3410, AHQ. Its real output would be closer to 6,000 hp (4476 kW; rated by output, these generators were then the most powerful ever installed worldwide )(Bolduc et al., Québec, 47 [see n. 29]).

^45. Canadian Electrical News and Steam Engineering Journal (March 1897).

^46. "A contract was made on 3,000 hp of electric current, with the Royal Electric Co., which, on account of limited service, made the price attractive to the Cotton Co. The agreement was so drawn as to provide every possible safeguard and penalty against interruption of service. The limited service provided that power should not be used by the Cotton Co. during the six winter months between the hours of 4 and 7 P.M. so as not to lap onto the Electric Co.'s lighting load, this making all this power available to sell again for lighting purposes." See The Montreal Electrical Handbook (Montreal: AIEE, 1904), 149. According to Jean-Françoise Larose, "il s'agit probablement de la première utilisation importante de l'électricité par une usine montréalaise" ("it was probably the first important utilization of electricity by a Montreal factory"). See Jean-François Larose, L'électrification de la région montréalaise. Synthèse historique (Montréal: Hydro-Québec, 1991), 69. In the mid 1890s this company had bought a Stanley two-phase alternator, which was expected to be, according to Canadian Electrical News, a serious competitor to the steam engine. Canadian Electrical News and Steam Engineering Journal (November 1894).

^47. In 1902, Montreal Street Railway Co. signed a contract for 5,000 hp, which, when added to 2,500 hp bought from other suppliers, came to a total of 7,500 hp. On 22 June 1903, MLHPC and MTR signed a 10-year agreement. For the first five years, from 1903 to 1908, MTR would pay $35/year for each electrical hp used, with total consumption to be between 100 hp (74.6 kW) and 500 hp (373 kW), which meant $3,500/year for 100 hp and $17,500 for 500 hp. For the second five years of the contract (1909 to 1914), the public utility company committed to use 500 to 700 hp (373 to 522 kW) and was to pay $30/hp/year, or between $15,000 and $19,600 annually. If MSR required more power by this time, a slightly lower rate of $28/hp/year would apply for use of between 750 hp (559 kW) and 1,000 hp (746 kW) or $21,000 to $28,000 (MLHPC, "Minute Book of Meetings of Directors and of Shareholders, including By-Law and Annual Reports," Montreal, 15 August 1903, localization 20,007, box 622, AHQ). Another trophy for MLHPC was the Montreal Water and Power Company contract: it sold 300 hp in September 1904 to this public utility company. See MLHPC, "Minute Book of Meetings of the Executive Committee/Executive Board of Directors," Montreal, 14 September 1904, localization 20,007, box 622, AHQ. As Claude Bellavance noted, SWP was not on its own; it had to obtain permission from MLHPC to sell electricity in Montreal (Bellavance, Shawinigan Water, 52 [see n. 1]).

^48. MLHPC, "Minute Book of Meetings of the Executive Committee/Executive Board of Directors," Montreal, November 1903, localization 20,007, box 622, AHQ.

^49. Canadian Electrical News and Engineering Journal (November 1903).

^50. From 1904 to 1906 only four Montreal manufacturers signed contracts with MLHPC. The Locomotive and Machine Shop Company signed a three-year contract for 300 hp (MLHPC, "Minute Book" 1904, [see n. 47]). In September 1905, two companies had their contracts revised. The Locomotive and Machine Shop Company bought 300 supplementary hp, while Canadian Pacific's Angus Workshops extended its lighting contract (MLHPC, "Minute Book of Meetings of the Executive Committee/Executive Board of Directors," Montreal, November 1905, localization 20,007, box 622, AHQ). Finally, on 10 January 1906, Carlsley signed a contract for 40 hp (MLHPC, "Minute Book of Meetings of Directors and of Shareholders, including By-Laws and Annual Reports," Montreal, January 1906, localization 20,007, box 622, AHQ). It should be noted that this last contract is the only example of a small industrial customer connecting to MLHPC during this period. In 1907, the Vulcan Portland Cement Company signed a five-year mixed contract, twice renewable, with MLHPC, LHR&L, and SWP, for an initial 1,250 hp up to 3,250 hp (Lachine Rapids Hydraulic & Land Company, Document 220-A-B-C, AHQ).