class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,724 
|
Post by class411 on Apr 6, 2021 10:23:59 GMT
As a result of a figure quoted in the "Clapham narrow platforms " thread, I wondered how much the LU system is worth (in purely monetary terms).
To put it another way, how much would it cost to build it from scratch, today. (Ignoring the cost of land acquisition.)
Maybe someone here has the knowledge to come up with a sensible guess, but I imagine it would be in the hundreds or billions region.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Apr 6, 2021 13:35:28 GMT
As a result of a figure quoted in the "Clapham narrow platforms " thread, I wondered how much the LU system is worth (in purely monetary terms). To put it another way, how much would it cost to build it from scratch, today. (Ignoring the cost of land acquisition.) Maybe someone here has the knowledge to come up with a sensible guess, but I imagine it would be in the hundreds or billions region. The question of worth is a very interesting point, but you’d also have to consider the extent of liability - namely the amount of ongoing maintenance required for structures like viaducts, bridges and tunnels, and what could happen if something went wrong like a tunnel collapse. I recall getting into conversation with the owner of a property next to a disused railway tunnel in Wales, who remarked how they had thought about purchasing the tunnel as an extension feature to their garden, but when they took legal advice on the practicalities of it the advice was very clearly *don’t do it*! There’s some interesting such structures, like the infilled but not quite properly infilled Bolsover Tunnel in the Midlands, which must now be a very serious liability should something ever happen, especially with houses and public space over the top. There’s other disused tunnels which are in poor condition and unmaintained, such as Burdale and Drewton (both in Yorkshire) but these run mainly beneath fields so aren’t quite so risky. This naturally wouldn’t apply to LU’s assets though. |
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,724
|
Post by class411 on Apr 6, 2021 13:46:12 GMT
The University of Kent at Canterbury had a building housing the language and the computer departments. Some years after it was built it began to collapse into the tunnel of the (long since closed) Whitstable to Canterbury line. (Which, had the claim to be the first line in the world ever to have had a season ticket issued for travel upon it.) But, really, I was just wondering how much it would cost to build and equip LU today. I wasn't planning on putting in a bid for the original.  |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Apr 6, 2021 13:55:25 GMT
Crossrail alone has already cost £20 billion plus, so heavens knows how much a whole network might cost!
|
|
|
|
Post by holborncentral on Apr 6, 2021 14:11:48 GMT
I wouldn't be able to put an exact estimate on it, but I reckon it would be somewhere in the billions. Probably double of what Crossrail has cost
|
|
|
|
Post by philthetube on Apr 6, 2021 14:17:40 GMT
I certainly would not offer even 1p for it, I understand that this is not what you are asking but I don't think irt would be saleable at any price
|
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Apr 6, 2021 20:50:27 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by johnlinford on Apr 6, 2021 21:28:51 GMT
That sounds the right ballpark though I suspect underestimates the cost to create from scratch if they didn't exist by at least one order of magnitude - think of the growth of regulations of construction especially since the 70s. The JLE cost around £3bn for a 16km tube railway for example - and cut and cover under the roads for the SSR may now actually be more expensive to do than that due to the disruption based on how the road network has changed and is used.
Net present value is of course very different from cost from scratch... The age is both a benefit and a hinderance in some ways!
|
|
|
|
Post by zbang on Apr 6, 2021 21:37:10 GMT
Hmm....
"Worth" <> Present value <> Cost to build from nothing (with or without the real-estate)
Liabilities of what might happen wouldn't figure in.
And to muddy the waters, how do you count shared assets (e.g. NatRail property used by LU trains) or long-term contracts?
