How much would it cost the build the Great Western Railway today?

[whole diary]

[Not from Brighton]

I have noticed a number of posts on other thread's citing excessive 'elf & safety, burocracy etc as an impediment to, well anything really.

Can anyone make a good estimate of how much it would cost to build the original Great Western Railway from London to Bristol today?
Is it possible to translate the actual cost from back then into today's money?
Anyone like to hazard a guess as to which figure would be higher?

[bemmy]

Well if they were going to employ thousands of Irish navvies at today's minimum wage, instead of the pittance they used to get in the 19th Century, it would cost as much as baling out a medium sized bank! 

[The Grecian]

I'd be surprised if building it today wouldn't be more expensive. As bemmy points out you'd have a much more expensive workforce, plus a considerable amount of health and safety regulations - something which didn't overly concern Mr Brunel. Even given the difference in construction techniques and materials, it would surely take longer and probably involve extra staff, so I'd have thought it would definitely cost more today.

[John R]

Don't forget the 20 years from thinking about the concept, numerous consultancy reports, prevaricating by the government of the day (whichever colour), and then 4 years for the public enquiry.

But in that time, it would have been announced no less than 5 times as going ahead by the various governments. 

[Chris from Nailsea]

... and at each announcement, the cost would be quoted - increased by a factor of 10 - just in case the actual cost was less, and the eventual result could then be hailed as a success, "under budget"!

 

[G.Uard]

Just put some ballast down on the M4/M32, bulldoze the less attractive parts of South Brizzle and same again for the M5.   

[bemmy]

bulldoze the less attractive parts of South Brizzle

Oi! that's my house that is! 

[eightf48544]

What about HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) on stilts above the motorways?

Back to the original point don't forget Brunel was somewhat haphazard with his costings.

I did find a web site which gives the value of the pound in todays money for various historical dates, so it would be relatively easy to express the final cost of London Bristol (if known, accountancy tricks are nothing new!) in todays pounds.

You could then make a per mile comparison with say the first part of HS1^▸ (High Speed line 1 - St Pancras to Channel Tunnel) to North of the Medway. This would be fair comparison because both were constructed using the latest contruction methods available, men and horses for Brunel and mechanical earth movers for HS1. They both deployed  latest rail technology steam broad gauge and 25KV electric with cab signalling. Both lines were built as mostly two track in open country. You've got a major structure in the Medway bridge to compare with Warncliffe, Maidenhead and Box tunnel. You can't  make a direct comparison with the remainder of the route to St Pancras because it's mostly in tunnel. Although it would still make an interesting exercise and might answer whether modern tecnology in rail construction has made overll construction of new lines.

There is also another comparison which is timescale, agreed The Great Western was probably quicker from conception to opening than HS1 but I'm not sure if you compare from turning the first sod to completion there would be much difference. One would hope that modern machinery nowadays would be quicker.

Another possible compaison is the Selby diveversion on the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line), that was put in by BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) before elf and safety and consultants were invented.

Does anyone have access to above figures to make the comparison.

[Not from Brighton]

Ok, done a bit of digging.
According to a report entitled Channel Tunnel Rail Link from the House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts, total expenditure on section 2 was ^3bn out of a total cost of ^5.8bn.  That would leave ^2.8bn for section 1.
According to Wikipedia, section 1 of HS1^▸ (High Speed line 1 - St Pancras to Channel Tunnel) is 46miles long.  So that's ^60.9 million per mile (at 2003 prices).
greatwestern.org.uk has it that Brunel's railway cost ^6.5 million (more than twice estimated).  It is 118miles long so that's 55.1 thousand pounds per mile (at 1841 prices).

So how do we go about adjusting for inflation??!?!

[welshman]

I found an American inflation calculation site which suggested ^1.1million as a current equivalent per mile.  Or ^130m or so for the whole thing.

And then I found an ONS^» (Office for National Statistics - website) document which suggested an index of about 720 as against about 11 in 1841.  That would make it ^3.6m/mile or ^425m altogether.

 

[G.Uard]

bulldoze the less attractive parts of South Brizzle

Oi! that's my house that is! 

Ah! 
The one with the sheep painted on it.

[welshman]

There's nothing wrong with sheep.

Some of my best friends are sheep.

 

[Chris from Nailsea]

Lest anyone not so familiar with the various lineside artwork between Bristol Temple Meads and Bedminster is confused by this banter, may I offer this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ricksphotos101/3314624486/

 

[G.Uard]

There's nothing wrong with sheep.

Some of my best friends are sheep.

 

I'll shut up before I get a lambasting then.

[bemmy]

bulldoze the less attractive parts of South Brizzle

Oi! that's my house that is! 

Ah! 
The one with the sheep painted on it.

You think Totterdown's sheep and monkey houses are the least attractive places in S Bristol? better stay north of the river then!