The International Simutrans Forum

Simutrans Extended => Simutrans Extended Paksets => Pak128.Britain-Ex => Topic started by: jamespetts on December 29, 2010, 08:02:08 PM

Title: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on December 29, 2010, 08:02:08 PM
I have managed to dig up - partly by chance - a fascinating and extremely useful guide to the relative purchase prices of carriages and steam locomotives in the 1920s and 1930s. This is far from the comprehensive breakdown of relative pricing information that would be invaluable to game balancing, but it is a good start. If it can be linked, bit by bit, with other pricing information, it might well form the basis of some sort of outline for balancing purposes.

The source is "The history of British railway carriages 1900 - 1953" by David Jenkinson, ISBN 1-899816-03-8 at pp. 303-4. In summary, it gives the cost to build a Southern Railway eight compartment third in 1924/5 as being around £2,500, and the cost of an LNER five compartment brake third in 1929-30 as being about £2,300. By comparison, it gives the as new cost of a medium to large sized locomotive, the LMS "black" 5MT as being about £6,000.

Interestingly, it estimates the cost of the LMS "Cornoation Scot" vehicles, the top-flight passenger express train of the late 1930s, were £2,000 - £2,500 - no more than that of ordinary carriages of the era, although the author suggests that this might be due in part to more efficient manufacturing methods adopted at around that time.

It goes on to suggest that a non-corridor vehicle from the early 20th century (pre-first world war) cost about £1,000 at the time, although some caution is needed in respect of that figure, as there was significant inflation during the war. Official records of inflation since 1750 are, however, readily available: see the Office for National Statistics web page here (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/article.asp?ID=726) (this is UK-based information).

In 1900, the composite price index is given as 9.2. In 1924, it is given as 18.6. This would suggests a rough doubling of prices in that period; thus, one would expect a non-corridor carriage to cost around £2,000 in 1924; in other words 80% of the price of a corridor type. The book is not clear whether the non-corridor type is a bogie vehicle, or a 4- or 6-wheeler; given the relatively small difference in price, I should estimate a bogie vehicle, and venture to guess that the price of the latter types were lower still.

Sleeping cars (not yet present in Pak128.Britain, but a possible future addition for very high comfort (near 200), very low capacity, very high loading time vehicles for use on very, very long non-stop journeys where the lower comfort rating of ordinary vehicles would impact on revenue) cost considerably more than the rest: the average before the first world war was about £3,000 and after it about £4,000.

This suggests that one can begin the exercise of price balancing with the premise that a mid-sized locomotive should cost about 2.4 times more than a corridor carriage, and that a corridor carriage should cost 1.25 times more than a (bogie) non-corridor carriage, on average; further, that sleeping cars should cost 1.6 times more than ordinary carriages.

A further interesting piece of information is given on a more contemporary vehicle, the BR Mk. III carriage, introduced in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Then, the price of a single one of these vehicles was £100,000 or so in "the early 1980s". The ONS composite price index for 1982 is 320.4. Normalising this with the 18.6 figure given for the 1924 Southern Railway vehicle gives an equivalent 1924 price of £5,805.24: an increase of a factor of 2.32 even after account is taken of (general) inflation. Either railway carriages had become more than twice as expensive to build in real terms by the early 1980s than they had been in the 1920s/1930s or variable inflation (in other words, markedly different rates of inflation in different commodities such that the inflation of anything in particular is not accurately reflected by generalised inflation statistics) is at work. Nonetheless, it may be reasonable to suppose that the general inflation rates are reasonably matched in fares, even if not carriage-building costs, so it may not be entirely unreasonable to apply the real time increase of 2.32 to construction costs generally, and extrapolate further from there.

Of course, none of this gives any idea as to the relative maintenance costs of carriages as compared to locomotives (or, for that matter, multiple units), nor does it give any idea as to the relative capital or maintenance cost of different sorts of locomotives as compared to each other, nor the relationship between variable (per unit of distance) and fixed (per unit of time) maintenance costs. Any sources of such information would be much appreciated. In the meantime, however, some  use can be made of the data that we do have.

In Pak128.Britain-Ex, a Maunsell type carriage, similar to that for which a price is quoted in the above book as about £2,500, costs 1,582c with the default four tiles per kilometre setting. The LMS Black 5 costs 11,495c. This means that, in Pak128.Britain-Ex, the locomotive is 7.3 times more expensive than the carriage, which suggests either that the carriage is too cheap, or that the locomotive is too expensive, or some combination of the two (although I rather suspect the former).

Similarly, a BR Mk. III vehicle costs 1,475c, slightly less, rather than 2.32 times more than the 1920s vehicle. This, too, looks as though it will need considerable adjustment.

I suggest that any further titbits of information that people are able to discover about real life prices of transport related costs be added to this thread so that, by cross-referencing and extrapolation, a complete picture can by small pieces eventually be formed and Pak128.Britaiin-Ex be balanced in a realistic and pleasing way. All contributions very welcome!
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on January 01, 2011, 11:54:14 AM
I have found a new and probably better way to account for inflation of old: this (http://www.measuringworth.com/ukcompare/) rather intriguing website.

Having seen, in this (http://www.alexmorley.fotopic.net/p63897144.html) photograph of a carriage interior built in 1911 and recently restored by the Bluebell Railway that it cost £787, 15s, 2d I wondered about the discrepancy with the £2,500 cost given for corridor carriages in 1924 and £1,000 cost given for non-corridor carriages in the 1900s. The result for the LSWR carriage comes out at about £1,500 in 1924 (although there are different measures, which is most interesting; they fluctuate between about £1,400 and £1,600). Changing the start year to 1904 (the year that the first carriage of that type was built) increases the range (depending on the measure) from about £1,500 to about £1,800.

Re-running the longer time period calculation is more interesting. £2,500 in 1924 inflates to anything between £40,200 (RPI) and £161,000 on the basis of the share of the GDP. The measure that is closest to the actual cost of the Mk. III vehicle in the "early 1980s" is the average earnings value of £118,000. This, however, assumes that the vehicle would not have cost more to construct even if there had been no inflation between 1924 and 1982, which may well be a false assumption, so the rate cannot be relied on for this purpose.

Running the calculations backwards, £2,500 in 1924 equates to between £1,400 (RPI) and £1,190 (average earnings) in 1911; £100,000 in 1982 equates to anything from £1,550 (share of the GDP) to £6,220 (using the RPI) in 1924.

£1,000 in 1900 equates to between £1,900 (RPI) and £2,320 (share of the GDP) in 1924.

For a final comparison, the "black 5" locomotive as £6,000 in 1932 gives a current price of anything from £309,000 (RPI) to £1,980,000 (share of the GDP)!
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: waerth on January 01, 2011, 07:29:41 PM
Great!
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on January 01, 2011, 09:43:55 PM
I am currently considering seeing whether I can arrange to access some archive material in the NRM library in York to get better historical comparison data, and making a trip there if I can. It might be the best way to get this information.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: ӔO on January 02, 2011, 02:07:51 AM
that's some great work you are doing there on this daunting task.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on January 03, 2011, 08:28:46 PM
I have stumbled upon a balancing goldmine: have a look at this (http://www.railway-technical.com/finance.shtml) site for some intriguing information!
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: The Hood on January 03, 2011, 08:42:21 PM
Some fascinating stuff there.  To give you some insight on how standard pak128.Britain's prices were balanced, larger express locos have generally high costs to deter their use on short convoys (and to avoid excessive profits on long ones!) - carriages are generally cheap so as to work in long or short configurations depending on the loco.  I'm not sure what the game effect of making a coronation cost the same as a black 5 would be - certainly in standard it would make the black 5 redundant!  How do you plan on reconciling these?
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on January 03, 2011, 09:03:47 PM
I'm not sure that anybody's suggesting that a Princess Cornoation cost no more than a Black 5 - I imagine that it cost a good bit more (although I've yet to find out how much more, which is why I'm hoping that a trip to the NRM archives at some point will help).

The balancing exercise that I am planning to undertake is for Experimental, as Experimental's balancing requirements are rather different to Standard's. At present, for Experimental at least, the capital cost of things seems too low compared with overall revenues generated, although I have yet properly to balance that end of things, too.

The view that I take is that, in so far as possible, the same deterrents should apply in the game as applies in reality to using a large express locomotive on a short local train: there is little advantage of doing so when it will not get much of a chance to reach top speeds given the short distance between stops, the extra power is of no benefit on the shorter trains, it costs more to build, it costs more to run, and it is heavier, requiring track and bridges that, in turn, cost more to build and maintain. It is usually also longer, taking up more platform length, possibly requiring longer platforms.

I shall know that I have got at least close in the balancing exercise when players are having to think hard about the costs before making any significant capital investments.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: ӔO on January 05, 2011, 08:14:17 PM
hopefully these two pages will be useful.

they talk about journey time and investments to improve the average speed.

http://www.mysociety.org/2006/travel-time-maps/
http://www.o-keating.com/hsr/investment.htm Mod note: Link dead, but see the Wayback Machine (http://web.archive.org/web/20080705204158/http://www.o-keating.com/hsr/investment.htm) for original content.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on January 05, 2011, 09:13:42 PM
Thank you - that's very interesting.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on January 08, 2011, 05:03:54 PM
I have split the discussion on balancing more generally, the posts from which can now be seen here (http://forum.simutrans.com/index.php?topic=6613.msg63243#msg63243).

Meanwhile, another snippet or two of historical pricing information, this time from the London Transport Museum: the Thames Tunnel in London, which is about 0.4km long, cost about £651,000 to build in 1825, although the project was a somewhat difficult one involving a number of collapses, and ran out of money on several occasions before enough was raised to complete it. Several decades later, it was bought by a railway company for only £200,000, and has been used for rail transport ever since.

Somewhat more vaguely, but also of interest, apparently the horses themselves were the most expensive part of a horse-drawn transportation system (the implication from the context was that this related mainly to maintenance rather than capital costs, although it might have meant both).

Edit: A useful extract from E. L. Ahrons, "The British Railway Steam Locomotive from 1825 to 1925", page 65,

Quote from:
E. L. Ahrons
The Stockton and Darlington was a slow-speed coal-carrying railway. Pambour stated that the fuel consumed by the mineral engines was about 54lb per mile, or .86lb per tone gross per mile. He also gave a table showing that during five months, at the end of 1833, 23 mineral engines of all types performed work equivalent to 5,802,562 gross ton-miles on a level at a cost of 0.58 penny per tone-mile for repairs
.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: moblet on January 09, 2011, 02:53:04 AM
Somewhat more vaguely, but also of interest, apparently the horses themselves were the most expensive part of a horse-drawn transportation system
Nicely consistent with the trains and trucks that followed.

Wikipedia's entry on the diesel loco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_locomotive) contains an unreferenced claim that steam loco maintenance was 25%pa of purchase price.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: ӔO on January 09, 2011, 03:14:33 AM
there is also some mention of cost here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locomotive#Steam
Quote
British Rail figures showed the cost of crewing and fuelling a steam locomotive was some two and a half times that of diesel power, and the daily mileage achievable was far lower. As labour costs rose, particularly after the second world war, non-steam technologies became much more cost-efficient.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on January 09, 2011, 09:37:20 PM
Another small yet potentially important nugget from "150 years of British Railways" (ISBN 0600376559):

Quote
An indication of the great improvement in engine design can be gained from the fact that between 1900 and 1939 the steam locomotive had doubled its maximum horsepower with only a 30 per cent increase in weight. It had also reduced its coal consumption per unit of work measured at the drawbar by about 40 per cent.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on March 26, 2011, 12:52:50 AM
An interesting piece of information on the cost of new DMUs (the class 120) in the late 1950s can be found on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_120):

Quote
British Railways placed the order with British United Traction in summer 1956 for the equipment required for the 98 power cars and 47 trailers of the first batch. The order, along with equipment ordered by Cravens for 66 power cars and the 3 parcels cars, was valued at £830,000. The first batch was ordered for the WR's West Country dieselisation scheme, which it hoped to complete by the end of 1959. The sets were expected to work between Bristol & South Devon. Their general reliability and good braking characteristics made them popular with drivers.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on June 05, 2011, 12:04:36 AM
I have just returned from a holiday to York, where I visited the National Railway Museum, including its libraries and archives, and was able to unearth quite a goldmine of information. The archives themselves were not quite as helpful as I had hoped (although staff suggested that I try the National Archive in Kew for railway company accounts that might well give much more detailed information), but books in the library and, occasionally, information boards next to actual exhibits provided some invaluable information.

The archives did, however, provide some very detailed information as to the price of various items of passenger coaching stock and freight wagons in the 1920s and 1930s, which I shall address in a future post. The information presented below is currently in no particular order: I shall consolidate it in due course.

In a book on railway economics (alas, I did not take identifying details), an interesting statistic on the relative maintenance cost of railways and canals at 1938 prices: £184/mile for canals, but £1,130 per mile for railways. Unfortunately, it is not clear whether this means route miles or track miles. That book also suggested that canals have virtually no variable maintenance cost: i.e., the cost to maintain them does not appreciably vary depending upon their traffic. This will be relevant when variable way maintenance costs are introduced.

Another book, this time on railway economics in particular, and again from the 1923-1948 era, gave rates of net income on railway companies' capital. The Southern it gave as 3.78%, the Great Western, 3.07%, the LMS as 2.63% and the LNER as 2.00%. At the same period, the returns of ten other randomly selected public limited companies were selected, and the returns on them found to be, on average, 14.55%, showing that railways are very slow to turn over their capital.

Manuscript archive material showing a price comparison between the construction cost of a steam locomotive identified only as an "E-Class" between 1910 and 1913 showed that the total cost of construction in 1910 was £1,411-9-3, whereas in 1913, it had risen to £1,605-0-1, an increase of 13.7%. Unfortunately, I omitted to record what sort of E-class locomotive that this was, but I suspect that it was the South-Eastern and Chatham 4-4-0 locomotive (http://www.semgonline.com/steam/e_class_01.html) of that designation.

According to "Mallard" by Don Hale, the eponymous A4 class 4-6-2 passenger express locomotive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNER_Class_A4_4468_Mallard) cost around £8,500 to build in 1936.

The London and South-Western Railway M7 0-4-4T class (http://www.semgonline.com/steam/m7class_01.html) cost £1,846 to build new in 1897, according to the notice next to the exhibit of locomotive no. 245 of that class in the museum.

According to a book (the details of which I omitted to record) specifically relating to the L&SWR T9 class (http://www.semgonline.com/steam/t9class_01.html) of 4-4-0 tender engine, these cost about £3,200 new in 1899.

The LMS 2500 class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LMS_3-Cylindered_Stanier_2-6-4T), a large suburban passenger 2-6-4T locomotive of 4p designation, cost £6,444 to build in 1934 according to its sign-board in the museum. Wikipedia states that later types of this locomotive built from 1935 onwards had only two cylinders and were therefore simpler, implying that they also would have been cheaper,

"Evening Star" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BR_standard_class_9F_92220_Evening_Star), a BR 9F 2-8-0, the steam locomotive ever built for British Railways, cost £35,500 to build new in 1960 according to the notice-board in the museum. It was designed to haul freight wagons at 35mph, although was recorded as having achieved speeds of up to 90mph on passenger trains!

Turning to diesels, the museum's example of a BR Class 31 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_31) (originally built as a class 30) states that it cost £78,000 to build in 1957.

According to a book about the BR "Warship" class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_42) of diesel locomotive (the details of which publication I omitted to record), the cost of one of these early type-4 diesel hydraulic locomotives when built in 1957 was £87,500.

According to "British Railways: A business history 1948-1973", the Deltic (http://www.royalscotsgrey.com/index.php) diesel locomotives (type 5) cost about £150,000 new at 1959 prices, whilst the average price of diesel locomotives around that time (excluding the Deltics) was £100,000 each (suggesting that type 4 locomotives other than the Warships cost more than £100,000).

The 1955 modernisation report stated that 1,100 electric locomotives (which one presumes are of A. C. type, as the report recommended that all future electrification schemes be of this standard, except the expansion of the Southern Region) would cost between them £60,000,000, working out at an average cost per locomotive of just under £55,000. It also gave the general statistic that new diesel locomotives cost around 2.5x as much as steam locomotives of equivalent power, and stated that 40 years was the normal life-span of a steam locomotive.

Turning to multiple units, the 11th of June 1981 edition of the New Scientist gave the cost of a two-car BR Class 140 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_140) DMU (the forerunner to the Class 142 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_142) units to be found in Pak128.Britain) as £400,000, whereas the Class 210 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_210) DEMU (which were never built in quantity because of their cost) cost £1,000,000 for a three-car set.

A somewhat questionable figure in relation to HST (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InterCity_125) power cars: a pre-production estimate of costings in 1969 gave a single locomotive with the necessary power the likely cost of £239,000. In fact, as we know, the HSTs were introduced in 1976 and had two power cars each with less powerful engines to make the combined necessary power; this was a more expensive arrangement than a single large locomotive, but produced faster turnaround times and made for lighter vehicles (and thus ones that could travel on a wider variety of lines). It estimated the maintenance then at about 8-9p/mile, although the book later suggests that this was a considerable overstatement, as that equated to over £600,000 per annum in 1969 prices, whereas the entire trainsets (locomotive and 7-9 carriages) only cost £500,000 per annum to maintain in about 1983 (annual mileage is not given).

Before turning away from vehicles, one interesting and unexpected piece of costing information from York Castle Museum: a new horse-drawn hearse in 1908 cost £40 5s 9d. Although, obviously, there are no hearses in Pak128.Britain, one can imagine that the cost of a single specialist horse-drawn vehicle like a hearse would be quite similar to the cost of, for example, the hackney carriage; thus, a comparison can be made between rail and horse-drawn vehicles of the age.

A final section on costs of electrification: A. C. overhead electrification is less expensive both to install and maintain (taking into account power consumption) than D. C. overhead electrification, although by how much is not clear. The 1955 modernisation report gives the cost of electrifying 390 route (not track) miles with overhead A. C. catenary as £40,000,000, and 250 route miles of 3rd rail D. C. electrification as £25,000,000.

Meanwhile, a book specifically on Southern electrics gives the cost (at 1925 prices) of electrifying 67 track miles with 3rd rail D. C. as £833,000, and a small section of 6.2 route miles in 1928 as £51,700, although the latter figure is of dubious relevance, as that particular electrification scheme did not involve the construction of any new substations.

Edit: Some information not from the museum itself, but about a railway vehicle exhibited in the museum: Hamilton Ellis's "Railway carriages in the British Isles from 1830 to 1914" gives (at p. 31) the price of a thee-compartment four wheel composite of the Stockton and Darlington Railway (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cessna152towser/4667534764/) a cost of £230 when built in 1846.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on June 05, 2011, 08:29:51 PM
Some more information from York; the cost per vehicle of building various carriages of the North-Eastern Railway (which records seem to have continued when the North Eastern was absorbed into the LNER):

Dining cars
(Selected vehicles - as described in the records)

Note: the numbers appear to describe compartments of that class: e.g. "3.3.3" would be a series of 3 third class compartments, and it appears as if "3.3.3 (open)" would be a series of three third class seating bays in an open/saloon arrangement. I am guessing that where "g" appears, it stands for "guard". "Lav," and "T." appear to stand for "lavatory" and "toilet" respectively. I suspect that "Att." might be "Attendant", but I am not sure. The "???" appears where the manuscript is illegible.

3.3.3.Pantry Kitchen Pantry 1.1.lav, 12-wheels, 64' 2 1/2" long, dia. no. 214, built 1905, total cost £2,979-15-8
Kitchen Pantry Passage | 1.1.1 (open) | 1.1 (open) | vest, 12 wheels, 65' 6" long, dia. no. 259, built 1906, total cost £2,500-12-8
Lav|3.3.3.3 (open) | 3.3.3 (open S.) | Passage Pantry, 12 wheels, 65' 6" long, dia. no. 260, built 1906, total cost £2,179-17-2
1.1.1 (open) Pantry Kitchen ??? | g |, 8 wheels, 52' 6" long, dia. no. 1266, built 1909, total cost £2,304-4-5
1.1.1 (open) | Pantry | Kitchen | Pantry | A | T, 8 wheels, 61' 6" long, dia no. 4773 N, built 1925, total cost £4,646-4-0
3 3 | 3 3 | Pantry | Kitchen | Att. | T, 8 wheels, 61' 6" long, dia no. 30A, built 1925, total cost £4,330-9-9
T | 3.3.3.3 | 3.3.(1/2 3) | Pantry, 8 wheels, 61' 6" long, dia no. 28A, built 1925, total cost £3,668-15-1
1 1 1 (open) | Pantry | Kitchen | Pantry | Att. | T., 8 wheels, 61' 6" long, dia. no. 78L, built 1928, total cost £5,279-3-11
T | 3 3 3 3 (open)  | 3 3 (1/2 3) | Pantry, 8 wheels, 61' 6" long, dia no. 28B, built 1929, total cost £3,191-2-8
Saloon (unclassed) | Saloon (unclassed) | Pantry | Kitchen | T., 8 wheels, 61' 6" long, dia. no. 78M, built 1929, total cost £5,473-3-9
1 1 (Sal.) | 1 1 1 (Sal.) | Pantry | Kitchen | T., 8 wheels, 61' 6" long, dia no. omitted, built 1931, total cost £5,223-5-2

Other types of vehicles to follow.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on June 05, 2011, 11:32:48 PM
Brake thirds
Selected vehicles - as  described in the records)

(The notes above as to the notation apply also here). "Vest." means that the vehicle is of the vestibule type, and "Non-vest." means that it has no vestibule (and I suspect also no gangway or corridor). All of the dining cars above were marked "Vest.", so I did not record that designation individually. "Bk" refers to the brake compartment.

Lav. 3.3.3.3.3 (Corridor) Bk, Vest., 8 wheels, 58' 6" long, dia. no. 251/1, built 1906, total cost £1,459-10-0
Lav. 3.3.3. (Corridor) | 3.3 (open) | Bk, Vest., 8 wheels, 58' 6" long, dia no. 308, built 1906, total cost £1,389-8-4
Bk. 3.3. (Corridor) Lav., Vest., 8 wheels, 58' 6" long, dia. no. 466, built 1907, total cost £1,290-0-2
Lav. 3.3.3.3.3 (Corridor) Bk, Vest., 8 wheels, 58' 6" long, dia. no. 823, built 1907, total cost £1,397-12-9
3.3.3 (Open) | Lav. / Lav. | 3.3.3 (Open) Bk., Non-vest, 8 wheels, 58' 1" long, dia. no. 479, built 1907, total cost £1,281-19-3
Lav. 3.3.3. (Open) | 3.3. (Open) | Brake, Vest., 52' 6" long, dia. no. 823, built 1909, total cost £1,373-16-6
3.3.3 (Open) | toilet | 3.3.3. (Corridor) Brake, Vest., 8 wheels, 61' 6" long, dia. no. 1053, built 1910, total cost £1,515-14-11
3 3 3 (Open S) | T. \ T. | 3 3 3 (Open) | Brake, Non-vest., 8 wheels, 58' 1/2" long, dia no. 479, built 1910, total cost £1,192-1-5
Bk 3 3 3 3 3 3 | 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 | (Twin suburban), Non-vest, 3-pairs 4 wheel bogies*, 77' 2 1/2" long, dia. no. 1167, built 1911, total cost £1,528-7-1
T. | 3.3.3. (Open) | 3.3. (Open) | Brake, Vest., 8 wheels, 52' 6" long, dia. no. 823, built 1912, total cost £1,259-15-11
Bk. 3.3.3.3.3 | 3.3.3.3.3.3.3 | 3.3.3.3.3.3.3 | 3.3.3.3.3.3.3 (Quad suburban), Non-vest, 5. 4 wheel bogies*, 166' 2 1/2" long, dia. 467B, built 1923, total cost £6,203-18-7
Toilet 3.3.3. Brake, Vest., 2 4wh. bogies, 61' 6" long, dia. no. 12112D, built 1925, total cost £2,640-3-7
T. 3.3.3.3. Brake, Vest., 8 wheels, Dia. no. Std. 114, built 1934, total cost £2,135-16-2

* It would appear that these are articulated sets.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on June 06, 2011, 12:18:49 PM
Composites
(Selected vehicles - as  described in the records)

(The notes above as to the notation apply also here).

Lav. | 1.1.1 (Corridor) | (1/2 3).3.3 (Open) | 3.3 (Corridor), Vest., 8 wheels, 58' 6" long, dia. no. 305, built 1906, total cost £1,723-18-8
3.3. (Open) | Lav. / Lav. | 1 | 1. | Lav. / Lav. | 1 | 3. | Lav. / Lav. | 3, Non-vest., 8 wheels, 58' 1 1/2" long, dia no. 480, built 1907, total cost £1,592-9-2
3. | Lav / Lav. | 3. | 1 | Lav. / Lav. | 1. | 3 Lav. / Lav.  | 3.3. (Open), Non-vest, 8 wheels, 58' 1 1/2" long, dia no. 674, built 1908, total cost £1,556-3-0
Lav. | 1.1. (Corr.) | 3.3. (Open) | 3.3.(1/2 3) (Open) | Lav. **, Vest., 8 wheels, 52' 6" long, dia. no. 824, built 1909, total cost £1,594-14-1
Toilet 3.3. (Corr.) | 3.3.(1/2 3) (Open) 1.1.1. (Corridor) | Toilet, Vest., 8 wheels, 58' 6" long, dia no. 970, built 1910, total cost £1,621-0-5
T. | 3 3 3 3 3 3 (Corridor) | (1/2 1)-1-1. | T., Vest., 8 wheels, 58' 6" long, dia. no. 1047, built 1911, total cost £1,600-16-6
3.3.3 | 1.1.1.1 || 1.1.1.1.2.2, Non-vest, 3 pairs 4 wheel bogies*, 88' 0" long, dia. no. 1118, built 1911, total cost £1,794-19-4
Toilet 3.3.3.3.(1/2 1) 1.1.1. Toilet (Corridor), Vest., 2 4-wheel bogies, 61'6" long, dia. no. 164K, built 1922, total cost £4,521-13-1
3.3.3.3.3.3.3.3 || 1.1.1.1.1.1.1, Non-vest., 2 light type and 1 heavy type bogies*, 103' 4" long, dia no. 164T, built 1929, total cost £4,048-13-5
T. 1.1.(1/2 1). 3.3.3.3.3. T., Vest., 8'6 light type bogies, 61'6" long, dia no. 3, built 1930, total cost £2,732-16-0

**  I suspect that these vehicles might be non-gangwayed corridor vehicles (i.e., those with an internal corridor but no connexion to other vehicles)
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on June 06, 2011, 09:35:15 PM
A brief break from railways to some 'bus related research: this (http://liberalconspiracy.org/2008/04/17/kens-ad-should-have-looked-like-this/) political website gives the cost of 500 of the new Routemasters (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8685486.stm) as being £100,000,000: that is £200,000 apiece. According to this (http://www.raremetalblog.com/2011/05/coming-the-new-london-bus.html) article, they should cost 40% less (in fuel) to run than an ordinary double-decker, although note that they will be double-crewed, so their per month cost would be much higher even if the per kilometre cost is lower (suggesting that they would only be economical at higher utilisations than more conventional 'buses).

Meanwhile, according to this (http://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/41033-new-busses-do-we-need-them-can-we-afford-them/page__view__findpost__p__550153) reference to an article in the Oxford Mail, a more conventional body type of 78-seater double-decker 'bus, but with hybrid propulsion technology, cost around £300,000 each (although note the lower numbers purchased).
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on June 06, 2011, 11:23:33 PM
The next set of data from York in respect of carriages is the somewhat generically titled, "Cost of carriage stock constructed by G. E. Section". Less information is given about these carriages than the North Eastern records  (and the date is not clear, save that it appears to be somewhere in the 1923-1929 bracket), but I shall reproduce what is available:

Third brakes, bogie, non-vest; 5 compartments; total cost £1,616-16-4
Third brakes, bogie, non-vest; 6 compartments; total cost £1,667-1-7
Compo brakes, bogie, non-vest, 2 first, 3 third compartments, total cost £1,784-19-4
??? (query Covd.) carriage trucks*** 45' 0" 1925/6 cge. building programme, total cost £902-7-7
Bogie brake vans, non-vest, total cost £1,249-19-3

***This appears to be just either the bogies or bogies plus underframe - at any rate, not including the body.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on June 17, 2011, 12:20:19 AM
Wagons built at Shildon in 1906

Weights given are carrying capacity, not gross weight. Carrying capacity here is 61-71% of total weight

Mineral wagon, 12t; total cost £89-8-3
Mineral wagon, 15t; total cost £105-11-11
Mineral wagon, 15t; total cost £125-19-11
Mineral wagon, 20t; total cost £129-9-11
Mineral wagon, 20t; total cost £128-18-11
Mineral wagon, 23t; total cost £146-10-5
Mineral wagon, 23t; total cost £173-0-4

Coal wagon, 10t; total cost £81-0-1
Coal wagon, 20t; total cost £137-13-8
Coal wagon, 23t; total cost £150-12-1

Unspecified mineral wagon type, 30t; total cost £246-19-6
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on July 13, 2011, 09:46:33 AM
And now for some information about steamships' purchase costs, since these do not appear currently to be well balanced n the game.

