Accounting for Steam Locomotives (ex Flying Scotsman thread)

Way before. The GWR and Armstrong goods are an example. Some were built as renewals, and given the numbers of withdrawn locomotives, and some on capital, and given previously unused numbers in a new series. I think a good number of lines did the same.

 

Edward Thompson’s standardisation programme was predicated on that precisely that basis. Hence why his standardisation programme included a 4-6-0, 2-6-4T, a large 2-6-0, a large 2-8-0 and two Pacific types to do the mainstay of the work going forward and remove less powerful Victorian classes.

Bulleid wanted to build 110 Pacifics on the basis of removing a significant amount of small, pre grouping stock (like Thompson he wanted to reduce the Southern Railway fleet to a small pool of standard locomotives that could do a variety of work).

Gresley had similar aims to both with different economic and political circumstances.

If a railway isn’t looking at maintenance as a major component of their work, then they’re not doing their job properly.

I would humbly suggest you haven't done enough reading.

Now back to my crypt…

 

After Gresley, Thompson had plenty of scope for standardisation! Perhaps you missed/ignored the word "just" in the sentence? Same old, same old....

 

I don’t understand- which sentence?

 

The one quoted in post #42.

 

Of course, there much better ways of saving on boiler maintenance than building slightly larger boilers and then attempting to restrain their locomotive's potential! Boiler water treatment would be the most obvious. Compounding could have been another.

 

If Swindon had sorted out their oil reservoirs they would have saved a fortune in cork not to mention the amount of time drivers spent faffing around extracting broken ends.....

 

The Castle Abbeys were not rebuilds but new locomotives. From Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GWR_4000_Class

"As already noted, between 1925 and 1940 Churchward's successor Charles Collett ordered fifteen examples to be dismantled and their parts used in the construction of new Castle class locomotives. Throughout their careers the remainder of the class was subject to detailed modifications and improvements to their boilers, smokeboxes, and steam pipes so that "the only period when the appearance of the class was approximately uniform was from 1925 to 1927".[18] 4,000 imp gal (18,000 L; 4,800 US gal) tenders were also fitted from 1938 onwards."

For what it is worth, Mr Nock didn't consider them rebuilds. If they were rebuilds, why were they re-numbered? Doesn't that imply that they had new frames?

If that's the case, there were only five Star to Castle rebuilds:

4000 North Star rebuilt 11/29
4009 Shooting Star rebuilt 4/25
4016 Knight of the Golden Fleece rebuilt 10/25
4032 Queen Alexandra rebuilt 4/26
4037 Queen Philippa rebuilt 6/26

The fact that most of these rebuilds occurred early on does imply that it was done to make savings, in order to maximise those savings. However, the fact that only one further rebuild followed suggests that the theory was not borne out by practice.

Incidentally, Queen Philippa, built in 12/10, lasted until 9/62!

 

I think cork was favoured because its low weight meant that they were less likely to be lost through centrifugal forces. They were/are reinforced with cane (or should be). I didn't find them a problem - for what it's worth!

 

I think you are dancing on a pinhead here.

Cook (who was there, unlike both you and Nock!) says:

Then Collett decided that it would be better to do any further conversions on relatively newer engines in which naturally the framing would be in better condition, hence ten Abbeys, 4063 to 4072 were done on a case made out for Capital Renewal, It involved extending the frames by one foot at the trailing end, new cylinders and saddle casting and new boiler.
​

Basically that sounds like the frames, wheels, tenders and sundry components were re-used, with new cylinders (which were due to be renewed anyway) and boilers. The frames were extended, but fundamentally reused, not replaced. They were renewals, because they were done on the renewal account - as simple as that - but much of the fabric of the original Stars ended up in the Castles.

Changes of numbers is an irrelevant - the older companies in particular often preserved numbers to maintain continuity in the capital list, but the practice wasn't universal. There are other cases of the GWR renumbering locos without it affecting their identity - not least the Dukedogs, which went from 32xx to 90xx later in their life.

