On Thu, 2 Jan 2014 13:04:50 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 04:51:48
on Thu, 2 Jan 2014, remarked:

Wikipedia says £1.2bn in 1955, which we then need to feed into an
inflation calculator. And out pops numbers in the region of £27bn

However, if we were doing the project today it would be to a higher
standard (eg disabled access) as well as higher line speeds for both
track and rolling stock; so it would be necessary to increase that
estimate quite a bit.

I could be wrong but I very much doubt that was in 1955 prices. I can't find
where you got that figure from Wikipaedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British...rnisation_Plan

Same figure he

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/doc...y.php?docID=23

"The Plan will involve an outlay of approximately 1,200 million" - BRB.

Bottom of page 5.

There's a breakdown which I'll post for completeness [with current
equivalent]:

Track and signalling £210m [4.7bn]
Replacing steam traction £345m [7.7bn]
Stations and passenger carriages £285m [6.4bn]
Freight wagons and terminals/yards £365m [8.2bn]
Sundry £ 35m [0.8bn]

Another interesting metric is that the BR turnover at the time was
"approaching £500m", so the investment was about 2.5x turnover.

Current turnover is about £12bn I think, so that multiplies up to £30bn,
which is surprising consistent with the £27bn earlier "estimate".

Whilst the current electrification programs fall short of the adjust
1950s number, if we add all the IEPs for the GW route, plus the
various new EMUs, plus new rolling stock for the ECML, the investment
is very high indeed.

Who would have thought in the dark days of the 1960s and 1970s that we
would live to see this.

--

http://www.991fmtalk.com/ The DMZ in Reno

In message , at 07:26:15 on
Sat, 4 Jan 2014, Aurora remarked:
Whilst the current electrification programs fall short of the adjust
1950s number, if we add all the IEPs for the GW route, plus the
various new EMUs, plus new rolling stock for the ECML, the investment
is very high indeed.

Who would have thought in the dark days of the 1960s and 1970s that we
would live to see this.

Why, did you expect that when the trains those are replacing fell apart,
the routes would be abandoned?
--
Roland Perry

On Sat, 4 Jan 2014 16:22:22 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 07:26:15 on
Sat, 4 Jan 2014, Aurora remarked:
Whilst the current electrification programs fall short of the adjust
1950s number, if we add all the IEPs for the GW route, plus the
various new EMUs, plus new rolling stock for the ECML, the investment
is very high indeed.

Who would have thought in the dark days of the 1960s and 1970s that we
would live to see this.

Why, did you expect that when the trains those are replacing fell apart,
the routes would be abandoned?

Wholesale? No. Gradual attrition? Yes.
--

http://www.991fmtalk.com/ The DMZ in Reno

In message , at 08:29:53 on
Sat, 4 Jan 2014, Aurora remarked:

Whilst the current electrification programs fall short of the adjust
1950s number, if we add all the IEPs for the GW route, plus the
various new EMUs, plus new rolling stock for the ECML, the investment
is very high indeed.

Who would have thought in the dark days of the 1960s and 1970s that we
would live to see this.

Why, did you expect that when the trains those are replacing fell apart,
the routes would be abandoned?

Wholesale? No. Gradual attrition? Yes.

It is a fairly gradual replacement. Started with Thameslink and
continues. IEPs won't arrive until 2017 (replacing HSTs built in the
late 70's) and their high cost is part of the increased specification
issue discussed earlier.

ps The ECML is getting IEPs as well.
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
(Aurora) wrote:

On Thu, 2 Jan 2014 13:04:50 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 04:51:48
on Thu, 2 Jan 2014, remarked:

Wikipedia says £1.2bn in 1955, which we then need to feed into an
inflation calculator. And out pops numbers in the region of £27bn

However, if we were doing the project today it would be to a higher
standard (eg disabled access) as well as higher line speeds for both
track and rolling stock; so it would be necessary to increase that
estimate quite a bit.

I could be wrong but I very much doubt that was in 1955 prices. I can't
find where you got that figure from Wikipaedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British...rnisation_Plan

Same figure he

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/doc...y.php?docID=23

"The Plan will involve an outlay of approximately 1,200 million" - BRB.

Bottom of page 5.

There's a breakdown which I'll post for completeness [with current
equivalent]:

Track and signalling £210m [4.7bn]
Replacing steam traction £345m [7.7bn]
Stations and passenger carriages £285m [6.4bn]
Freight wagons and terminals/yards £365m [8.2bn]
Sundry £ 35m [0.8bn]

Another interesting metric is that the BR turnover at the time was
"approaching £500m", so the investment was about 2.5x turnover.

