Duplicate Lists

[garethashenden]

I keep reading about locomotives being put on duplicate lists. What are these and how were they used?

[talisman56]

Usually this involved locos which were old and their numbers were needed to make nice number ranges available for new locos being built. In the case of the LSWR, this involved adding a zero to the front of the original number of the old loco, e.g. number 395 becomes 0395. It avoided renumbering the old locos, only to find that the new numbers were needed, etc. Other companies may vary.

[Talltim]

I understand the concept, but fail to see the necessity. Were there fewer numbers available in the old days?

[garethashenden]

I understand the concept, but fail to see the necessity. Were there fewer numbers available in the old days?

This is exactly what I don't get. My particular interest is the North London, they have hardly any locomotives (compared to most railways) but they renumber them so often...

[burgundy]

My understanding is that there is an accounting element in this. On the LB&SCR, locos were put on the duplicate list when the capital value had been written down to a minimal level, but the loco still had useful life. The Brighton had 6 successive duplicate lists, which were blocks of numbers somewhat in advance of the highest number on the capital list at that time. As the capital stock grew and overran the batch of numbers that had been set aside for the duplicate list, a new list would have to be devised.

The sixth duplicate list dated from around 1899 and included a number of Terriers which have survived into preservation.  

I hope this helps

Best wishes

Eric  

[corneliuslundie]

I think Eric has hit upon the main reason, accountancy. If a loco was being built on capital account no problem as it was an extra. If it was being built to replace an existing loco which was not completely worn out the old loco would be renumbered and the new one would take its former number. Renumbering could also take place to clear a block of numbers for new build but they would not necessarily be on the duplicate list. This happened a few times on the GWR even in more recent years.

 

But the other factor was that many of the old companies liked to have all their locos numbered from 1 to whatever with no gaps, so when a loco was sold or scrapped others would be renumbered. The logic behind some of the choices of new numbers is however hard to discern. So the new bearer of the number of a loco placed on the duplicate list might not actually be a new loco at all!

 

Confused?

[Talltim]

Did duplicate lists exist for wagons and coaches?

[The Stationmaster]

My understanding is that there is an accounting element in this. On the LB&SCR, locos were put on the duplicate list when the capital value had been written down to a minimal level, but the loco still had useful life. The Brighton had 6 successive duplicate lists, which were blocks of numbers somewhat in advance of the highest number on the capital list at that time. As the capital stock grew and overran the batch of numbers that had been set aside for the duplicate list, a new list would have to be devised.

The sixth duplicate list dated from around 1899 and included a number of Terriers which have survived into preservation.  

I hope this helps

Best wishes

Eric  

Exactly so - it was basically a matter of accountancy and the capital value being 'written down' (in accountancy terms) and the engine concerned was retained and not scrapped or sold.  It also affected the the financing of repairs as any work on the engines(s) concerned would be 100% from the revenue budget with no use of capital money at all.

 

As Eric has pointed out engines put into the duplicate list could in some cases last for many years afterwards - especially if they were cheap to maintain and were useful.

 

Generally the practice seems to have ceased after the Grouping but not all railways would appear to have practiced it even before then - it really depends on the way they ran their books and how they wished to control and present their capitalisation and how they costed and financed repair work.  In other words its rather like a Railway's definition of a 'rebuild' or 'new' where, again, a lot was down to how it was financed rather than the physical work carried out.

[uax6]

Did duplicate lists exist for wagons and coaches?

They certainly existed for coaches, the LNWR used them...

 

Andy G

[talisman56]

Taken to extremis, the use of 'Originating Railway' suffixes on pre-Nationalisation coaching stock (e.g. S 1234 S) in British Railways days was a form of Duplicate List...

[corneliuslundie]

But don't be fooled by wagon numbers beginning with zero. On some lines they may have been duplicated (though I don't know any) but on others they were hired in stock.

[Poggy1165]

A 0 prefix to a wagon number was a hired wagon on the GC and the GW.

 

I always understood that the duplicate list for engines was an accountancy thing, as said above. The financial side of things was quite complex. Sometimes replacement engines were paid for out of revenue, but if, for example, a larger, superheated engine was built, that was obviously superior to the original, part of the cost could be charged to capital. I think Boards of Directors had a fair degree of discretion on stuff like this, and certainly in pre-group times, the Directors were heavily involved in debates about replacing engines and how to finance the new ones. (In fact, they dealt with a lot of stuff that would be left to executive employees nowadays - the same process can be seen in organisations like local government, where at one time councillors decided almost everything down the employment of junior clerks.)

 

Nominal 'rebuilds' including those where nothing was left of the original but the frames and the wheel centres, were another example of accountancy at work, as these could be charged to revenue.

[talisman56]

But don't be fooled by wagon numbers beginning with zero. On some lines they may have been duplicated (though I don't know any) but on others they were hired in stock.

 

...and in later days, 6 digit numbers beginning with zero (on both coaches and wagons) denoted internal user stock, ie withdrawn but retained for use (usually static) in a particular location for storage or office use.