"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
"Recliner" wrote:
"Stimpy" wrote in message
e.co.uk
On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 20:39:55 +0100, Recliner wrote

And I can't remember when I last saw a first generation Ford Escort
from the same era.

My mate a mile up the valley from here has one in his garage.

Of course, if it spends most/all of its time in his garage it rather
proves my point about any other surviving 1960s machines being treated
as preserved equipment, rather than being in full-time use like the
1967
stock.


It is hardly valid to compare a car, built to a design life of ~60,000
miles and ~5 years, with a train, built to a design life of many
millions of miles and ~30 years.

In addition, the train is built in a way that allows major
refurbishment
to further extend life, whereas that is difficult with a car that was
built down to a price whose major components all tend to begin to fail
at around the same sort of age/mileage.

I agree that cars do have a much shorter design life, but it's certainly
more than five years and 60k miles. Airliners have a longer design life,
but still not as long as trains (typically, 20-30 years).

But another point is that the average traveller wouldn't notice that the
Victoria line stock is ~40 years old, whereas even if it was fully
restored, you'd certainly notice if you were riding in a 40 year old
car. I once owned a 1966 Mk 1 Ford Cortina and although I sold it long
ago, when I see an occasional museum example, I'm reminded just how
primitive it was compared to any modern car (with the possible exception
of the Tata Nano).

Personally, I'd rather ride in a 1967 stock train than the modern
Jubilee and Northern line trains that came from the same factory. I
certainly wouldn't prefer to ride in a 1967 car compared to almost any
modern car.

In message
Tony Polson wrote:

"Recliner" wrote:
"Stimpy" wrote in message
.co.uk
On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 20:39:55 +0100, Recliner wrote

And I can't remember when I last saw a first generation Ford Escort
from the same era.

My mate a mile up the valley from here has one in his garage.

Of course, if it spends most/all of its time in his garage it rather
proves my point about any other surviving 1960s machines being treated
as preserved equipment, rather than being in full-time use like the 1967
stock.


It is hardly valid to compare a car, built to a design life of ~60,000
miles and ~5 years, with a train, built to a design life of many
millions of miles and ~30 years.

I thought Ford cars of that era were built with a design life of warranty
period plus 1 day...


--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

In article ,
Recliner wrote:
"Stimpy" wrote in message
.co.uk
On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 20:39:55 +0100, Recliner wrote

And I can't remember when I last saw a first generation Ford Escort
from the same era.

My mate a mile up the valley from here has one in his garage.

Of course, if it spends most/all of its time in his garage it rather
proves my point about any other surviving 1960s machines being treated
as preserved equipment, rather than being in full-time use like the 1967
stock.

The two-three around here seem to be - mostly - in daily use (well, I see
one of 'em most days, and t'others whenever I go to their spheres of
activity), plus weekly motorsport outings. I'd reckon that's a tougher life
than most family cars get (though the Escorts will be getting regular
fettling too, bois y rally being tinkerers all).

--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth

"Who dies with the most toys wins" (Gary Barnes)

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
Jeremy Double wrote:

I've only flown once on a Fokker 50 about 20 years ago (although I've
flown on F27s slightly more recently), so I can't make comparisons.


Are many F27s still flying? I recall them from the same era as the
Viscounts, all of which appear to be long gone, alas.

I particularly liked the Fokker F27 "Friendship" because of the high
wing which meant great views from every window. If I recall
correctly,
as a child I flew from Speke to Dublin via Ronaldsway on Aer Lingus in
the 1960s. My return flight from Aldergrove to Speke was in a
Cambrian
Airways (BEA) Viscount.

They're a few years newer than the Viscount (production ceased in 1987,
vs 1964 for the Viscount), but I don't think many remain in pax service
(some were converted for use as DC-3 freighter replacements).

My experiences in them weren't great: once was on a flight from JFK to
Ottawa. It was a stormy day, and the F27 couldn't climb over the clouds,
so we lurched and bounced all the way there. I suppose it was safe
enough, but was probably the most uncomfortable flight I've ever had. I
hadn't realised that the JFK-YOW route was so quiet that it couldn't
support a jet.

On another occasion a few years later, I was flying from Nairobi to
Mombassa, via Malindi. I'd over-indulged on the flight from London, and
was therefore very hung-over throughout. Landing at Malindi was rather
lively, thanks to a stiff cross-wind, so I was not in good shape by the
time we finally bumped down in Mombassa (promptly throwing up that day's
anti-marial pill).

The experience wasn't helped by the steady trickle of oil flowing out of
the number 1 Dart engine just to my left (one snag with the high wing is
the ability to closely scrutinise the engine for the whole flight). I
just hoped the oil wouldn't run out before we got there.