Current turnover is about £12bn I think, so that multiplies up to £30bn,
which is surprising consistent with the £27bn earlier "estimate".

Whilst the current electrification programs fall short of the adjust
1950s number, if we add all the IEPs for the GW route, plus the
various new EMUs, plus new rolling stock for the ECML, the investment
is very high indeed.

Who would have thought in the dark days of the 1960s and 1970s that we
would live to see this.

Indeed. But they are still very rude about the coalition government!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 11:36:11 -0600,
wrote:

In article ,
(Aurora) wrote:

On Thu, 2 Jan 2014 13:04:50 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 04:51:48
on Thu, 2 Jan 2014, remarked:

Wikipedia says £1.2bn in 1955, which we then need to feed into an
inflation calculator. And out pops numbers in the region of £27bn

However, if we were doing the project today it would be to a higher
standard (eg disabled access) as well as higher line speeds for both
track and rolling stock; so it would be necessary to increase that
estimate quite a bit.

I could be wrong but I very much doubt that was in 1955 prices. I can't
find where you got that figure from Wikipaedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British...rnisation_Plan

Same figure he

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/doc...y.php?docID=23

"The Plan will involve an outlay of approximately 1,200 million" - BRB.

Bottom of page 5.

There's a breakdown which I'll post for completeness [with current
equivalent]:

Track and signalling £210m [4.7bn]
Replacing steam traction £345m [7.7bn]
Stations and passenger carriages £285m [6.4bn]
Freight wagons and terminals/yards £365m [8.2bn]
Sundry £ 35m [0.8bn]

Another interesting metric is that the BR turnover at the time was
"approaching £500m", so the investment was about 2.5x turnover.

Current turnover is about £12bn I think, so that multiplies up to £30bn,
which is surprising consistent with the £27bn earlier "estimate".

Whilst the current electrification programs fall short of the adjust
1950s number, if we add all the IEPs for the GW route, plus the
various new EMUs, plus new rolling stock for the ECML, the investment
is very high indeed.

Who would have thought in the dark days of the 1960s and 1970s that we
would live to see this.

Indeed. But they are still very rude about the coalition government!

And I was trying so hard to be apolitical. The government is not my
cup-of-tea. But, no honest person can deny that their record on
transportation related issues is excellent.
--

http://www.991fmtalk.com/ The DMZ in Reno

In article ,
(Aurora) wrote:

On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 11:36:11 -0600,
wrote:

In article ,
(Aurora) wrote:

On Thu, 2 Jan 2014 13:04:50 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at
04:51:48 on Thu, 2 Jan 2014, remarked:

Wikipedia says £1.2bn in 1955, which we then need to feed into an
inflation calculator. And out pops numbers in the region of £27bn

However, if we were doing the project today it would be to a higher
standard (eg disabled access) as well as higher line speeds for
both track and rolling stock; so it would be necessary to increase
that estimate quite a bit.

I could be wrong but I very much doubt that was in 1955 prices. I
can't find where you got that figure from Wikipaedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British...rnisation_Plan

Same figure he

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/doc...y.php?docID=23

"The Plan will involve an outlay of approximately 1,200 million" -
BRB.

Bottom of page 5.

There's a breakdown which I'll post for completeness [with current
equivalent]:

Track and signalling £210m [4.7bn]
Replacing steam traction £345m [7.7bn]
Stations and passenger carriages £285m [6.4bn]
Freight wagons and terminals/yards £365m [8.2bn]
Sundry £ 35m [0.8bn]

Another interesting metric is that the BR turnover at the time was
"approaching £500m", so the investment was about 2.5x turnover.

Current turnover is about £12bn I think, so that multiplies up to
£30bn, which is surprising consistent with the £27bn earlier
"estimate".

Whilst the current electrification programs fall short of the adjust
1950s number, if we add all the IEPs for the GW route, plus the
various new EMUs, plus new rolling stock for the ECML, the investment
is very high indeed.

Who would have thought in the dark days of the 1960s and 1970s that we
would live to see this.

Indeed. But they are still very rude about the coalition government!

And I was trying so hard to be apolitical. The government is not my
cup-of-tea. But, no honest person can deny that their record on
transportation related issues is excellent.

Thanks. And I agree there are areas it deserves not to be proud of.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 18:15:53 -0600,
wrote:

In article ,
(Aurora) wrote:

On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 11:36:11 -0600,
wrote:

In article ,
(Aurora) wrote:

On Thu, 2 Jan 2014 13:04:50 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at
04:51:48 on Thu, 2 Jan 2014, remarked:

Wikipedia says £1.2bn in 1955, which we then need to feed into an
inflation calculator. And out pops numbers in the region of £27bn

However, if we were doing the project today it would be to a higher
standard (eg disabled access) as well as higher line speeds for
both track and rolling stock; so it would be necessary to increase
that estimate quite a bit.