Tom

 

Another major advantage quoted by some enginemen for the use of so many corks was that if the loco fell into a river it would float.

 

A belated Happy Christmas to everyone..

I have just read through this discussion. Not sure whether the key feature is the Star rebuilds
or larger boilers leading to overall savings in ‘maintenance’ costs .

I think it is necessary to state the obvious that any ‘modern’ locomotive was a compromise,
especially so in the UK with restricted loading gauge, less so on the GWR.

The rebuilding of the Stars, i.e. the extension of the frames at the rear to accommodate the
larger boiler and cab plus larger cylinders appears to have been fairly random but does seem
to have coincided with selecting locos requiring a general overhaul. I think they were rebuilds
( irrespectiveof whether ‘ capex ‘ or ‘ opex ‘‘ ) , except 4037, She was rebuilt with extended frame
etc in 1926 but in 1937 she was rebuilt with a new ‘Castle’ frame ( actually one with the frame set
inwards as per Nos 4073-92, not the later straight frame). I consider that No.4037 was
not only renamed in 1937 but was effectively a new Castle, which perhaps explains its long
life and brings the 2.4million miles into question. I have no idea what subterfuge was at
work wrt the 1937 changes ?

The possible savings in running costs due to overall boiler maintenance, whether by long
life or miles twixt overhauls may well have been a consideration but I also think heavier
trains was important


The BR WTTs for the early 1950s contain the following engine loads Paddington Reading
King. 60xx 500tons, Castle 455 tons, Star 420 tons. Over the South Devon banks,
Newton Abbot to Rattery 360, 315 and 288 tons.

I note that in the boiler discussion reference was made to Messrs Gresley, Thompson
and Bulled. I would not presume to question Mr Martin concerning the first two.

Mr. Bulleid in his paper to the I. Mech Eng in 1945 stated he had increased boiler pressure
in the Pacifics to 280 psi, previous 220psi SR norm, not just for the higher final superheat
temperature but to enable the use of smaller cylinders. whilst meeting his performance
criteria eg 600 ton trains, 70 mph start to stop averages, fast freights. ( Contrary to
oft quoted he did not say 600 ton trains at 70 mph average ) with 6’ 2” wheels.

He emphasised the need for good water treatment, aligned with his steel fireboxes.
Softening, plus continuous water treatment ( effectively TIA, pre war he had extensive
French experience, particularly as he accompanied ‘Cock of the North’ when tested
at Vitry.)

Bulleid I think was endeavouring to limit future SR motive power to a minimum number
of classes. The 1943/5 electrification plan proposed all routes east of Salisbury Bournemouth
to be electrified by 1955 ; Merchant Navy, West Country/ Battle of Britain, Q1 and Leader.

So yes a WC might haul two carriages Padstow Okehampton in Winterm but ten in Summer.

I could go on, design was always a compromise, one final thought even with a compromise,
reliability and miles per day was I suggest preeminent post WWII aligned with indifferent
fuel, labour shortage and costs thereof.

Michael Rowe

 

So the Castles were built because the GWR needed more powerful locomotives to haul heavier traffic after WW1, just as Churchward's Atlantics had earlier been converted to 4-6-0s before WW1. But Stars were rebuilt as Castles primarily to save money on boiler maintenance when used at less than maximum power? No contradiction there then! If that were the case, wouldn't all the Stars have been rebuilt as Castles, or at least those whose condition warranted it? According to the theory, this would have produced a more flexible fleet - unlike the Stars, the Castles could be used for their increased power or used at similar power levels to the Stars along with boiler maintenance economies. This would have ensured that Castles were used on the less demanding duties that would have been allotted to the Stars, guaranteeing the theoretical boiler maintenance economies. But only about 20% of Stars were rebuilt as Castles.

 

Why does it have to be black and white? Reputable sources make it clear that a consideration was reduced maintenance. Equally we know train weights would have been a consideration for the operating department.

But, few trains (relative to the total operated) would have been run at maximum tonnage. And, the railway did not have unlimited resources.