* "The Fronteac", a steamship built in Canada in 1816 cost £20,000: see here (http://www.suite101.com/content/the-frontenac-the-first-steamship-built-in-upper-canada-in-1816-a374266).
* "The SS Great Eastern" of 1858 cost £377,200, of which £275,200 was for the hull and the remainder for the engines; the hull price should give some guide as to the cost of an equivalent sailing ship. Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Great_Eastern).
* "The SS Great Britain" of 1843 cost £117,000. Source (http://wapedia.mobi/en/SS_Great_Britain).
* "Pennsylvania Class" steamship of 1874: $520,000 (source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_class_steamship)).

As to profit/costs:

* The SS Great Western produced a revenue of £33,400 against operating costs of £25,600 in 1843 (source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Great_Western)). This ship was similar to the SS Great Britain (above).
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on July 14, 2011, 09:59:50 PM
No figures, per se, but an indication of relative pricing to a small extent: this (http://www.lner.info/locos/J/ner_1001.shtml) web page suggests that the SDR 1001 class should cost less to maintain (and quite possibly to purchase) than other similar locomotives of its time, yet it is more costly than the LNWR DX Goods - it will probably need re-pricing accordingly (and its power and tractive effort possibly also adjusting downwards: looking at the web-page, this looks as though it ought be positioned as an economical locomotive of relatively poor performance). The weight is also wrong.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: ӔO on July 15, 2011, 12:29:28 AM
I've recently come to know a place called the "National Maritime Museum" in London, which is nearby Greenwich park. They should have some good info on ships.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on July 16, 2011, 05:39:41 PM
Another new source, this time giving the cost of some (for the day) large steam locomotives of the Midland Railway in the 1870s intended for hauling goods: see this (http://www.steamindex.com/locotype/midland.htm) page under the heading, "0-6-0: Johnson designs". The prices are shown as follows:

Makers             Locomotive   Nos             Year built    Cost each
Kitson             1142-61, 381-5, 400-404    1875-6    £2,920
Dubs              1162-91                            1875            £2,735
Beyer Peacock     1192-1221                    1876     £2,650
Neilson             1222-51                            1876            £2,635

Edit: The page also mentions the cost of the 1347 class of 1878 as being £2,274.
Edit 2: It further mentions that the 1377 class 0-6-0T of the same year as costing £1,691.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: ӔO on August 18, 2011, 09:57:38 AM
interesting tidbit from the japanese wiki for A1/A3:
I sort of ran across it by accident while reading up on smoke deflectors.

cost of one locomotive out of initial batch of ten.
GWR castle class: £6,840
LNER A1 : £8,560

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=ja&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fja.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FLNER%25E3%2582%25AF%25E3%2583%25A9%25E3%2582%25B9A1%2FA3%25E8%2592%25B8%25E6%25B0%2597%25E6%25A9%259F%25E9%2596%25A2%25E8%25BB%258A
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on August 18, 2011, 08:23:22 PM
Thank you - that's very helpful!
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on November 05, 2011, 05:38:30 PM
A recent trip to the London Transport Museum has revealed some interesting pricing information on 1900s paddle steamers: the "King Alfred Paddle Steamer", a Thames riverboat introduced in 1905, carried 500 passengers and cost about £6,000 new.

This suggests that the costs of river boats are vastly less than the cost of the ocean-going vessels to which I referred in an earlier post on this thread.

Edit: Web source here (http://electric-edwardians.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/king-alfred-paddle-steamer-1905.html).
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on December 21, 2011, 11:33:11 AM
Muser made the following post in the Simutrans Discussion forum recently, which I thought worthwhile copying here:

Quote from:
muser
I generally play pak128.Britain, but I think this information would apply to any pak set, and may be useful to someone pursuing game balance.

Here is a table summarizing the running costs between steam and electric here in the US in the early part of the last century. I expect it would generally apply to any region at that time. It is taken from the General Electric Review volume 25 of February, 1922:

http://hoist.hrtc.net/~arabento/pubfiles/steam_vs_electric_costs.jpg

The entire original article can be seen here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=lPHNAAAAMAAJ&dq=general%20electric%20review201922&pg=PA88#v=onepage&q=general%20electric%20review%201922&f=false

Basically, it describes a reduction in running costs from about 0.50 per mile for steam to about 0.10 per mile for electric. Of course that doesn't include the huge investment in constructing the electric infrastructure, but if I'm reading the article correctly the railroads could expect to see an annual reduction in overall operating costs equivalent to 14% of the cost of the upgrade to electric.

Although the article doesn't speak to it, I believe I read somewhere, years ago, that the initial purchase cost of the electric loco was about 30% to 50% more expensive than its equivalent steam counterpart. I'll see if I can find a reference to that and post it here.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on January 01, 2012, 02:32:47 PM
Some more information on the cost of early carriages and wagons on the LBSCR, from this (http://early-lbscr.co.uk/notes/Archive.htm) source (see the link to the .pdf file for the chronological carriage data), which, despite its indication, is publicly available and indexed by Google.

The cost of a first class LBSCR carriage in 1844 was recorded as being £319/10, and the cost of a second class carriage £231/10. Some LBSCR horse boxes of the period (which were built to carriage, rather than wagon standards) cost £129/10, and third class carriages (which one presumes in the era were not fully enclosed) cost £160 each.

In 1845, LBSCR parcel vans seem to have cost £175-200/each, coal wagons £55-70/each, goods vans about £93-99/each and cattle trucks £115/each. Further first class carriages were obtained that year for £315-335/each, second class carriages for £250-265/each and open third class for £148-£165/each.

Similar amounts were paid for similar vehicles in the years immediately following, and the details I have not reproduced here.

Of some interest, in 1850, a second class carriage was acquired secondhand for the sum of £90. This might be of relevance when implementing the secondhand purchases feature in Experimental.

In 1851, ten brake vans were purchased at £112/each.

In 1851, a new carriage shed at Brighton was built at a total cost of £790. A further unspecified sort of shed was built in 1861, at a cost of £6,271. In 1868, a figure of £20,000 was given for the cost of a "shed to cover five hundred vehicles". These figures are of some interest when considering the cost of depots.

In 1859, what were called a "superior description" of second class carriages were built at £197/each, as well as some coke trucks at £85/each.

Further first class carriages of £350/each were built in 1861. In 1862, a resolution was passed limiting trains to 13 carriages per locomotive.

In 1866, further first class carriages were built for between £283 and £315 each; open goods wagons at £94/15 each, covered goods wagons at £112/15 each, second class carriages for £277/10 each, third class carriages at £269 each and brake thirds at £295 each.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on January 03, 2012, 12:13:40 AM
From the thread on Giuseppe's lovely new Ford Trimotor (see here (http://forum.simutrans.com/index.php?topic=8889.msg82709#msg82709)), the cost of one of those early aircraft was reported to be $42,000US in 1933.

(I am reposting this here so as to have all pricing information in this thread).
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on January 12, 2012, 01:48:11 AM
WLindley has found some excellent information on bridges in this (http://forum.simutrans.com/index.php?topic=8755) forum post, which I reproduce here for comprehensiveness:

Quote from:
WLindley
I found a reference of page 53 of the Google scan of the 1832 American Rail-Road Journal for construction costs on the Fifth Division Baltimore & Ohio Railway.

This division had 11 miles of grade, and "three bridges of one arch each, and of the following chords, to wit, 30, 20, and 10 feet respectively; and one viaduct of the Rail-road for the Georgetown and Frederick turnpike road, of stone abutments and superstructure of wood of 24 foot span. This viaduct is elevated [16 feet 1.2 inches] above the gradated surface of the Rail-road."

The 11 miles of gradation cost $66,614 (about $6,000 per mile) while the masonry for division altogether cost $12,068 (for 84 feet (!) in four bridges plus an unspecified number of smaller culverts).

Altogether my feeling is that this example suggests a Simutrans tile of masonry bridge should cost about 20 times a standard tile.

This document for Washington State's Sound Transit lists a cost of $10,140 per foot for a long post-and-beam bridge, while this document from the State of Michigan lists an installed cost for railroad sidings (spurs) to be about $170 per foot (for 115-pound rail with 9-foot concrete roadbed)... the bridge costing sixty times a simple siding. However a siding costs less than a main-line track... again, 20 times seems about the right answer.

p.s., That 1832 article has a variety of figures quoted for European railways as well, unfortunately the scan process has obscured too many of them.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on January 21, 2012, 01:00:53 PM
Some information as to profitability of early railways from this (http://www.pittdixon.go-plus.net/l&mr/l&mr.htm) source:

Quote
...the Liverpool and Manchester Railway was an immediate success. In 1831 the railway carried 445,047 passengers. Receipts were £155,702, with profits of £71,098. By 1844, receipts had increased to £258,892, with profits of £136,688. During this period, shareholders were regularly paid out an annual dividend of £10 for every £100 invested.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: ӔO on January 27, 2012, 01:34:19 AM
This 6 page pdf gives an insight into the costs of constructing tunnels. http://www.ita-aites.org/fileadmin/filemounts/general/pdf/ItaAssociation/ProductAndPublication/ConfPapersExCo/71.PDF
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: dannyman on February 02, 2012, 03:54:08 AM
This is some delicious information and I commend you guys (esp James) for all the research.

Regarding the relatively high cost of modern vehicles, even adjusting for inflation, the explanation may be economies of scale.  Automobiles are cheap because they are mass produced by robots from interchangeable parts.  These days, transit vehicles in particular, are a specialty item built with minimal automation in small batches, tailored to the needs of individual agencies.  Modern railroads and European passenger railroads surely have a greater economy of scale than North American transit agencies, but a much smaller share of GDP purchasing power, much higher wages (education, health care, pensions) than the industrial era, and much higher regulatory standards.  So, yeah, a passenger carriage will set you back a lot more today in inflation-adjusted currency.

An aside: one really neat thing we did in America in the 1950s 1930s (thanks wlindley) was a bunch of transit agencies got together and collaborated to spec out and build the PCC Streetcar: every city would order the same type of streetcar: better economy of scale, and it is a really nice streetcar to boot!  If any of you visit San Francisco, near where I live, I'd be happy to ride one one of these restored beauties with you and talk simutrans!  :)
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: wlindley on February 02, 2012, 03:59:55 AM
It was a little earlier than you might think. The first PCC ([Street Railway Company] Presidents' Conference Car) car prototype was operated on the Brooklyn & Queens Transit Corporation (B&QT) in 1936, and the last American ones were built in 1952.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: ӔO on February 02, 2012, 07:01:28 AM
Looking at the history of some american diesel electrics, it seems like the entry level Bo'Bo' cost around $150,000 from 1950 to around 1980. While a higher end Co'Co' was around twice that, at $291,000

From the wiki pages of EMD MRS-1, CF7 and SDP45.

Even more, around $480,000 for a GE P30CH in 1974.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on February 02, 2012, 10:25:06 PM
Interesting information - thank you.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on February 04, 2012, 02:18:44 PM
Ahrons (full reference above) at p. 234 notes the coal consumption of the LNWR "Bloomer" as 27-28lb/mile. He also records (on the same page) the GNR Stirling Single as being very economical engines, consuming 27lb of coal per mile. On the previous page, he gives the average coal consumption of an LNWR Precedent as about 37lb/mile, and the "Precursor" 33.2lb/mile; the Midland 800 and 1300 classes 31lb/mile.

Edit: More information on the running cost of steam locomotives: see here (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jiADAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA217&lpg=PA217&dq=steam+locomotive+repairs+%22coal+consumption%22&source=bl&ots=Zh6xM5U00i&sig=cVuurfSEKjjhZDLsh8j2CrHk_js&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3D4tT-KVEMbN0QXM5qStCA&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=steam%20locomotive%20repairs%20%22coal%20consumption%22&f=false) for a Google Books result on the topic. This is from the 1909 edition of US magazine, "Popular Science" at p. 217. It records the following:

  • Electrification of the Manhattan Railway increased efficiency from 1.4 ton miles to a pound of coal to 3.85 ton miles per pound of coal (presumably, the power stations burned coal)
  • Fuel is about 12% of the cost of operation
  • The reduction in staff costs were estimated at 5%
  • The repairs to steam locomotives amount to about 8% of the total operating expense
  • The repairs to an electric locomotive amount to much less - in the neighbourhood of 2%
  • The aggregate economy in operating expense for electric railways above steam amounts to about 20%
This (http://www.steamindex.com/jile/jile36.htm) website gives some furhter useful information:

Quote
annual coal consumption in the period 1927 to 1938 for 4-cylinder 4-6-0 (1929: 53lbs/mile; 1933 60 lbs/mile); standard compound (1927: 44 lbs/mile; 1937: 51lbs/mile); Prince of Wales (constant 52lbs/mile), Hughes 4-6-0 (constant 60lbs/mile) and class 2P 4-4-0 (47 lbs/mile).

Quote
Bond, R.C.
 
Ten years' experience with the L.M.S. 4-6-2 non-condensing turbine locomotive, No.6202. 182-230. Disc.: 231-65 + 10 folding plates. 4 illus., 20 diagrs. (incl. 4 s.els.), 10 tables.
 Ljungstrom non-condensing turbine 2-8-0 locomotive on the Grangesberg-Oxelösund Railway: illustration and side elevation. The turbines (one for forward, and another for reverse working) were the major distinguishing feature and these in turn placed considerable demands upon the lubricating system, and to some extent upon the boiler. A feed water heater was fitted. There was a double blast pipe and chimney. It was soon found that the degree of superheating needed to be increased. Roller bearings were fitted. There are data on availability and a detailed record of repairs. Table 2 compared coal and water consumption of the turbine locomotive with Princess Royal Nos. 6212 and 6210 on London to Glasgow workings with a dynamometer car: 
Engine6212 6210620262026202
Miles16081608160812071608
Coal lbs/mile42.9044.9842.445.1541.6
Coal lbs/dbhph3.222.9772.972.8552.78
Water gallons/mile36.137.2634.234.9637.1
Water lbs/dbhph26.9024.6724.0022.1124.80
[/t]
[/q]   Bond used these data to show that No. 6202 achieved a lower coal consumption of over 6% except in the case of one run by No. 6212. Data compared the hammer blow inflicted by three classes: Coronation at 72 mile/h 3.47 tons per rail (whole engine: .24); 5XP at 72 mile/h 8.31 tons per rail (whole engine: .61) and classs 5 at 64 mile/h 7.59 tons per rail (whole engine: 9.03)  Data were presented which showed that coal consumption of the Royal Scot class increased by 8% over 28,000 miles of running due to wear in the valves and pistons. Hammer blow and wear in cylinders was eliminated in No. 6202. Discussion:  opened the discussion by noting how he and Dr Guy of Metropolitan Vickers visited Sweden to see a Ljungstrom non-condensing turbine 2-8-0 locomotive on the Grangesberg-Oxelösund Railway. He admitted that it had been a mistake to use a boiler with too small a superheater, basing this on Swindon practice. E.S. Cox (232-3) noted that he had observed the Pennsylvania Railroad turbine locomotive at work when it was scheduled to perform the Chicago to Crestline round-trip of 580 miles within 24 hours. He had observed the locomotive from the footplate between Chicago and Fort Wayne (148 miles). H. Rudgard (233) noted that the locomotive was extremely smooth running, but that the tubes tended to get dirty more quickly. He stated that the tests of the Beyer-Ljungstrom tended to suffer from the locomotive only being allowed on the main line with special permission and at the slightest sign of trouble it was taken off. T. Henry Turner (239) noted that the smoother traction would be appreciated by the passengers;  noted that there had been improvements in condensing mechanisms, the possibility of using a geared reciprocating engine for travel in the reverse direction, and possibly acting as a "booster" to assist in starting: he also refered to S.R.M. Porter's  (http://www.steamindex.com/people/engrs.htm#porter)B-E bogie. H.I. Andrews (252) could not understand what was going on inside the turbine when the locomotive was exerting tractive force at standstill: Bond replied to this with the assistance of R.A. Struthers of Metropolitan-Vickers (pp. 255-6): basically the energy is briefly converted to heat within the turbine,.


This (http://www.steam-locomotives.co.uk/Articles.htm) website gives further useful information:

Quote
The Castles were the most economical locomotives of their time. A castles average coal consumption was 2.83 pounds per drawbar horsepower per hour compared to the average 4 pounds common on other locomotives in the 1920s.

Some information on running costs of steam locomotives in the 1950s can be found here (http://www.steamindex.com/locotype/brloco.htm).

Quote
Bradley, D.L. Locomotives of the Southern Railway. Part 2. RCTS, 1975.
Quotes locomotive repair costs per mile (excluding boiler) 2.97p and boiler repair costs (0.39p) and coal consumption per train mile (42.3 lb) for 1955. Original source not quoted.

Also:

Quote
Atkins, Philip. It had already been done!. Steam Wld, 1999, (143) 54-7.
Atkins considers that J.F. Harrison's claim made in 1961 that the A1 class achieved a mileage of 202 miles per day has not withstood close scrutiny and was probably nearer 184.9, as compared with 184.7 achieved by Duchess class. The class 91 electric locomotives achieve 740 miles per day. Britannia class Nos. 70036 achieved 104,549, 70039 104,226 and 70040 102,748 miles in 1953 or 19/4 in the case of the latter pair.

Some information on Thames tugs here (http://www.thamestugs.co.uk/NAPOLEON---RACIA.php) (which might be of use for smaller steamships):

Quote
NAPOLEON
 
Built 1857 by Money Wigram and Sons,  Northam, Southampton. Wooden Paddle Tug, carvel built. L120'. B20.4'. D11.3'. 157grt. 100ihp 2cyl 34"x48" side lever steam engine by J. Stewart, London. Acquired 1857. Lost 1881. ON19885 Callsign MTSN
 
1857 Delivered to William Watkins, London. 7-1870 New boilers and major engine room overhaul at Wigrams, £4000. 1876 Overhaul and new boilers £3000. Coal consumption 19 tons per day. Old boiler overhauled and installed in Renown...

Quote
Nubia

 
Built 1890 by Westwood Baillie Ltd., Poplar. Steel Screw Tug. L87.6'. B18.6'. D10.7'. 102grt. 350ihp 3cylTE 12.5"x19"x32" 20" stroke 135psi steam engine by John Stewart & Son Ltd., Blackwall. Coal consumption two pounds per HP per hour.  Acquired 1890. Disposed 1935. Scrapped 1935. Official No. 98149. Call sign MQGP.

Quote
Oceania

Built 1889 by Gourlay and Co., Dundee. YN136. Twin Screw Tug. L110.5'. B19.5'. D10.9'. 311grt. (1902 337grt). 160nhp 900ehp 2 x 2cyl 19"x36"x27"s  compound steam engines by builder. Coal consumption one pound per HP per hour.  Acquired 1889. Lost 1918. Official No. 95549.

Some useful information here (http://www.br46464.co.uk/464_history.htm) on the savings in coal consumption made by fitting a superheater to one particular locomotive (the BR 2MT):

Quote
The fitting of a two row superheater was estimated to improve coal consumption by as much as 20%. The original boiler on 46464 was changed when the engine was shopped in 1961. She now carries the boiler from 46465, which spent it's working life in Cambridgeshire.

This figure of 20% is corroborated by an American source (http://www.steamlocomotive.com/prairie/?page=gn):

Quote
Two years later, the RAG reported on the results of trials: "In passenger service a test on the Kalispell division showed a saving of 13 per cent in water and 14% per cent in coal per car mile, while in freight service on the Wlllmar division the saving was 30% per cent in water and 28% per cent in coal per ton mile, the coal figures being 137% for the simple and 98 pounds for the superheaters per 1,000 ton miles, both very satisfactory figures for prairie type engines in freight service on an undulating road. The company also reports a comparison for nine months between a superheater freight engine and a similar simple engine, showing 137 pounds of coal per 1,000 ton miles for the superheater against 171 for the simple, and a cost for repairs of 4 cents per mile against 3.87 cents, a reduction in the coal consumption of 20 per cent with practically the same cost of repairs.

Some more American information (http://www.rrmuseumpa.org/education/Curriculum%20Guide%20-%20High%20School.pdf), this time comparing the running costs cost of steam and diesel locomotives:

Quote
Simply put, a T1 steam passenger locomotive’s repairs cost
the company an average of 54 cents per mile, while a typical passenger diesel cost only 32 cents.
A PRR Q2 steam freight locomotive’s repairs cost 69 cents per mile, compared to just 40 cents
per mile for a comparable 6,000-horsepower diesel.

Some interesting information from an Irish source (http://www.downrail.co.uk/locos.htm):

Quote
In 1947 the SLNCR took delivery of a railcar from Walker Bros. of Wigan. This railcar, which was designated 'B', was purchased as the result of the company's desire to reduce the operating costs of its scant passenger traffic. This had been handled for the most part, since the introduction of its first railbus, 'A' in 1935, by a number of railbuses. These had been converted from road buses by the GNR, specially for the Sligo and Leitrim. The operating economics of the railbuses had persuaded the directors of the permanently financially straitened SLNCR to invest £10,500 in a larger purpose-built railcar similar to the ones which had been such a success on the CDR and GNR.

Railcar 'B' was powered by a 102hp Gardner diesel engine mounted on a four-wheeled power bogie on which was constructed the forward driving cab which enclosed the engine assembly. The power bogie was of the four coupled wheel arrangement with outside rods. It was articulated to the main passenger coach, which was carried on a plain bogie. Transmission consisted of a fluid flywheel, a Wilson epicyclic gearbox, propeller shaft, and an air-operated final drive and reverser unit. The railcar was 54' 11¼" long, 9' 6" wide and weighed 18 tons 12 cwt. Maximum speed was 45 mph. It returned a fuel consumption of 12 mpg and operating costs of 4d. per mile, one eighth those of a steam train

(although note the reference to steam train, not locomotive, implying that the cost of carriages were also taken into account in the figure of one eighth).

Something from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR_West_Country_and_Battle_of_Britain_classes) on the coal consumption of the Bulleid light pacifics:

Quote
the Light Pacifics burned 47.9 lb (21.73 kg) of coal per mile compared to 32 lb (14.51 kg) burned by the T9 class that they replaced.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on February 05, 2012, 02:29:36 PM
As to the cost of undersea tunnels, some information on the cost of the Severn Tunnel. The exact cost I cannot find, but it appears to have been in the region of £1,000,000 in 1873-1886: see here (http://www.greatwestern.org.uk/severn2.htm). According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severn_Tunnel), the tunnel is 4 miles 624 yd (7,008 m) long, although only 2¼ miles (3.62 km) of the tunnel are under the river.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: omikron on February 05, 2012, 02:34:23 PM
The costs of tunnels in reality is also very dependent on
a) the stability of the underground,
and b) on the necessity to avoid other underground structures (canalisation, metro etc.)

I once listened to a German railway engineer who mentioned what a relief it was to plan tunnels in Norway, where the ground is always granite and mostly no canaluisation to worry about.

If you want to, I could find some information in the Norwegian tunnel costs, where (road) tunnels are being built at an extreme rate everywhere.

omikron
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on February 05, 2012, 02:47:42 PM
Hmm - I don't think that we could practically have variable costs depending on the type of ground in Simutrans, so we should simply have to find some sort of reasonable average, taking into account that under-sea building costs much more than under-land building.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: ӔO on March 01, 2012, 04:03:33 AM
it might be interesting to look into "Jumboizing" ships.

It's a nautical term for chopping the hull and making it longer. Supposedly it was common for older (circa 1940~1950) merchant tanker and cargo ships to be jumboized to meet capacity demands.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on March 01, 2012, 09:43:47 AM
Interesting. Do you have any more information on this, in particular, details as to figures, etc.?

Edit: Not so much pricing, but very interesting information (on page 176) about the proportion of trips of various distances, and the proportion of those taken by car here (http://www.sustrans.org.uk/assets/files/connect2/guidelines%2016.pdf) (note: PDF document).
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on April 07, 2012, 12:29:12 PM
See here (http://eorailway.co.uk/departments/rollingstock/steam-locomotives/) for interesting information on the as new price of a GWR Hall class, built in 1929, being £4,375.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on May 21, 2012, 11:35:20 AM
This (http://www.flickr.com/photos/midlandexplorerboy/5810843513/in/photostream/) caption on a Flickr phogotraph of a very small halt with short platforms and a single wooden building built by the GWR in 1906 reports the price as being £264. It is described as serving "a small hamlet 700 yards to the East".

On an unrelated topic, this (http://www.festrail.co.uk/content/publish/news/New_Superbarn_rolled_out.shtml) item of news shows that a new carriage for the Welsh Highland Railway, a 2ft narrow gauge line, built in 2012, cost £100,000. It is a large carriage of its type (seating capacity is not given), and is described as being intended to be particularly comfortable (for a narrow gauge carriage, at any rate).
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on May 26, 2012, 06:19:02 PM
I am currently taking a holiday in North Wales, and have taken the opportunity to gather some pricing information in respect of some of the narrow gauge lines in the area, which is potentially useful now that Pak128.Britain has some narrow gauge items (based on the Ffestiniog Railway, it seems). I have not always had time to note the names of the books from which, by browsing them in bookshops, I  have garered these data.

A narrow gauge slate wagon in 1901 was recorded as costing £59, and a passenger brake in the same year £79. I am told by staff at the Welsh Highland Heritage Railway that the normal capacity of slate wagons was 2t on the narrow gauge, heavier wagons tending to derail (although there seem to have been larger wagons for coal and goods from about the 1920s onwards).

The Veil of Rheidol's locomotive "Rheidol" 2-4-0T was purchased secondhand for £591 in about 1902, having previously  been owned by contractors constructing the line. A larger 2-6-2T of the same line (no.9) is recorded as having been purchased for £1,750 in 1902 and a seemingly identical locomotive (but query whether by then fitted with suprheating) in 1923 for £2,737 (no. 7).

A small four wheel "toastrack" carriage (no. 42) built for the Welsh Highland Railway in 1923 (and preserved by the Welsh Highland Heritage Railway at Porthmadog) cost £155 new. It was open sided, had hard slatted wooden bench seats, and would not have been very comfortable.

A batch of 4 corridor bogie coaches built in 1923 was recorded as costing £2,604, and a batch of 2 good brakes in 1902 were recorded as costing £168 (both for the North Wales Narrow Gauge line).

The Ffestiniog Railway's second steam locomotive (to the same design as its first and a number of subsequent locomotives), known as "Prince", cost £975-7-6 when new in 1863, and had a tractive effort of 4,489lbf.

A "single Fairlie" locomotive for that same line built in 1872, and considered at the time to be faster and more economical to run than other locomotives on the line, including the more powerful "double Fairlies" (the design of the current narrow gauge steam locomotive in pak128.Britain), cost £1,305 new.

A "double Fairlie", by contrast, when built in 1869, cost £1,905, although the source that I found expressed some equivocation as to the price, recording that it might have been as low as about £1,600 or so.It weighed 24t and had a tractive effort of 6,059lbf.

The North Wales Narrow Gauge (later Welsh Highland Railway)'s now preserved "Russell" of 1906 weighed 20t and had a tractive effort of 7,425lbf, although I cannot find pricing information for this one.

Deviating briefly to Ffestiniog liveries, two basic schemes for locomotives seem to have been employed (with some minor variations that would not show up on the Simutrans scale), with the original 1863 scheme being red with black lining and a new scheme adopted in 1925 and initially continued into preservation being dark green with yellow lining (the original livery for locomotives, or near enough, having been restored somewhere around the1990s, I think).

Returning to prices, the Ffestinog carriages nos. 21-22, bogie compartment carriages built in 1897, cost £305-12-5 and £308-1-4 respectively when new.

I should also note that the Ffestiniog Railway's own online encyclopedia has some very good pricing information.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: greenling on May 27, 2012, 01:40:54 PM
Jamespetts
You have be dig out old Prices from Railvehicles and i be ge a shock!
The Prices was very low!
Low Prices and maintencecost be create in simutrans std a moneyflood!
I will try to play a little bit more with Simutrans exp but i have A pakset with damage what i must be rescure!



Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: sdog on May 27, 2012, 04:27:06 PM
greenling, there was considerable inflation in the meantime. To get a rough estimate of it, multiply  prices before the great war by 100, to get near modern prices.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on May 30, 2012, 01:26:59 PM
Construction costs of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway:

Quote
The construction of the works of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway required immense and unremitting labour. Besides the embankment over Chat Moss, to which we shall have again to refer, there was the building of viaducts, the formation of cuttings and embankments, the erection of sixty three bridges, and the construction of a tunnel near Liverpool; besides the laying down of the permanent way, the erection of stations and warehouses, and the preparation of the engines, carriages, and wagons. The cost was as follows:
Cuttings and Embankments    £199,763
Chat Moss    27,719
Tunnel    47,788
Land    95,305
Fencing    10,202
Bridges    99,065
Formation of Road    20,568
Laying of Blocks and Sleepers    20,520
Laying of Rails (£ 12 10s. per ton)    60,912
Surveying, Law, Parliamentary, and Incidental    157,341
Total    £739,183

Source (http://www.resco.co.uk/rainhill/history_iron.html).

