Accounting for Steam Locomotives (ex Flying Scotsman thread)

Your search history is somewhat similar to mine then!

In the paper linked, the treatment of depreciation as it was after the 1868 act is described as follows:

The 1868 Act was also the first statutory recognition of the "double-account system." The principal distinction between the double- and single-account system is the method of setting out receipts and expenditure on capital account. In the double-account system, separate statements are prepared, for capital and revenue expenditure and receipts. The capital account is a cash basis statement, showing, on one side, all moneys subscribed by share and debenture holders, and, on the other, how such sums were expended in the purchase of fixed assets. The balance of receipts over expenditure, or vice versa, is carried to the balance sheet. There was, therefore, no pretence that asset figures represented market value; simply a statement of the disbursement of capital receipts on capital expenditure. It was very much a stewardship orientated system; and according to Dicksee a system very much favoured by the Chancery Division.

With the double-account system, the assets charged to capital are not written down by reason of diminished value due to wear and tear or obsolescence, but where necessary, a depreciation fund is created by charging the revenue account with an annual sum and crediting the fund with a like amount. The original designers of the double-account system appear to have decided that a provision for depreciation would not be necessary, and that the periodic renewal of assets out of revenue would be sufficient to maintain the value of the capital assets. Under the form of accounts set out in the 1868 Act, no specific provision was made for depreciation funds.
​

As I understand that, it meant a new loco would be built from capital and would retain its value on the asset list until it was scrapped, at which point it would typically be replaced by a new locomotive built from renewal funds to take its place as a capital asset. The renewal fund would come each year from the revenue generated by the business. For the nineteenth century, when inflation was very low, that was probably a reasonable scheme. (The cost of construction of a loco in the 1890s was not significantly different from the 1870s). It probably became more problematic either side of World War 1 when inflation ramped up significantly.

Tom

​

 

Coming back to the Star - Castle conversions briefly, and the extent to which they were or weren't new locos, the following quote popped up today on the GWS Facebook page:

The conversion was quite straightforward according to John Gibson who worked at Swindon in the 20’s and witnessed the conversion of 4016 Knight of the Golden Fleece to a Castle. He evidently worked close by and says “the job (of converting 4016) was really very simple. Nearly all the parts, already stamped with the engine number were used again. Extensions (one foot in length) were added by electric arc welding to the back end of the frames and the only new parts were enlarged cylinders (from 15” to 16” diameter) new boiler, the No 8, which had a firebox one foot longer than the Star’s No 1 and a larger cab."

(Source: https://www.facebook.com/groups/greatwesternsociety/permalink/10161337675020904)
​

Tom

 

As indicated in my question, yes you did.

 

Because someone disagrees with you and responds to something you write, you are "targeted"? Wow. Isn't that more a comment on yourself?

 

Any improvement in economy of a Castle over a Star would have been due to the greater heating surface of a No. 8 (2-row) boiler against a comparable No.1. Both boilers had the same number of flue tubes. Under suitable conditions this could have meant a reduction in coal consumption (and therefore also water), much more significantly than any saving in boiler maintenance.

 

I agree with you that, probably, no locomotive design was ever agreed 'just' for one reason (whatever the minutes may say) but I'm still struggling to understand what it was you were trying to argue in this rather peculiar posting. I'm sure @S.A.C. Martin (or anybody else) would have little difficulty agreeing there was plenty of scope for standardisation at that time.

In that case, what did you mean by "Same old, same old...." ?

 

It is worth bearing in mind that no fund or deprecation provision represents actual cash set aside to find new or replacement equipment. The same basic concept of not revaluing assets to their current replacement value exists today ( albeit with different rules for assets held for resale). There was a period when we had very high inflation rates in this country in the 70s and 80s that accountants toyed with current cost accounting (CCA) to try and account for inflation but CCA is not part of current reporting requirements.

Edited for typos.

 

I'm just wondering how much more expensive a MN boiler (with the thermic syphons) would have been than the DoG boiler. Although there was one MN without thermic syphons, I understand it was considered not to be as strong as the others. It would also be intriguing to know how a MN boiler would have worked with a Double Kylchap exhaust. I'm lead to believe that the Lemaitre exhaust design was flawed with a poor diffuser

 

The Merchant Navy boiler was a prolific steam raiser but on test in 1954, the inlet steam temperature was less than 700F (as Hermod notes), well short of 71000's test performance (although the latter's performance on test was recorded using South Kirkby rather than Blidworth coal as on the MN). In fact removing the syphons and using a modified brick arch raised the temperature of the MN's inlet steam by 40-60F and made no material difference to steam raising (which was considered to be limited by the front end). The official verdict was that the difference was not significant enough to make it worth removing syphons from boilers. I think the main problem with the MN drafting (vs the ideal, it obviously worked pretty well) was the limited height as the blast pipe had to sit above the centre cylinder. The MN overall efficiency was poor due to the mechanical part, which required significantly more steam per ihp than the Standards.

