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.

 

This is what I wrote in post#19:

"I have highlighted your incorrect assumption. The Castles were designed for hauling heavier loads than the Stars, not just to supplement them, a consequence of the increasing traffic on the GWR after WW1, in common with the other UK railway companies.

Even if this weren't the case, I'm not sure that a larger locomotive would be built just to save on maintenance! A boiler would still be washed out after the same number of days in steam. Water treatment would be a much cheaper and more effective option. In France machines equipped with the TIA managed to travel sometimes more than a million kilometers without intervention on the boiler."

 

I will say, again, it is unutterably wearying to be misrepresented so often on this forum.

The 19 standard types the LNER selected to build going forward were ALL - without exception - more powerful types than those they were intended to work alongside or outright replace. You can find the full details in my book on Thompson.

There is no argument for making less powerful locomotives for the same body of work when you are constantly met with a system (the railway) which demands greater timekeeping and more regular services in order to produce a better business proposition, or market value, for its end users.

And if I may hazard a comment, a larger locomotive utilising standard parts that has ample power and reserve that is not thrashed for work comes out as a better asset proposition for any railway, because maintenance is a core factor of the business’ opex costs and in reducing significantly you produce a more cost efficient and material/resource efficient railway.

Do you have citations for this?

Yes, I have felt targeted, on multiple occasions. I had a decade’s worth of it on the Thompson thread, five years worth of it on the Gresley thread: they are both here and available for people to read and make their own minds up.

Happily, the usual suspects haven’t come my way yet, but it is wearying to be misrepresented repeatedly by people who fundamentally don’t wish to engage in good faith.

 

I will PM you separately.

 

"Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it in for me!"

 

So you are suggesting that a 5.14% increase in firebox surface area and a 10.14% increase in tube surface area (superheating was the same) doubled the life of the boiler? Perhaps a case of not comparing like with like? Water treatment is a more likely explanation. As an example see the benefits of TIA: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traitement_intégral_Armand. If such a transformation had taken place, I suspect that the GWR would have acquired another Saint and it wouldn't have been a 4-6-0!

 

Just out of interest, do you think that comment adds to your argument or mine?

On another note, I have noted a moderation comment that one comment has been removed from one of my posts as that I was quoting has been removed.

Was that because the poster withdrew the offending comment or was it moderated?

 

You have ducked the question again. This is what I wrote:

"Even if this weren't the case, I'm not sure that a larger locomotive would be built just to save on maintenance!"

But you answered originally as if I wrote:

"Even if this weren't the case, I'm not sure that a larger locomotive would be built to save on maintenance!"

See the difference?

For TIA: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traitement_intégral_Armand

No one is targeting you, people just happen to disagree with you sometimes. If you contribute to a forum such as this, you should expect just that and even that people reply to what you write! If you cannot cope with that maybe you should not contribute. Seriously though, I would recommend that you continue - you might find that it is good therapy! You weren't an only-child by any chance?

 

I don't think it adds anything to the argument about steam locomotive accounting, in which I am agnostic.

I just thought my comment was funnier than quoting Queen Gertrude!

 

Pot, meet kettle. The semantic difference between "to save on maintenance" and "just to save on maintenance" is slight, and may be non-existent depending on the precise intent of the person making the comment (for example, I would only add "just" to qualify a statement if I genuinely felt the point needed emphasising).

More generally, there is a difference between the operational justification for building larger locomotives, and the financial justification in the world of inter-war railway company accounting. And there, we come back to the question of "how are these to be paid for" - to which the answer has to be about revenue or capital accounts.

PS - I have removed the references to TIA (about which I think all contributing to this thread are aware) and debate (where a policy of least said, soonest mended) seems appropriate.

 

This is where I duck out - this isn’t a good faith discussion.

Wikipedia is a not a good academic source. Where did they get those statistics from? What is the secondary source that provided that?

I am trying to be patient here, but asking “you weren’t an only child by any chance?” is not good faith debate nor is it appropriate on an open forum.

And again, I think that supports my view more than it does yours.

Gents with respect I’ve wasted enough time here of late - if anyone does want to have a good faith discussion without the personal stuff, do get in touch via my contact details in my signature.

 

Is TIA still used on the surviving Bulleid Pacifics and any other Southern loco's still fitted with the kit?

 

We still use water treatment for Clan Line and recently invested in a water softening plant at our base to aid the boiler, in no small part due to the deterioration of London’s water quality that we have felt was a mitigating factor in our recent overhaul of the boiler and firebox.

 

Clearly incorrect as many of @RAB3L 's comments make no "personal swipes" whatsoever.

In which case, the same argument should be used to diminish @S.A.C. Martin 's contributions, which over many years have regularly contained such.