Edit: More very useful general information can be found here (http://www.libraryindex.com/encyclopedia/pages/cpxkvqow0x/railways-rails-tons-rail.html), including in particular good information on early types of track.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on July 13, 2012, 09:26:09 AM
This (http://www.didcotrailwaycentre.org.uk/coaches/1941/1941.html) page of the Didcot Railway Centre's website suggests that a GWR 8-compartment clerestory non-corridor bogie carriage built in 1910 cost £812 to build when new.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on August 11, 2012, 01:07:28 PM
I should note that Wikipedia has good information on the purchase price of many well known commercial aircraft.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: Milko on August 13, 2012, 07:49:36 AM
Hello

Until today I put in prices and running costs of aircraft in a very coarse. I, for certain airplanes, I could not find the associated costs. James, you found some page where they listed all costs or you have found the prices in the descriptions of individual aircraft?

Thanks
Giuseppe

Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: greenling on August 13, 2012, 04:22:44 PM
Cool james what you here dig out.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on August 13, 2012, 09:08:07 PM
Hello

Until today I put in prices and running costs of aircraft in a very coarse. I, for certain airplanes, I could not find the associated costs. James, you found some page where they listed all costs or you have found the prices in the descriptions of individual aircraft?

Thanks
Giuseppe



Wikipedia has capital cost information on many aircraft. I did once find a page that had per kilometre fuel costs as well as capital costs, but unfortunately seem to have lost that now. However, fuel costs can be calculated from fuel consumption data if those are available. I should note that fuel consumption is not the only cost of aircraft, however.

I should add that the pakset has yet to be balanced using the data gathered together on this thread.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on August 16, 2012, 10:38:27 PM
Very interesting information on the relative fuel cost of diesel and electric trains:

Quote
The use of two power cars in the 125 dieseFhauled trains made energy costs an important
factor. Again, the electrical rating (two sets of 1,680 kW motors, for a total of 3,360 kW per train)
proportionate to the length and weight, but the cost of generating this power was compared with
energy c.osts for locomotive-hauled electric passenger trains on the WCMLIn. 1978, the fuel costs
on BR were given as 44p (70¢) per mile for diesel traction, while electric traction cost 19p (30¢)
per mite:. In the mid=1980s the 125 energy/fuel costs had risen to £1.37 ($2.19) per mile (which
was equal to 30p [48¢] per seat/mile), whereas the electric traction costs had risen to £1.04 ($1.66)
per mile, and 18p (29¢) per seat mile (Potter, 1988: 111). In energy costs, electric traction maintained
its comparative efficiency, but the global fuel crisis of the late 1970s shows in the 1978
figures --in the mid-1980s the differential had been clearly reduced. There is no reason to doubt
that a similar relationship between the cost of diesel and electric energy prevails still today.

Source (http://www.uctc.net/papers/114.pdf)

Edit: From the same article, interesting information about (relatively) high speed track for 125mph (200km/h) operation:

Quote
This is an elegant way of saying that the additional speed caused the cars to lurch noticeably
on encountering minor misalignments of the track. Thus, a major leap in the maintenance of track
and the parameters of acceptable track geometry were required. Since track maintenance was
historic:ally labor-intensive, the higher standards have led BR to introduce continuous welded rail
(CWR), found extensively (ultimately ubiquitously) on high-speed lines, and to introduce new
very sophisticated equipment to detect track wear and to replace manual labor in maintenance
activity. The network relays roughly 600 miles of track per year, and on the high-speed lines the
new track is laid on concrete ties, now more closely spaced than hithertofore, and on a greater
depth of ballast (Nock, 1980: 33-39).
]By 1979, BRh ad largely completed the installation of CWRw ith heavy rail comparable to
that used elsewhere in Europe (60 kg rail per meter/ll5 lbs a yard) and had made a lot of progress
with ballasting and tamping machines to adjust misaligned track 0R J, December 1979: 42-44). BR
also developed its own track recording car in 1977 (IRJ, March 1977: 29).
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on August 18, 2012, 04:57:50 PM
A great deal of useful information on the price of pre-1923 railway carriages can be found in the two volumes of "Midland Railway Carriages" by R. E. Lacy and George Dow. There are too many data to give every record, but it is interesting to note that early railway carriages (1860s and before) do not appear to differ greatly in price, being something between £225 and £250 per vehicle for the most part.

More interesting, however, is that a price for overhaul is given of these vehicles. On p. 31 of volume 1, it is recorded that 50 composite carriages were "accepted for repairing, repainting and retrimming" at £62 per carriage. That suggests an overhaul price for early carriages of something in the approximate region of 25% of capital cost.

It is to be noted that, although overhaul prices are not currently relevant in Simutrans (Standard or Experimental), it is planned to introduce a system of regular overhauls in the near future, so this cost ratio is of great interest.

Edit: The same source (at p. 42) gives the price of passenger rated milk vans built in the early 1870s as £171/each.

Edit 2: The same volume at p. 43 indicates that travelling post office vehicles were more expensive: an example from 1844 is recorded as having cost £460 per carriage.

Edit 3: By the 1860s, the cost seems to have risen to £500 apiece: ibid p. 44.

Edit 4: As to repair costs, the same source at p. 46 records that, in 1853, 50 men were employed to repair carriages for every 1,000 carriages that the company owned (423 in total): that is 0.05 full time maintenance staff per carriage. Their wage is not given, nor the ratio of parts to labour cost.

Edit 5: The same work records the cost of the Midland bogie carriage of the 1870s as costing £820 each with four wheeled bogies or £979 with six wheel bogies (p. 57).

Edit 6: The cost of upgrading 88 carriages to automatic continuous braking in 1876 is recorded as £2,904 (p. 65, ibid): that is £33 per carriage.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: sdog on August 19, 2012, 02:25:01 AM
you ought to write a monography on the economy and cost structure of railways in the 19 century. Almost a by-product of your in-depth research of the topic. The many snippets you have to collect, indicates there's no comprehensive work on that topic.





I'd keep my eyes open on results from this research group at london school of economics, history economics department:




Understanding the effects of different generations of Large-Scale Technological Change
Professor N. F. R. Crafts and Dr T. Leunig


Quote
"We propose to use modern economic theory to measure more accurately the effects of major technological changes. We will do this in a comparative setting, comparing the current new technology - computing - with those of the 19th and early 20th centuries, railways and electricity. In order to understand the effects fully, our work will approach these incidents from consumers', as well as producers' points of view, looking at social as well as private returns[.] [...]"


http://www2.lse.ac.uk/economicHistory/Research/LSTC%20(ESRC)/Large-ScaleTechnologicalChange.aspx (http://www2.lse.ac.uk/economicHistory/Research/LSTC%20(ESRC)/Large-ScaleTechnologicalChange.aspx)

eg:
'Time is Money: A Re-assessment of the Passenger Social Savings From Victorian British Railways', Journal of Economic History, 66, 3, 2006




Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on August 19, 2012, 11:55:31 AM
Very interesting!

Returning to Midland carriages, p. 80 of the same work records a cost saving of £25 from making the bogie arc roofed carriages instead of the clerestory type, that is a saving of around 2.5%.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on September 01, 2012, 01:00:06 PM
A useful exposition of the relationship between capital and maintenance cost for steam locomotives from this (http://www.locomotives-and-trains.com/diesel-locomotive-vs-steam-locomotive.html) source:

Quote
Annual maintenance costs for steam engines accounted for 25% of the initial purchase price. Spare parts were machined from wooden masters for specific locomotives. The sheer number of unique steam engines meant that there was no feasible way for spare-part inventories to be maintained.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on December 29, 2012, 05:17:22 PM
Some very useful information on capital cost of canal narrowboats here (http://www.narrowboattrust.org.uk/theboats.htm): in the mid 1930s, a diesel powered narrowboat cost £900, whilst an unpowered "butty" cost £400. No information on the cost of steam boats, sadly, but one can deduce that it would be a figure between those two, probably closer to the diesel boat cost than the unpowered boat cost.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on December 31, 2012, 05:23:48 PM
Further useful information on the cost of canal boats: a narrowboat sized steam tug with an iron hull cost £1,150 in 1876 - see here (http://www.boatmuseumsociety.org.uk/worcester.html). (Note: the document refers to 1976 in places, but the context makes it clear that this is written in error for 1876).

Edit: It should further be noted (from the same source) that in 1929, the steam engine was replaced by a Bolinder semi-diesel (rated at 30hp) at a total cost of £422. This might be very useful for the purpose of determining upgrade costs.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on January 05, 2013, 01:13:02 AM
According to this (http://freespace.virgin.net/tom.lee/kohinoorimg.htm) source, Koh-i-Noor, a Thames coastal steamer built in 1892 and intended to run from Tilbury to Margate cost £50,000 new.

Edit: According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Loch_Shira), the MV Loch Shira, a Scottish short distance car ferry recently added by Kieron to the pakset, cost £5,800,000 new in 2006.

Edit 2: According to this (http://freespace.virgin.net/tom.lee/maid%20of%20argyll.htm) source, the MV Maid of Argyll, a Scottish diesel powered ferry for relatively short haul use carrying 627 people at 15 knots cost £145,000 new in 1953.

Edit 3: According to this (http://website.lineone.net/~tom_lee/atalantaimg.htm) source, the TS Atlanta, a coastal steaming steam turbine passenger ship, cost £21,000 when new in 1906.

Edit 4: According to this (http://website.lineone.net/~tom_lee/kylemoreimg.htm) source, PS Vulcan, a 14 knot paddle steamer from 1897, cost £13,750 when new.

Edit 5: According to this (http://website.lineone.net/~tom_lee/duchessofrothesayimg.htm) source, the paddle steamer PS Duchess of Rothsey cost £20,000 new in 1895.

Edit 6: According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TS_King_Edward), The TSS King Edward, the first turbine ship, built in 1901, cost £33,267 to built; interestingly considerably less than the earlier paddle steamer Koh-I-Noor.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on January 09, 2013, 01:10:36 AM
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Lochnevis_%281934%29) tells us that the 1934 MV Lochnevis, a 700 passenger diesel powered coastal ferry from Scotland, cost £45,999 new.

Edit: According to this (http://paddlesteamers.info/Turbine%20Steamers/QueenMary.htm), the TS Queen Mary cost £61,805 and 16/9d when it was new in 1933 (launched in May of that year).
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: greenling on January 09, 2013, 04:24:30 PM
That it a Hammer how the prices in the last 80 years blow up.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on January 09, 2013, 05:08:00 PM
That's inflation for you - see here (http://safalra.com/other/historical-uk-inflation-price-conversion/) for details.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: sdog on January 09, 2013, 07:41:13 PM
OT, on the link above: I'm more surprised by the periods of very strong deflation. 1802   -23.0% with a trend of general deflation for two decades, must have been quite a hit on the economy in early industrialisation.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on January 10, 2013, 05:15:32 PM
According to this (http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottishmaritimemuseum/4834160170/in/faves-24718842@N04/) source, the MV Lochfyne (http://freespace.virgin.net/tom.lee/lochfyneimg.htm), Britain's first diesel-electric passenger ship cost £3-10-0 per day to run, which was "half that of a conventional vessel at the time", but passenger comfort was reduced because of the vibration of the early diesel engines.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: ӔO on January 15, 2013, 03:33:26 AM
An interesting pdf on tilting trains

http://www.gronataget.se/upload/PublikaDokument/Tiliting%20trains.pdf

Chapter 5 and 9 may be the most relevant to experimental.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on January 29, 2013, 06:10:13 PM
There is some interesting and useful road and bridge price information on the BBC website here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13924687) (all prices are at 2011 levels):

  • Bridges cost about 10x more to construct than plain ways
  • £17,045/yard is the cost for an ordinary 3-lane motorway
  • £142,000/yard is the cost of a motorway tunnel
  • £78,000/yard is the cost of an elevated section of motorway
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: wlindley on January 29, 2013, 07:14:18 PM
Yards? In 2011? Metres, surely?  In America we are told that every other country in the world uses Metric exclusively -- and I cannot (gasp) imagine (swoon) that our media might tell us an untruth!
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on January 29, 2013, 07:21:10 PM
The website gave conversions to meters for some but not all of the figures given.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: Markohs on January 29, 2013, 07:30:33 PM
English and Irish are the only ones in europe that still drag some those archaic measurement units from the past, I guess it's a cultural thing and it makes them feel special. :) But yes, all industrial processes are metrified already, even cars manufactured in US are designed and manufactured in meters. :)

I guess you can order designs in inches etc to china, but they'll just round it to the closes milimeter unit and just use international measurements. I've read it saved tons of money to english industries.

atm english just use yards to measure distances by road, speeds in automobiles and use stones to weight some things, but it will gradually disapear in my oppinion. Plus pints to order beers I guess. :)

 But I'm not english. I read most of this here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication_in_the_United_Kingdom).

It's a process the US will someday get into. What I'm not sure is if I'll be still alive that day.

 This reminds me of a joke somebody told me:

 A guy driving on a highway listens on the radio:

 - Attention all drivers in highway, there is a a guy driving in the opposite direction on the highway, be extremely careful!

 And he guy says:

 - ****!!! JUST ONE??? THEY ARE ALL DRIVING OPOSITE DIRECTION!!!

 :)

EDIT: I just saw they have an article about metrification in US too, interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication_in_the_United_States . Excuse me if I'm being too off-topic here.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on February 27, 2013, 12:30:25 AM
Some interesting information on the fuel economy of steam locomotives in the 1920s here (http://www.greatwestern.org.uk/m_in_cas.htm): apparently, the GWR Castle class consumed 2.83lb of coal per drawbar horsepower, compared to an average of 4lbs on other railways at the time.

Edit: The same information is replicated here (http://www.alanstepney.info/page25.html), which also has some other fascinating information, including:

(1) "A rough guide to the maximum weight of locomotive for a given rail weight, is to take the weight of the rail in lbs. per yard, divide it by five, and that gives the maximum weight per axle in tons.(This assumes a well constructed and maintained track bed.)"

(2) "A frequently-quoted figure is that an engine can generate one horsepower per 2.5 square feet of heating surface... Although the size of the firebox and tubes is often used to gauge power (as above), the limiting factor may often be the water space around them, but this information is not usually apparent without a study of drawings etc."

(3) "Coal usage of 2 ½ lb. per sq. ft of grate per minute = practical maximum."

(4) "Haulage on railway track = 5 x distance of road haulage for same fuel."

(5) "Superheating can reduce water / coal consumption by about 25%."

Edit: Also, some interesting information here (http://www.svr-rollingstocktrust.org.uk/PDFs/LNERCF+CG_Newsletter_19-2012.pdf) on the relative economy of the LNER Peppercorn A1 class.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on March 20, 2013, 01:48:34 AM
Some very interesting information here (http://www.archive.org/stream/steelrailstheir02sellgoog/steelrailstheir02sellgoog_djvu.txt) in the form of a full text digitised (out of copyright) book on the history of the use of steel rails - some very useful statistics are given on the weights of rail in use at various times and the comparative maintenance costs (or rather, data from which those costs might be estimated) of iron and steel rails. An example is as follows:

Quote
On that [line] extending between Newcastle and Berwick, 66.8 miles of double way, the iron rails laid down in 1847 weighed 65 pounds per yard. Renewals commenced in 1855 and terminated in 1867. In these the weight was increased to 82 pounds per yard. The maximum duration of the 65-pound rails was 21 years and the minimum 8 years, the average being 12.8 years.

Mr. T. E. Harrison stated in 1867 that on 700 miles of permanent way of the North-Eastem Railway the average duration of the last complete set of rails was found to be about 15.5 years; and some which were laid down in 1834 were still in use.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: dustNbone on March 20, 2013, 05:48:08 AM
Brilliant find!  I can see myself reading this for enjoyment.  Placed on smartphone awaiting next moment of boredom.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on March 20, 2013, 12:26:18 PM
Some further useful information on the same topic is to be found here (http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/gansg/2-track/02track1.htm).

Edit:

Further useful pricing information from the book on steel rails above:

Quote
About 1864 the Erie Railway Company ordered from John Brown and Company, of Sheffield, England, 1000 tons of Bessemer steel rails at £25 per ton.

Edit 2:

Some further very interesting information from this (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CHQQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stocksbridgehs.co.uk%2Fdownload_pdf.php%3Fid%3D1758&ei=8QxNUYywBaGz0QWMloHoBw&usg=AFQjCNESPyNucy3Eagg2uFtS_16bGjPKdA&bvm=bv.44158598,d.d2k&cad=rja) source relating to the Great Central Railway:

Quote
1922: The GCR placed a stores contract order for 8000 tons of 95 lb/yard steel rails (equivalent to 100 miles) at £7.13.6d per ton. ... Thirty years previously, the same [suppliers] had sold to the M. S. & L. 86 lb/yard steel rails at £4.10.0d. per ton

It should be noted that Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_way_%28history%29) states that 95lb/yard rail was the standard for main line usage at the turn of the 20th century.

Of course, when calculating the costs of actually laying track, the costs of things other than the rail itself need to be taken into account, but this does provide a useful guide to the relative costs of different sorts of steel rail and also an idea of a starting point for the prices of track laying more generally.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on March 31, 2013, 01:36:10 AM
Some useful information on carriage prices from "Midland Railway Carriages" (Lacey & Dow - Volume I): six wheel carriages for express passenger work were built on the Midland down to September 1898 (p. 138). Those built after 1896 were of the distinctive clerestory type with flush ends. In November 1897, a number of these carriages were ordered from outside contractors, costing £645 each for those ordered from the Birmingham Carriage & Wagon Company, £606 each for those ordered from the Ashbury Company, and £650 each from those ordered from the Lancaster Carriage & Wagon Company (p. 133). It is recorded that the cost of these carriages was £609 in 1899 each if built in the company's own works, compared to £900 each for bogie carriages (p. 142), although it does not specify whether it is referring here to the 8-wheel 48ft or 12-wheel 60ft type, both of which were built for the Midland.

Edit: p. 231 of Volume II of that work records that, in 1915, elliptical roof carriages cost £35-40 less per vehicle to build, cost £1/year less to run, and were approximately 12cwt. lighter than the equivalent clerestory carriage.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on April 17, 2013, 10:57:51 PM
A note on bridge prices: Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wharncliffe_Viaduct) reports that the Wharncliffe Viaduct (otherwise known as the Hanwell Viaduct) on the Great Western main line between London and Slough, completed in 1837 and being 270 meters long cost £40,000. At the time it carried two broad gauge tracks: it was subsequently widened and converted to standard gauge, and now carries four standard gauge tracks. This bridge, I think, has the same speed limit as the surrounding line (125mph, or about 200km/h) and regularly takes very heavy aggregates trains.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: Carl on April 18, 2013, 08:08:36 AM
According to the relevant national rail sectional appendix, the two main lines over that section have a linespeed of 125mph, while it is 90mph for the two relief lines.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on April 18, 2013, 10:27:44 AM
Yes - that is the same as more or less the whole stretch between Reading and London.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: Carl on April 18, 2013, 10:31:24 AM
Incidentally, this seems to lend further weight to your point (on the other topic) that it would be ideal to separate the underlying bridge from the way on top of it -- since the same bridge simultaneously carries different grades of way.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on April 18, 2013, 10:41:57 AM
Indeed. I suspect that it would be a very considerable coding task, however.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on June 05, 2013, 10:59:45 AM
According to this (http://www.economist.com/news/technology-quarterly/21578516-transport-new-train-technologies-are-less-visible-and-spread-less-quickly?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/pe/tq/downthetrack) article from The Economist, maglev trains consume a third less energy than railway trains, but the tracks cost about 10% more.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on August 10, 2013, 11:41:43 AM
Some useful information on the costs of overhauls: according to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_89) article, a major overhaul of the BR Class 89 undertaken in 1996 cost in the region of £100,000.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: ӔO on August 10, 2013, 11:54:04 AM
In 1998-2004, rebuilding class 47 into class 57 costed around £500,000, or about 1/3 the cost of buying new.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_57

class 66 was the locomotive built from 1998 to 2008, so it is probably safe to say class 66 costed around £1,500,000
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on August 10, 2013, 12:01:25 PM
Very interesting research/deduction - thank you!
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: AvG on August 19, 2013, 11:31:50 AM
Is there any info on the value of the American dollar in the period 1800-1850. Can't find anything myself, but I saw interesting figures for bridges in $.
AvG
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on August 19, 2013, 04:58:52 PM
Was there not a long period of history in which one US cent was equal to one British penny (then being 1/240th of a pound)?
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: ӔO on August 20, 2013, 09:05:08 PM
30 class 67 costed £45 million, so that would make them £1.5 million each.

or, exactly the same cost as class 66

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_67

or it might be that class 67 was the alternative to class 47/57
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on August 20, 2013, 09:26:40 PM
Very interesting - thank you!
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: MCollett on August 21, 2013, 02:13:03 AM
Was there not a long period of history in which one US cent was equal to one British penny (then being 1/240th of a pound)?
More like 2 cents to the penny: through most of the 19th century there were about 5 dollars to the pound, and even as late as WWII there were about 4 dollars to the pound.

Best wishes,
Matthew

Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: ӔO on August 21, 2013, 03:35:21 AM
there is this: http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: AvG on August 21, 2013, 08:12:23 AM
Sorry, that calculator has as earliest date 1913.
 I need 1820.
But thanks for the tip.
AvG
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: ӔO on August 21, 2013, 08:20:05 AM
I think in 1820, USD and GBP would have used either gold or silver standard, unlike now, which is fiat currency.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on August 26, 2013, 02:46:28 PM
According to "Midland Railway Carriages" (Vol. 2) by Lacy & Dow, a pair of Midland dining carriages of 1892, built for Anglo-Scottish joint stock to the same specifications as the Midland's own first dining carriage of a year earlier, cost between them £3,440 plus £210 for oil gas lighting (p. 437). That makes a total of £3,650 for both vehicles, or £1,825 each. These vehicles were 60ft long with a tare weight of 33 tons.

Edit: From the same volume at p. 445 - an 1898 renewal of Anglo-Scottish joint stock on the Midland entailed an order for 45 corridor composites at £1,572 each, 12 brake composites at £1,548 each, 12 third class carriages at £1,255 each, 10 passenger brake vans at £862 each, 3 dining carriages at £1,980 each, all being 50ft bogie corridor carriages, plus 31 six wheeled brake vans at £431 each.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: AvG on August 26, 2013, 08:18:59 PM
James,
Looking at your pricing info for many years ago I have the impression that you aim to use in scenarios the prices that were valid in the years those scenarios
simulate. Is that right??
AvG


BTW: Interesting stuff. I also like to search for info like that.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on August 26, 2013, 09:46:02 PM
What I intend to do is to get the relative prices correct: in other words, for example, if, in real life, a particular vehicle cost 2.37 times more to build/buy than another vehicle, then it should cost 2.37 times as much to build/buy in Simutrans, too. The absolute numbers are not so important. However, before this can be done reliably, we have to be able to simulate inflation, which is a couple of major releases away for the time being.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: AvG on August 27, 2013, 09:50:04 AM
James,
This is not exactly what I mean.

You write: What I intend to do is to get the relative prices correct. That I understand.

What I had in mind is: There must be a huge differende in price of an item made in 1800 and one made in 2000.

Example: In my pricing-math wages in 1750 start at 0,01 HCr/h. With an average yearly inflation of 3% you have in 2013 wages of ~ 24,00 HCr/h. This is quite realistic, compared to the historic
info. These calculated wages can be found in all price-calculations of the DRC-approach, and generaly lead to huge differences with normal EXP-prices.

Yesterday I finished my first calculation of the MacAdam road.

In EXP price/km 65 HCr ;  maint.: Bmp22 16HCr/m and BmP25  128HCr/m

In DRC price/km 4400 HCr;  maint : Bmp22 0,12 HCr/m and BmP25  1,0 HCr/m Valid for 1820.
[/size]
[/size]Note: I realize that such a calculation has to be redone every f.i. 20 or 25 years. (As long as it is not incorporated in the simu.exe. If ever))
[/size]AvG
[/size]
[/size]
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on August 27, 2013, 10:15:27 AM
I think that you are referring to the simulation of inflation? That certainly needs to be done, but that will require a fairly substantial code change.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: AvG on August 27, 2013, 10:37:19 AM
OK, James
So I understand that it one of your future-plans.
Just be aware that DCR is already working this way.
AvG
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: ӔO on August 27, 2013, 11:42:42 AM
Interesting technical paper on how the class 390 operates.

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/track%20access/2%20completed%20consultations/2010/2010.06.11%20west%20coast%20trains%209th%20sa%20-%20consultation%20closed%2007%20july%202010/vt-ec4t-390%20technical%20file%20issue%201b.pdf

I think it says that, in operation, only 6 axles are powered, so each powered axle consumes around 850kW.
Since an 11-coach train consumes an additional 850kW, it would mean that the middle car only receives power to one axle, making for 7 powered axles. This is possibly due to transformer and/or cable limitations.

but for simutrans purposes, 850kW per powered car should be fine.

---

As to why only one pantograph is raised during operation, some guesses.

APT had its power coaches in the middle, because the engineers couldn't solve overhead powerlines from rippling and not making good contact with the pantographs when the power cars were placed at the ends when operating at high speed.
This was supposedly fixed by the time the eurostar was introduced, because that train operates with both raised, however it might be that a combination of overhead catenery quality, tilting and space between pantographs makes it difficult for the pendolino to raise both without encountering the above mentioned rippling.

class 395 Javelin may also have the cable rippling problem in 6+6 configuration, as pictures indicate only one out of 4 being raised, although I am unsure how many motor cars a single transformer can power, as this can vary greatly between bullet trains.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on August 27, 2013, 10:05:39 PM
Interesting!

Four wheeled brake vans, 25ft in length, built for the Midland Railway in 1876 cost £234 each according to Lacy & Dow (vol. 2), p. 366.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: ӔO on August 28, 2013, 10:10:05 AM
I didn't think we had modified Mk4 cars in canada.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightstar_%28train%29

Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: AvG on September 24, 2013, 12:18:46 PM
Digging a canal.
In 1870 there was a plan for digging a canal in Holland.
Length ~ 75 km. 4 locks. Estimated price (probably optimistic) Hfl 1.500.000,- , which is roughly 750.000,- HCr in my calculations.


BTW: What is the keycode for HCr I mean the capital C with a vertical line.
AvG
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on September 24, 2013, 10:33:07 PM
Thank you for that - that is helpful. Do you have any idea of what the conversion value would have been to £GBP in those days?
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on December 23, 2013, 12:46:30 PM
interesting tidbit from the japanese wiki for A1/A3:
I sort of ran across it by accident while reading up on smoke deflectors.

cost of one locomotive out of initial batch of ten.
GWR castle class: £6,840
LNER A1 : £8,560

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=ja&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fja.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FLNER%25E3%2582%25AF%25E3%2583%25A9%25E3%2582%25B9A1%2FA3%25E8%2592%25B8%25E6%25B0%2597%25E6%25A9%259F%25E9%2596%25A2%25E8%25BB%258A (http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=ja&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fja.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FLNER%25E3%2582%25AF%25E3%2583%25A9%25E3%2582%25B9A1%2FA3%25E8%2592%25B8%25E6%25B0%2597%25E6%25A9%259F%25E9%2596%25A2%25E8%25BB%258A)

Hmm - I have found an alternative source suggesting a different price for the LNER A1. In "The Flying Scotsman (the train, the locomotive, the legend)" by Bob Gwynne (published by Shire Books, ISBN 978-0-74780-770-4) at page 18, the cost of an A1 class in 1922 (the specific locomotive, built by the GNR as 1472 but which shortly became 4472, that bore the name "Flying Scotsman") is reported as being £7,944. I notice that the reference in the Japanese Wikipedia, which is still there, has no source citation.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: Markohs on December 23, 2013, 02:03:56 PM
8600 pounds? Overpriced, I recently bought one of those for less than 10€ .

A bit smaller through, the one on the top, Z scale ...


(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/30024783/st/scotsman.jpg)
Nice locomotive! :)
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on December 23, 2013, 02:17:01 PM
Nice collection - and impressive engineering for z gauge/scale! Z gauge does not seem very popular here (N gauge is what modellers who want small sizes tend to go for); is it more popular over there? The Z gauge models that I have seen tended to be Swiss or German, if I recall correctly.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: Markohs on December 23, 2013, 02:41:32 PM
It's a monthly collectionable that's sold here in Spain, features 14 historical trains. In Spain a Mikado (english manufactured I think) train is included, but the collection it's sold across europe I think, I guess including some regional variations.

The collection is this one  (http://www.planetadeagostini.es/colecciones-altaya/miniaturas/trenes-del-mundo)(Commercial link, if administrators are against this I can remove the link)

Here in spain there is a strong tradition on H0 and N scale, N maybe more for working model scale modelling, and H0 maybe a bit more for just collectiong materia. I have myself a lot of N material.

This new collection is in Z scale, and it's very well detailed,but the locos ofc are not functional. To be honest, I really like this scale, I wish I could just turn all my N material to Z, is much smaller, and it whould be easier to use my tracks on the desk And they are almost as detailed as N. We're starting to see more Z material here, but mostly H0 and N scales are used, because we use mainly german manufactured materials, and they use that scales. :)

This collection features 3 english trains, they are pretty cool:

EDIT: I googled a bit and in the rest of europe, I think inluding UK is named "atlas editions minitrains", or something similar.

