The life of George Stephenson, railway engineer - Lighthouse ...

RAILWAY SYSTEM AND ITS RESULTS. 461'
considerations ; and if Railway Companies would only, honestly and
fairly keep their roads in sound and substantial condition, the better
system, probably, would be to make the annual costs of repairs a
charge on revenue, and to entirely dispense with such a Renewal
Fund.
Let it be observed, that the arguments which apply to the permanent
way, apply equally to the Rolling Stock of Railways. Account-
ants and Committees of Investigation have been in the habit of calling
for annual valuations of rolling stock, as if such valuations threw any
light upon the real state of the affairs of a Company. The truth would
seem to be, that a valuation of rolling stock is a fallacy. Suppose a
Railway Company commences with 100 engines, costing £2,500 a
piece, its locomotive stock will be of the value of £250,000. At start-
ing, these 100 engines are, of course, in complete order ;
but from the
day they begin running, deterioration commences. At the end of
four or five years, probably 20 or 25 of them are always in the work-
shop.' If the traffic of a line requires 100 engines to do its work, it is
obvious that the Company must at that time provide 20 or 25 new engines,
to supply the place of those which are undergoing repairs. But
having done this, they are only just in the same position as they were
in at starting ; that is to say, they have 100 effective engines at work.
Let them continue to keep this number of engines in good working
order, as a current expenditure for a like amount of traffic, and it is
clear that the machinery of the railway requires nothing more. As for a
money valuation, such a proceeding must obviously be unproductive of
beneficial results. Not only do engines depreciate, like everything else,
but their price varies with the supply and the demand, with invention
and its application, and from many other causes. Within the last ten
years, the market value of engines has fluctuated about 25 per cent.
so that a railway which had engines valued at £100,000 in January,
1850, might have found those same engines valued at £75,000 in Jan-
uary, 1851, even although they had not worked an hour. Or, to put
the case the other way: a stock valued at £75,000 in 1851, might have
been revalued at £100,000 in 1852. In either case, it is obvious that,
for any practical purpose, the valuation must be fallacious, and that to
allow it to affect the dividends, with which it has no concern, must be
wrong in principle. The truth would appear to be, that the only use-
ful valuation is that of the condition of the engines for working pur-
poses, in order to show the extent to which they may have deteriorated
by working within a given length of time.
But it may be urged, that this argument presupposes the same class
of engines and the same weight of rails to be continued forever on a
;