Flying Scotsman

I thought that was gnerally the norm everywhere. Only railway enthusiasts subscribe to the idea that the identity was according to the frames.

 

I suspect you can only answer that question by doing a longitudinal study of what the renewal programme was year by year. The priorities would change over time and also different locos would rise up the list of needing renewal.

Some years ago, @Jimc was kind enough to send me a minute from the GWR Loco Committee, outlining the plan for just one year - 1936. In summary it ran:

"Particulars of the rolling stock to be condemned and the vehicles to be constructed in lieu thereof:"

Condemned
15 * 4-4-0 'Bulldogs'
10 * 2-6-0 '26xx class'
10 * 0-6-0 'Standard Goods'
10 * 4-4-0 'Bulldogs' (valued at less each than the first 15)
50 * 0-6-0T 'Old shunting engines'
-----
Est. replacement cost - £264,860

Reconstructions - condemned
20 * 4-4-0 'Bulldogs' without tenders
20 * 2-6-0 '43xx class'
10 * 4-6-0 'Star class'
20 * 4-4-0 'Dukes'
-----
Est. replacement cost - £259,540

To be built (i.e. new)
15 * 4-6-0 'Castle class'
10 * 4-6-0 '49xx class'
10 * 0-6-0 'Standard Goods'
10 * 2-6-2T '41xx class'
50 * 0-6-0T '97xx class'
-----
Est. cost - £345,100

Reconstruction - built
20 * 4-4-0 'Engines for yellow route services without tenders' (i.e. the Dukedogs)
20 * 4-6-0 'Engines for blue route services' (i.e. Manors Granges)
10 * 4-6-0 'Castles'
-----
Est. cost - £219,480

If you sum it up, you have a net loss of 20 locos and 20 tenders (essentially the remaining bits of Dukes and Bulldogs that didn't get transformed into Dukedogs); and everything else condemned has resulted in the same number of new locos of more modern design. The overall build cost to construct 145 locos is £562,580 but of that, £524,400 would come from the renewal fund.

Tom

 

I was going to suggest something similar. IANAA but the real reason why something was capitalised or not was to do with which column of the spreadsheet the accountants wanted the money spent to go in and that was essentially related to taxes payable. If you could put it in the revenue column, it could reduce your tax bill for that year but there were rules about such things. Perhaps a real accountant can say more?

 

"20 * 4-6-0 'Engines for blue route services' (i.e. Granges)" - These would have been Manors, 7800 - 7819. Granges were Red restriction locos.

 

Was it just a tax thing or was it also that the railways were generally not remunerating their capital properly so anything on the capital account was to be avoided if possible?

IANAA either but it seems a bit of a dodge to me. You start out with a Star. You run it for thirty years depreciating it fully. You employ the residual value in a new Castle (sensible). Then you say that only the betterment element goes on the capital account. Effectively you are charging most of a new asset with a thirty year life to revenue. Or have I misunderstood?

 

Thanks (Corrected).

Tom