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/30024783/st/english.jpg)
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on December 28, 2013, 12:17:12 AM
I am currently undertaking some research on trams, which has thrown up some useful pricing information, here concerning the construction cost of permanent way. In David Gladwin's "A History of the British Steam Tram" (Vol. 1), the author notes (at p. 14) that the Liverpool United Tramways & Omnibus Company paid £2,800 per mile (£1,750 per km) in 1878 to rebuild the "inner circle" initially built in 1869 (it is inferred that this is upgrading work from permanent way suitable for horse trams to permanent way suitable for steam trams, but the author uses it in a context to suggest that the cost is comparable to the cost of new construction of tramway estimated by the Liverpool Corporation as £5,000 in 1880).

At p. 15 of the same work, the author records that 9 miles (14.4km) of track had cost the Sheffield Tramways Company £81,512 to build in 1875, being £5,660 per kilometre, from which it might be inferred that the Liverpool Corporation's estimate might not have been too much of an overestimate after all, although it is to be inferred from what is written immediately before the giving of the quote that the cost relates to building trams on inter-urban roads on difficult terrain.

Not strictly pricing, but relevant to the calibration of physics, on p. 13 of the same work, the author duplicates a large passage from the 26th of May 1876 edition of "The Engineer", in which rolling resistance of mainline railway, tramway and road are compared: mainline railway is said to have had a rolling resistance of 9-10lb/ton; road is said to have a rolling resistance of 60lb/ton, and tramway is estimated as having a rolling resistance of 37lb/ton. In relative terms, road has a rolling resistance of 10x that of mainline rail, and tram of about 4x that of mainline rail.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: kierongreen on December 28, 2013, 01:07:27 AM
I wonder why there's such a difference in rolling resistance - and whether that would be true today (I can't think why it would be these days certainly).

Edit - Between tramways and railways that is.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on December 28, 2013, 01:34:51 AM
The reason given in the article by the Engineer is the presence of dirt on the rails (and, presumably, gunge in the grooves - there are, of course, no grooves on ordinary rails in which detritus can be trapped).
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: ӔO on December 28, 2013, 03:43:29 AM
Do trams in the UK need to climb/descend steep hills?

extra rolling resistance would give them better traction, as a trade off.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on December 28, 2013, 12:08:57 PM
They do sometimes climb fairly steep hills: the article in The Engineer to which I referred above mentioned gradients as steep as 1/20. This added, it was calculated, 448lbf (1.9kN) of resistance which, together with the base rolling resistance, meant that a tram locomotive had to have a 600lbf (2.7kN) of net tractive effort hauling a 4t tram car, or, realistically, twice that (5.3kN), as the locomotive itself would weigh at least 4t.The 4t tram cars, incidentally, were the weight of those then drawn by horses.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on December 28, 2013, 03:40:59 PM
The comparative cost of horses and tram locomotives - from the same work at p. 22, it is reported that, in 1906, a mare cost £26 and a gelding (I presume some type of horse a castrated male horse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelding)) could be had for £34.

A "Wilkinson" type tram locomotive, meanwhile, cost £800 or so in 1883 (ibid).

Edit: Further from the same publication at p. 27, it is noted that rails were sold by the ton, so that rails 25% heavier would cost 25% more to purchase, and further that the cost of installation also increased with increasing weight of the rails, as greater manpower was required to lift it into place, and sturdier foundations were necessary to hold it in situ.

Edit 2: Some interesting information from p. 30 of the same volume on the running costs of trams. The Stockton & Darlington Steam Tramways Company Limited reported in 1885 that their trams cost 3.13d/mile to run, comprising 1.43d staff costs, .8d renewals, 0.66d fuel (a mix of coke and coal), 0.15d oil, waste and other stored and 0.09d water and gas; this was averaged over 55,286 miles from January to June of that year. These machines were reported as having 7" x. 11" cylinders.

Also on running costs, page 34 of the same volume notes that, in England at least, employing a fireman (or "stoker") on steam trams was not the norm (as it always was on railways), as the fire was expected to last untouched from one terminus to the next, although "stokers" as they were there called were commonly found on the tramways of Ireland, albeit those were rather different creatures, with longer distance runs aside, rather than upon, roads, making them more like light railways than true tramways.

Edit 3: At page 37 of that same volume, it is suggested that a Wilkinson type (vertical boiler) tram engine ran at 5.55d/mile (as a total cost, including staff cost) on the Blackburn & Over Darwen Tramway. On page 53, it is reported that Kitson built Wilkinson type engines cost 6d per car mile in 1884 compared with Wilkinson type engines built by Thomas Green & Son at 6 1/2d per car mile. Horses were reported as costing 9 1/8d per car mile in that same year.

At page 43, some detail is given of a typical Wilkinson type engine built by Beyer, Peacock & Co. (known as being a particularly reputable builder of high quality products): the locomotives were typically 0-4-0 types; cylinders were between 6" x 7" and 7 1/2" x 12" with gearing of 2:1 or 2.5:1; wheelbases were between 1.68m and 1.73m and overall length around 3.66m, with widths between 1.68m and 2m, and 2.74m high. The weights varied between 6t and 8t, and cost (in the 1880s) between £900 and £1,000.

This contrasts with the price quoted by Beyer, Peacock & Co. for a larger tram engine with a locomotive type (horizontal) boiler for an Irish tramway in 1896 of £2,990, although the winning bidder on that occasion was Thomas Green & Son with a bid of £1,790 (or £1,948 if paid in instalments, which option the tram company eagerly took). That locomotive was a 2-6-2T with 15" x 20" cylinders, 3'6" driving wheels, a 9'3" wheelbase, 743.5 sq. ft. total heating surface and an overall weight of 36.5 tons. The tractive effort was reported as 13,607lbf. (See page 56).

Some details of the cost of a trailer are given on page 54: an all enclosed twin deck trailer there pictured cost the Leeds Tramway Company £245 in 1890, and seated 66 persons, 28 downstairs, 38 upstairs. The weight is not given, but it is depicted riding on two four wheel bogies.

Edit 4: Gladwin's work (at pp. 64-5) also has some useful information on Kitson locomotive boilered tram engines, including prices. There were three standard types of Kitson tram engine, No. 1 Standard, No. 2 Standard, No. 3 Standard and No. 4 Standard, of which only the first two were successful, the third being more heavy and expensive with only a small increase in power, and the fourth being considered so impractical that it was barely built at all (and always to a modified version of the "standard").

Standard no. 1 had 7 1/4" or 7 1/2" x 12" cylinders, driving wheels of 27" - 28 1/2", a boiler with 116 sq. ft. of heating surface and weighed 7t gross. The first examples were sent to New Zealand in August 1879, although the price of one is sadly not given.

Standard no. 2 had 8" - 8 1/2" x 12" cylinders, 28 1/4" driving wheels, a boiler with 129 sq. ft. heating surface area and a gross weight of 9-9.5t. These were built from late 1882 (the first coming into service in January 1883 in Birmingham) and then cost £675. It is said that Wilkinson engines (built by Wilkinson, rather than Beyer, Peacock & Co.) then cost £750. By September 1883, the cost of the no. 2 Kitsons had increased to £700, and had risen again to £790 by July 1886 (p. 66).

Standard no. 3 had 9" x 15" cylinders, 34" driving wheels, and a boiler with a heating surface area of 150 sq. ft. The gross weight was 11t and it appears that they were introduced in about 1886 (from a table on pp. 71-2 of the abovementioned volume). There does not appear to be pricing information on these.

Standard no. 4 is not worth detailing.

In each case, the trams are of the 0-4-0 wheel configuration. The boiler pressure and firegrate area are not given individually, but some trams exported to Karachi in September 1885 and with 8" x 12" cylinders (suggesting a Standard no. 2 - the most successful of all Kitson designs) is reported as having a pressure of 160psi, a total heating surface area of 129 sq. ft., a wheelbase of 5', and a firebox measuring 2'9" x 3' 1/2" (suggesting a firebox area of 8.36 sq. ft.). It seems reasonable to assume that at least the boiler pressure was the same in types 1 and 3.

P. 79 gives some interesting information on some early (1875) designs of tram engine, these destined for Paris (whose steam tramway was not a success and which reverted to horse operation before electrification in 1896), but designed and built by English company Merryweather & Sons Ltd.. They were vertical boilered engines, although not to the Wilkinson patent, weighing 2t with dimensions of 1.6m long, 2.01m wide and 3.35m high; it had 5" x 9" cylinders with a 90psi boiler. The heating surface and firegrate areas are not given. This was the only locomotive built to these dimensions, the second locomotive, also sent to Paris, had 6" x 9" cylinders and weighed 4t. This latter type of engine became the Merryweather Type 1, and an example belonging to the Wharncliffe National Rifle Association, which used it in an annual makeshift tramway on Wimbledon Common for many years (p. 80).

Interestingly, the track reported (ibid) on that temporary Wimbeldon Common tramway was a featherweight 14lb/yard (40lb/yard being considered light for steam tramways of the 1880s), which could clearly (if perhaps only barely) cope with the engine's 2t axle load. One might imagine that 14lb/yard tramway might have been common in horse tram times.

More details on the Merryweather engines are given from some Dutch records (pp. 93-4), as apparently some of the engines built between 1879-1881 were exported to the Netherlands. These values are given all in metric, and report that those engines had 179mm x 280mm cylinders, 740mm driving wheels (dia.), 10.3kg/cm^2 boiler pressure, total heating surface area of 11.8m^2, grate area of 0.4m^2, and a maximum speed of 35km/h. The weight is given as 9t, which suggests that these are Merryweather type 3s or type 6s shown on the table at p. 80 (the cylinder dimensions are consistent with type 3s, whereas the weight is more consistent with type 6s - I suspect that these are probably type 3s, the weight in the table on p. 80 perhaps being net of water in the tanks and boiler, as that on p. 94 is described as weight in working order).

Wilkinson & Co. Ltd., which owned the patent of the vertical "field" boilered locomotives built under licence by Beyer, Peacock & Co. described above, also built locomotives to this design, as might be supposed. The earlier type of engines (built from 1881) had cylinders of 6" x 7" and driving wheels of 2' 3", although the cylinder size even on the earlier type was later increased to 7" x 9" (pp. 87-89). These (at least the original versions of the type) weighed 5.5t.

In 1883, the first of the "heavy" Wilkinson engines appeared with "larger" boilers, 7 1/4" x 11" cylinders, and weighing 9.5t. Like the Beyer Peacock engines above, these were geared (I assume to the same ratios), with a resulting impact on tractive effort and available speed. The boiler pressures, heating surface and firegrate areas are not given, although on p. 91, there is a description of a boiler explosion on a steam powered canal barge using a field boiler supplied by Wilkinson (the cause of the explosion was a bad repair carried out by Mr. Wilkinson himself), the pressure of which was given at 150psi.

The price of Wilkinson engines built by Wilkinson & Co. is said to range from £870 to £1,000 (p. 91), and, although the date for these figures or the particular types of engines that they represent is not given, the context on p. 91 at least gives rise to the inference that those prices are intended to be at least comparable with prices of canal boats in 1891.

An interesting aside on scrap value (useful when I get around to introducing a system of secondhand sales to other players, failing which vehicles will only be able to be sold for scrap value unless new and unused) is given on p. 66, which reports that a Kitsom tram engine had a scrap value of £20 on the basis of £2/ton, the scrap merchant noting that the engine was almost all wrought iron scrap with no brass work to speak of (implying that scrap values for, say, railway locomotives might well be higher).

Another interesting aside on p. 66 is the information concerning the pay of drivers and guards in "the late 1890s", which recorded drivers being paid £1 10s for 64 hours' (a week's) work and guards (presumably the same as conductors) £1 for the same period. This was reportedly higher than in the period before 1894, when the working week was up to 91 hours for "even less pay" of an unspecified amount. That gives a driver's pay as £0.0234 per hour and a guard's as £0.0156 per hour after 1894, or less than £0.0165 and £0.0109 respectively before 1894. It also shows that a driver's pay was 1.5 times as much as a guard's/conductor's pay, which is useful for setting the relative fixed costs of tram engines and tram cars.

Another interesting aside is found on p. 91 concerning the cost of canal barges; a steel barge in 1891 is said to cost £500 from Messrs Smith and Company, with engines for them costing a further £336 from Wilkinson & Co (the maker of the tram engines).

A number of general themes emerge from Gladwin's work, two of which are worthy of note: firstly, the Board of Trade limited the speed of trams to 10mph (16km/h). Secondly, steam tramways appear to have been either failures or barely profitable, suggesting that profit margins for running these contraptions in the game should be low.

Edit 5: Sadly, the chapter on the trailers of tram cars in Gladwin vol. 1 is somewhat lacking, and has little pricing information (although see above on some pricing information on trailers). However, at p. 133, it is recorded that these (double deck) trailers most commonly seated 58 persons (no clue is given as to standing capacity) and were normally enclosed on top, for passengers would be troubled by the emissions of smoke from the engines otherwise. For the most part, the seats were unpadded wood, although some companies cushioned the seats.

Some dimensions are given on p. 141 of a Birmingham car, although those were to 3'6" gauge and might thus be smaller than a typical standard gauge tram car. Nevertheless, the total length was 29' 1 1/2", overall width 5'9", height 14', empty weight 3 tons 18cwt. This carriage, which was built in 1894, is illustrated on p. 140, and shows a double ended design with traverse ("garden seat") seating on the top deck. The lower deck would almost certainly have had longitudinal seating.

Edit 6: Again, surprisingly little information on pricing in the permanent way chapter of Gladwin's work. However, there is a useful table at p. 167 showing, in effect, a catalogue of types (and, significantly, weights) of tram rail available from Dick, Kerr & Co. in 1895 together with the tram companies to which those rails were supplied. Of the British concerns listed therein, here is a brief list:

Gateshead-on-Tyne, Woolwich & South-East London, Wigan and Ipsiwtch: 56-58lb/yard
Brighton: 60-63lb/yard
Norwood & Corydon and Hartlepool: 74-77lb/yard
South Staffordshire, Cardiff Southampton, Accrington, Port Glasgow, Birmingham Midland: 75-78lb/yard
Manchester, Bury & Rochdale: 88-92lb/yard
Newcastle-upon-Tyne: 90-94lb/yard
London, Camberwell & East Dulwich and Portsmouth: 65-68lb/yard

It might be inferred that, in the 1870s and 1880s, lighter rail might well have been used. It is further worthy of note that a Brazilian concern used rail as light as 35lb/yard and "Bridgetown" (I assume in Barbados) used rail 40-42lb/yard in weight. Meanwhile, the Dublin United used 90-94lb/yard, but, it is noteworthy, as stated above, that Irish trams were often more like light railways than true urban trams.

In general, it is said that that the wear (and therefore the maintenance) of tramways was considerably greater than that of ordinary railways, and likewise that the cost of laying them in the first place was higher, but no quantification is given.

Finally from volume 1, a somewhat random piece of information on p. 170: a pair of LNER Class Y10s (a sort of tramway engine) were supplied in 1930 to the Wisbeach & Upwell Tramway (a tramway more similar to the typical Irish concern, being more in the way of a light railway) at a (I presume combined) cost of £4,720, but only lasted on that concern for a year before being relegated to shunting duties at the quay, where they survived until 1952.

Edit 7: One matter that I forgot to mention in the previous posts is that the Board of Trade prohibited the hauling of tram cars in a train, so that the maximum that was permitted was a single tram locomotive and one trailing car.



Volume 3 of "A History of the British Steam Tram" by David Gladwin (published by Adam Gordon, ISBN: 978-1-87422-60-0) contains useful information relating to particular tramway concerns. Chapter 2, concerning the (standard gauge) Dewsbury, Batley and Birstal Tramway Company Ltd., which was one of the more successful steam tramways, has some particularly useful information.

That line, when initially laid in 1873 (as a horse tramway), used track 41lb/yard in weight (p. 19), but when an extension was built in 1881/2, 55lb/yard track was used (p. 20), although at p. 25, it is noted that the renewal of the existing rail in about 1880 used 72lb/yard stock.

The cost of the extension, laid with 55lb/yard rail, is summarised in a table atop p. 20. That extension, some 1.13 miles (1.808km) cost £2,370-14-0 for the way alone, or £4,240-14-0 for the way together with the cost of repaving the road, of which £1,010-10-0 was the cost of the rail itself (excluding sleepers, fixings, etc.). This gives a total cost of £2,345.52 per kilometre.

As to the engines run on that line, the Merryweather type with locomotive boilers were preferred. The first locomotive for the line is recorded (p. 23) as having arrived in 1879 as a standard Merryweather class 2, with 6 1/2" x 10" cylinders, 2' 2" wheels (in an 0-4-0 arrangement), a weight of 5t, a total heating surface area of 169 sq. ft., a grate area of 3.7 sq. ft. and a boiler pressure of 140psi. It cost £725 when new (p. 30). Secondhand engines of the Merryweather type 4 design were purchased from the ill-fated North London concern in 1898 (the locomotives having been new in 1885), these were described as being "relatively large" with 7 1/2" x 12" cylinders, 2' 4" diameter wheels and "somewhat larger boilers", whose dimensions are not given in any detail (p. 30). The cost of these locomotives, either new or secondhand, is not given. The earlier locomotives, meanwhile, were scrapped (presumably together with the later locomotives) in 1905 when the line was electrified, and these fetched £26 in scrap value (p. 33).

On the subject of the trailers, the first, obtained when the concern was a horse tramway, were described as "standard" products from the maker Starbuck, and seated a total of 32, 16 on each deck (p. 32). No indication anywhere is given of tram trailers' standing capacities, but frequent references are made to them often being overcrowded, and there are many photographs of them in this state, so standing must have occurred frequently. In 1874, whilst still a horse tramway (the line opened in 1873 and, as stated above, purchased its first steam locomotive in 1879), it purchased (secondhand) two larger cars from the Leeds Tramway Company, also built by Starbuck, seating being a total of 40. These were rebuilt to enclose the tops, and, as rebuilt, weighed something of the order of 2.5t (the weight of the old horse carriages is not given). In 1886, larger tram cars were obtained, again from Starbuck, these seating a total of 66. Further cars ordered in 1898 were of a similar pattern with only minor differences.

The running costs of the Dewsbury concern receive a detailed treatment. At p. 24, it is reported that, in the year 1882, 7 1/2lb of coke per mile was used (on this rather flat tramway with no difficult gradients, although elsewhere on the same page, the figures of 7lb/mile and 6.911 lb/mile are given), costing a total of 3.81d/mile (presumably, as with other per mile figures, including staff costs that in Simutrans should be a fixed monthly/hourly cost). The Wilkinson type engines of other tramways, by contrast, were recorded as consuming as much as 21lb of coke per mile at a total cost of 4.5d/mile. In 1880, the cost of coke was said to be 23s-6d/ton, which, at 6.911lb/mile, cost 0.872d/mile. It is noteworthy, therefore, that barely more than one fifth of the running costs of trams were fuel costs. Page 25 gives a more detailed breakdown of tram running costs in the form of a table, from which it can be deduced that 7s-6d (90d) per day out of a total running cost of 13s-5 1/4d (161.25d) per day comprise wages, or a total of 56% (90 / 161.25 = 0.558139535) are staff wages. If, however, we subtract the mechanic's wages of 1s-6d (18d) on the basis that the mechanic's wages form part of the variable cost, as the mechanic is more needed the more that the vehicle is used, this gives a total of 45% (72 / 161.25 = 0.446511628) fixed cost, and, of the remaining variable running cost (72d), 87% (62.75d) is the cost of the fuel. These figures relate only to the engines, not the tram cars. However, this report is of the running costs of the engines when new, and might underestimate the cost of repairs somewhat.

The profit margins in 1883 of various tram companies are shown in the minutes of the Dewsbury's annual general meeting of that year, reproduced at p. 27. The expenses of the Bristol tramway company were 85% of receipts, Derby 80%, Edinburgh, 79%, Hull 74%, Leeds 88%, Sheffield 93%, Wolverhampton 80%, Nottingham 80%, Stafford 84%, Southampton 83%, Wigan 85% and the Dewsbury itself only 63%.

Edit 8: Some information of more limited usefulness from some other chapters. On p. 40, it is reported that the (standard gauge) Drypool & Marfleet Steam Tramway Co. paid between £500 and £600 apiece for some Thomas Green tramway engines in May 1889 (a caption on a picture on p. 41 gives a figure of £604 per engine). These were compound engines of two cylinders in an 0-4-0 arrangement with a 5ft wheelbase. Boiler details and cylinder dimensions are not given, but the overall length was given as 11ft 6in, a width of 6ft and a total height of 10ft 4in (not including chimney) (p. 39). The locomotive compounding was said to give some economy, with a locomotive cost of 2.5d/mile, and what is described as a "total traffic cost" of 3.6d/mile and 5.42d/mile. The lower cost is ascribed to the earlier period of that company's life (in 1892-3) and the higher cost to a later period (1898-9), which, it is reported, was due to an increase over that period in the maintenance of engines and cars (combined, it is to be inferred) increasing from 0.5d to 2.0d per car mile in that period (p. 42).

Speeds on that line were limited to a maximum of 8mph (p. 39).

The tram cars, meanwhile, cost either £240 apiece (there were 8 of them) and were built by G. F. Milnes of Birkenhead (p. 40). These had 8 windows and seated 74 (they are pictured on p. 41 as being double deck enclosed bogie carriages; the caption to that picuture rather contrarily gives a different cost for the trailers, suggesting that they cost £340 each and that there were only 6 of them).

The Drypool & Marfleet seems to have used 75lb/yard rail (p. 38). The total construction cost for the whole length of the tramway was in the region of £8,000 (p. 40) for a tramway 1 mile 27 chains long (2.1522km), giving a cost of construction of £3,717.13/km. This compared favourably with the City of Oxford's horse tramways at £10,946 per mile (£6,802.98/km) and the Southampton tramways at £13,380 per mile (£8,315.72/km) (ibid). (Some other comparative costs per mile are given on p. 99, but these appear to be for tramways of a narrower gauge and therefore not strictly comparable).

Edit 9: In 1891, the Gurnsey Tramway (about 3 miles in length (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guernsey_Railway)) electrified its route at a cost of £3,850, giving a cost of electrification of £2,392.79 per kilometre (p. 112). The line initially used Merryweather Type 2 engines (7" x 11" cylinders) at a cost of £700 each in 1877 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guernsey_Railway) (although the tramway did not run until 1879).

The line was closed in 1931 (p. 113) after, according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guernsey_Railway), a study was carried out discovering that tram transport then cost 9d/mile compared to 'bus transport at 5  1/2d/mile.

Edit 10: At p. 149, it is reported that a Kitson engine delivered to the Huddersfield tramway in 1889, with cylinders of 9 1/2" x 12", consumed 80% of the coke that was consumed by a Wilkinson engine of 1885 with 7 1/4" x 11" cylinders. The Kitson engine is reported to have been more powerful, but it is not clear by how much.

Horse haulage on a branch of the Huddersfield Tramway (to Moldgreen, a somewhat steep section) was said to have cost £810-6-8 per annum compared to £482-4-3 for steam - the steam traction therefore costing around 60% of the horse haulage.

P. 150 gives the annual accounts for the Huddersfield Corporation Tramways in 1892 (one of the earliest to be "municipalised" or nationalised in modern parlence, largely for want of private operators in that area). Of particular interest is the entry for permanent way maintenance of £6,654. Gladwin gives the length of the tramway as 17 miles and 5 furlongs (28.4km), giving a per km maintenance of the permanent way of £234.30 per annum (or, for Simutrans purposes, £0.04 per km nominal 16 hour working day or £0.002507446 per Simutrans hour). This was, however, a heavyweight 98lb/yard track (p. 148) - it is not clear whether the maintenance would have been higher or lower if a more typical, say, 77lb/yard track had been used.

It is notable as a general theme of the works that single lines with passing places were the most common mode of operation of tramways, and service frequency was quite low - down to 40 minutes on the Huddersfield concern (although as much as 5 minutes on a much shorter line in Kingston-Upon-Hull). This is relevant to the applicability of the above figure for the permanent way cost as well as for operational purposes (it seems common practice in Simutrans instead to have a one way system in adjoining streets).

Edit 11: Much useful information comes from Gladwin's histories of the Leeds and Leicester systems. The Leeds system, which started in 1871 as a horse tramway, initially used track of 48lb/yard (p. 170). These were eventually replaced with 85lb/yard rail in 1881 (after an intermediate and somewhat experimental type was used unsuccessfully; p. 172). The "basic" cost of laying this rail (that is, with all required materials but without labour) is said to be £2,348-8-per mile for double track, or £1,459.54 per kilometre.

Leicester, meanwhile, an almost exclusively horse operation apart from a few experiments, laid in 1877 rail of 47lb/yard, costing a total of £3,000 per mile of single track (including labour; p. 209). That equates to £1864.51 per kilometre. The labour cost is not clearly separated from the materials cost here (there is a description of "providing and laying... granite" as a single item), so a clear comparison with the above cost is not possible.

Returning to a theme in one of the earlier posts, that of rolling resistance, the rolling resistance of a tramway appears to have been tested in Leeds  (p. 171), and those tests came out with a rolling resistance of 26lb/ton - somewhat less than the 37lb/ton estimated by The Engineer in the 1870s. However, the rolling resistance was noted as being variable: "often much more, sometimes less". Dirt in the groove was said to be the main cause of this being considerably higher than on railways, and experiments in Paris showed that removing the flanges from some of the wheels greatly reduced this figure (ibid). Meanwhile, an excerpt on p. 127 suggests that, on tight corners, the rolling resistance can double from that on straight tram track.

As to the tramcars on those lines, the Leeds system had cars built by Starbuck originally that are said (p. 170) to be of two designs dating back to 1860, the first being a double decker seating 40 people and weighing 2.6t and the second being a single decker weighing 2.2t and carrying 18 people. Later (sadly, no date is given) light weight cars of 1.9t seating 36 were delivered. I assume that these cars were all those used in horse haulage days. No costs are given for these early cars, but, on p. 204, a table is given showing the cost, introduction date and seating capacity (but not weight) of later cars. In 1883, Starbuck supplied 44 seat double decker cars costing £210. Similar cars were supplied in 1884, this time costing £235. In 1885, a larger design of cars, carrying 54 passengers, were delivered at a cost of £260 each. In 1887, cars with a capacity of 60 were obtained for £225 each (this time from the Ashbury company, which might explain the lower price), and larger cars again in 1888, seating 66, again from Ashbury, for £242. Similar cars were ordered down to 1890, their price fluctuating during that period between £237 and £245 each.

The running costs of the tram cars on the Leeds system (sadly not broken down so as to be able to discern costs per unit of time rather than per unit of distance) are discernible from a table on pp. 186-7. In 1887, for instance, 63 cars operated, the cost of repairing which was £2,427 (or £38.52 per car). The cars had run in that year a total of 798,820 miles, giving a cost per car mile of £0.000048226, or £0.000029973 per car kilometre. By comparison, in 1890, there were 68 cars in service, running a total of 857,642 miles and costing a total of £3,627 to maintain, giving a total of £53.34 per car or £0.000062192 per car mile (being £0.000038652 per car kilometre).

P. 212 gives an interesting table in which the fixed cost of horses is calculated on the Leicester system. The average cost per horse per week was said to vary between 11s-10.33d and 11s-5.73d in 1899-1890 (that is, in decimal currency, £0.59 - £0.57). It is said at p. 173 that "one engine was equal to 14 horses, allowing for changes, food &c.", which gives rise to an interesting point: we should probably multiply by 14 the weekly cost of horses to make them equivalent to the steam engines, giving us £8.12 on average. The question then arises as to whether this needs to be done for the difference between, say, steam and diesel/electric locomotives, too, and whether this needs to be factored into the purchase price, or whether it should be accommodated entirely in the fixed cost (the latter would have the advantage that the purchase prices would not need to be distorted from inflation adjusted derivations of the actual cost).

The renewal cost of horses on the Leeds system is given in the 1894-5 accounts on pp. 194-5, where the amount is given as £4 per annum, equating to £0.08/week. It should be noted, however, that this figure is not directly comparable to the above, as this is renewal rather than maintenance (horses, being mortal - and especially so when called upon daily to pull tramway cars - needing to be replaced periodically). The Leicester figures do not include renewal, so some combination of the two is of benefit. On the above figures of the cost of horses, the working life of a tram horse seems to have been a little over 7 years in these times. This is relevant when I introduce the system of overhauls: horses would need to be "overhauled" (i.e., renewed) the equivalent of once every seven years at a cost equivalent to their initial purchase price.

The comparative running cost of horse and steam trams are again compared at p. 173 in relation to the Leeds system, with similar results as previously: the horse traction is said to have expenses of 9d/mile as compared to 5 1/2d for steam. On p. 148, a similar comparison is made, where it is said that a saving of 3 1/2d/mile was made by steam over horse transport (3.5 being the difference between 5.5 and 9), and, of note, it is said that this was based on a direct comparison at the same time, as there was a time when some lines in Leeds, owned by the same company, were horse operated, and others steam operated.