I could be wrong but I very much doubt that was in 1955 prices. I
can't find where you got that figure from Wikipaedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British...rnisation_Plan

Same figure he

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/doc...y.php?docID=23

"The Plan will involve an outlay of approximately 1,200 million" -
BRB.

Bottom of page 5.

There's a breakdown which I'll post for completeness [with current
equivalent]:

Track and signalling £210m [4.7bn]
Replacing steam traction £345m [7.7bn]
Stations and passenger carriages £285m [6.4bn]
Freight wagons and terminals/yards £365m [8.2bn]
Sundry £ 35m [0.8bn]

Another interesting metric is that the BR turnover at the time was
"approaching £500m", so the investment was about 2.5x turnover.

Current turnover is about £12bn I think, so that multiplies up to
£30bn, which is surprising consistent with the £27bn earlier
"estimate".

Whilst the current electrification programs fall short of the adjust
1950s number, if we add all the IEPs for the GW route, plus the
various new EMUs, plus new rolling stock for the ECML, the investment
is very high indeed.

Who would have thought in the dark days of the 1960s and 1970s that we
would live to see this.

Indeed. But they are still very rude about the coalition government!

And I was trying so hard to be apolitical. The government is not my
cup-of-tea. But, no honest person can deny that their record on
transportation related issues is excellent.

Thanks. And I agree there are areas it deserves not to be proud of.

Glad we found common ground. I suspect we both feel relieved that
parliament saved us from the Syrian debacle, as wasn't.
--

http://www.991fmtalk.com/ The DMZ in Reno

I'm an honest man and I do deny their record is excellent.

For a Government which so frequently expresses admiration for Margaret
Thatcher, it is lamentable they do not apply her approach to the Channel
Tunnel to HS2. One of the very few things she got right was insisting from the
outset that the taxpayer would not be involved in the Channel Tunnel. She
made it clear that this was a private enterprise project and private enterprise
would take all the risk.

What a pity this Government has abandoned not only Thatcher's policy but
John Major's as well. When privatising the railways, Major reinterated
constantly that this would get the railways off the taxpayer's back.

Bob Crowe, with whom I do not instinctively sympathise, is quite right when
he points out that as the taxpayer is now pumping more money than ever into
the railways, far more than when it was nationalised, it might as well be taken
back into public ownership.

In article ,
(Aurora) wrote:

On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 18:15:53 -0600,
wrote:

In article ,
(Aurora) wrote:

On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 11:36:11 -0600,
wrote:

In article ,
(Aurora) wrote:

On Thu, 2 Jan 2014 13:04:50 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at
04:51:48 on Thu, 2 Jan 2014,
remarked:

Wikipedia says £1.2bn in 1955, which we then need to feed into
an inflation calculator. And out pops numbers in the region of
£27bn

However, if we were doing the project today it would be to a
higher standard (eg disabled access) as well as higher line
speeds for both track and rolling stock; so it would be
necessary to increase that estimate quite a bit.

I could be wrong but I very much doubt that was in 1955 prices. I
can't find where you got that figure from Wikipaedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British...rnisation_Plan

Same figure he

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/doc...y.php?docID=23

"The Plan will involve an outlay of approximately 1,200 million" -
BRB.

Bottom of page 5.

There's a breakdown which I'll post for completeness [with current
equivalent]:

Track and signalling £210m [4.7bn]
Replacing steam traction £345m [7.7bn]
Stations and passenger carriages £285m [6.4bn]
Freight wagons and terminals/yards £365m [8.2bn]
Sundry £ 35m [0.8bn]

Another interesting metric is that the BR turnover at the time was
"approaching £500m", so the investment was about 2.5x turnover.

Current turnover is about £12bn I think, so that multiplies up to
£30bn, which is surprising consistent with the £27bn earlier
"estimate".

Whilst the current electrification programs fall short of the adjust
1950s number, if we add all the IEPs for the GW route, plus the
various new EMUs, plus new rolling stock for the ECML, the
investment is very high indeed.

Who would have thought in the dark days of the 1960s and 1970s that
we would live to see this.

Indeed. But they are still very rude about the coalition government!

And I was trying so hard to be apolitical. The government is not my
cup-of-tea. But, no honest person can deny that their record on
transportation related issues is excellent.

Thanks. And I agree there are areas it deserves not to be proud of.

Glad we found common ground. I suspect we both feel relieved that
parliament saved us from the Syrian debacle, as wasn't.

Funny you should mention that. I was even more relieved that my MP was one
of those leading that revolt.

--
Colin Rosenstiel