 

I think your comment is based on the concept as originally envisaged in the 19th Century. In the post-Grouping world, the Renewal Fund did use current cost accounting, and the annual contribution to the Fund from P&L was based on current or replacement cost of the relevant assets (and betterment was compared against the replacement cost, not the original cost). You may have noticed that Tom's GWR Loco Committee minute shows "replacement cost" for the condemned locos.

 

The MN boiler with welded steel firebox may have been cheaper in first cost ,but had no scrap value after a very long service life with very low maintenance costs due to water treatment.
Calculating total life expence and income is over my paygrade




DoG ---------evaporative surface-- 2490 sg feet--superheater--691--grate area 48.6
Britannia------------------------------2474--------------------------677----------------42
MN-------------------------------------2450--------------------------612----------------48.5

Relevant link for Steams lovers

https://web.archive.org/web/20140304150750/http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/images/3/37/Er19600610.pdf


A very fast and powerfull german steam locomotive had single exhaust.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/62/Dampflokomotive_der_Baureihe_05_Der_neue_Brockhaus_1938.jpg/2560px-
Dampflokomotive_der_Baureihe_05_Der_neue_Brockhaus_1938.jpg

As I read mr Cox ,mr Ell had refined single pipe systems to equal everything else

 

My understanding is that the inefficient diffuser of the Lemaitre exhaust gave rise to high back pressure, which would contribute to the poor efficiency that you mentioned. The basic geometry of the cylinders should be similar to the Gresley pacifics, which would have the same limitation regarding the height of the exhaust system, and these were clearly not poor steamers.

 

See post #72.

 

In France removal of siphons from 141Rs was found to be advantageous but had the opposite effect on 141Ps!

 

Are you suggesting that the actual achievement of pushing boiler replacement out from every 400,000 miles to every 800,000 miles had no significant impact on maintenance costs?

With regard running costs - locos burn coal when standing still, at which point any notions of flue and tube arrangement and so on are moot. So the actual real-world coal consumption has a lot to do with efficiency of diagramming; I'd suggest at least as much as how efficient the loco is when working at its planned design load. Of course, CMEs wish to optimise the latter, because it is something that they have control over, and which helps with economy, but it is less significant than is often made out. If you make a loco 10% more thermally efficient when running at it optimum power output, you save nowhere near 10% of the total coal and water consumption, because the loco spends most of its time in a regime well removed from the optimum. Doubling the mileage you can obtain between boiler replacement, by contrast, is a very real cashable saving.

Tom

 

If the locomotive was running mostly in a more optimum regime, would this not increase the mileage between boiler replacement? For example, there has been considerable discussion recently in this thread and others about thermal stresses in boilers; would not a regime in which the locomotive ran for long periods at a constant output be advantageous? Complex systems with many interdependent variables were very difficult to analyse before modern computers.

 

Indeed, and I think that was the justification Collett made in rebuilding the stars - it bought the required boiler output more into the optimal range for the size of boiler.

My wider point though was that if you look at total coal costs, you also have to allow for standby losses - which is where diagramming is important.

Tom

 

I'm still baffled but I give up. My question was about what I can now only conclude was a pointless and unnecessary remark in #43. #72 says nothing about that. Happy New Year!

 

This is an example of the kind of response that Simon appears to fall victim to more often than is necessary. There is a concept called disagreeing agreeably, and for the most part most posters manage this almost all the time. I quite understand that you reacted to a post “same old…”, but perhaps that was itself a reflection of your dogged determination to pursue a single black and white answer to something which most of the rest of us don’t see that way.
I really do think we should all remember that this is a discussion forum, not a “win the argument” forum, and that when the majority opinion has gone a direction, it might be time to review opinion.

 

I am not at all sure that this is so. Anybody on this forum posting views that differ from the consensus, or who some consider are providing insufficient justification, is likely to be challenged and often robustly. It has been stated a few times that this forum is much like pub conversations held 0n-line. Such conversations ebb and flow and sometimes the flow can become a little turbulent. Such is life.