The International Simutrans Forum

 

Author Topic: A snippet of relative pricing information  (Read 153030 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online jamespetts

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 21026
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
« Reply #245 on: August 21, 2021, 11:48:52 PM »
Some information on stage coaches from this archived source:

Quote
Following Mr Palmer's innovations there were improvements to the design of coaches and in the roads which helped rapidly improve the speed of coach trips and while the coaching industry boomed from 1820-30 and created many bankrupts and few millionaires.

The coaches of this new age had stages that averaged 8-10 miles in distance or about an hour in travel time - they tended to have longer stages for longer routes so while the London to Edinburgh route the stages averaged 14 miles, London to Brighton the average was about 10 miles.

There were numerous costs, for instance, coaching operators rarely owned their own coaches, instead they leased them from Coachbuilders at a charge per "double mile" (that is the distance to and from a place). In 1830 it cost around 130-150 pounds to build a stage coach. Each route demanded at least 4 coaches, an up coach, a down coach and a spare at each end in case of breakdown so the Tally Ho, or The Age were not one vehicle but many. Also the names would be used on many different routes and by different proprietors (such as the Tally Ho).Then there was cost of stabling, taxes on the coach, coachmen and guards to be paid, and road tolls. It was estimated that coach must make some 4 -5 pounds per double mile on average to survive.

Online jamespetts

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 21026
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
« Reply #246 on: January 02, 2022, 11:37:26 PM »
According to this Wikipedia article, the Leyland Titan PD2/20 double decker 'bus was advertised as achieving 9.75mpg in daily service in the late 1950s.

Online jamespetts

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 21026
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
« Reply #247 on: January 03, 2022, 11:09:49 AM »
According to Railway Construction by William Hemmingway Mills, published in 1910,

Quote from: William Hemmingway[/url
Some tunnels for double line have been constructed in good ground, and under favourable circumstances as to building materials and labour, for as low as £32 per lineal yard; while others, carried out under adverse conditions, have cost as much as £150 per lineal yard. A medium somewhere between the two should represent the cost of tunnel-work through ground which does not present any special difficulty. At the same time it must be borne in mind that simple tunnelling which can be done in one locality for £50 or £60 per lineal yard, would be increased 20, 30, or 40 per cent. in another, where building material for the lining is scarce and expensive.

That book also gives the material only cost per mile of laying various types of railway. This does not include labour cost, but will accurately show the difference in cost between different grades of railway, as it is the material cost that differs in those cases.

Steel bullhead rail of 90lb/yard: £1,589/10s/10d
Steel bullhead rail of 85lb/yard: £1,477/11s/8d
Steel bullhead rail of 80lb/yard: £1,403/3s/7d
Steel bullhead rail of 75lb/yard: £1,342/2s/5d
Steel bullhead rail of 70lb/yard: £1,257/19s/14d
Steel bullhead rail of 65lb/yard: £1,140/3s/6d

Online jamespetts

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 21026
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
« Reply #248 on: January 08, 2022, 11:36:37 AM »
Some information on tram fares: from this website:

Quote
Local tram fares in 1906

Horns Cross - Bexleyheath
   

4d

Horns Cross - Crayford Bridge
   

3d

Milestone Road - Bexleyheath
   

3d

Horns Cross - Bull Hotel (Dartford)
   

2d

Milestone Road - Maiden Lane
   

2d

Bull Hotel (Dartford) - Crayford Gas Works
   

2d

West Hill School (Dartford) - Crayford Bridge
   

1d

Crayford Bridge - Bexleyheath
   

1d

Dartford Station - Fulwich Street
   

1d

Dartford Station - Maiden Lane
   

1d

Dartford Station - Wilmington
   

1d

Workman's fare - half the above rate.

Incidentally, Crayford Bridge to Bexleyheath is about 1.8 miles, so the tram fare would have been 1d for 1.8 miles, or half this for workmen.

Edit: According to Wikipedia, early horse trams in London (1860s) had fares of 1d/mile, with half price fares for workmen.

Edit 2: According to this ticket issued by London United Tramways somewhere between 1900 and 1910, a tram fare from Hampton Court to Shepherd's Bush was 4d. The distance between those two points is 13.01km (8.08 miles), giving a fare of about 0.5d (or £0.002083) per mile.