What you seem to me not to take into account is the fundamental business nature of the whole thing. These decisions were being taken in order to run the railway for lowest cost / making best use of resources / using budgets that were available.

Some Stars were rebuilt as Castles because they had a budget and a requirement. Others were not. This doesn’t invalidate the reasoning given by Cook for the rebuild.

 

Pot/kettle?

 

Yet as others have pointed out, the crux of your argument is flawed. Same old, same old…

I had my upgrade for my PhD at the University of Southampton a few weeks ago (I passed, for reference). I am writing on High-Speed rail and its engineering and business management.

I have delved into the Big Four’s various archives and the one thing I have observed across all of them is that maintenance costs against operational costs were the two big overriding considerations for the locomotive and rolling stock departments.

C.M.E.s had their own aims but maintenance was firmly front and centre.

Why? Because C.M.E.s are beholden to their directors, and their directors are beholden to financial reports from the wide array of departments that make up each private railway company.

I do not believe any C.M.E. of a British railway designed based purely on performance aspects. If they did, they wouldn’t hold a job long, they had to prove that their methods were working and not at cost to the company.

The bottom line is finance. Railways have to make money to spend money. End.

 

I completely agree. There is a tendency to romanticise railways to the point where it is forgotten that they were businesses. Ones which in the case of the GWR were accustomed to paying a dividend

 

There have been a couple of comments suggesting, or appearing to suggest, that the railway companies’/Big 4’s treatment of expenditure on locomotives (and presumably any other fixed asset) was driven by the tax treatment.

I attach a copy of the first page of the chapter on Capital and Revenue Expenditure from Charles (later Sir Charles) Newton’s book “Railway Accounts” (pub. 1930). This sets out the main principle which seems to have guided the railways, the importance of taking great care when treating items as capex (and as he puts it on the next page, only treating as capex those elements which increase the revenue earning capacity) and thus increasing the distributable profits, when they should be debited to P&L or the appropriate Renewal Fund. (The chapter on Depreciation and Renewal Funds may also be of interest.)

As to the incidence of tax itself, Newton barely mentions tax in his book and it is noticeable that there is no line in the annual reports of the Big 4 which gives a figure for “Income Tax” on the companies’ profits (Income tax applied to both individuals and to corporates and was at the same rate. Corporation Tax was introduced in 1965). This has puzzled me for some time as it seemed a bit unlikely that railway companies had a straight exemption but I think the situation was that companies had to withhold income tax from payments of interest and dividends to the bond/shareholders, for payment to the Revenue, and that tax counted as a payment of the income tax due in respect of their own corporate tax liability. The railway companies basically distributed all their distributable profits. There seemed to be little strategy as such when it came to setting the level of (discretionary) dividends as they never had the luxury of having a surfeit of profits to distribute, and in many cases the "waterfall" ran dry before it reached the lower levels, thus they were not in a position to engineer a steadily rising dividend, and of course their upside was restricted by the Railways Act 1921.

That is probably a simplistic summary but I doubt there are many who were in harness at the time still around to share their experience.

 

Well done wrt your PhD

Motive Power departments were ( and are ) cost centres, a combination of fixed and variable costs.
Their client was effectively the Traffic department. Sometime past I wrote the attached two pages
which I think highlight inter alia the significance of fuel costs in the total running costs, and
Ahence the design of steam locos in 1938. ( No more George the Fifths burning 60-80lbs//mile)
Locos capable of meeting timetable requirements whilst operating at the optimum position on
the horsepower vs fuel consumption curve hence larger locos for the same duty,

. Mr Bulleid and his team, for instance presumably believed 280psi operating boiler pressure
and the resultant higher saturation temperature and therefore
a higher superheat temperature produced a more efficient loco ( 2nd law of Thermodynamics)
and this outweighed increased costs ( both capital and maintenance associated with a higher
pressure boiler )

Cox et al on 71000 elected for 250psi but greater care with the use of the steam. I often
wonder how 71000 would perform with a Merchant Navy Boiler rather than the modified
Bryttania.

 

96042[/ATTACH] G