Accounting for Steam Locomotives (ex Flying Scotsman thread)

Cox is your friend
Locomotive panorama Vol 2 Table 7
Max rate of evaporation
DoG--------------30250lbs/h---750degree F--eta boiler 44%
Britannia--------31410 lbs/h---737 degree F--eta boiler 66%
Merchant Navy-34000 lbs/h--679 degree F--eta boiler 61%

DoG with Britannia boiler 2533 ihp
DoG with Merchant boiler 2741 ihp if superheat could have been upped

 

The figure for DoG's own boiler is presumably as built with the poor draughting. I suspect that the maximum rate of steam production from that boiler in its present condition is very similar to that of a Merchant Navy.

 

Much appreciated, thank you.

 

Hmm, I fear I'm going to need to read that and try and understand it. How did you source the volume?

 

I failed to find a copy of Newton looking quickly online, but an interesting article by John Glynn entitled “Development of British Railway Accounting: 1800-1911” came up in the search.

Reading it quickly as a non-accountant, it’s clear how far removed from modern practice railway accounting was, and how much emphasis there was on how shareholders capital was being used. The revenue and capital account provisions, backed up by legislation, make a lot more sense in this context.

 

ebay I suspect, but possibly Abe. I bought it a few years ago.

 

Which legislation / clause(s) are you referring to?

 

In this case, the Regulation of Railways Act 1868.

 

Thanks, any particular clause? I could not see anything from a quick skim. The first section seems to deal mainly with the broad obligation to produce accounts.

 

I only read the article, and that quickly.

 

I suspect that the ghost of George Hudson loomed large over railway accounting for a long time.
Pat

 

So when/where did I willfully "misinterpret" someone else's post? Dr Martin surely doesn't have a problem understanding English!

 

From Swindon Steam, page 50:

"Contemporarily, Collett was designing the Castles. There was a definite need now for a more powerful express passenger locomotive to relieve the Stars which had been at work for fifteen years........."

 

And in a happy juxtaposition of operational need and accounting practice, it was possible to frame this as a “repair” rather than a new investment.
Or, in other words, just the same sleight of hand and exercise in judgment that businesses the world over follow when trying to work out the business case behind an investment.

 

I just want to clear up something: I passed my “upgrade” not my “Viva” - it is still “Mr” and not “Doc” Martin, I am afraid, but I am in final write up!

Mr, and no, but you are really taking issue with something that shouldn’t be so big a deal.

I made a point about the financials, ultimately, rather than maintenance, and both should be considered when writing about CMEs, directors and railway accountancy together with organisational structures and decision making.

 

Perhaps you could also clear up whether you are back with us or not?

 

A timely reminder of why I went away in the first place.

Why was that necessary?

 

Simple curiosity.

 

No, I think not.

It’s frustrating isn’t it? All the research and reading I do, checking in every so often for interesting discussions, and feeling like I can’t post without getting targeted in various ways.

Last year it was Gaza and the fallout from the discussions here (is it genocide yet?) and the year before it was, frankly, bullying. This year I’ve mostly stayed away.

No, I’m wary and I am weary of putting my head above the parapet.

Think I will go back to the ether.

 

I took your "Same old, same old...." in post #43 to be an allusion to Simon's rebuttal of the old notion that Thompson sought to do away with as much of Gresley's legacy as possible. Did I get the wrong end of that stick?