As to motive power, the Leeds system used mainly Kitson engines after some early experimentation with engines of the Wilkinson design. Some interesting statistics are given of these engines in an extensive table on pp. 199 - 202, comprising, not just details of the Leeds engines, but details of all of Kitson's tram engine output, including weights and boiler details. Kitson made tram engines between 1876 and 1891 and in that time produced nearly 250 of them. Cross-referencing with earlier in this post, the "Standard no. 1", built in 1879 for the first time, appears to have had a wheelbase of 4ft, a grate area of 5.17 sq. ft. and a boiler pressure of 155psi* (all other details already being supplied), the "Standard no. 2", first built in 1884, had a wheelbase of 4ft6", a fire grate area of 6 sq. ft. and a boiler pressure of 160psi (other information having been provided above). "Standard no. 3" does not seem to have been particularly standard at all, but an engine conforming to the basic description above was built for the Birmingham system in 1885, and had a boiler pressure of 160psi with a fire grate area of 8.8 sq. ft.. The wheelbase appears to have been 5ft.

* The pressure seemed to vary: I have taken 155psi as the pressure of the engine supplied to the Leeds system, although anything between 150 and 160 appears to have been built.

Returning to the subject of wages: in the Leeds system, in 1900, tram drivers were receiving 6 3/4d per hour and guards 5 1/4d per hour (after they had been working for 6 months; lower wages applied before that time).
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on December 31, 2013, 03:38:26 PM
I thought that it would be prudent to start a new post rather than continue to edit the above, which has become very long indeed, to mark the distillation here of material from a new book, London Tramways by John Reed (published by Capital Transport, ISBN 1-85414-179-1).

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7064/6978457031_379002d315_c.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/14730981@N08/6978457031/)
London Tram (no. 355) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/14730981@N08/6978457031/) by James E. Petts (http://www.flickr.com/people/14730981@N08/), on Flickr

In general, save for an unsuccessful North London company, most London tramways went straight from horse haulage to electric power with no intermediate steam stage: a few other experimental systems, such as compressed air, were tried and were partly successful in places, but the only systems of traction that gained widespread adoption in London were horse and electricity.

Dealing initially with horse trams, the first horse system in the UK was in Birkenhead in August 1860 (p. 8) , which gives the introduction date required for the earliest horse tram equipment in Pak128.Britain. The earliest tram cars to run in London (albeit short lived on account of the rails protruding from the surface of the road interfering with other road traffic) was in 1861 on three separate routes, one using single decker cars with room for 24 seated and 12 standing (built by a Birkenhead firm), and two using cars with a capacity of 48 (it is not clear what proportion of those passengers were standing and what seated) built by the Oldbury Railway Carriage and Wagon Company. The latter is pictured on p. 8, and is shown as a single deck car hauled by two horses. One supposes that the former was intended to be hauled by a single horse.

By the 1870s, when horse trams had become mainstream in London, there was, according to the author (p. 13) some degree of uniformity amongst the designs of trailers: a seating capacity of 46 on two decks was the norm (these were four wheeled rather than bogie cars), although there were a few on one route that seated 52 and operated between Poplar and Aldgate. A few single deck tram trailers were used, seating 18 or 20, and these required only one horse to haul them, the others requring two (sadly, the weight of this lighter type of trailer is not given, although cross referring to the above post, one might imagine a weight of 2.2t for the lighter cars and 2.6t for the 46 seat types).

According to a caption on p. 21, in 1895, a new design of tram trailer was introduced, with traverse ("garden seat") seating on the upper deck in place of the central longitudinal "knifeboard" seating that had predominated before, in parallel to the like development in omnibus design.

On p. 11, horses are said to cost £25-30, which had to be 5 years old to be strong enough to pull trams.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: AvG on January 01, 2014, 01:59:46 PM
James,
Happy Newyear and also to everyone involved.


800 Pounds for a tramloc in 1883 seems very little. However, in those days the Pound had compared to other money-systems a very high value. This declined until 1960-70 some, but after that I went
down a lot.
In my DRC-math in 1900 1 Pound = 5,68 HCr.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on January 01, 2014, 07:18:21 PM
It should be noted that, although in the Victorian and Edwardian periods, there was little inflation, there was substantial inflation during the First World War, such that prices after that time are not, without the aid of inflation statistics, comparable to prices before that time.



Returning to London's trams, now in the electric era, there is sadly little in the way of pricing information in the remainder of Reed's work, although there is a little, and is also much in the way of useful information about the various classes of tram car (although sadly rarely their weights).

On page 32, it is suggested that a typical lifespan of a tram-car was expected to be 20 years, and some surpassed this expectancy.

In 1906, the Erith Council purchased small 20 seater electric single deck trams on four wheel rigid underframes equipped with two 27hp motors at a cost of £675 each (page 59).

1934 statistics from the London Passenger Transport Board showed that, in its first whole year of existence, £6.3 million had been expended on 327 route miles of track (page 87). This would have been maintenance and renewal rather than the building of any substantial new lines, but would have included some short new sections linking formerly disconnected systems, and above average costs for renewal of tramways formerly run by impoverished local authorities such as Bexley, whose tracks had been substantially renewed on being taken over by the LPTB, and are thus not entirely representative of basic upkeep costs.

The 1935 figures for track (on page 90) are probably more reliable. In that year, only £488,400 was spent on track, the route mileage having decreased to 324, giving £1,507.41 per route mile per annum, or £936.86 per route kilometre per annum, although a route mile was not the same as a track mile, as much of the tramways were by then double tracked, and some of that cost might well have gone on lifting track given the decrease in route mileage from the previous year.

In the summer of 1934, it was planned to overhaul a number of trams of the E/1 type, which was projected to cost £100,000 for 250 trams (i.e., £400 per tram; page 89). This included some fairly substantial cosmetic alterations to the exteriors as well as fully enclosing the front areas which had hitherto been open even though the passenger compartments had been enclosed.

It is said at page 119 that, before the Second World War, trolleybuses had cost less to run than motor 'buses, but that this advantage had been eliminated by 1946, although it is not immediately clear whether this was as a result of particular post-war conditions, or whether this was part of a longer term economic trend: the total abolition of trolleybuses throughout the entire UK thereafter suggests rather the former.

On the individual tram cars, the London County Council (LCC) used a conduit rather than an overhead system for its trams - one of the only operators in the country to do so. It was much more expensive to install and maintain than the overhead system, and its only advantage over it was aesthetic; I do not, therefore, propose to add this as a separate electrification type (even though the earliest Blackpool electric trams also used the system, which was quickly abandoned when it was realised that this was not a good idea on the sea front). Nonetheless, many of the LCC cars also carried trolley poles to enable them to work on other parts of the system, so those cars are potentially worthwhile including in the Pak128.Britain fleet.

The LCC trams initially had a plum and cream livery like this:

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8328/8100402478_63dd7f3954_c.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/86020500@N06/8100402478/)
LCC Tram 106, Crich (http://www.flickr.com/photos/86020500@N06/8100402478/) by Crewcastrian (http://www.flickr.com/people/86020500@N06/), on Flickr

but by 1926 changed to the more familiar red and cream livery adopted nearly unchanged, aside from carside lettering, when the London Passenger Transport Board (London Transport, or LPTB) was formed in 1933, and which lasted until the end of trams in London in 1952:

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8199/8195131491_6932fc493e_c.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/14581588@N05/8195131491/)
London HR2 tram 1858, East Anglia Transport Museum, Carlton Colville, Lowestoft. 2012 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/14581588@N05/8195131491/) by Ian 10B (http://www.flickr.com/people/14581588@N05/), on Flickr

In 1903-4, the LCC ordered a total of 400 trams, 100 of each of four classes, A to D (page 38). A and D were bogie types, whereas B and C were four wheelers. All were open top double deck vehicles with wooden seating, longitudinal on the lower deck, traverse upstairs. Classes A and D carried 66 seated passengers, whilst B and C had space for only 56 (and were presumably less comfortable on account of their more basic suspension). Unfortunately, the cost difference between the two is not clear. The A and D classes were 33ft 6in long, whereas the B and C classes were 28ft 9in long (page 39). Weight is not given. Classes A, C and D were powered by 30hp motors (it is not stated how many per car; I suspect two), whereas class B had 25hp motors. All these cars were retrospectively fitted with covered tops by 1907, although many still had open balconies, and all had open front driving positions (only in 1931 did the police permit front windscreens, which had for some reason earlier been considered unsafe).

In 1905, the LCC ordered a new class E, and built 300 of them (page 41). These were of a bogie type and fully enclosed from new (apart from the driver's position). These were also 33ft 6in long, but only 15ft 9in high. The bodies were apparently of "sturdier construction" than previous cars (implying higher weight), but actual weight is not given. Most class Es were fitted with (again, I assume two) 42hp motors.

Classes F and G were single deck cars seating 36, which ran through the Kingsway tunnel before it was enlarged (p. 41). They were 33ft 6in long, ran on bogies, and were 11ft high. Power and weight are not given.

Class E/1 were built between 1907 and 1922 and numbered 1,000 in all (p. 42). These double deck bogie cars had a seating capacity of 78 (still unpadded). The earlier batches had the 42hp motors, whereas those built in the 1920s had either 50hp or 63hp motors (again, I assume two per car). In 1924, the older cars were retrofitted with 60hp motors, and the older motors from the E/1s were used to replace those on the A-D classes.

Class M were built in 1910, being a four wheel shortened version of class E/1 designed for hilly areas (presumably, the idea being to reduce the size and weight whilst retaining the same amount of power, and have 100% adhesive weight). These carried 62 passengers. Dimensions are not given, but I assume that they were of similar length to the earlier classes B and C.

Class HR2 were built in 1930: they were bogie cars, some 34ft 8in long, with Metropolitan-Vickers 109 series motors (p. 74) intended for hilly routes (hence "HR"). The power of those motors is not given in Reed's work, but this (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ingythewingy/11017240334/) Flickr caption suggests that they were 35hp each. Seating capacity is not given. This (http://www.britishtramsonline.co.uk/lt185860years.html) website suggests that they weighed about 20t.

Class E/3 was introduced in 1930 to replace A and D classes (p. 75), and 150 of them were built. They would have had padded seats from the outset (earlier trams being "Pullmanised" in the late 1920s to increase passenger comfort by retrospectively fitting padded seats), and were fitted with BTH 116AY or EE126A motors. The power of these units is not given by Reed, and I cannot find any information on the internet that gives their power. (One might for present purposes assume 60hp motors, the same as retrofitted to the E/1 class. One might then add the simple expedient of making the E/1 class upgradable to the E/3 class (even though "Pullmanised" cars with larger motors were not reclassified E/3) to simulate the upgrade programme undertaken on the older trams.)

Trailers were used for a brief period in the 1910s but not found to be a success, and I will not detail them here. Likewise, petrol electric trams were tried, but were found to be too noisy and costly to be viable.

Another major user of trams was London United Tramways, a company closely connected to the emerging Underground network, and, unlike the LCC, a private operator. They adopted a red and cream livery from the outset, and all cars were bogie cars. Their first type of tram, the Z class, was built from 1901, and was a double decker open top type (page 66), seating 69. These two 25hp BTH GE58 motors according to this (http://www.tramwayinfo.com/Tramframe.htm?http://www.tramwayinfo.com/Cards/Postc1.htm) source. They were enclosed in around 1914 (ibid). The subsequent class X (http://www.tramwayinfo.com/Tramframe.htm?http://www.tramwayinfo.com/Cards/Postc1.htm), built in 1902, were virtually identical. Edit: The price of a new LUT X type tram is given in a picture caption on p. 66 as being £669 in 1902. It is said that these (which had upholstered seats and curtains on the lower deck, but were open topped) had 2x25hp motors.

In 1906, the LUT built type T, the first to have an enclosed upper deck from new (p. 67). These (http://www.tramwayinfo.com/Tramframe.htm?http://www.tramwayinfo.com/Cards/Postc1.htm) cars seated 74, but, oddly, no information is given as to the power of the motors (one might perhaps guess at 2x 30hp motors for this enlarged vehicle).

According to this (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=aP46l4RZtnEC&pg=PT242&lpg=PT242&dq=lcc+e+class+tram+seat&source=bl&ots=QZ7x0FoVuO&sig=WJgiWMJCyxAaCcu8qYXr24UzwLg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=imTEUuGkKNCxhAfA_oHQBQ&ved=0CEgQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=lcc%20e%20class%20tram%20seat&f=false) Google Books preview of "London United Tramways: A History 1894-1933", the T class were re-motored in 1925 with new Metropilitan-Vickers motors. The actual power of these motors is not given, but it is said that the motors weighed 39lb/hp compared to 81lb/hp of the originals. If we assume that that the original motors weighed the same as the new motors, and that the original motors developed 30hp, one might deduce that the new motors developed 62hp, which seems consistent with the newer motors of 60hp fitted to some of the LCC cars at around this time). These new motors caused the refurbished trams to be able to accelerate from 0 to 12mph (19km/h) in 8 instead of 9 seconds and to 20mph (32km/h) in 24 instead of 42 seconds. On a test service of six five second stops in every mile, the newly re-motored tram cars could reach an average of 13.5mph (22km/h) compared to 11mph (18km/h) of the cars with original motors. The same refurbishment also included upholstered seats (albeit reducing capacity by 6), and the new motors were quieter running, both of which would have increased comfort. These privately operated trams were the first to have upholstered seats in the London area.

In August 1930, after some prototypes in 1920, the LUT (together with the Metropolitan Electric Tramways) had delivered a number of very new, larger and more comfortable "Feltham" type trams (page 80):

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7045/6978202967_64017c5cfc_c.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/14730981@N08/6978202967/)
London tram no. 355 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/14730981@N08/6978202967/) by James E. Petts (http://www.flickr.com/people/14730981@N08/), on Flickr

These trams had faster boarding and alighting time than other trams, and were the first to have heated interiors (ibid). According to this (http://www.kentarchaeology.ac/authors/019.pdf) document, they seated 64 people (and I suspect had a higher standing capacity than earlier cars due to their spacious interior). Power is not given by Reed, although the type of motor (either a GEC WT29 or DK131) is specified. I cannot find information on the power of these motors.

The LCC also planned in 1930 a similar large, modern type of tram, but only a prototype "Bluebird" was built before it became apparent that the LCC was to have its transport infrastructure confiscated by the LPTB, who decided within months of their creation to replace all trams with trolleybuses. No new designs of London tram were therefore produced after 1930, although there were some refurbishments.

As an interesting aside,
this (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=aP46l4RZtnEC&pg=PT242&lpg=PT242&dq=lcc+e+class+tram+seat&source=bl&ots=QZ7x0FoVuO&sig=WJgiWMJCyxAaCcu8qYXr24UzwLg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=imTEUuGkKNCxhAfA_oHQBQ&ved=0CEgQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=lcc%20e%20class%20tram%20seat&f=false) Google Books preview of "London United Tramways: A History 1894-1933" suggests that the motors of the early trolleybuses were either 80 or 82hp each, and states that they could accelerate from stationary to 20mph in 9.2 seconds (20mph is 32km/h).

Another page of that book (the preview does not seem to give page numbers) states that the early (1931) trolleybuses ran 10,048,839 miles in a year, and had (total) operating costs of £52,756, being £0.00524996 per mile, or £0.003262871 per km.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on January 04, 2014, 12:50:11 PM
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackpool_tramway#Standard_cars) gives the cost of the Blackpool "pantograph" cars, luxury single decker trams, built in 1928 as £2,000 each.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on January 07, 2014, 06:13:44 PM
Some interesting information about prices of secondhand trams and new 'buses and trolleybuses in the 1950s, albeit from an unverified source: this (http://www.flickr.com/photos/geoffsimages/8176796255/) Flickr comment states that the Feltham trams were purchased by the Leeds Corporation from London Transport in 1949 for £500 each (secondhand) and that many of them required an overhaul costing in the region of £300 at the time. A new trolleybus would cost about £6,000 at the time, and a new motor 'bus about £5,000.

Edit: Another unverified source, this (http://www.londonreconnections.com/2012/a-look-under-kingsway/) 'blog comment gives dimensions for the Feltham tram as 40′ 10″ long and 7′ 3″ wide.

Edit 2: According to this (http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/eurotrams/conversations/topics/44017) Yahoo Groups discussion, Feltham trams had 2x 70hp motors and could do "a good turn of speed" (although I suspect limited to 20mph maximum, albeit I do not have anything to confirm this).

Edit 3: According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexity_2_%28Blackpool%29), the cost of Blackpool's 16 new Flexity 2 trams in 2011/2012 (each tram comprising 5 articulated sections) was £33,000,000, equating to £2,062,500 per whole tram.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on January 26, 2014, 11:54:35 PM
Some very useful information from Matthew in another thread (http://forum.simutrans.com/index.php?topic=13187.msg130868#msg130868):

Quote
my general opinion is that while track and station construction costs are broadly plausible in the pakset as it stands (assuming something like constant 1900 currency), fixed maintenance costs are absurdly high.   At the moment, most structures have annual maintenance costs of the same order of magnitude as construction costs!   By contrast, this document suggests that for things like bridges and tunnels, annual maintenance (note, not monthly!) is between 0.5% and 2% of construction cost, while the track itself has to be renewed on a timescale of 6 to 40 years, depending on how heavily used it is  (and of course the cost of laying the track is itself usually only a small part of the cost of constructing a new line).  Overall, I would like to see a huge reduction in fixed maintenance costs, compensated for by a moderate increase in running costs (gross revenue is probably about right as is).

This (http://litep.epfl.ch/files/content/sites/litep/files/shared/Liens/Downloads/Divers/Baumgartner_Couts_chf_2001_e.pdf) is the document linked.

Edit: On a different topic, according to this (http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~awoodley/carriage/history.html) article, stagecoaches cost £130-150 each to build in around 1830. The same article posited that a coach must make £4-5 per "double mile" (that is, a mile out and a mile back) to survive (i.e., make sufficient revenue to be profitable).
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: kierongreen on January 27, 2014, 01:58:19 AM
High maintenance is an attempt to control excessive profits made by players. If that was reduced, and running costs increased this would lead to an incentive to use more infrastructure (double track rather than single with passing places for example).

For stations at least I think even 2% would be fairly low. You could think of the maintenance costs for stations as including running costs, as well as maintenance itself. So staffing costs, electricity and gas bills as well as business rates (for example Network Rail has a rateable value of £277m so pays around £120m each year in business rates, London Underground's is £59m so pays around £25m).

If we take an average station (2 track, small staffed ticket office) - which might cost £5m to build:
Rateable value of £100k = £40k business rates per year
500 units of electricity a day (40 250W outside lights with similar usage for heating and lighting the building itself) = £20k per year
2 full time members of staff = £40k per year
so as near as £100k a year in running costs = 2%

With maintenance being on top of this, and the design life of buildings often being around 20- 30 years I think closer to 10% capital cost as maintenance would be fair.



Of course, annual maintenance depends on bits per month - a perfectly calibrated value for 18 bits per month would look ridiculously high for 21 bits per month.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: MCollett on January 27, 2014, 09:15:12 AM
High maintenance is an attempt to control excessive profits made by players. If that was reduced, and running costs increased this would lead to an incentive to use more infrastructure (double track rather than single with passing places for example).
Yes, it would.  In the real world single track is largely confined to low-usage branch lines, and even then the main reason for using it is to reduce construction costs, not maintenance costs. (Has any real railway company ever ripped up half of a double-track line to reduce maintenance?)   Even the original Liverpool and Manchester line was built as double track from the very beginning: starting out that way in Pak128.Britain-Exp as it stands is a recipe for bankruptcy.   

Quote
With maintenance being on top of this, and the design life of buildings often being around 20- 30 years I think closer to 10% capital cost as maintenance would be fair.
I'd be happy with that.  Most of the station buildings in Pak128.Britain-Exp currently have maintenance costs of around 15%-30% of capital cost per month,  so 10% p.a. is a factor of 20 to 30 smaller.

Quote
Of course, annual maintenance depends on bits per month - a perfectly calibrated value for 18 bits per month would look ridiculously high for 21 bits per month.
The actual annual maintenance cost charged to the player should be the same, regardless of bits per month.  What should scale with bits per month is the revenue and cost per km, since varying bits per month changes the number of real trips represented by each simulated one.

Best wishes,
Matthew
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: The Hood on January 27, 2014, 10:03:11 AM
Has any real railway company ever ripped up half of a double-track line to reduce maintenance

Large parts  of the British Rail network that survived Beeching were singled, e.g. LSWR mainline to Exeter, Swindon-Kemble on the GWR (now being expensively redoubled by network rail...) - so yes they were.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: ӔO on January 27, 2014, 10:11:34 AM
wasn't most of the current british rail network built by 1870 or thereabouts?

I know the main reason older rolling stock is used or reused is because there is no money to replace them with new ones.
That and rolling stock is typically designed for at least 20 years of use.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: wlindley on January 27, 2014, 11:01:15 AM
Has any real railway company ever ripped up half of a double-track line to reduce maintenance?

Yes, it happened to almost every line in the United States after World War II.  The lack of double-track, or even sufficient sidings, not to mention signalling, is why it's nearly impossible for America to run passenger trains.  This is a constant source of frustration for those of us who advocate the return of the passenger train.  Many of our largest 50 cities do not even have passenger service at all, or like Houston they get only three trains a week.

Very short sighted of the railroads, but they had to do it because of all the government regulation and taxation, and the massive subsidies given to highways and airports.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: AP on January 27, 2014, 11:34:11 AM
There are also  plenty of cases where railway companies built a new railway line, earthworks bridges tunnels etc, all to double track standards, but only laid one line of track. They anticipated an increase in traffic which often never materialised.

E.g Meon Valley railway (London to Portsmouth) - built to full mainline standards but only ever a branch line for practical purposes.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: kierongreen on January 27, 2014, 12:21:53 PM
It's worth pointing out that the earliest railways, like the Liverpool and Manchester needed to be double track due to the lack of sufficient communication infrastructure at the time. Since the mid 19th century this has not been a limiting factor and these days there are mainlines with a service frequency of several trains per hour that are single track.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: MCollett on January 27, 2014, 07:47:33 PM
I confess that this surprises me considerably:
Large parts  of the British Rail network that survived Beeching were singled

and this only slightly less:
it happened to almost every line in the United States after World War II. 

This doesn't though:
There are also  plenty of cases where railway companies built a new railway line, earthworks bridges tunnels etc, all to double track standards, but only laid one line of track.

To stay on topic for the thread, some broadly relevant figures from 1839 Virginia (but by the author's own admission "not based on the experience of any particular line of improvement") can be found on page 209 of http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=SrUpAAAAYAAJ (http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=SrUpAAAAYAAJ).   Note the important role played by the cost of the capital (interest at 6% p.a).

Best wishes,
Matthew
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on February 04, 2014, 10:54:23 AM
M. Collett has found (http://forum.simutrans.com/index.php?topic=13249.msg131384#msg131384) some very useful information on the relative cost of canal construction, which I reproduce here:

Quote
I don't know about maintenance costs, but the ship canal construction costs are far too low.   Current prices (per km) are:-

Narrowboat: 150
Barge: 400
Ship: 300 (600 before 1822)
Large ship: 400

Historical comparisons:
Bridgewater (barge): £220 thousand for 66 km = £3330/km (in 1761)
Staffordshire and Worcestershire (narrowboat): Over £100 thousand for 74 km = >£1350/km (finished 1771)
Trent & Mersey (narrowboat): £296 thousand for 150 km = £1970/km (finished 1777)
Gloucester & Sharpness (ship): £440 thousand for 25.5 km = £17250/km (finished 1827)
New Junction (ship): £300 thousand for 9 km = £34000/km (finished 1905)
Manchester (large ship): £15 million for 58 km = £260000/km (finished 1894)

These are all up, including earthworks, tunnels, aqueducts and other associated construction as well as the watercourse itself, but give a reasonable feel for the relative costs.  Retaining the current cost for the narrowboat canal, I suggest something like:
Narrowboat: 150
Barge: 300
Ship: 2400
Large Ship: 25000

The last is comparable to the per km cost of major earthworks, or of a railway tunnel; it certainly shouldn't be less than the latter!
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on February 05, 2014, 09:02:38 PM
A reported case in the Court of Common Pleas in 1850 (Heyhoe v. Burge (1850) S. C. 19 L. J. C. P. 243) reported that a five mile section of the Lynn and Dereham Railway (later absorbed into the East Anglian Railway Company) was constructed at a cost of £41,029. Presumably, this would have been double track, as most railways built at the time were. This would give £5,128.63 per route mile or £2,564.31 per track mile. I think that the figure excluded signalling, although the report is not clear on the topic.

(For reference, the case concerned a mason and bricklayer suing for his fees after the partners of the firm to whom the railway had subcontracted the job had become bankrupt, the issue being whether a third person was also a partner and thus liable for the partnership debts).
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: kierongreen on February 05, 2014, 11:31:52 PM
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_and_Dereham_Railway the Lynn and Dereham Railway was single track (that's what I suspected in any case).
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on February 06, 2014, 12:26:53 AM
Thank you! That is very helpful information. I did try to find the Wikipedia entry so that I could add what I had found in the case, but it did not turn up in my searches for some reason. I have now added the information there, too.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: Sarlock on February 17, 2014, 12:59:58 AM
East Indiaman:

Quote
The Company's first ships were purchased privately as and when required. Each had a limited life expectancy, normally four voyages to Asia over 8 to 10 years. Losses from wear, tear and wreck took their toll and suitable ships were soon at a premium, some costing as much as £45 per ton.

In 1607, the Company therefore decided to build its own ships and leased a yard in Deptford. Initially, this new policy seemed to work, as the first ships cost only about £10 per ton. However, the shipbuilding and repair yards at Deptford soon proved expensive to run. The Company, ever eager to save money, had second thoughts. Later in the 17th century it went back to the practice of hiring vessels.


Link to source here (http://www.portcities.org.uk/london/server/show/ConNarrative.136/chapterId/2781/The-East-India-Company.html)


With a rough average of 1,000 tons/ship, that gives us a building price of £10,000 per ship in 1607 prices, with purchase prices upwards of £45,000 per ship.

The fact that these ships were only averaging 8-10 years and 4 voyages is an important one to consider, as in Simutrans these ships can be used for 80 years (1750-1830) and can run non-stop.  Such a ship in 1750 would be worth a mint.


Edit: Additional Info

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwall_Yard)

HMS Warspite, 62 guns was built 1665-6 by Johnsons, at a cost of £6,090.
HMS Hannibal, also of 1,652 tons, was built by Perrys between June 1782 and April 1786 at a cost of £31,509.

Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on February 17, 2014, 01:09:43 AM
That is very helpful - thank you!
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: zook2 on February 17, 2014, 03:41:36 PM
From Bounty, John McKay:

In 1787, the Admiralty ordered the purchase of a ship for taking breadfruit trees to the West Indies. Candidates were:

Lxnx, 300 tons, £2200
Sheperdess, 270 tons, £2050
William Pitt, 240 tons, £1200
Bethia, 230 tons, £2600
A new ship, 240-250 tons, £9 10s 0d per ton

That would mean that £10/ton for a trading ship still applied in 1787. And that the sailing ships in the Pak are far too cheap.
According to wiki, USS Nightingale cost $43,500 in 1851 for a displacement of 1083 tons. At five dollars to the pound, the formula still more or less works. And the Lightning cost £32,000 in 1854 for a tonnage (Tons burthen) of 3500 and a gross register tonnage of 2084.

Anyway, the Bethia was bought (for only £1950), renamed Bounty, and refitted to Navy standards. The refitting cost was £2504 for the hull and provisions, plus £1952 for rigging and stores.

Bounty also had her hull copper-sheated, which was expensive, but especially important when sailing in warm, southern waters. Unfortunately, no cost is given. But Wiki says:

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_sheathing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_sheathing)
Quote
Fortunately the Parys Mountain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parys_Mountain) copper mine on Anglesey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglesey), Wales had recently begun large-scale production that had glutted the British market with cheap copper; however the 14 tons of metal required to copper a 74-gun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/74-gun) third-rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-rate) ship of the line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_the_line) still cost £1500,[4] compared to £262 for wood.

(A third-rate would have a tonnage (cargo load, not displacement) of about 1,750 tons.)

Quote
A single coppered vessel was recorded on the register of Lloyd's of London (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd%27s_of_London) in 1777.[5] By 1786, 275 vessels (around three percent of the merchant fleet) were coppered. By 1816, this had risen to 18 percent of British merchant ships.[5] Copper sheets were exported to India for use on ships built there. In the late 18th and early 19th century, around 30 percent of Indian ships were coppered.


McKay also mentions the formula for estimating crew requirements: 15.5 tons per man for trade vessels. The Bounty, for its South Sea mission, was instead crewed by 46 sailors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressment#cite_note-2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressment#cite_note-2)
Quote
During the 18th century, a Royal Navy Able Seaman was paid (after deductions) 22 shillings and 6 pence per month. Although pay was reckoned by the 28-day lunar month so the annual rate of pay was somewhat more than 12 times this. A farmworker of the era might earn £3 to £4 per year, around a quarter to a third of this. Wages on merchant ships were higher - 25 to 30 shillings per lunar month - and increased further during wartime (merchant pay rates 70 shillings per month at London and 35 shilling at Bristol were offered during the Seven Years War). Although merchant crews could be cheated of their pay in several ways by dishonest ship-owners.