Interesting no matter how you define the problem.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,387
|
Post by Chris M on Apr 6, 2021 23:20:18 GMT
cut and cover under the roads for the SSR may now actually be more expensive to do than that due to the disruption based on how the road network has changed and is used. Would it even be possible to build the SSR to its current specification today? |
|
|
|
Post by philthetube on Apr 7, 2021 0:59:33 GMT
cut and cover under the roads for the SSR may now actually be more expensive to do than that due to the disruption based on how the road network has changed and is used. Would it even be possible to build the SSR to its current specification today? No, is the simple answer, I dread to think how long the list of reasons why not would be , but you could start with curved platforms and step free access. |
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Apr 7, 2021 6:05:16 GMT
Page 138 shows further details. £m 42,092.6 is 60,541.4 less 18,448.8 depreciation as value is used up. Almost all is made up of Infrastructure and office buildings column and the Assets under construction column about 50/50. Remember these are figures for TfL, which is not just LU. Rolling stock is under 10% and Plant and equipment under 2%. |
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Apr 7, 2021 7:34:19 GMT
Would it even be possible to build the SSR to its current specification today? No, is the simple answer, I dread to think how long the list of reasons why not would be , but you could start with curved platforms and step free access. Neither curved platforms nor step-free access are engineering obstacles. It would, in fact, be easier to build the SSR today, than it was at the time; a result of years of experience and technical progress. People always confuse politics with physical fact. |
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Apr 7, 2021 20:22:16 GMT
I wouldn't be able to put an exact estimate on it, but I reckon it would be somewhere in the billions. Probably double of what Crossrail has cost Excellent estimate! Crossrail has been stated as adding 10% to London's public transport for a long time, but 100% to its cost? Most of the cost is in the stations. So 10 new, and assets under construction would also include Battersea branch (2), Barking Riverside (1) and Bank (1 platform). So 13+ stations £m 19,252.7 about = value of infrastructure and office buildings (260 stations +) £m 19,427.6 ! Go figure! |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Apr 8, 2021 20:51:46 GMT
No, is the simple answer, I dread to think how long the list of reasons why not would be , but you could start with curved platforms and step free access. Neither curved platforms nor step-free access are engineering obstacles. It would, in fact, be easier to build the SSR today, than it was at the time; a result of years of experience and technical progress. People always confuse politics with physical fact. Cut-and-cover construction in a built-up area would never be permitted today! |
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Apr 8, 2021 21:22:29 GMT
As a result of a figure quoted in the "Clapham narrow platforms " thread, I wondered how much the LU system is worth (in purely monetary terms). To put it another way, how much would it cost to build it from scratch, today. (Ignoring the cost of land acquisition.) Maybe someone here has the knowledge to come up with a sensible guess, but I imagine it would be in the hundreds or billions region. I'd guess to build it from scratch ignoring land acquisition would cost £1.5-2bn each for the District,Central,Northern,Met & Piccadilly Lines and £1-1.5 bn for the combined Bakerloo/Jubilee complex. All of those being what TfL now operates, not what's been sheared off, like Bakerloo to Watford. W & C & Victoria 500-750 million apiece & possibly 1 bn for Victoria because of the junction complexities on it. DLR is not counted, as we have modern figures for what it cost & significant private financing assisting. So, before we talk about step-free access & PED's, I would guess at least £9-10 billion. |
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Apr 9, 2021 7:30:35 GMT
Neither curved platforms nor step-free access are engineering obstacles. It would, in fact, be easier to build the SSR today, than it was at the time; a result of years of experience and technical progress. People always confuse politics with physical fact. Cut-and-cover construction in a built-up area would never be permitted today! ... And there we have a clear example of that very confusion! |
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,724
|
Post by class411 on Apr 9, 2021 7:57:44 GMT
Cut-and-cover construction in a built-up area would never be permitted today! ... And there we have a clear example of that very confusion! I don't think that's confusion. There are many reasons why you couldn't build LU as it is now, today. Political Financial We've already got one |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Apr 9, 2021 10:37:47 GMT
... And there we have a clear example of that very confusion! I don't think that's confusion. There are many reasons why you couldn't build LU as it is now, today. Political Financial We've already got oneWell, you did start off the thread! 😁 |
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Apr 9, 2021 12:12:01 GMT
The Hatton Cross extension was cut and cover in 1975!
|
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Apr 9, 2021 18:11:33 GMT
The Hatton Cross extension was cut and cover in 1975! It was, but that was the best part of 50 years ago - hardly today! |
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Apr 12, 2021 8:14:10 GMT
There are no 'lost technologies' involved in the constructional methods used on the London Underground.
We are once again making the mistake of confusing 'Can not', 'Will not' and 'Must not'.
Tunnelling techniques have become so well-developed, that digging a trench and covering it over mostly uneconomic. This does not mean
trenches 'cannot' be dug; it just renders it less likely.
"Own food CANNOT be eaten at these tables" is the commonly-found example of the gaffe.
|
|