Edit 3: Some more useful information on the history of passenger railway fares from W. M. Ackworth's Elements of Railway Economics:

Quote
The Cheap Trains Act of 1844—to cite it by its common name, though in fact it dealt with many other subjects—required every company to run one train a day for the whole length of its line, calling at all stations, at a speed of not less than 12 miles an hour, and at fares of not more than Id. per mile. The fares in third-class carriages on these trains, known to an earlier generation as ‘ parliamentary trains were exempt from the tax of 5 per cent, charged on all other fares. But for many years after 1844 by all other trains the third-class fares were at the rate of 1 1\4d. or 1 1\2d. per mile. Gradually, the fares for third-class passengers on all trains by which they were carried were reduced to the parliamentary level; and the penny-a-mile passengers were admitted more and more to the faster trains. Finally, in 1872 the Midland Railway took the plunge and announced that in future third-class passengers would be carried on every train. The companies on either side of the Midland were compelled to follow suit immediately, and within a few years the other companies fell into line.

...

Modern railway Acts have fixed statutory maxima of 3d., 2d., and Id. per mile for three classes respectively. But first-class fares of 3d. had long been obsolete for practical purposes; the fares in fact ranged between 2 1\2d. and 1 1\2d. The second class itself is obsolete. The third-class 1d. only registered what the companies had conceded of their own accord.

Edit 4

Further, on p. 207, Ackworth writes,

Quote
The railway returns for 1923 show that, whereas the nominal ordinary fare is 2 \d. per mile first-class and 1 1/2d. third-class, in fact the average sum received per passenger-mile for all classes at full fares is only about 1.4 d. Moreover, so large a proportion of the first-class travel is not on ordinary tickets, but on season or traders’ tickets, that the average receipt per first-class passenger-mile is only Id. Similarly in the third class, workmen’s and season tickets bring down the average from 1 1\2d. to 0.93d. Taking the total of all classes and all descriptions of ticket, we find that the average fare paid per mile travelled is at present 0.935d. In other words the actual fare paid per passenger-mile is only 62 per cent, of the ordinary third-class fare. 1 If we assumed that the same ratio existed before the war between the standard third-class penny and the average fare paid per mile for all travel, the latter figure would have been 0.62d. But the average fare paid is undoubtedly nearer the ordinary third-class fare now than it was before the war. For a good many of the cheapest fares have been suppressed, and workmen’s and excursion fares have been steeply raised. So it is safe to assume that the average fare received by the railways for carrying a passenger a mile was not in 1914 more than 0.55d.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2022, 01:17:53 PM by jamespetts »

Offline PJMack

  • *
  • Posts: 81
  • Languages: EN
Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
« Reply #249 on: January 14, 2022, 03:38:24 AM »
I searched through the Wikipedia articles on railway viaducts in the UK.  Below is a chart of all the ones with pricing listed that I could find.  Unfortunately there is not much in the way of correlations.  All sources Wikipedia (should all be searchable by name; "viaduct" removed from name in below table).

Code: [Select]
Viaduct Type Foundation Year cost at time length (m) height (m) cost per km cost per km 1900 aprx
Sankey Stone dry 1828 £45,000.00 183 21 £245,901.64 £199,000.00
Dutton stone dry 1836 £54,000.00 457 18 £118,161.93 £109,000.00
Penkridge Stone dry 1837 £6,000.00 82 £73,170.73 £66,000.00
Victoria Stone dry 1838 £40,338.00 247 37 £163,311.74 £147,000.00
Willington Dene Timber on Stone dry 1839 £25,000.00 319 23 £78,369.91 £66,000.00
Stockport Viaduct brick dry 1840 £72,000.00 547 34 £131,627.06 £109,000.00
Ouse Valley brick dry 1842 £38,500.00 450 £85,555.56 £78,000.00
Usk timber wet 1848 £20,000.00 366 £54,644.81 £53,000.00
Chappel brick dry 1849 £32,000.00 320 £100,000.00 £103,000.00
Yarm Stone dry 1849 £44,500.00 690 20 £64,492.75 £66,000.00
Knaresborough Stone dry 1851 £9,803.00 80 24 £122,537.50 £138,000.00
Hengoed Stone dry 1854 £20,000.00 260 37 £76,923.08 £68,000.00
Crumlin Wrought Iron trestle dry 1857 £62,000.00 500 61 £124,000.00 £114,000.00
Belah Lattice truss dry 1857 £31,630.00 317 60 £99,779.18 £92,000.00
Grosvenor Bridge metal arch wet 1859 £84,000.00 283.5 £296,296.30 £302,000.00
Kingsland brick dry 1861 £1,000,000.00 3.00E+03 £333,333.33 £322,000.00
Ribblehead Stone and Brick dry 1869 £343,318.00 400 32 £858,295.00 £830,000.00
Scotswood Railway Bridge Wrought Iron Beam wet 1871 £20,000.00 212 £94,339.62 £90,000.00
Welland brick dry 1878 £12,000.00 1166 £10,291.60 £10,000.00
Fledborough brick dry 1897 £65,000.00 814 £79,852.58 £85,000.00
Glenfinnan cement arch dry 1898 £18,904.00 380 30 £49,747.37 £53,000.00
King Edward VII Bridge Lattice on stone pier wet 1906 £500,000.00 350 34 £1,428,571.43 £1,414,000.00
Queen Alexandra Bridge Truss on Stone wet 1909 £450,000.00 274 26 £1,642,335.77 £1,590,000.00
Carnon stone wet 1933 £40,000.00 230 29 £173,913.04 £101,000.00
Queen Elizabeth II Bridge Truss on concrete wet 1978 £4,900,000.00 352.7 25 £13,892,826.76 £648,000.00