Assuming 25s/months, a sailor would earn £20 a year. The Pak128 1050-ton clipper, assuming a crew of about 60 (with officers earning considerably more, of course), would thus cost over £1200 per year in wages alone.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: zook2 on February 17, 2014, 03:53:20 PM
And while we're at it, here's a list of various sailing ships from the 19th century:

http://www.bruzelius.info/Nautica/Ships/Ships.html

If the ships listed are typical, then British clippers were only half as large as their American counterparts. I'd say a typical tonnage would be about 700-800 tons.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: Sarlock on February 17, 2014, 05:08:23 PM
Wonderful research!  There is also a significant cost difference between a pure merchant ship and one outfitted with guns and other protective equipment in order to stave off piracy attempts (yet another cost/risk to long distance shipping that doesn't exist in Simutrans!).

A cost £10,000 for an East Indiaman seems more appropriate compared to starting capital in 1750, etc.  An increase in operating costs to around £10.00/km might work, but this would require some testing to verify.  Coupled with a reduction in profits from some of the high value goods (milk, planks) this will make the player much more careful about setting up a well functioning transportation system that maximizes tonnage hauled per ship.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on February 17, 2014, 08:13:12 PM
Very interesting and useful research - splendid! Thank you very much.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: zook2 on February 17, 2014, 11:17:29 PM
Some more snippets:

"Without Regard for Cost: The Returns on Clipper Ships"
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1828790?uid=3737864&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21103523784093
(Registration required)

"The American Clipper Ship, 1845-1920"
http://www.mcfarlandpub.com/book-2.php?id=978-0-7864-7112-6

And from shipwiki:

"The Young America was a three-masted wooden extreme clipper ship built in 1853 by William H. Webb, New York, for George B. Daniels, New York, at a total cost of $ 140.000. Dimensions 243'×43'2"×26'9" and tonnage: 1961; 1439 tons (old measurement) / 1380 (new measurement).

In 1849, the worldwide rush to California's gold fields and the concurrent opening of free trade with the British Empire created an unprecedented market for American clipper ship builders and owners. In the early years of the gold rush, freight rates were so inflated that it was not unusual for a fast clipper ship to net more than its construction cost (about $75,000) on a single voyage to San Francisco!"
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: zook2 on February 17, 2014, 11:20:27 PM
There's a 32-page paper you should probably read:

"American Shipbuilders in the Heyday of Sail"
http://mises.org/journals/scholar/sechrest2.PDF (http://mises.org/journals/scholar/sechrest2.PDF)

"Shipbuilding Costs

The rising prices of shipbuilding timber naturally leads one to inquire as to the total cost of building a ship and to the proportion of total cost represented by the various inputs. Addressing the second issue first, one might consider the ship Harvest of 646 tons that was built in Kennebunkport, Maine in the year 1857. She was probably typical of the many vessels of modest size and average quality then being built in Maine.

Costs: Labor $ 9,486 (37.9%)
Timber for hull and spars $ 10,735 (42.9%)
Iron fastenings, nails, and castings $ 1,963 (7.9 %)
Oakum (used for caulking seams between planks) and paint $ 1,652 (6.6%)
Equipment and tools $ 774 (3.1%)
Miscellaneous $ 391 (1.6%)
Total Cost = $ 25,001 or $ 38.70 per ton
(does not include suit of sails or copper sheathing for the hull)

If one looks at the cost per ton of this good little ship Harvest, which, even including sails and copper sheathing, would probably not exceed $ 50, and compare it with the much higher contemporaneous prices of many British-built ships, then one is likely to conclude that American shipyards possessed a large cost advantage. And that presumed low-cost advantage is precisely to what some maritime historians have ascribed much of the market success of American shipyards. There are, however, several problems with that
train of thought. First of all, labor usually represented 30%-50% of the total construction cost (see above example), and wage rates in American shipyards were often almost twice those of British shipyards (Hutchins 1941, 297).7 Thus, at least in terms of labor costs,
American shipbuilders may not have had an advantage.

Second, when converting British prices in pounds-sterling into American dollars, one should use the actual, or market, exchange rate rather than the official rate. Otherwise, cost comparisons will be biased.

Third, most sailing ships (particularly in the United States) were what today would be called “one-off” designs, that is, rarely were any two ships identical. Even consecutive ships from the same builder’s yard might vary significantly with regard to their potential
performance under sail, their size, rig, elegance of furnishings, and fitness for a given trade, even though the style and general method of construction would be similar. In modern terminology, sailing ships were relatively heterogeneous capital goods, and any
comparative analysis should, as far as possible, group vessels by the quality of their design and/or construction. Finally, it is imperative that comparisons in prices per ton be made using comparable tonnage measurement rules.
[...]

Comparative Costs Per Ton

The following is a list of 25 American and 27 British ships in chronological order.
The basic criterion for selection was that the vessel should have been reputed to be of the highest quality, either with respect to her design and performance and/or her quality of construction. Indeed, the list below includes a number of the most famous sailing ships ever built by the most renowned shipwrights in these two countries. Exchange rates were taken to be $ 4.566 per pound-sterling up until 1834 and $ 4.8665 per pound-sterling after that date (Hepburn 1968, 42, 280)."

I can't post a readable copy of the list without re-typing it all here, but it gives tonnage and building cost per ton. Later, it also goes into some freight rates and building costs of early steam freighters. It's really worth reading, I think.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on February 18, 2014, 12:15:17 AM
Thank you - that is extremely helpful.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on March 07, 2014, 11:23:34 AM
According to an article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-26438661) on the BBC website to-day discussing the possibility of crewless ships in the future, crew costs make up about 44% of the operating costs of large container ships.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: AvG on April 04, 2014, 10:29:37 AM
James,
I think that you gave sometime ago (max 15 monthes) a link to a book written, if I remember well, in 1906 about BR. It is a downloadable PDF.
Due to a necessary reinstall of my PC I lost all my favorites.
I think I spend already 2 hours to find the link with no success.
Do you know what book I mean, and if yes could you give me the link again.
AvG
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on April 04, 2014, 10:47:33 AM
Was that the one about track? If I recall correctly, it was not a PDF, but in HTML.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: AvG on April 04, 2014, 12:38:52 PM
I am only sure about the year 1906. The authors name could be Watson. (very unsure)
I also remember that somewhere around page 15 he was talking about an investment of 800 million pounds that needed only 10 million pounds of maintenance.
AvG
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on April 04, 2014, 08:54:12 PM
Hmm - the only one that I can remember is the one to which I referred above, which is in this thread somewhere, I think, but I cannot specifically recall where. Sorry not to be able to give more detailed assistance.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: AvG on April 18, 2014, 04:19:30 PM
James,
I have found the book I asked for in my entry from 4 april


It is mentioned in the info-part of your pak128-goods.


Titled: [/size]W. M. Ackworth, "The Elements of Railway Economics"[/color]
[/size][/color]
[/size]This is IMHO a real info-treasure[/color]
[/size]AvG[/color]
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on April 18, 2014, 04:52:32 PM
Ahh, that book - that is not available online so far as I know: I had to buy a paper copy of it.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: AvG on April 19, 2014, 08:32:52 AM
I downloaded it and made an extra backup copy on external HD.
AvG
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on April 19, 2014, 10:51:18 AM
Interesting.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on May 18, 2014, 09:39:48 PM
Information from Wikipedia on the Chesham branch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesham_branch) of the Metropolitan railway reveals that a single track extension of the originally planned line to a station closer to the centre of the town some 1,428m long cost about £2,000 in 1887.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on May 31, 2014, 10:09:04 AM
This (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-27602618) report from the BBC's news website states that the Edinburgh trams, which start running to-day, cost about £2m each.

Edit: According to this (http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=NEM18970604.2.14&cl=&srpos=0&e=-------10--1----0--&st=1) old newspaper report, the Blackwall rail tunnel of 1897 cost about £870,000 to build.

Edit 2: According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Railway_H_Class), the Metropolitan Railway H Class cost £11,575 each to build (although this seems a little out of line with other prices, the later and more sophisticated LNER A4 class being noted earlier in this thread as costing less than £9,000 each; perhaps the differential can be explained by the use of external contractors in the Metropolitan's case, although quite how I might calibrate that in the pakset is another matter).
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on November 22, 2014, 11:57:52 AM
Some useful information from Prissi in another post (http://forum.simutrans.com/index.php?topic=13877.msg137812#msg137812) regarding the cost of tunnels:

Quote from:
Prissi
Putting high power transmission lines underground is 10-6x times more expensive to built and about 3-5x more expensive to maintain, because you need active oil cooling instead just lines hanging from pylons in fresh air ...

Unfortunately, differential way object costs based on whether the way object is in a tunnel is not currently supported in the code.

Edit: According to this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0umWIPCPd4) promotional video for Pan Am from 1959, the early 707s required 25 man-hours of maintenance for every hour in flight. I rather suspect that modern aircraft are a little more efficient.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: zook2 on November 23, 2014, 03:31:46 AM
Interesting topic. I  know nothing about it, but I googled this up:
http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/workgroups/Documents/MCTF/AMC_ExecComment_FY09.pdf

Numbers are given in Maintenance $/Flight Hour, by aircraft type. You should be able to translate that data into SimEx values pretty easily.

And this:
"Concorde aircraft operated by British Airways and Air France also required 22 maintenance man hours per flight hour (about the same as an F/A-18), where the Boeing 747 requires eight and the Boeing 777 several times less than a 747"
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on November 23, 2014, 10:47:15 AM
That is very interesting - thank you! Cost per flight hour is difficult to unpick, because it is neither a per unit of distance cost nor a fixed per unit of time cost, but the comparison between different aircraft is at least useful.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: AvG on December 16, 2014, 02:30:58 PM
Hi guys,


Maybe this was only new to me, but have a look at:


http://litep.epfl.ch/files/content/sites/litep/files/shared/Liens/Downloads/Divers/Baumgartner_Couts_chf_2001_e.pdf


Here you can see that prices for railway (cost and maint.) in Simutrans need a rework!!
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on December 17, 2014, 09:56:02 AM
Thank you very much - that is very helpful.

Meanwhile, here (http://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/media/2005-12_nlr_aviation_fuel_efficiency.pdf) is a useful article on aircraft fuel economy helpfully posted by Dr. Supergood in another thread (http://forum.simutrans.com/index.php?topic=14173.msg140566#msg140566).
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on January 03, 2015, 11:53:13 PM
According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barmouth_Bridge), the Barmouth Bridge, a long (699m) wooden viaduct in North Wales, cost  £39,405 to maintain in 2013.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on August 09, 2015, 02:37:07 PM
Here (https://archive.org/details/ourironroads00will) is an excellent old book, published in 1883, "Our Iron Roads" by Frederick Smeeton Williams, which gives a great deal of detail, including in many cases, prices, of the construction of railways.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on August 14, 2015, 10:24:32 AM
According to an extract from a contemporary newspaper article here (http://photos.signallingnotices.org.uk/photo.php?pc=245&p=IMG_9034.JPG), the Reading Panel Signalbox, which opened in 1963, was part of a £2m "signalling system". It is not clear how much of that cost is attributable to that signalbox and how much to the lineside equipment, but, since, in Experimental, signals and signalboxes will be the only costs in a signalling system, this could be extrapolated by estimation.

Reading Panel Signalbox was the "widest ranging" panel box on the BR system, controlling signals from Twyford in the East to Swindon in the West and Oxford in the North.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on October 18, 2015, 10:45:51 PM
This video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzybtS56l6A&spfreload=1) suggests that, in the 1930s, express passenger locomotives (in this case, the LMS 5XP class) ran 130,000 miles (that is 208,000 kilometres) between general overhauls, which took 12 days in total.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on November 02, 2015, 11:43:01 PM
This (https://archive.org/stream/powerrailwaysign00wilsrich/powerrailwaysign00wilsrich_djvu.txt) extract from an old book gives costs for the construction and maintenance of signalboxes in the mechanical era:

"The outlay for providing the box, signals, block instruments, etc., will not be much under £300, whilst the cost of manning the box with two men and the maintenance of the signals, etc., would be about £150 per annum."

The book appears to have been published circa 1909, and, from the context, it is possible to discern that the author is referring to a small "break section" signalbox (the equivalent to the "small mechanical signalbox" currently in the pakset).

Edit: Some more very useful pricing information, from the same book:

Quote
Automatic signals are an expensive item, and where mechanically operated signals already exist and in Great Britain they are in use on every line open for traffic their introduction can only be justified when the expense can be recouped by economies effected by signal boxes being closed and signalmen dispensed with. These cases are, however, rarer than is generally imagined. The average cost in England, including fitting the "Track-Circuits" and running line-wires, is about £100 per arm or £200 for a two-arm signal.

The maintenance charge is also high, varying, according to the report presented by Mr. Platt to the International Railway Congress in 1905 at Washington, from £12 to over £20 per arm a year. Then each signal has to bear a charge of about £2 for lighting, and there are also fogging expenses. In the case of new lines, as yet unsignalled, it is no doubt much cheaper to provide automatic signals instead of equipping the road with signal-boxes, signalmen and mechanical signals. But new lines are most uncommon in England, and the question must always be considered in relation to existing equipments. These have been paid for, and naturally there must be some good reasons for installing a new system. Where there are signal-boxes at which there is little shunting, and where the chief duty of the signalman is to work the block instruments and signal trains, these men may, if automatic signals be provided, be taken out of the signal-boxes and need only go in when any shunting has to be performed. Such cases will appeal to railway managers, but it takes a good many such economies to pay for automatic signals in Great Britain.

For example, assume Automatic Signals to be installed on a British railway over a length of 20 miles of double line with signals one mile apart. This would require forty 2-arm signals or 80 arms in all, which would cost, say, £8,000. The annual charges would be approximately £1,980, made up as follows: -

Interest at 4 per cent, on £8,000 ... £320
Sinking fund for renewal in 20 years ... £260
Lighting 80 signals at £2 ... £160
Fogging 40 distant signals at £1 ... £40
Maintenance of 80 signals at £15 ... £1,200


The average pay of a signalman is 22s. per week - £57 a year to which may be added £3 for his uniform, holiday pay, etc., or £60 in all, so that it would require 33 signalmen to be dispensed with to justify this expense.

This estimate and conclusion applies to what may be termed a wholesale adoption of automatic signalling, and even such cases may be modified under certain conditions,
as, for instance, on the L. and South Western R. between VVoking and Basingstokc, where the automatic signals and the "Track-Circuit " are part of the equipment of a power signal and interlocking plant. There, the power for working the automatic signals is generated by the same means as the power for operating the points and signals at stations, and this considerably reduces the cost of maintenance, which is the leading item in the expenditure.

However, the author writes that the maintenance cost on railways worked by the Underground Electric Railway Co. of London were much lower, owing to already having a power supply to hand for the rails, and worked it out as 5s-3.22d per signal per year.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on November 07, 2015, 02:18:59 PM
According to this (http://www.brc-stockbook.co.uk/LSWR_Ventil.htm) website, a 4 wheel passenger rated fish/milk/fruit van ("perishable goods" in Simutrans language) built by the LSWR cost £600. Although the date is not given, I infer that this is pre-1914, when prices were stable and inflation low.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on November 21, 2015, 01:25:29 AM
Some useful and interesting pricing (and some miscellaneous) information is given in the four volumes of "The London, Tilbury &  Southend Railway - a history of the company and the line" by Peter Kay (the fifth volume of which is apparently due for publication soon). Page numbering is continuous thoroughout all volumes.

Low Street station built circa 1861 with what were described as "parsimonious facilities": 200ft platforms (double track) and a single brick building on one line only was estimated to cost £630 (p. 33).

A total of 70 four wheel carriages were ordered from outside contractors in 1875 at a total cost of £27,850 (on average, £397.86 each (represented as a decimal currency)) (p. 46).

In 1931, Plaistow works were closed, saving £6,000 annually (the works being absorbed by other depots on what was by then the LMS system). This should give a good idea of the maintenance cost of depots as distinct from the running costs of vehicles.

In 1986, the single track Romford to Upminster branch was electrified on the 25kV overhead system at what was in 1984 estimated to cost £303,000 (p. 80).

In 1894/5, Bromley-by-Bow station was replaced after the previous booking office was damaged by fire at a total cost of £18,131, although this seems to have included a new signalbox. This was then a double track station with two booking offices (p. 104).

In 1907, the L&TSR purchased 37 motor cars and 37 trailer cars (electric multiple unit) from the District Railway for working the Whitechapel & Bow line for a total cost of £130,000 (which was described as "cost price") (p. 109).

In 1891, it was estimated that a new (small) station at Westcliff on Sea would cost £4,000 - £5,000. (p. 113).

An interesting table appears at p. 134 showing, amongst other things, the working costs as a percentage of revenue in various years. Between 1856 and 1881, it varies between 50-62%, the higher figures tending to be in the  later years.

P. 141 records what signalmen were paid in 1897: 1st class signalmen were paid 23-26s (presumably per week) with 8 hour shifts (presumably 6 days a week), 2nd class 22-25s with 10 hour shifts, 3rd class 21-24s with 10 hour shifts, and 4th class 20-23s with 12 hour shifts. Presumably, the longer hours and lower pay were associated with quieter boxes.

In 1913, a report was prepared detailing various options for improving the London end of the line. Although they were not carried into effect, it is interesting to note that a proposed tunnel from Cannon Street Road to Bank, including an underground station at Fenchurch Street and an underground terminus at Bank was estimated at £486,000 (p. 150; some other alternative costings are given on that page. It is not quite clear whether this includes the cost of signalling and/or electrification).

In May 1927, it was estimated that lengthening the platforms at Broad Street station to 700ft (their former length is not recorded) would have cost £12,830 (p. 153).

The cost of quadrupling (i.e. adding two extra tracks) and electrifying on the fourth rail the section between Dagenham and Upminster was estimated in 1929 as costing £412,525, with an additional £42,515 for two additional stations at Upney and Dagenham Heathway (p. 181).

Upminster Bridge station, with a 700ft long platform with canopies and central buildings along about 1/3rd of its length as well as an entrance building cost £24,511 in 1934 (p. 192).

A number of improvements were made to the LT&SR line in 1929, and the costings for each of these are set out on p. 199. An "up arrival line" and new bay platform at Upminster cost £8,000. An up bay platform at Pitsea and "layout alterations" at that station cost £2,270. Reconditioning an existing siding at Benfleet cost £740. A new passenger and goods station at Leigh-on-Sea (completely replacing the existing station) cost £87,250. An additional passenger station at Chalkwell cost £28,080. Thirteen additional carriage sidings at Shoeburyness and modernisation of the locomotive facilities there cost £64,370. Additional intermediate block signals at "many places between Barking and Sheeburyness, also between West Ham and Upton Park" cost £61,970.

In 1984, a very small station at East Tilbury was rebuilt at a cost of £80,000: new (550ft) concrete platforms were built, a new brick booking office on the up line and a brick shelter on the down line, and demolition of the existing (brick and concrete) structures (p. 203).

In 1938, there was a plan to build a new "booking/parcels office" at Laindon station at a cost of £14,620, although this was aborted by the following year's war.

Southend East Goods Yard was brought into use in 1907, having cost £5,000 (p. 221).

Southend East was opened in 1932 at an estimated cost of £50,660 (of which £17,040 was spent on buildings and canopies). In 1933, a further platform was added to the down main (with no buildings or canopies) at a cost of £3,342. This was a brick platform. This latter figure gives a good idea of the base cost of platforms (pp. 222-223).

In August 1910, the railway accepted a £21,200 tender to build a new depot at Plaistow. A turntable was added for £685 in October 1910, £1,145 in that same month for a lifting gantry and in February 1912 £10,374 for the provision of electric power and lighting to Plaistow works, shed and station. (p. 282).

The original plan to electrify the line on the overhead DC pattern in 1949 was estimated to cost a total of £19,500,000 with annual increased working costs of £900,000 due to increased passenger services. (p. 296)

A new station building was constructed in Grays (a small station) in 1954 at a cost of £33,000. Some (unspecified) improvements were made to Southend Central's buildings in 1955 for £24,000. (p. 297).
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on November 29, 2015, 12:26:49 AM
According to this (http://www.theclanproject.org/history) website, the BR Clan class 6p steam locomotive cost £20,426 to build in 1952.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on December 05, 2015, 01:13:23 AM
According to this (https://ia600309.us.archive.org/17/items/evolutionofsteam00nokerich/evolutionofsteam00nokerich.pdf) e-book, a very early steam railway locomotive from circa 1812 cost £400 to construct, weighed 5 tons and burnt 75lb of coal in an hour.

Edit: The same book, at p. 25 (.pdf page 40) states of the "Royal George" locomotive of the Stockton and Darlington Railway of 1827,

Quote
The first year's work of the "Royal George" consisted of conveying 22,442 tons of goods 20 miles at a cost of only £466, whilst the same amount of work performed by horses cost £998, showing a saving by the use of the "Royal George" of £532 in one year.... This was the first time that a locomotive engine had worked for a whole year at a cheaper rate than horses

This locomotive is reported to have been used until 1840 on the Stockton and Darlington, and was then sold to a colliery at £125 more than the cost of having originally built it.

Edit: At page 36, it is reported that Stephenson's Rocket had a coke consumption of 40% less than Hackworth's Sansperiel due to the use of a tubular boiler.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on December 06, 2015, 01:16:55 PM
According to this (http://www.greatwestern.org.uk/m_in_gwr_oil_fire.htm) website about the Great Western Railway,

Quote
In 1939, average coal consumption was 44.21 pounds at 4.44d (1.85p) per mile whereas in 1944 this had risen to 55.18 pounds at 11.88d (4.95p) per mile.


Edit 1: this (http://www.prclt.co.uk/6233_Preservation.html) website states that the LMS Princess Cornoation class

Quote
burns up to 1 ton of coal every 40 miles of running, evaporates about 45 gallons of water per mile
.

Edit 2: this (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1iIeCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA109&lpg=PA109&dq=locomotive+coal+%22per+mile%22&source=bl&ots=pjS7XtofID&sig=gKonONUJTMfcDJS5NVqOrbsJ-cE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjDjtTbqcfJAhXFzRQKHebyBRY4ChDoAQgpMAQ#v=onepage&q=locomotive%20coal%20%22per%20mile%22&f=false) book states that the Ffestiniog Double Fairlie engine consumed 2.84lbs of coal per mile.

Edit 3: this (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GVgiRfFBiTgC&pg=PA437&lpg=PA437&dq=locomotive+coal+%22per+mile%22&source=bl&ots=1R8R332rHP&sig=AeHL9rdFv901TWvON1sPXfXkznE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjDjtTbqcfJAhXFzRQKHebyBRY4ChDoAQgeMAA#v=onepage&q=locomotive%20coal%20%22per%20mile%22&f=false) e-book states that the British Railways Standard Class 8 ("Duke of Gloucester") hauled 590 tons on a level road at slightly less than 80 miles per hour, giving an indicated horsepower of 2,500, and consuming 4,850lb of coal per hour (and 30,000lb of water per hour), giving 65lb of coal burnt per mile assuming 75 miles per hour and 40 gallons of water per mile.


Edit 4: this (https://ia600309.us.archive.org/17/items/evolutionofsteam00nokerich/evolutionofsteam00nokerich.pdf) e-book at p. 53 gives figures for the Wilberforce 0-6-0 locomotive on the Stockton & Darlington Railway in 1839 (though the locomotive was built earlier) as being able to haul 171 (Imperial) tons, consuming 68lb of coal per mile, running 16,688 miles, costing £318-10-8 (or 4.5d) per mile run for repairs (presumably not including coal consumption). The annual wages of the driver and fireman combined were £353-12-8.

Edit 5: The same book at p. 60 gives the 1836 "Harvey Combe" (a "ballast engine") as having a cost of £1,400 and "was of 50 horse-power" (37.285kW). It attained 25-53mph with a gross load, including engine, of 81 (Imperial) tons and consumed 0.47lb of coke per ton mile, but could only manage 32.88 miles per hour with a gross load of 50 tons (!).

Edit 6: The same book at p. 82 gives the "Wallace", one of the first locomotives for the Dundee and Arbroath Railway, as having cost £1,012 (including tender) to build in 1838.

The first engines to burn coal instead of coke were introduced in 1838 (ibid).
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: zook2 on December 09, 2015, 07:43:07 PM
You might find this site
http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/index.html
interesting. I've only glanced at some of the topics but it has a massive bibliography list.



"The Coal Question - An Inquiry Concerning the Progress of the Nation, and the Probable Exhaustion of Our Coal-Mines" (1866)

Some 19th century coal prices cited there. Not much to go by there, but the entire work is online:
http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Jevons/jvnCQ5.html
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on December 09, 2015, 11:38:04 PM
Thank you!
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: Jando on December 16, 2015, 12:34:04 AM
An example of pricing for modern stock:

Nuremberg gets new subway trains for one of the main lines in the city: 21 trains for a total sum of € 164 million. News with pictures of new and old trains here (in German): https://www.br.de/nachrichten/mittelfranken/inhalt/neue-u-bahn-zuege-vag-nuernberg-100.html
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on December 17, 2015, 01:09:25 AM
Interesting - thank you!
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on December 30, 2015, 12:12:06 AM
According to this (http://glostransporthistory.visit-gloucestershire.co.uk/Single%20Driver%20Locomotives.htm) web page, the GNR Stirling 8ft single (G class) coast £2,033 to build in April 1870. It is remarked that the leading bogie (as opposed to a single pair of leading wheels) made the design more expensive than other locomotives.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on January 08, 2016, 05:48:21 PM
According to this (http://www.kentrail.org.uk/lswr_class_m7.htm) website, the LSWR M7 class of locomotive cost £1,400 each to build in 1896.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on January 10, 2016, 01:20:21 PM
According to the LNER Encyclopedia (http://www.lner.info/locos/Electric/ee1.php), the EE/1 prototype electric passenger locomotive was constructed in 1922 at a cost of £27,767.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on April 02, 2016, 12:14:27 AM
El_Slapper has posted some very interesting and useful information about aircraft running costs on this (http://forum.simutrans.com/index.php?topic=15340.msg151284#msg151284) post.

In summary:

Quote from:
el_slapper
A340
Quote

    Consommation d'un AIRBUS A340 - 300 de 271 T au décollage, en montée initiale et en croisière:
    Décollage, rotation jusqu'à 1.500 feets: 2,2 T
    Montée initiale de 1.500 feets à 31.000 feets: 5,8 T
    Croisière: 1 tonne par 70 Nm

==> This plane, ideal for flights between 300NM & 6000NM, drinks, when full, 8T of petrol for reaching his flight level. The same amount is enough to cover 560NM. When it pushes to 7000NM, it drinks 108T in total.

I did find here a calculator (not accurate, unfortunately), but also a few interesting figures concerning fuel - figures that are averages seen on true flights.

For cargo planes,
_when the MTOW is below 100 tons, count 107,3 liters(not tons) drunk per 100km per ton transported for a flight below 1000km, and only 76,4 liters when the distance is between 1000 & 4000km.
_When the MTOW is between 100 & 250 tons, count 64 liters drung below 1000km, and 50,8 liters drunk between 1000 & 4000km.
_When the MTOW is above 250 tons, only distance over 4000km are considered. And the total consuption between 4000km & 7000km is 21 liters(per 100km per pessenger), while it's 21,4 above 7000km.
In short : around 7000km(3780NM or so), the excess of distance begins to cost you more than the take-off. That's for the big birds like the A340 of the other link.

Fuel can be up to 35% of the expenses of a plane...when fuel prices are high, which was true a few years ago, but no more today. For more easy years, you can count around 35% in personal, 10% in airport fees, 5% in navigation fees, 20% in fuel, 15% in marketing(not taken in account in simutrans), 10% in maintenance, and the rest in misc. Airport fees are per landing, navigation fees & personal expenses are linear. The 10% of maintenance are really 90% linked to take-off and landing. Flying nearly does not wear the plane. The tough beast to count is fuel.

And my numbers are roughly accurate today. Very roughly.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on June 04, 2016, 04:36:27 PM
According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_68), the British Rail Class 68 (2013 build) was initially built as a class of 15 for a cost of £45 million (that is, £3 million each).
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on July 25, 2016, 12:11:31 PM
The Wikipedia article on competition between Airbus and Boeing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_between_Airbus_and_Boeing#Aircraft_prices) has some very interesting information about aircraft pricing, including information that airlines are frequently charged a much lower price (on average, 50% lower) than the list price for purchasing aircraft.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on September 12, 2016, 08:56:03 PM
The Wikipedia article on the Transrapid (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transrapid) has some useful information about maglev pricing.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on November 06, 2016, 12:29:11 PM
This (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MN5B4FkVJr0) video about the London Routemaster 'buses suggests (at around 28:00) that they cost 150% of the price of other 'buses to build when they were new.

Edit: The original Rotherham trolleybuses, solid tyred Brush-built 28-seaters each cost £823 new according to this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxjwhexlb24) video at 4:40. The same video at 5:03 tells that the later AEC trolleybuses cost £1,560 each in 1922. At 17:10 in the same film, it reports that Sunbeam F4 trolleybuses of 1948 (single decker, 32-seats) of Mexborough cost £4,115 each. The video further states (at 22:00) that, in (I think) the 1950s, the cost of building trolleybus wires had increased to approximately £10,000 per mile.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on November 21, 2016, 09:41:15 AM
According to this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Tilling) Wikipedia article about Thomas Tilling, the well-known early 'bus entrepreneur, he bought his first horse carriage in 1846 for £30. It is not stated, however, whether this was a new or secondhand price.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on December 05, 2016, 11:00:40 PM
According to this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_Railways) Wikipedia article, the Cambrian Railway's depot at Oswestry cost £28,000 to build in 1865.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on December 24, 2016, 10:47:28 PM
According to The Story of the London 'Bus by John Day, the LGOC/AEC B-Type 'bus introduced in London in 1911 cost £300 apiece, which was relatively cheap for a motor 'bus at the time.

