Talk:LMS Stanier Class 5 45110

Two queries about the mainline tours:

• Was the tour to Lincoln on 05 Dec 1998 the "Linolnian" or the "Lincolnian"?
• For The Midlander on 11 Dec 1999, there is an asterisk, but no corresponding note.

--Danny252 (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. 1) Typo as you suspected. 2) Referred to the use of the banker on that section, hopefully made clearer. --Robin (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The SVRSevern Valley Railway(H) accounts show a profit of £250000 on the sale of 45110. That would not include the net book value of the loco already included in the company assets. Is the net value before the sale known, which would suggest the actual sale price (assuming that no other assets were also sold in that year)?

As you say, note 6 includes a profit of £250,000 on disposal and like you I looked to see if there was an additional book figure. Note 13 (tangible fixed assets, p. 32) shows a net figure for disposals of locos and rolling stock of just £1,000, from which I deduce that SVRSevern Valley Railway(H) did not already include a net book value of loco 45110 in the company assets - if it had done, it would be included here with the book asset figure reversed out on sale. Furthermore there's no obvious change to the annual depreciation figure, if you sell a depreciated asset you need to adjust the depreciation (you can't hold a depreciation for something you don't own). This is all further confirmed by the statement of cashflows on p.20 which shows cash inwards of £247,992 - if it had been sold for a higher sum it would show up here. Adding these together I deduce there wasn't a book value and it was sold for the cash sum of £250,000 shown in the accounts. Happy to be corrected, I'm no longer a shareholder or volunteer and so no longer attend the AGM or ask questions. But to avoid causing waves, my edit included only the factual "The 2023 SVRSevern Valley Railway(H) accounts included £250,000 for 'sale of tangible fixed assets'"--Patrick Hearn (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

TL;DR - yes it was fully written off and the proceeds were £250,000. Broadly I concur with Patrick's figures and presentation on the Wiki.

The auditor present at the AGM stated that the Black 5 was fully written off (which given its age would make sense if depreciated even at the minimum rate of 5% per year). She also stated rather vaguely that the £1,000 adjustment "related to something else" (it is of course an adjustment to the original cost, not the NBV after depreciation). The Statement of Cash Flows (page 20) shows a Cash flow from sale of tangible fixed assets of £250,000 and the Operating loss (note 6) includes a Profit on sale of locomotive of £250,000, which seems clear enough. However there are a number of other small discrepancies:

• The Operating loss (note 6) includes Depreciation of £914,148, but the Tangible Fixed Assets (note 13) shows a depreciation charge of £913,715. There is no obvious reason for the difference of £433.
• The Statement of Cash Flows (page 20) shows a Profit on disposal of tangible fixed assets of £247,992. There is no obvious reason why that is not the same £250,000 figure, although for what it's worth the difference of £2,008 happens to equal the adjustments in respect of £1,008 of intangible assets (which shouldn't enter into it) and £1,000 of "something else" figures.
• I don't know what 45110 originally cost, but if it was say £50k then even if it was fully written off, I would have expected to see a deduction of £50k from the cost and cumulative depreciation sections to reflect the disposal. I don't know why there is no such adjustment.

All a bit vague, but not the first time I have made that comment about the PLC accounts and the auditors in recent years. --Robin (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)