Online jamespetts

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 21026
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
« Reply #250 on: January 14, 2022, 10:00:12 AM »
Very interesting - thank you.

Online jamespetts

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 21026
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
« Reply #251 on: January 14, 2022, 10:20:17 PM »
For reference, I have added your bridge information to my spreadsheet, as shown here:


I have ordered them by normalised price. There are a few anomalies (e.,g. the Welland bridge), but there is a fairly general pattern, albeit with considerable variation, I presume with geography.

Offline PJMack

  • *
  • Posts: 81
  • Languages: EN
Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
« Reply #252 on: January 15, 2022, 02:07:52 AM »
The Welland Viaduct had the bricks made on site, which could account for the cost saving, however it is more likely to simply be an erroneous figure, as the citation for it is a secondary source without other source listings.

The Kingsland vaiduct was through and urban area displacing 4500 people, so land cost would have been rather high.

The Ribblehead Viaduct was in the middle of nowhere, and a temporary town built for it's construction.  Over 100 workers died during construction.

The Hongoed Viaduct had an onsite quarry for stone works according to the Wikipedia page, however this is with failed verification of the source.

I did also find a few errors in material listings.  The Pankridge viaduct is actually mostly brick with stone decorative elements (it looks like stone from a distance).  The Yarm Viaduct had two stone arches and 41 brick ones.  (The Yarm Viaduct page also gives wages of 1 Pound Per Day).

For listing wet or dry, I went with the majority of the pillars.  I considered the edges of rivers to be dry.

It can also be noted that the vast majority of listings are for double lanes of track, so for simutrans we may need to half these values.

Again, all sources Wikipedia, so take this information with a grain of salt.

Online jamespetts

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 21026
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
« Reply #253 on: January 15, 2022, 09:46:29 AM »
Ahh, I had not realised that you had not accounted for the number of tracks as I had with the Hanwell viaduct. I will have to halve the figures.

Offline wlindley

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 1094
    • Simutrans fan since 2009
  • Languages: EN, DE
Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
« Reply #254 on: January 15, 2022, 11:32:41 AM »
Note that a double-track bridge steel truss bridge will use not much more steel than a single-track bridge (having identical vertical elements), but that the site preparation, materials transportation, and labor cost to build either one will often be only moderately higher. These things are not linear -- the Firth of Forth bridge would not have cost much less to build as a one-track structure, but building it three tracks wide might have inflated the cost tremendously.

Offline PJMack

  • *
  • Posts: 81
  • Languages: EN
Re: A snippet of relative pricing information
« Reply #255 on: January 16, 2022, 03:36:43 AM »
Note that a double-track bridge steel truss bridge will use not much more steel than a single-track bridge (having identical vertical elements), but that the site preparation, materials transportation, and labor cost to build either one will often be only moderately higher. These things are not linear -- the Firth of Forth bridge would not have cost much less to build as a one-track structure, but building it three tracks wide might have inflated the cost tremendously.
It was also often common to build a double track bridge on a single track line to cut the costs of future expansion according to Railway Construction by William Hemmingway Mills.  The reason we are halving the values is that in simutrans is is currently only possible (even with the pier system) to produce elevated ways and bridges for a single line of track.  A double line would require two bridges or sets of elevated ways to build, twice as much as reality.  It may be possible to have bridges and viaducts parallel and adjacent to others be discounted (as it is with forge costs) however that would add another layer of complexity, not only in pakset design and balancing but in the coding as well.