Edit: According to "The British Motor Bus; an Illustrated History" by Gavin Booth, an Italian built Fiat chassis with a Dodson 36-seat body, as used by the Bristol Tramways & Carriage Conmpany and bought in 1906 cost £850.

Edit 2: According to the first source (Day, p. 41), the LGOC ordered a petrol electrib 'bus (a 30 seater Fischer) in june 1902 at a cost of £450.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on December 27, 2016, 04:29:31 PM
According to the Coventry Transport Museum (http://www.transport-museum.com/visiting/daimler_wagonette.aspx), a Daimler Wagonette of 1898 would have cost £373. In these early days, the "wagonettes" were used both as private motor cars and small 'buses. The small example on the Coventry museum's website seems more like a motor car than a 'bus, however.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on December 28, 2016, 04:20:11 PM
According to this website (https://regencyredingote.wordpress.com/2013/04/12/yorkshire-coach-horse-the-regency-aston-martin/), the Yorkshire Coach Horse (described there as the "Regency Aston Martin" of horses, being particularly prized for its speed and stamina in the world of coaching) would cost between £500 - £700 each in the late 18th/early 19th century. These were especially expensive horses; the prices of other breeds are not given.

That same article also states,

Quote
With a team of four Yorkshire Coach horses, a coach could average ten miles an hour on the open road, while on the better stretches, a top speed of nearly twenty miles an hour, for short bursts, was possible. With a four-horse hitch, the trip between York and London was routinely accomplished in less than twenty-four hours. But to keep the York to London coaches moving at top speed and have enough horses for all the stages along the route, at least two hundred horses were needed, stabled at the various coaching inns along the Great North Road. Despite the fact that Yorkshire Coach horses, like their Cleveland Bay cousins, were very long-lived, most public coach horses lasted only about three years in service before they had to be retired. Therefore, the need for fresh horses to keep the coaches moving was never-ending.

This (http://www.earsathome.com/webgil/trnsport.html) website, meanwhile, suggests 5mph as an average speed for stagecoaches.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on December 29, 2016, 10:27:17 PM
According to Gail Thornton (http://www.gail-thornton.co.uk/public-vehicles/omnibus.php), a garden seat horse omnibus would have cost around £150 to build in 1881.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: Vladki on December 29, 2016, 11:38:51 PM
I have found a book about Linz-Budweis horse railway (1830's) with quite a load of economic data. Would you be interested in that, even if the money used is Austrian Gulden?
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on December 29, 2016, 11:39:47 PM
I have found a book about Linz-Budweis horse railway (1830's) with quite a load of economic data. Would you be interested in that, even if the money used is Austrian Gulden?

Yes, there is no harm in having that; I cannot imagine that the costs, when converted, varied enormously between the UK and Austria in the 1830s.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on December 30, 2016, 01:08:00 AM
According to the book "Fares, please!" by Stan Yorke (at p. 23), a 'bus horse would last about four years in service, and the horse omnibus itself would last about ten; but the wheels would need to be replaced 3-4 times during that period and the iron tyres every 3-4 months. Each horse 'bus would work around 60 miles a day.

Note that the figure of 4 years for 'bus horses is different to that of 3 years given above for coaching horses; it may well be that the draught horses could be longer in duty than the lighter coaching horses.

Edit: According to that same book at p. 11, a "good coach horse" would cost around £100 per year to keep (the exact date is not given, but it can be inferred from the context that it is referring to the period from around 1785-1830) if one had one's own stables, and twice that if one had to hire stabling facilities.

It is also there said that it is working at speed that tires a horse, and that a coach horse could work at speed for 14 miles a day for five days a week.

Edit 2: According to issue no. 31 (http://www.leylandsociety.co.uk/publications/torque/pdf/Torque031.pdf) of the Leyland magazine "Torque", in trials of steam powered lorries held in 1900, the Leyland entry ("B1" for the purposes of the trials; it is not clear what model that this was, but it was in a class with a maximum 3 ton tare weight and a load of 5 tons) carried an average payload of 4.81 tons at an average speed of 6 miles per hour over a distance of 167 miles, with coke consumed at an average of 12lbs per mile (the steam lorries seem to have used coke rather than ordinary coal).

Edit 3: According to "Leyland Toque" no. 35 (spring 2007 edition), the Leyland F2 wagon with "F1 engine" cost £546 to produce, and the "F2 engine" £580. This, presumably, was the cost to manufacture rather than the selling price.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on January 01, 2017, 05:38:24 PM
According to the website Heritage Commercials (http://www.heritagecommercials.com/news/the-bressingham-steam-bus-is-out-and-about), the Sentinel steam 'bus consumes 50 gallons of water and 110lb of coal for every 10 miles travelled, and can reach speeds of up to 40mph (although can run more sustainably at 25-30mph).

Although the steam 'bus was not a success and only four were ever built, three of which were exported to Czechoslovakia and one of which was used to transport the Sentinel works brass band, the 'bus consisted in effect of a passenger body on a lorry chassis, and the DG4 lorry was one of Sentinel's major types, and a type that we use in the pakset, so these speed and coal consumption figures should be useful for calibrating the steam lorries.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: Vladki on January 01, 2017, 08:12:51 PM
According to the website Heritage Commercials (http://www.heritagecommercials.com/news/the-bressingham-steam-bus-is-out-and-about), the Sentinel steam 'bus consumes 50 gallons of water and 110lb of coal for every 10 miles travelled, and can reach speeds of up to 40mph (although can run more sustainably at 25-30mph).

Although the steam 'bus was not a success and only four were ever built, three of which were exported to Czechoslovakia and one of which was used to transport the Sentinel works brass band, the 'bus consisted in effect of a passenger body on a lorry chassis, and the DG4 lorry was one of Sentinel's major types, and a type that we use in the pakset, so these speed and coal consumption figures should be useful for calibrating the steam lorries.

I found Czech page about Sentinels - they were licensed to Škoda, and many were built in Czechoslovakia. http://www.sentinel.cz/ The page is in czech only, but has a lot of photos (incl. blueprint) and the following tech specs:
power: 70 HP at 250 rpm, steam pressure 19 atmospheres
avg. speed: 25 km/h
water tank: 800 l
coal bunker: 300 kg
kerb weight: 7860 kg
cargo capacity: 5000 kg
reach with full tank: 40 km at avg speed 15 km/h (max 25 km/h)
max consumption per 1 km = 30 l of water and 4 kg of coal
prices around 1925: 100 kg of coal = 30 Kč, 1 l of gasoline = 3.40 Kč
running cost was about 1/3 of running cost of comparable gasoline powered lorry
Price of the Škoda-Sentinel lorry was 160000 Kč

Another article about sentinels, has a bit different numbers: http://www.starestroje.cz/historie/parni.vozidla.sentinel.php
It is article from 1923 about the imported sentinels from England (pictures are about rail cars, but text is mostly about lorries)
I admit that the article's language seems to be biased in favor of sentinels, so the comparison with gasoline lorry might not be trustworthy.

75 HP, 19 atm,
max speed 40 km/h
water tank 800 l
test ride: 62.1 km in 3h50min (2h30min without pauses), avg speed 24 km/h, max speed on flat terrain 35 km/h, weight 6t + load 7t + 15 pax, consumption 200 kg of coal, 700 l of water = 3.2 kg/km coal, 11.3 l/km water
revenue calculation and comparison with gasoline lorry:
price for delivering 100 kg of load 0.125 Kc/km
100 kg coal = 22 Kc, 100 kg gasoline = 300 Kc
sentinel load 7 t, 3 hours a day, 30 km/h, 300 working days/year = total income 236000 Kc/year. Running costs (driver + fireman wages, maintenance, oil, fuel, and 10% of purchase cost) are estimated at 98000 Kc/year
gasoline lorry load 4t, 4 hours a day, 20 km/h = estimated income 120000 Kc/year. Running costs (driver wages, maintenance, oil, fuel, 10% purchase) estimated at 83000 Kc/year

The last pat of the article is about steam powered passenger rail car - info taken from factory catalog.
comfortable capacity 60-80 pasengers
coal consumption (at full load) 4 lb/mile, 1.124 kg/km
water consumption (at full load) 2.5 gallons/mile, 5.64 l/km
avg consumption at flat track is 4-5 q (1q=100 lb?) per 120 miles (or 203-254 kg coal per 193 km)
max speed 40 mph, may be geared at 30 mph for extra power (hilly track) - 33 promile at 15 mph
recommended option for czechoslovakia was 17t, 75 HP, avg 40 km/h, 70 pax + 40 pax trailer
top speed on flat track 50 km/h, incline 10 promile 35 km/h, 20 promile at 20 km/h

revenue calculation:
half-full car (28 pax) - tickets cost 1 pence/mile (1 pence = 0.643 Kc), 150 miles/day, 300 days/year, total income 5250 pounds sterling (809812 Kc)
operating + maintenance costs 778 pounds/year, other costs 1472-2472 pounds/year = net revenue 2000-3000 pounds/year (310000-460000 Kc)
The author was very optimistic about possible imports of these. The reality was that Škoda made one (licenced) piece (class M220.0) that was in use 1925-1948. There were several other similar steam rail cars in use of other designs.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on January 01, 2017, 09:41:42 PM
Interesting - thank you very much. Have you any idea to which model of Sentinel steam lorry that those figures were referring? There were a great many different models all with quite different specifications.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: Vladki on January 01, 2017, 11:06:40 PM
Interesting - thank you very much. Have you any idea to which model of Sentinel steam lorry that those figures were referring? There were a great many different models all with quite different specifications.

The first article is about Škoda-Sentinel (licensed version produced in Czechoslovakia)
The second article speaks about "Super-Sentinel". I have no idea if that is a specific model or not.

perhaps the allowed cargo capacity and engine power could be a lead to more specific model.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on January 01, 2017, 11:50:44 PM
The Super Sentinel is indeed a specific model, an improved version from 1923 onwards. Might the first one be about Sentinel Standard, built from 1906 to 1924?
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: Vladki on January 02, 2017, 07:47:27 AM
The first link has a list of imported sentinels - both std and super models are there. Then there is also a list of sentinels manufactured by skoda, which does not specify std/super, only the load capacity. However the licenced production started in 1923. So they could produce both versions, or the licensed version might have had slightly different specs.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on January 02, 2017, 11:53:21 AM
That would suggest that they were probably referring to the Super Sentinels. Thank you for that.

Edit: According to Brian T. Deans in, "Glasgow Trolleybuses", Glasgow's trolleybus system in 1950 was said to cost 18.7d (that is, 18.7 240ths of a £) per mile to operate, which was said to be the lowest of any form of transport in the country at the time.

Edit 2: The same volume gives a very interesting comparison of the relative costs of trolleybuses and motorbuses, and also of the increase in the cost of an identical motorbus over a few years in the mid 20th century. At p. 33, Deans refers to the cost of B. U. T. 30ft twin axle trolleybuses of the 9613T class ordered in the autumn of 1955 costing £6,016 each (being made up of £3,195 for the chassis and £2,821 for the body), the first Leyland Atlantean being purchased by the Glasgow Corporation, conversely, costing £6,100.

Meanwhile, on page 39, the cost in 1965 of a Leyland Atlantean is given as £7,000 each, and further states at that date that trolleybus services were costing 4 shillings and 7d per vehicle mile to run, as opposed to 3 shillings and 7d for motorbuses, although I presume that this is total cost including maintenance of the overhead wires.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on January 06, 2017, 12:36:02 AM
According to the British Trolleybus Database (http://www.trolleybooks.co.uk/trolleybusdatabase.html), the AEC 661T type trolleybus supplied to Reading Corporation in 1938-9 cost £2,187 each and had backup battery power.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on January 15, 2017, 09:00:10 PM
According to this (https://waypoint.vice.com/en_us/article/we-asked-a-transit-planner-how-to-up-our-mini-metro-game) in-depth article about the game "Mini-Metro", it is reported that (presumably as of around the present day, i.e. 2017) a single carriage for an underground railway costs about US$1,000,000, whereas the network itself costs US$0.5bn per km to construct. It seems sensible to infer that this refers to a double track section of subway, including stations, signals, track, etc., so it may be hard to extract the raw tunnel cost from this.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on January 28, 2017, 03:41:17 PM
The following are all taken from "The London, Tilbury & Southend Railway: A history of the company and line: Volume 5" by Peter Kay
References to page numbers are references to numbers of pages in the work in question.
Scottish sea coal (i.e. a high grade coal) is reported to have cost 23s per ton (shipped to Tilbury) in 1875 (p. 336).

Tilbury station was improved in 1881-5 and teh following are the recorded costs of those works:

Waiting room and covered platforms: £845
New pier and waiting rooms: £1,461
New ferry landing £992 + £28
Additions to Tilbury station £953, £187, £389, £217, £246, £479
(These additions are not particularised and the different numbers relate to expenses incurred in different years)
(p. 336)

A hairpin shaped road bridge over the railway line at Tilbury was built in 1894 at a cost of £7,750 (a tender accepted from outside contractors; p. 338).

A new dock was built in Tilbury between 1904 and 1907, and the railway facilities upgraded at the same time.
£10,563 is recorded as the then estimated (1904) cost of pile foundations and a new station building, although it transpired that more expensive piles would be necessary in the event.
£3,296 was spent on a new road bridge under the concourse (1905).
£3,496 was spent on a new locomotive shed. (1905)
£1,500 was spent on an additional booking office at road level and goods store with office (1906)
£3,488 was spent on platform walls, awning foundations and luggage inclines (which might give a good idea of the cost of the "overall roof" type station in Pak128.Britain compared to normal platforms). (1906)
£16,460 was spent on the station buildings, concourse, platform awnings, stairs, etc. (1906)
£1,245 was spent on a new locomotive water tank house, offices and stores as well as foundations for a locomotive turntable (1906; this cost may well be considered together with the locomotive shed cost as the cost of a steam depot in the period)
New refreshment rooms cost £2,997 (1907).
(All from p. 341)

Tilbury Town station opened in 1886. Its costs are recorded as being £3,150 (this is particularised only into the sum of £395 in 1883, £54 in the second half of 1884 and £1,155 in the first half of 1885 as "works" and £341 in the 2nd half of 1885, £5,130 in the4 1st half of 1886, £2,576 in the 2nd half of 1886 and £436 in the 1st half of 1887 as "station, junctions and sidings"). (P. 380)

The entire Tilbury docks of 1882-6 is recorded as having cost £2,800,000 (p. 387)

An agreement between the L&TSR and the Dock Co. in 1883 provided that the former (railway company) was entitled to withdraw any of the otherwise agreed upon trains if it earned less than 2s 6d per train mile (p. 387).

The annual cost of engine drivers and fireman at Tilbury dock shed in 1897 was £694 and in 1923 £3,841. It is not immediately clear to what extent this was due to inflation and to what extent due to employing a larger number of people, although the preceding paragraphs to the part where this figure is mentioned states that six locomotives were allocated in 1886, increasing to 9 by the Port of London Authority takeover, the date of which should be in the book somewhere but I cannot immediately find. The cost of foreman, head shunters, shunters, signalmen, checkers number takers and messengers at Tilbury dock (as paid for by the railway company rather than the dock company( in 1923 was £5,232 (p. 397).

Tilbury's container terminal (i.e. just the rail facilities, not the dock itself) opened in 1969 at a cost of around £500,000 (p. 404).

An additional chord (presumably of double track) including junctions and presumably updating signalling equipment was installed in 1927 at a cost of £1,550.

Ships for a Tilbury to Dunkirk passenger service purchased in 1927 jointly by the LMS and a shipping concern (which were secondhand, having been built in 1904-9 and which were between 2.039 tons and 1,569 tons) were priced at between £45,000 and £75,000 in an agreement which tied the price to the level of traffic (in the event, the service was abandoned entirely owing to lack of traffic and the purchases never completed) (p. 411).

The following are all taken from "The History of British Bus Services" by John Hibbs
References to page numbers are references to numbers of pages in the work in question.

Between 1875 and 1880, the London General Omnibus company, then still a horse 'bus concern, paid a dividend of about 12 percent; the North Metropolitan (a horse tramway concern in London) paid about 8 1/2% and "remained profitable largely because of falling prices for fodder" in the latter quarter of the 19th century. (p. 37).

Omnibus pioneer Thomas Tilling's father set up a horse omnibus concern in 1847 with a grey mare called "Kitty" and a carriage which cost him £30 (it is not immediately clear from the text whether the carriage alone or the horse and carriage combined cost this amount) (p. 51).

In the early days of motor 'bus traction, rubber tyres were very expensive to maintain; however, by 1905, the price had been brought down to about 2d/mile (p. 52). In 1902, this cost had been as high as 10d per mile (p. 130).

The "B-type" motor omnubus cost "well under £300 to produce", which was significantly less than others of the day (p. 57). The author describes this price as "bringing motor-bus operation into the realms of solvency" (p. 57).

The Dailmer motor omnibus of circa 1912, said to be superior to the B-type, sold for £875 (p. 59). The large discrepancy with the B-type might be explained in part because this is a sale price, whereas the cost of the B-type is the cost to produce, as the LGOC initially made their own 'buses until that operation was separated into a company that became AEC.

In circa 1907, the Tramways (MET) Omnibus Company Ltd. of London negotiated a maintenance contract covering labour, materials, petrol and lubrication at a charge of 3 1/2d per mile (p. 60).

Diesel engines are said to be more reliable than petrol engines, but have a higher initial cost (p. 148).

It is said that the tendency in 'bus design since the 1960s (the book being written in the 1980s) had been towards more sophistication at a greater first cost and higher maintenance (p. 158).

When the councils of some municipalities in North-West England merged in 1967, the working expenses per 'bus mile were said to be 38.85d at Ramsbottom with 12 vehicles, comparing with 42.247d in Manchester. This appears to include overheads, however, but this is not clear (p. 249).

The following are all taken from "The British Motor-Bus: an illustrated history" by Gavin Booth
References to page numbers are references to numbers of pages in the work in question.

The Bedford OWB of 1942/3, a single decker 32 seater wartime "utility" 'bus cost £810 (p. 63).

New tram cars in around the 1950s were said to have cost on average around £10,000 (presumably, these were the modern, comfortable tram cars of the type first developed in the 1930s), whereas new motor 'buses of the time were said to cost on average around £4,000, explaining in part the reason for the relative popularity of the latter over the former at the time (p. 73).

The "business commuter" version of the Leyland National was introduced in 1972 and cost £20,000 each (p. 102).
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on February 08, 2017, 01:59:29 PM
According to the narration on this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc4sT-AC_7U) video at 2:45, the Leyland Panther cost "just over £7,000" in 1970.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on February 11, 2017, 02:14:05 PM
According to "A History of the Leyland Bus" by Ron Phillips, many Leyland Titan PD3 double decker 'buses had their petrol engines upgraded for diesel engines "in the 1930s" at a cost of "about £450". This was on the basis that Leyland would retain the old petrol engines, which it would recondition for further use (p. 48).

In the same work at p. 34, it is stated that the Leyland Cub with a diesel engine cost £135 more than that with the petrol engine in 1933.

According to "An Illustrated History of Dennis Buses and Trucks" by Nick Baldwin, an advertising van (which appears to have been of similar dimensions to the smallest size of vans based on private car chassis) cost £305 for a chassis plus £36 for Dunlop tyres and £40 for a standard body in about 1908. This was a 14hp 8/10cwt chassis (p. 15).

In the same work, a 28hp motor 'bus of 1904 (seating about 32 people) cost £715 "plus lettering" (page 9).

That book also reproduces advertisements for Dennis commercial vehicles, including a 40hp 4-5ton chassis complete with body (being a tipper wagon) capable of 12mph "over hilly country" with a 40hp engine and claiming 41.75 gross tons per mile per gallon of paraffin at £800 and an open backed van "built to carry 2 tons over sand" for £590. Both of these were intended to run on paraffin, but the capital cost would probably have been not much different from petrol. Paraffin may be more energy dense than petrol, however, so the economy figures may require some caution.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on February 15, 2017, 01:21:07 AM
This website (http://www.exetermemories.co.uk/em/_transport/minibus.php) gives some very interesting information about the relative costs of minibuses compared to conventional 'buses (in the 1980s).

Because these were small vehicles, cheaper drivers could be employed to drive them, and they cost 38% less than 'bus drivers qualified to drive full sized 'buses. The 'buses, apparently (Ford Transit vehicles) were depreciated over a period of 5 years (suggesting that they last far less long than a full sized 'bus).

Interestingly, I remember these minibuses well: as a child, my grandparents used to live in Exeter, and I remember fondly the green minibuses that went past the end of their road and which my grandmother frequently rode into town.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on February 18, 2017, 04:45:57 PM
The following information is given from "The illustrated history of Dennis buses and trucks" by Nick Baldwin

  • 2-2.5 ton goods chassis and 20-25 passenger 'bus chassis (note: not including body) were sold by Dennis in 1920 for £1,000 apiece (p. 26).
  • A 20/25cwt light lorry/van chassis sold by Dennis in 1923 with a 34bhp engine sold for £295, which was about £50 cheaper than rival Vulcan and Guy models (p. 29).
  • The Dennis F-type 'bus, introduced in 1927, and being very similar to the E-type except for being normal control rather than forward control, was advertised for £885 (chassis only) with a 70bhp engine (p. 36)
  • The Dennis two ton goods lorry and its "GL" passenger counterpart of 1929 cost £420 chassis only and could acheive an average of 15-16mpg when laden with a 42bhp engine (p. 45).
  • The 32 seat 'bus, the Arrow, launched in 1929 with a 100hp six cylinder petrol engine costing £1,100 only for the chassis (apparently comparable with the contemporary AEC Reliance). This was said to have been 6cwt lighter but "more expensive" than the EV 'bus. (p. 48).
  • The "simple and robust" EV 'bus chassis cost " a little under £900" (p. 61) and apparently sold better than the "sophisticated" Arrow (p. 61).
  • The Lancet of "late 1931" sold for only £595 (chassis only) (p. 61).
  • The Lancet's engine, the D3 5.6 litre petrol engine, could achieve 11mpg when laden and could produce 85hp (p. 62).
  • The Arrow's 6-cylinder engine could be fitted to the Lancet at an additional cost of £100 (p. 62).
  • The 40/45cwt goods and Ace 20 passenger chassis (sometimes known as the "Flying Pig" because of its tapered "snout" for the engine) of the early 1930s cost £260 (goods) and £285 (passenger) compared with £245 for a 3 ton Bedford. The Dennis was powered by a 60bhp petrol engine with coil ignition. Apparently, a magneto could be specified for an additional £12, although it is not clear what the benefit of this was (p. 68).
  • The Lancet II 'bus chassis of "late 1935", which could accommodate a body taking up to 39 passengers was powered by a new 4 cylinder petrol engine capable of 17mpg.  A Gardner 5LW diesel engine was also available for this chassis, but the presumably greater cost of this is not given (p. 76).
  • The Dennis Maxim goods vehicles of 1964 cost £3,290 for the chassis plus £320 for a fibreglass cab (p. 110).
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on February 20, 2017, 10:36:50 PM
According to the manufacturer's official specifications (https://web.archive.org/web/20071107210309/http://www.siemenstransportation.co.uk//pdfs/185.pdf), a modern railway diesel multiple unit designed for high speed inter-urban service (the Class 185) has a design life of 35 years at 350,000km/year.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on February 25, 2017, 07:36:03 PM
According to this website (http://www.explorerticket.co.uk/bustender/electrocity.htm), the Wright Electrocity 'bus costs £205,000 to purchase and £75,000 per annum to run (although it does not specify what degree of use that the latter assumes).

However, the website appears to be part of the "London Bus Tender Game", so it is not clear to what extent that the information as to prices is derived from reality.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on February 26, 2017, 11:58:14 PM
According to this video (http://www.alexander-dennis.com/media/the-all-new-enviro200/) from the manufacturer, the new (post-2015) Dennis Enviro200 has improvements in fuel economy "as high as 35%". These figures may be on the optimistic side, however, coming as they do from the manufacturer.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on March 25, 2017, 10:29:39 AM
According to this (http://www.historywebsite.co.uk/Museum/Transport/Buses/Guy/guyOND.htm) website, the Guy ONB 'bus, a small 20 seater introduced in 1928, cost £445 chassis only.

I also recall, although I cannot remember the reference, that the large Guy CX 6-wheeler from circa 1926 had a fuel economy of 4mpg in service.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on April 08, 2017, 09:17:09 PM
Having visited the London 'Bus Museum to-day, I was informed by one of the curators that the Routemaster and contemporary 'buses could do approximately 8-10mpg, modern 'buses only manage 6-7mpg because of their higher weight (but note that modern 'buses have a higher capacity), and that old petrol engined 'buses could only manage 4mpg. I assume that these are figures for double decker 'buses, as lighter single deckers might have been able to manage a bit more.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on June 02, 2017, 11:54:22 AM
According to this (http://www.austinmemories.com/styled-52/styled-58/index.html) website, a Leyland 1 ton petrol van of the LD series cost £694, a 1.5 ton petrol van £728, a 1 ton diesel van £799 and a 1.5 ton diesel van £833 in 1959.

Edit: According to this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70oAmj_6hlk) video, the Boeing 307 Stratoliner had an engine change and complete inspection every 550 hours of flying.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on June 18, 2017, 04:38:18 PM
In preparation for the passenger and mail classes feature, currently in progress on the passenger-and-mail-classes branch on Github, I am working on gathering together some information on the relative costs of different classes of passenger travel and postage.

This has not been very easy to find in some cases, but I do my best to reproduce what I have here.

Passengers

Rail

Firstly, rail fares from 1844 onwards until nationalisation in 1948 for third class passengers had to be charged at no more than 1d/mile. The actual rates that they charged, so far as I can find, varied considerably. What I need to try to find is a ratio between first and third class fares (and likewise second class fares).

This (http://www.ejrcf.or.jp/jrtr/jrtr37/f26_hat.html) article refers to prices on the Stockton and Darlington Railway in 1825 - passengers were initially conveyed on the whole 19km route for 1s (12d). The following year, passengers were allowed to travel in uncovered wagons for 9d. The passengers in the covered carriages thus paid 1.33x the price of the passengers in the uncovered wagons.

This (http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/13837730.The_Bournemouth_Belle_made_mark_in_hiss_tory/) website gives historical prices for travel on the Bournmouth Belle in the 1950s, with 3s 6d first class and 2s third class, the ratio of first to third in this instance being 1.7x.

This (https://www.lner.info/forums//viewtopic.php?f=9&t=2818) forum gives the prices of 7 day all lines rover tickets in 2009, being £650 for standard class and £990 for first class, giving a ratio of 1.52 first to standard class.

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-C7Z8IOHWZ8o/TtXpTtMtQnI/AAAAAAAAA1o/nDFdRExq34o/s1600/War%252BNew+RLy.jpg)
The above poster gives fares for an extension of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway to Warrington in 1831. Between Warrington and Newton, the fare is given as 1s 6d for first class and 1s for second class, giving a ratio of 1.5 first to second class. Between Warrington and Liverpool or Manchester, the first class fare is 4s 6d, and the second class fare is 3s 6d, giving a first to second class ratio of 1.285 (an unusually low ratio and curiously different to the Newton to Warrington fares).

That is all of the historical information that I have easily been able to find. Contemporary information is, of course, easier. Classes are regularly used in rail and air travel. The National Rail Enquiries (http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/) website gives the price of a standard class (flexible) London to York ticket to-morrow evening as £122 and a first class ticket as £200, giving a first to standard class ratio of 1.63. From Edinburgh to Glasgow, the fare is £8.80 standard class or £13.40 first class, giving a 1.522 first to standard ratio. From London to Bristol, the standard class fare is £102 and the first class fare £176.50, giving a first to standard class ratio of 1.73. From London to Manchester, the standard class fare is £169 and the first class fare £242, giving a first to standard ratio of 1.43x. From Leeds to Liverpool, the standard class fare is £32.10 and the first class fare £41.30, giving a first to standard ratio of 1.28. From London to Brighton, the standard class fare is £27.80 and the first class fare £41.70, giving a first to standard ratio of 1.5.

For my sample of contemporary (2017) peak time weekday rail fares, therefore, the standard class to first class ratio goes between 1.28 to 1.73, with a mean average of 1.515.

Air

Skyscanner (https://www.skyscanner.net/) gives a good impression of contemporary air fares.

London Heathrow to New York JFK on a Monday morning costs £1,258 in economy, £1,760 for premium economy, £4,999 for business class, and £8,126 for first class giving the following ratios of each class compared to economy:

premium economy: 1.39;
business: 3.57; and
first: 6.45

For a shorter haul flight, from London Heathrow to Frankfurt Main, economy class fares start at £270, premium economy is not available, business class starts at £578 and first class is also not available. This gives a ratio of 2.14 business to economy.

Bus/rail comparison

This (http://londonist.com/2011/11/london-transport-fares-2000-2012) website gives a good comparison between 'bus and Underground fares in London. The ratios vary from 0.35 in 2004 to 0.4 in 2007 to 0.38 in 2016.

