Accounting for Steam Locomotives (ex Flying Scotsman thread)

My observation as a watcher rather than a participant in most of those debates, is that there has been some fair pushback and that where that has been fair it has been engaged with as an academic debate by @S.A.C. Martin , I think though that there have been occasions where I felt that because he had the made a point or expressed an opinion it was jumped on, not because of the opinion, but because of the poster. That’s clearly a subjective view on my part, but given that the poster in question has expressed an element of struggle with the way conversation here can be too robust, it would be kind if we all reflected in that for a moment before hitting reply. We certainly would if we were at the bar, we all calibrate our responses to the personality and character of the other person.

 

I don't think that is correct as regards the height comparison. The inside cylinder of the MN intruded into the smokebox diameter considerably (see the diagram of on p.975 of the Engineer article posted by Hermod) whereas the full diameter of the smokebox was available on the Gresley locos.

Thank you for positing the article on the test results of the rebuilt loco.

 

MrCox is indeed a friend but in this case he is not quoting a maximum for the
rebuilt MN.

Locomotive Panorama vol II
Table VII headed “ Conditions at maximum rate of evaporation,”
35000 original 34,000 lb/hr
35000 converted 32,000 lb/hr.

Rebuilt Merchant Navy No.35020 was tested including a controlled road test between
Salisbury and Exeter.

British Transport Bulletin No. 20
Page 7 Controlled Road Tests, “The highest rate of working was 32,000 lb. of steam
per hour . The limitation being imposed by the capacity of the tender to provide for
the minimum test and acceptable warming-up periods.”

Table 2 plots DBHP vs mph for steam rates between 14,000 and 38,000 lb hr.
Similarly Table 20 Traction DBHP vs mph and Tables 25 & 26 “Performance and
Traction Efficiency “ with 300 and 400 ton trains. The latter two were with ordinary
service trains rather than the 32,000 lb/hr controlled test “


There have been occasions when even 38,000 lb/hr of steam has been exceeded
but it seems likely that this risked mortgaging the boiler, eg falling water
levels

Michael Rowe

 

Perhaps better to use the attached diagram from Bulleid's 1946 paper showing the original loco.

 

But don't you think that in the pub there are many cues-- visual, verbal, body language.... ? The net is really quite a poor device for conveying light and shade, nuances of meaning. even the distinction between sincere expression of deeply held opinion and wind up merchant can be hard to detect. As I know to my cost, anyone attempting irony, forget it. Then you have the point that we are all different. To some people robust argument is grist to the mill, water off a duck's back. To others it can be wounding. Given what Simon had to put up with especially on the Gaza thread, his choice to pull back was pretty understandable.

Meanwhile, back in the accounting world, I thought the points about no depreciation but a renewals fund was for me the crucial missing point from the earlier part of the conversation. If that was the tradition, it goes a long way to explaining the accounting treatment of new locos in the inter-war period.

 

Well that's very true! I sometimes feel tempted to be blunt, if I make what I consider to be an obvious ironic comment and it is wholly misunderstood. But it is better to resist such urges.