Discussion in 'Steam Traction' started by aron33, Aug 15, 2017.
Since one, presumably, has a set amount in mind, strictly amoral logic suggests not.
What happens when a renewal is overhauled and the old parts are replaced with new parts meaning that there are no old parts left on it? For example DLG had old bogies when built which was I think the only old material. These bogies were replaced with new bogies. Does that make it a renewal or a new build?
Or somebody half-inches DLG's nice new bogies to sling under another Fairlie?
I don’t think a renewal has to include any material from an old donor (though it may do, of course). It is simply about replacing an old, worn out machine, with a new one of similar capability. Hypothetically, if the FR took a worn out Victorian double fairlie, scrapped it and built a new double fairlie of similar capability, the new one is a renewal - the overall stock of locos hadn’t increased. If they took a worn out single fairlie, scrapped it and replaced with a double fairlie of enhanced capability, that would be a renewal with a small amount of “betterment” (ie the overall loco stock remains the same number, but it is enhanced in capability). In either case, the scrap value realised by disposing of the old could be set against the cost of the renewal - obviously more valuable if you can actually use components such as wheel sets (as in 43xx renewed into 68xx) but if not, so be it. It doesn’t change the status of the new Loco as a renewal.
If they built from the renewal fund an entirely new fairlie, but kept the old one for some remunerative purpose rather than scrapping it, the new one would still be a renewal and the old one would enter the duplicate stock list, effectively still in use but with no residual capital value.
It is an accounting view of what is or isn’t new. The FR is in a rare - possibly unique - position in heritage terms in that it has a continuity of existence as a company and it has not shied away from the kind of renewal that was common on the old railways. Hence my earlier contention that if, say, the GWS dismantle a Hall and create a Saint, it is a new replica incorporating original components; but had the GWR done it, it would have been a renewal (and with markedly less sentimentality about the old Loco).
Which machines of similar capability did the Kings, A4s etc (which were all classed as renewals by the GWR/LNER) replace?
They would be “betterments” - ie a Star —> Castle is a renewal with a small amount of betterment.
Ultimately it all demonstrates the futility of attempting to impose rigid demarcation points where no boundaries exist.
But not as easy as the Dukedog saga to identify what machines each Castle, King and A4 etc was replacing, although the loco committee minutes might indicate that various 4-4-0s / 4-4-2s etc were being withdrawn. The railway companies for some purposes measured their inventory of locos in terms of weight i.e. statistical returns sometimes give total tonnage by each wheel arrangement and grand total, and possibly this measure may also have been used.
The first 20 Kings were booked against 10 Cities and 10 Atbaras (express 4-4-0s). The programme for that year was for 20 4-6-0, 30 2-6-2T and 30 0-6-2T to replace the 20 express 4-4-0s, 30 obsolete 6'8 2-4-0s and Standard Goods, and 43 miscellaneous absorbed, so that 93 were renewed to 80, and the booked renewal values were equal. (Dec 1925 GWR Locomotive Committee minutes).
Since when was an A4 a “renewal?”
Only two Gresley Pacifics stand out as renewals. Grand Parade and…
Thank you, that confirms my assumption.
"Renewal" as used here was a railway accounting concept which has been discussed on here several times before. Both new-builds and "rebuilds" (which does not appear to be a recognised railway accounting concept) were treated as renewals in railway accounting terms. The Big Four tried to avoid expenditure on capital (as distinct from revenue) account, so the great majority (I suspect, I have not seen many sets of SR or LMS accounts) of all steam locos built by or for them 1923-1947 were treated as renewals. In theory this had some grounding in reality as in they were replacing existing locomotives, as loco fleets shrank over the period of their existence. New locos could be accounted for on a hybrid basis, e.g. some costs allocated to renewal funds (which was a reserve maintained from revenue), some to repairs and maintenance (on the basis that such costs would have been needed to be expended) and to the extent there was betterment i.e. improved capability, that could be charged to capital although generally I suspect it was not. I have yet to find a set of the LNER's report and accounts with any capex for new steam locomotives (post-1938, it is difficult to find a full form report although TNA may have them). Do any of the LNER's loco committee minutes you have seen note how the financial aspects of new locos was to be dealt with?
Some pre-group railways, IIRC, made it quite clear - a 'renewal' took the number of an existing loco, from which at one extreme it may have had no similarity at all - indeed , the replaced loco might be placed on a 'duplicate' list and potter about for a few more years. At the other end the renewal might have included significant durable parts - wheel centres for example.
A 'New' - that is, charged to capital account - loco got a new number. You might even have renewals and new locos in accounting / numbering terms in the same class.
Not sure off hand what railways did this, and practice tends to vary over the decades - I think the G&SWR did it for quite a long period.
So, one is a rugby enthusiast who is complying with covid guidelines when he visits his bank to withdraw some cash on his way to a clay pigeon shoot. The other is either being sought by the fraud squad in respect of a series of dud cheques passed at various banks, or a confused time traveller trying to get back to 1975
In the mid 19thC the (standard gauge) GWR had an extra twist on this. The Standard (Armstrong) Goods class had a number sequence for new locomotives built from capital, used the original numbers for locomotives built as renewals, and yet a third set of numbers for new locomotives built using revenue money! They ran a duplicate list at one time too, but I'm not sure if it was contemporary with the revenue list.
Absolutely fascinating, looking forward to "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" next.
They do not, as a general rule. The LNER Board (and Emergency Board) did however, deal with the finances of loco building and they are more explicit. For example: the Thompson A2/2s were considered renewals. Great Northern was too. The A2/1s were new builds (unsurprisingly). Gresley A4s are new capital expenditure. The A3s where rebuilt from A1s were renewals, but when built new were capital expenditure.
Grand Parade is a law unto herself: she was a new locomotive built whilst the old one still existed and was classed as a heavy general overhaul I recall (I will fact check this later on when I have access to my books, but that is my recollection).
Interestingly, new boiler types on old locos were considered renewals, but the Thompson O1s were considered as new capital expenditure despite reusing old locomotive parts. Blur of the lines there? Thompson O4/8 was a renewal.
Anything which was genuinely "new" i.e. adding to the total stud of locomotives was considered as capital expenditure.
I think we have to realise that different railway companies will do things differently to each other. The LNER didn't do mass rebuilding, mass standardisation, nor renewals quite in the way other companies like the GWR did, so to try and make a full comparison is perhaps unfair. But the point remains that ultimately what the enthusiast thinks is true is probably unlikely to be as romanticised in the accountant's, engineer's or board member's viewpoints.
Separate names with a comma.