Calculation Check Please - 8 Shillings per ton loss?

[Andy873]

I need a check on my calculations please:

I have a figure of 9,113 tons of coal per annum which is causing a loss at one goods yard of £3,600 p.a.
If I change the loss from pounds to old pennies 3,600 x 240d = 864,000 old pence.
If I divide 864,000 by 9113 tons of coal it gives me a figure of 94.80d per ton loss, that's nearly 8s (96d), am I correct please?

 

[ThirteenArches]

Your calculation is right, if a bit longwinded. 3600/9113 *240 = 94.8 = 7s 11d per ton. But the figures: 9113 is highly specific, 3600 looks like a strangely round figure, especially if we assume the goods yard is dealing with other goods as well as coal. To me, that figure looks like a "guesstimate".

 

[Gloster]

I need a check on my calculations please:

I have a figure of 9,113 tons of coal per annum which is causing a loss at one goods yard of £3,600 p.a.
If I change the loss from pounds to old pennies 3,600 x 240d = 864,000 old pence.
If I divide 864,000 by 9113 tons of coal it gives me a figure of 94.80d per ton loss, that's nearly 8s (96d), am I correct please?

My calculations agree with yours. But think on this: 9,113 tons is an average of around eleven 16 ton minerals a week, making allowance for bank holidays, etc.

 

[LYradial]

I need a check on my calculations please:

I have a figure of 9,113 tons of coal per annum which is causing a loss at one goods yard of £3,600 p.a.
If I change the loss from pounds to old pennies 3,600 x 240d = 864,000 old pence.
If I divide 864,000 by 9113 tons of coal it gives me a figure of 94.80d per ton loss, that's nearly 8s (96d), am I correct please?

Yes that is correct, both in method and calculation, but applied maths was never my best, pure maths was better

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Sep 2026 ==

I se gloster was 14 mins ahead of me, that means I was 14 mins on a calculator, B+ could do better

 

[Rescars]

Aside from the maths, to what year(s) does this relate? Also, not being any sort of expert on railway accounting, can anyone explain how the loss was calculated? Assuming that the cost of the coal is not part of the equation, is the loss just the shortfall between the price for handling the coal and the cost of operating the trains, or is there any allowance in here for depreciation on the capital cost of the vehicles, permanent way etc? And how were operating costs calculated in the first place and then allocated equitably between goods yards?

 

[Andy873]

Your calculation is right, if a bit longwinded

My calculations agree with yours.

Yes that is correct

Thanks everyone, you can imagine my surprise when I got the loss to almost 8s per ton, hence the need for a check.

But the figures: 9113 is highly specific, 3600 looks like a strangely round figure

Correct! the 3600 I should have said was management's estimate loss p.a. and these figures come from December 1963, probably from the period Apr 62 - March 63.

And there's more: Figures given by management in May 64, now say 9608 tons of coal received, and yet still the same 3600 p.a. loss. Now BR say this 3600 loss is from 1/3 of the traffic received at the yard - If so, with an increase of tonnage, shouldn't the 3600 loss figure have gone up? There were 10 coal traders at this yard, would traders all pay the same delivery price?

Assuming that the cost of the coal is not part of the equation, is the loss just the shortfall between the price for handling the coal and the cost of operating the trains, or is there any allowance in here for depreciation on the capital cost of the vehicles, permanent way etc? And how were operating costs calculated in the first place and then allocated equitably between goods yards?

As always, some very good questions!

BR say per annum, it was costing £1,200 in train movements for these deliveries of which there was only one per day (excluding weekends) to this yard, and apparently the second yard (different station) was taking 2,431 tons and yet that's making a profit?

At the staff consultation meeting regarding closure (May 64) it gets worse, as management go through the figures, under "Track and Signaling", they quote a cost of £6,900 (5 PW staff), in reality there were only 2! - Needless to say, the staff and NUR are not impressed especially as they had not been given the financial figures before hand.

And one more point to make, at the staff consultation meeting supposedly to decide on whether to close the branch or not, one staff member says "it doesn't matter what we say, your going to close it anyway". The reply was "No decision has been taken yet". In fact, the General Manager agreed to the closure 9 Jan 64!

 

[Rescars]

If these figures are the cost calculations used to justify closures in the 1960s, then I suggest they should be viewed with utmost suspicion. What constituted a train movement which totalled £1200 pa and how was this figure reached I wonder?

Your example of pricing pway staffing on the basis of five staff when only two were actually employed is a fine indication of the level of accuracy in these calculations, or lack of it. Management either really didn't know how many staff were employed (which is unlikely, but if true would suggest significant incompetence) or they did know, but chose to use inaccurate figures to achieve a shabby deception. Neither course of action covers the powers that were in glory! History sadly suggests there was quite a lot of this sort of thing going on at that time.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Sep 2026 ==