Mail

In some ways, mail is more straightforward. Contemporary information from the Post Office can be found here (http://www.postoffice.co.uk/mail/uk-standard) and here (http://www.royalmailgroup.com/first-and-second-class-stamp-prices-2).

A first class stamp currently costs £0.65 and a second class stamp costs £0.56, giving a first to second class ratio of 1.16. According to historical data from this (https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/mar/27/60p-price-stamp-royal-mail) article in The Guardian newspaper, in 1980, a first class stamp cost £0.12 and a second class stamp £0.10, giving a first to second class ratio of 1.2, which seems therefore to have stayed constant for a number of decades.

Special delivery, meanwhile, costs £6.45, giving a ratio of 11.51 compared to second class post.

Edit: Speaking to my father, who is a stamp collector, he tells me that early air mail cost about 2.4 times the cost of surface mail. Special delivery is probably not a sensible comparison, as this involves payment for an additional feature (the "signed for" service) beyond transport that is not simulated in Simutrans.

Possible conclusions

The plan is to have 5 passenger classes and perhaps 3 mail classes. It seems evident that some of the rail fares above for passengers, although nominally of the same class, are likely to be targeting different markets with different levels of income.

Accordingly, mapping some sensible parts of the above ratios to the planned classes, we might use these figures (the classes given being equivalent of railway classes)

Class 0 ("very low"), 4th class: 0.6
Class 1 ("low"), 3rd class: 1.0*
Class 2 ("medium"), 2nd class: 1.33
Class 3 ("high"), 1st class: 1.5
Class 4 ("very high"), 1st class: 2.0

* This should be set to be equivalent to 1d/mile in 1900, and inflation adjusted for other years.

Edit: Addendum

Some very interesting calculations suggest a heartening degree of long-term consistency in these prices.

If we imagine paying an inflation adjusted 1d/mile from London to New York, we find that this is surprisingly close to the modern economy class air fare. So, New York is 3,470 miles, which would be 3,470d. Each old penny is 1/240th of a pound, so that would work out as £14.46 in the decimalised equivalent in 1900 figures. Adjusting this for inflation using the CPI from this (http://www.in2013dollars.com/1900-GBP-in-2017?amount=14.46) website, we get £1,674.45, which is very close to the current premium economy fare, and 1.33 above the economy fare.

From New York to the original city of York, that distance is 174 miles from London. 174 / 240 = 0.725, giving £83.38 in 2017 terms, cheaper than the peak time standard class fare (which is 1.46 times higher than it), but more in line with the advance purchase standard class fare of £64.00 (and applying the suggested 0.6 ratio for very low/4th class above produces the figure of £50.03, which is very similar to the lowest possible fare of £53.00 travelling with an advance booking at an earlier time.

These figures, taking a simple pence per mile approach, also suggests that passengers are not likely much to benefit from the fare stages system (at least, for long journeys) that is rather more important for goods.

Edit: Addendum, Part II

Applying the same process for mail, assuming that first class mail is 1.2x second class mail and that air mail is 2.4x first class mail, we get:

Class 0 - ("low"), 2nd class: 0.83
Class 1 - ("medium"), 1st class: 1.0
Class 3 - ("high"), air mail/express delivery: 2.4
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on June 27, 2017, 08:11:02 PM
Having been away in Cornwall for a day or two, I have not had a chance to work on the coding, but, on the train back, as I am now, I have been able to do a small amount of research into how vehicle maintenance costs vary over time, which will be useful for calibrating the forthcoming maintenance features discussed in another thread.

Firstly, aircraft. This (http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG486.sum.pdf) document by the RAND Corporation gives a very interesting insight into how aircraft maintenance costs increase over time. This is done by time, it should be noted, not distance, so this might be somewhat hard to calibrate. It normalised a 6 year old aircraft's maintenance costs at 1.0, and found that a new aircraft's maintenance cost was 0.4, at 12 years maintenance was 1.2, and that it increased only insignificantly (0.7% per year) after that.

Meanwhile, this (http://www.tas.uk.net/content/images/Session4-Costs-SteveWarburton.pdf) set of PowerPoint slides from 2007 shows the relationship between fuel costs, parts costs, maintenance labour costs, driver costs and other costs for running 'buses, which, while not giving any indication of the variable maintenance costs with time, does at least give a good idea of which parts of the costs should be varied (parts, maintenance) and which proportion should not be (drivers, fuel). It gives fuel as 13% of cost, drivers as just under 40%, parts as 5%, maintenance staff as 6.3%, oveheads as 12%, pensions as 3.8% (this is a poor category, as the costs of these should be distributed among the differnet staff categories), staff on costs as 4.3% (ditto), and administrative staff as 6.5%.

Here (http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a23877/car-maintenance-costs-mileage/) is an article about  how car maintenance costs increase with mileage. This might be able to be extrapolated to other categories of road vehicle, particularly light vans. It finds that, from 0 - 25k miles, the maintenance costs are US$1.4k; from 25-50k miles, the costs are US$2.2k, from 50-75k miles, costs are US$3k, from 75-100k miles, costs are US$3.9k, from 100-125k miles, costs are US$4.1k, from 125-150k miles, costs are US$4.4k, from 150-175k miles, costs are US$4.8k and from 175-200k miles, costs are US$5k. As with aircraft, the effect seems to flatten with time but continue to increase gradually.

Edit: According to a .pdf which I have downloaded but the link to which I cannot currently find, entitled, "Advanced Clean Transit Program - Literature Review on Bus Transit Maintenance Cost", the maintenance costs of hybrid 'buses start at about US$1.50/mile, increasing to US$2.00/mile at 10 years of age, US$2.50/mile at 15 years of age and about US$2.70/mile at 20 years, whereas diesel 'buses start at US$1.70/mile, increase to about US$2.20/mile at 10 years, US$2.30/mile at 15 years, and US$2.60/mile at 20 years. This suggest an interesting property of these maintenance cost increases, being that the increases are greater in vehicles with more  modern technology. It is interesting to note in this connexion that steam locomotives, especially those used for lower speed, shorter distance work, could sometimes stay in service for over 70 years, and there was at least one example of a pair of steam locomotives built by the London & South Western Railway that were in regular service for nearly 100 years before they were withdrawn when steam traction generally was replaced on British Railways. This suggests that the increase in cost from the base line should be capped based on a setting in the individual vehicles' .dat files, and this cap, as a  proportion of the total amount, should be higher in the case of more sophisticated vehicles and lower in the case of less sophisticated vehicles.

According to a post here https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!msg/uk.railway/Dec6ff14wUg/UCUSQoisVGMJ  the Deltic locomotives had a planned availability percentage of 77% in the 1970s.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on July 28, 2017, 12:24:29 AM
Some information on the prices of railway carriages from, "Great Western coaches from 1890" by Michael Harris, published by Thomas & Lochar, ISBN 0-946537-82-8.

According to Harris at p. 17, he reports GWR four wheel carriages to have cost £380 - £450 in the middle and late 1890s, while clerestory corridor stock of the same period cost between £1,000 - £1,200 (all per carriage). The first restaurant cars, of 1892, cost £2,130 each; the 1903 cars £1,770 each. On p. 18, he notes that the standard 57ft "Toplight" carriages cost £1,200 each for those panelled in wood, whilst the steel panelled versions cost £1,500 each. The "Toplight" restaurant cars cost between £2,000 and £2,300 each.

On page 41, he reports that GWR non-corridor third class bogie carriages of 46'6" length cost £730 each in 1894, rising to £847 for very similar (but I think somewhat developed) carriages in 1902 when they were superseded by a later type.

An interesting note on dining car revenue is given on page 50: during the last half of 1890, the LNWR conveyed 8,784 dining passengers (an average of 14 dining passengers per journey), total gross receipts from the dining car service being £2,787 (or £0.31 per passenger in decimal currency). The costs are given as £2,817, showing the LNWR dining service to have been making a modest loss at the time (albeit not taking into account the extent to which such a service attracted more travelling passengers in the first place).

On the same page, he reports the cost of the 56ft dining cars of 1896 cost £2,138 each, and the staff costs (one cook, one attendant and one "page") were estimated at £195 per annum between them.

At page 52, he reports that the later 56ft dining cars of 1902/3 cost only £1,770 apiece.

At page 56, Harris states that the steam rail motors produced from 1903 cost £1,738, of which cost £1,100 was for the traction equipment (steam engine, boiler, etc.) and the remainder was the carriage itself.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on October 20, 2017, 10:13:44 PM
Some interesting information regarding costs/prices associated with small ferries from, "The London Tilbury & Southend Railway, volume 6: the Gravesend ferry" by Peter Kay (ISBN 978-1899890507) follows.

A steamboat of unknown description (I infer secondhand) was purchased for the ferry in 1852 for £626. A new horse boat was purchased in the same year for £240. This was a sailing boat, described as, "clinker built, copper fastened, with mast sails anchor and about 15 fathoms of chain, and stage abaft with tackle complete" (p. 433).

Some very interesting annual running costs as at the 1850s are given at p. 434:

master, 27s p.w., £70/4s per year;
engineer, 33s p.w., £85/16s per year;
mate, 21s p.w., £54/12s per year;
quay man, 14s p.w., £36/8s per year;
toll taker 20s p.w., £52 per year;
men for cattle boats (x2) 45s p.w., £117 per year;
coal £300 per year;
oil and tallow £26 per year;
repairs to boats £100 per year;
repairs to piers and premises £40 per year;
rope £12 per year;
taxes £17 per year;
rent of West Street premises £40 per year;
sundries (paint, tar, etc.) £60 per year;
interest on outlay £105 per year;
rent to Gravesend Corporation £800 per year;
totalling £1,916 per year.

In March 1956, tenders were obtained for two 170ft diesel boats (capable of carrying cars) to replace the existing steam boats, the cheapest bid for which was £182,743 each (p. 450). In 1958, tenders for smaller, passenger only boats were raised, and the bid for those were £80,000 each (p. 450).

In around the 1970s, the annual cost of maintaining what is described as the "BR portion of the Tilbury landing stage" was £40,000 (p. 452).

In 1860, one of the early steam boats on the Gravesend ferry, "Sir Walter Raleigh", which was originally an entirely open boat, had its aft deck enclosed at a cost of £500 (p. 485). The same boat then underwent repairs (effectively an overhaul) in March 1879 at a cost of £2,840 (p. 486).

In 1859, a new steamboat, with a fully enclosed aft cabin and a lower fore cabin, the "Earl of Essex", was purchased for £4,154, and was overhauled in 1877 with new boilers and other repairs for £1,100  (p. 486). A further new boiler was fitted in 1891 and it was scrapped in 1906 (ibid).

In 1882, a more modern ship (albeit still a paddlesteamer, but this time built of steel rather than iron) was purchased for £7,550, the vessel being delivered the following year (p. 488). Its name was "Tilbury", and it carried 600 passengers at 8 knots (ibid).

In 1892, a screw steamboat, "Carlotta", was purchased for £6,585, with a speed of 10 knots and a capacity of 626 (p. 489).

In 1903, a further new screw steamboat, "Catherine", was purchased for £8,275, this time with a capacity of 648 passengers and a speed of 9 knots (p. 491).

In 1905, a new boat, "Gertrude", was purchased for £8,700 - this had an open foredeck and could thus accommodate livestock and motor vehicles (p. 494). It had a 699 passenger capacity and a speed of 9 knots.

In 1912, a further boat, "Edith", was purchased for £11,234, with a capacity of 850 passengers and a speed of 9 knots (p. 495).

In 1923, the first dedicated car ferry for the service, "Tessa", was purchased for £13,800. This had capacity for 30 cars and 250 passengers and a speed of 9 knots (p. 498).

A similar but larger ferry, "Mimie", was purchased in 1927 for £17,825 with capacity for 36 cars and 300 passengers (p. 499).
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on November 04, 2017, 12:34:23 PM
This (http://www.pascalbonenfant.com/18c/wages.html) website has useful information about wages in the 1700s - thanks to Dutchman on Rails for the link to that.

Edit: Some information that I had not previously uploaded here from a book that I read earlier this year, entitled, "Ian Allan Transport Library - Daimler".

* A single decker Daimler COG5 with a 32 seat body (although this (https://www.flickr.com/photos/georgeupstairs/4343620300) source suggests that the vehicles in question in fact had 34 seat bodies) was reported as giving between 11.79 and 12.55mpg on what are described as "local services" (caption for lower picture, page 42). This suggests that single decker 'buses with their lower weight had significantly better per vehicle (if not necessarily per passenger) fuel economy compared to double deckers, the mileage of which is given above.
* At page 71, it is suggested that the 6 cylinder Gardner engines of the COG/CWG/CVG6 series had a "longer life" than the 5 cylinder engines of the COG/CWG/CVG5, although specifics are not given.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on November 12, 2017, 10:17:59 PM
My father has found some good information about the wages of my great, great grandfather, who worked on the railways in various capacities. His wages in various jobs were as follows:

- circa 1870s, carriage cleaner, London, Chatham & Dover Railway, 3s/week;
- 1881, porter, London, Brighton & South Coast Railway 15s/week;
- 1883, ticket collector, Borehill, LBSCR, 18s/week;
- 1885, signalman, New Cross Road, LBSCR, £1/week;
- 1886, signalman, New Cross Road/Streatham Hill, LBSCR, £1-2s/week;
- 188?, signalman, Wimbledon (joint), LBSCR, £1-3s/week;
- 1886, signalman, York Road, LBSCR, £1-5s/week;
- 18??, signalman, Penge/Wimbledon West, LBSCR, £1-3s/week*;
- 1912, signalman, Wimbledon West, LBSCR, £1-5s/week;
- 1920 (Jan.), signalman, Wimbledon West, LBSCR, £3-3s/week;
- 1920 (Jun.), signalman, Wimbledon West, LBSCR, £3-8s/week;
- 1921, signalman, Wimbledon West, LBSCR, £3-7s/week;
- 1922, signalman, Wimbledon West, LBSCR, £3-3s/week; and
- a silver topped stick on retirement (date not given).

* This downgrade is reported to have been following the collision of a goods train, for which my great, great grandfather was docked a week's wages, although apparently he was not to blame.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on November 25, 2017, 11:06:50 PM
This (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pm74i-7nHwA) Youtube video gives updated wages for 1946 - a signalman could expect to earn between £4-£6 per week (for an 8 hour shift) depending on the size of the signalbox, large junction boxes commanding the £6/week wage. Those working at a control centre earned "anything up to £8 per week and a good pension at the end". People in marshalling yards earned "up to £5 per week".

There was a maintenance gang for every 2 miles (3.2km) of track "on average". The maintenance gang in the film was depicted as having five people in it. The platelayers earned the railway's minimum wage at the time, which was £4-4s per week. Those working in a locomotive depot (even the locomotive cleaners) earned "a little more" than this. A parcels porter (a more senior position than an ordinary porter) earned £4-10s per week. Booking office clerks earned "as much as £7 per week" (suggesting that there were different grades of booking clerk of which the highest were paid £7 per week).
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on December 08, 2017, 01:54:34 AM
Some useful information on the prices of locomotives and rolling stock of the Metropolitan District Railway in London before electrification from this (http://www.lurs.org.uk/UN75A%20MAR(2)%201968.pdf) source.

The original locomotives were all but identical to the Metropolitan Railway "A" class, and cost £2,280 each in 1871. The second batch with "minor modifications" cost £2,265 each in 1875. A further order in 1883 cost £2,286 each.

In 1906, shortly after electrification, 43 steam locomotives were scrapped, going to different scrapyards, and fetching between £310 and £316 in scrap value. In 1909, a further 4 locomotives went for scrap at £240 each.

The initial rolling stock consisted of carriages based closely on those of the London, Chatham & Dover Railway (with internal modifications to increase capacity). The trains consisted of 2 first class carriages (each costing £455), 2 second class carriages (£373 each) and 4 third class carriages (£332 each).

Some all-inclusive prices are given in the article for "block trains" in the 1880s, but are not reproduced here as it is not clear how this relates to the prices of each individual vehicle.

New carriages were built  in 1900 relating to the joint working with the London, Tilbury & Southend Railway. Dimensions of the individual carriages to this design are given as 26ft 4 3/4" length over body, 8ft 6" width, 11ft 8" height from rail to lamp tops, and a 14ft 0" wheelbase.

First class carriages (to the 1900 design) seated 40 each (four compartments of 10 each), while second and third class carriages seated 50 each. Second class luggage compartment carriages seated 40, and third class luggage compartment carriages 30. Third class carriages were apparently fitted with cushioned seats. Carriages were braked on the Westinghouse principle.

In 1905, two third class carriages were sold to the War Office for a second-hand price of £50 each. In 1906, 40 carriages were sold to the Taff Vale Railway for £30 each.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on December 23, 2017, 02:16:59 PM
According to this (http://www.austinmemories.com/styled-52/styled-58/index.html) web page, the Morris LD van (1.5 ton version) cost £758 with a petrol engine or £877 with a diesel engine including purchase tax in 1956, having fallen by 1959 to £728 and £833 respectively (the reduction being caused by the abolition of purchase tax on commercial vehicles).
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on December 29, 2017, 02:14:45 PM
According to this (https://www.libraryindex.com/encyclopedia/pages/cpxkvqow0x/railways-rails-tons-rail.html) very old edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, the Killingworth colliery engines (probably Stephenson's Improved Engine of 1816) burnt 50lb of coal per mile at 6 miles per hour (being 8.33lb of coal per hour).



According to this (http://www.pontvalleynet.co.uk/the-wooden-waggonways.html) website, in circa 1810, wooden waggonways were recorded as costing 5s per yard.



Edit
: According to this (https://archive.org/stream/evolutionofsteam00nokerich/evolutionofsteam00nokerich_djvu.txt) old book, a steam locomotive built in 1831 for teh Monlkand and Kirkintilloch Railway, based on the design for "Locomotion", but with a multi-tubular boiler, cost "about £750" new (p. 51).



The same book at p. 53 records that the "Wilberforce" 0-6-0 locomotive of the Stockton and Darlington Railway, built by Hackworth/Hawthorn in 1832 of the "Majestic" class,  consumed 68lb of coal per mile, could haul 36 loaded chaldron wagons (equal to 171 tons) "on certain favourable gradients", and cost 4.5d per mile for repairs in 1839. It is recorded as having hauled 635,522 ton miles in 1839, in which year the combined wages of its drivers and firemen were £352-12-8.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on December 31, 2017, 07:46:47 PM
According to "Midland Railway Carriages" (Vol. 1) by Lacy & Dow at p. 5, orders placed in February 1840 by the Midland Counties Railway for various carriages recorded the cost per vehicle as follows:
(1) enclosed second class carriages (identical to the original enclosed second class carriages on the London & Birmingham): £210;
(2) open sided second class carriages (identical to those already in service upon the line, with sprung buffers): £168; and
(3) fully open third class carriages (possibly without seats): £143.

Edit: Page 43 of that same work refers to the price of the Midland Railway's 1844 copies of the original Grand Junction Railway's 1838 "flying post office" as being £460 each, built by outside contractors.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on January 02, 2018, 05:27:27 PM
According to the 1989 edition of the Great Eastern Railway Society Journal special (no. 3, summer 1989), available for download (albeit for a small fee) on the Great Eastern Society website, the service life of railway carriages built in the 1850s was in the region of 20 years.



Edit
: The following information is taken from "Highland Railway carriages and wagons" by Peter Tatlow, published by Noodle Books (ISBN978-1-909-328-13-6).

By 1902, the Lochgorm works employed 700 people (p. 10). By 1930, after grouping, the works had been reduced to facilities providing only light maintenance, employing merely 163 staff (p. 11).

Adding cushions to third class compartments that previously had bare wooden seats cost £2-5-0 (£2.25) per cushion in 1881 (pp. 24-5).

The initial carriages for the railway purchased in 1855 cost as follows: three first class carriages: £1,065 (presumably, for all three rather than each); four third class carriages: £800; and one brake van for £215 (p. 27).

In 1863, further orders were placed as follows: first class carriages £390 each; composite carriages £322-10 each; third class carriages £216 each; vans: £215 each; guards' brake vans: £144 each; horse boxes: £158 each and carriages trucks £104-10 each (p. 29).

In 1873, first class four wheel carriages were built at a cost of £517.5, weighing 9 tons, 10cwt and being 24ft 1in long and 7ft 4 in wide; third class carriages, of the same weight and dimensions, were in that year constructed for £290 apiece. Some similar but longer third class carriages (25ft 1 in length) were built in 1878 by a different builder for only £260.6 each, and the same cost appears to have attended some even longer carriages of 27ft 3in, weighing 10t 10cwt. These later carriages were 7ft 11in wide (p. 34).

Four elderly third class carriages were sold to a colliery branch line secondhand in 1898 for £60 each (p. 35).

Six wheel tri-composite carriages built in 1879, being 35ft 1in long, weighing 14 tons 10 cwt cost £499 each (p. 38).

Some third class carriages were converted to composites in 1909 at a cost of £51-10-0 each (p. 40).

Some locker composite carriages were built in 1888 by outside contractors to HR diagram 9 at a cost of £994 each (p. 44).

In 1908, some tri-composite lavatory carriages to diagram 15 were fitted with new bogies to improve their riding at a cost of £33 per carriage, and in that year the scrap produced from the old bogies, being 4 tons 4cwt, was sold for 35s (£1.75) per ton (p. 48).

A batch of lavatory third class carriages to HR diagram 28 were built by outside contractors in 1893 at a cost of £690 each (p. 50).

In circa 1909, some 6 wheel carriages (35ft 8in long, 14 tons tare) were built by outside contractors, the third class examples costing £580 each (p. 59).

Luggage composites lit by gas built to HR diagram no. 58 in 1908 cost £690 each and weighed 16 tons 0 cwt. Some coupé composites built the following year, oil lit with the same tare weight, cost £706 each (p. 62).

In 1901, some luggage/lavatory composites to HR diagram 17  were built by outside contractors at a cost of £900 each for one contractor and £1,115 each for the other. In 1899, some lavatory thirds to hr diagram 29 were built by various outside contractors for £895, £900, £1,025 and £1,030 each (p. 65).

In 1907, carriages to HR diagram 62 weighing 22 tons 0 cwt and of 46ft 4in length were built by outside contractors at a cost of £1,040 each; some carriages in the same year built internally to diagram 63 cost £772 each; and some 50ft 8in long carriages weighing 24 tons 7 cwt were built by outside contractors to HR diagram no. 56 in 1910 at a cost of £1,550 each (p. 77).

Bogie corridor carriages built in 1907 by outside contractors to diagram 54 cost £1,700 each (50ft long); similar carriages but 52ft long built to HR diagram no. 55 in 1912 cost between £1,477 and £1,570; composite brake carriages built in 1912 to HR diagram 57 (50ft length) cost £1,275 (outside contractors), and carriages to HR diagram no. 52 built in 1916 by outside contractors (52ft length) cost £1,596-10-0 each (p. 84).

Some 50ft bogie corridor third class carriages to HR diagram 60 built by outside contractors between 1909 and 1912 cost between £1,225 and £1,330 (depending on the date of construction); some similar carriages to diagram 61 cost £1,559 in 1917 (p. 95).

Some passenger brake vans to diagram 35 were built in 1873 at a cost of £328 each. Orders for two passenger brake vans in 1861 for £126 each are also recorded (p. 98).

Those same brake vans were then rebuilt in 1907 with panelled sides for use on short branch lines at a cost of £115 each (this may represent in effect the cost of overhaul) (p. 100).

Some 6 wheel passenger brake vans to HR diagram 38 were built in 1900 at a cost of £600 each (p. 106).

Bogie passenger brake vans built to diagram 64 between 1904 and 1909 cost between £607 and £670 (both by outside contractors (£645) and the HR itself (£607. £670). Similar vans to diagram 65 built by the HR itself in 1913 cost £800 and 1915 only £720 (p. `08).

A post office mail van was acquired in 1858 at a cost of £210, supplied by outside contractors (p. 113).

In 1884, new, larger mail vans were built (37ft 9in long) by outside contractors at a cost of £564 each. A further van to the same design was built by the HR itself in 1888 at a cost of £500 (p. 116).

In 1878, covered carriage trucks were built by outside contractors at a cost of £170-7-6 each. In 1902, some further, larger, examples were built using reclaimed underframes from old 3rd class "rib sided" carriages, at a cost of £112/116 each (p. 131).

In 1881, some 11 ton meat vans were built at a cost of £150 each, plus £5 each for making them suitable for use in passenger trains (p. 133). Further meat vans to a later design were built in 1906 for £160 each.

In 1858, open wagons measuring 12ft 10in b 7ft 6in by 1ft 4in internally were purchased at a cost of £65 each. Slightly larger wagons were built in 1861 at a price of £88-17-6 each (p. 145).

Covered goods vans were built in 1858 for £96-5-0 each (p. 148).  Some wagons of the same type to a later design were built in 1912 at a cost of £120 each (p. 150).

10 ton mineral wagons built in 1880 cost £90 each (p. 151), and 16 ton mineral wagons built in 1903 cost £84 each (p. 153). 8 ton wagons built in 1898 cost £75 each (ibid). In 1908, some 12t wagons were built for £94 each (p. 156).

Timber/bolster wagons built in 1855 cost £437 for six (£72.83 each), and in 1863, more of these were supplied by outside contractors for £79-18-6 each (p. 157).

Cattle wagons in 1874 were purchased from outside contractors at a cost of £104 each (p. 163).

Goods brake vans supplied in 1874 by outside contractors cost £328 each (p. 178).

13 ton goods brake vans of type "C" were built in 1898 at a cost of £197-10-0 each (p. 181).

A large, 20t 6 wheel goods brake van design in 1908 was produced, the vehicles costing £308 each (p. 182).  Similar vans on steel underframes in 1918 cost £995 each in 1918 (p. 188).
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on January 06, 2018, 07:41:24 PM
According to this (http://www.cntr.salford.ac.uk/comms/ebirth.php) website, the first installation of an electric telegraph for railway signalling in the UK was in 1839, and cost £3,270 for the section of line between Paddington and West Drayton on the Great Wester, being 13 miles.

This was an early form of telegraph which needed more conductor wires, and was more expensive than later forms of telegraph.
 
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on August 17, 2018, 10:38:29 PM
Some interesting information on the running cost of modern diesel multiple units: the Wikipedia article for the class 230  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_230) (Underground D stock DMU conversions) gives a comparison between the fuel consumption and running cost of these. the class 150 and an unspecified "new DMU" (as at circa 2017).

It gives the fuel consumption values as:

"New DMU": 0.8l per car mile;
class 150: 0.75l per car mile; and
class 230: 0.5l per car mile.

It gives the depot maintenance cost as:

"New DMU": 60p per car mile;
class 150: 70p per car mile; and
class 230: 40p per car mile.

The capital costs sadly are expressed as leasing prices, which are of limited use.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on November 12, 2018, 09:34:06 PM
According to this film (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsaeDbUjX8c), in 1938, the LMS railway used 5.5 million tons of coal per year at a cost of £4m, which would equate to a price per ton of £0.72.

According to "GWR Goods Train Working" (volume 1) by Tony Atkins, in 1900, a total of 23 million goods train miles on that railway yielded £5.7m in receipts. In 1912, the figure was 20 million goods train miles and £7.5 million in receipts. Between 1900 and 1908, the average revenue per train mile for goods trains increased from £4-11-8.5 to £6-11-5.6. Goods locomotives were said to have consumed 50lb of coal and 0.07 pints of lubricating oil per freight engine mile compared to 50lb and 0.06 pints for passenger engines.

According to the same book at p. 13, average speeds for freight workings in 1923 were between 9.8mph for Chester and Gloucester and 4.2mph for the Cardiff valleys (including starting/stopping at intermediate calling points). For reference, London was 9.5mph, Swansea 5.0mph, Birmingham 7.2mph, central Wales 6.6mph and Exeter 9.7mph.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on January 18, 2019, 12:27:19 AM
According to a book whose details I forgot to recall relating to the Southern Railway "Schools" class locomotive of 1930, the cost per locomotive was recorded as £5,374 each; they were said to burn 51lb of coal per train mile with a loading of 345 tons and using "Chislet" coal of 14,500BTU. Indicated horsepower was said to be 1,176 at 46mph.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on February 08, 2019, 01:01:33 AM
According to another book whose details I forgot to record, realting to steam locomotives on the Southern Railway, the Southern Lord Nelson class would burn up to 50lb of coal per mile on the heaviest duties.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on April 01, 2019, 02:35:50 PM
According to this (https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/142880-cost-difference-hydraulic-v-electric-transmissions/&do=findComment&comment=3491267) post on the "RMWeb forum", the following are some costs of some diesel and steam locomotives from the 1950s/1960s:

Quote
Some of what you are asking about is covered in David N Clough's excellent book "Hydraulic versus Electric".  Building costs per loco for some classes are given.  e.g.

Type 3

D6700 £84000

D7000 £79730  - £87950

Type 4

D1000 £115000 - £136000

D1500  £111000 -£125000

 

For comparison the last 9Fs built cost £33497 each.
Title: Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
Post by: jamespetts on April 22, 2019, 09:10:38 PM
According to a speaker at a recent Model Railway Club event, a BR Class 455 EMU cost circa £1m when new in around the early 1980s.