On the AFE's having spent some days worth of studying the SVRy AFE's which by no means makes me an expert on the SVRy or on AFE's, but from my impressions I want to assert my agreement with what Dan, John and Jerry have just stated. I would add one more aspect to consider. The ICC as many of us know "valued" each of the nations common carrier railroads starting in 1916. The valuation documents are extensive even for an 80 mile common carrier NG like SVRy. For the DRGW with both std. and ng. there must be a mountain of paper work, maps and correspondence on the subject, or at least there was. SVRy probably like many other rr's challenged the valuation established by the ICC and it was 1928 before they came to agreement on a number. Once valuation was established, there had to be a process going forward to track changes in value. As I understand it, this is what the AFE's are all about. If ties were replaced, valuation went up. If equipment was retired and not replaced valuation went down. If new equipment was purchased valuation went up and so forth. If you look at the original 1916 valuation documents you will see that things like track and structures are given a "percent good". In other words the valuation agent estimated the percent a structure had depreciated from when it was built, or how much of a ties lifespan had already passed as a percent good figure. It was really an incredible process of tabulation and accounting just to arrive at an initial value figure. Probably there was some subjectivity to the initial process in terms of the percent good figure, and the new value or cost to the rr at the time structures and track were constructed. If buildings or track had been constructed long before 1916, it may have been difficult in many cases for the rr's to produce meaningful records as to their original costs. I am starting to wander, so to sum this up, once valuation was established and being maintained by the AFE process, the ICC using additional documentation of freight or pass levels and receipts could more easily compare apples to apples in approving rate increases, changes to service level and abandonment.
Please someone correct me if I am off base on this.