In article ,
rail wrote:
In message
Tony Polson wrote:

"Recliner" wrote:
"Stimpy" wrote in message
.co.uk
On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 20:39:55 +0100, Recliner wrote

And I can't remember when I last saw a first generation Ford Escort
from the same era.

My mate a mile up the valley from here has one in his garage.

Of course, if it spends most/all of its time in his garage it rather
proves my point about any other surviving 1960s machines being treated
as preserved equipment, rather than being in full-time use like the 1967
stock.


It is hardly valid to compare a car, built to a design life of ~60,000
miles and ~5 years, with a train, built to a design life of many
millions of miles and ~30 years.

I thought Ford cars of that era were built with a design life of warranty
period plus 1 day...



As opposed to Vauxhalls, which were designed for a life of mean time in
showroom minus 1 week.

The rally boys seem to be notably good at keeping old Frods going, though
how much of the shell is original by now has to be an open question.

As to long-lived stuff, there's a '38 Morris 8 in daily use around here
(as it has been over the last 27 years), and a '30ish Royce 20 which does
at least twice-weekly shopping trips (a 1930 Royce shooting brake parked
outside Aldi is an interesting juxtaposition)

--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

"Recliner" wrote:

I agree that cars do have a much shorter design life, but it's certainly
more than five years and 60k miles.


It might be longer now, but it certainly wasn't in the 1960s. Ford used
5 years and 60,000 miles as their yardstick; the Austin/Morris Mini was
designed for 5 years but only 45,000 miles. I got that information from
a lifelong friend who worked for British Leyland/Austin Rover and is
currently at Ford, and whose father worked at Ford in the 1950s and 60s
and helped design the Cortina Mk1 and Mk2.

Mercedes Benz and Volvo have always had longer design lives, though.


Airliners have a longer design life,
but still not as long as trains (typically, 20-30 years).


True; fatigue plays an enormous role in aircraft life, and with fuselage
skin thickness measured in fractions of a millimetre, there is a lot of
scope for terminal corrosion.


But another point is that the average traveller wouldn't notice that the
Victoria line stock is ~40 years old, whereas even if it was fully
restored, you'd certainly notice if you were riding in a 40 year old
car. I once owned a 1966 Mk 1 Ford Cortina and although I sold it long
ago, when I see an occasional museum example, I'm reminded just how
primitive it was compared to any modern car (with the possible exception
of the Tata Nano).


Primitive in relation to modern cars, perhaps, but not necessarily in
relation to modern trains. Modern cars are incredibly capable and
comfortable compared to 1960s cars, but from a passenger's point of
view, trains have hardly moved on at all. In some aspects, they have
actually gone backwards, with many more seats per carriage, less leg and
shoulder room, fewer tables, and less opportunity to see out.


Personally, I'd rather ride in a 1967 stock train than the modern
Jubilee and Northern line trains that came from the same factory.


That's not surprising as they were probably far better made. In
contrast, the more modern equivalents are built down to a price and
clearly suffer as a result.


I certainly wouldn't prefer to ride in a 1967 car compared to almost any
modern car.


In general, yes. But the best ride I have ever had in a car was in a
1966 Mercedes 600 Pullman, last year. The 600 Pullman was substantially
more comfortable than my current 2001 Mercedes E Class (35 years newer!)
and I think it would even manage to beat the 2006 Mercedes S Class I
have on a week's trial with a view to replacing the E Class.

The 1966 car lacks a couple of features I now consider essential, such
as parking sensors, but it had automatic climate control (air
conditioning) that worked every bit as well as today's systems. It
shows that excellence in car design was possible (though obviously at a
high price) decades before it became widespread.

In message
(Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:

In article ,
rail wrote:
In message
Tony Polson wrote:

"Recliner" wrote:
"Stimpy" wrote in message
.co.uk
On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 20:39:55 +0100, Recliner wrote

And I can't remember when I last saw a first generation Ford Escort
from the same era.

My mate a mile up the valley from here has one in his garage.

Of course, if it spends most/all of its time in his garage it rather
proves my point about any other surviving 1960s machines being treated
as preserved equipment, rather than being in full-time use like the 1967
stock.


It is hardly valid to compare a car, built to a design life of ~60,000
miles and ~5 years, with a train, built to a design life of many
millions of miles and ~30 years.

I thought Ford cars of that era were built with a design life of warranty
period plus 1 day...



As opposed to Vauxhalls, which were designed for a life of mean time in
showroom minus 1 week.

The rally boys seem to be notably good at keeping old Frods going, though
how much of the shell is original by now has to be an open question.

AIUI the frod mechanicals were fine (apart from the wipers!) it was the body
which was apparently made from a thin layer of paint with rust sprayed onto
the inside.


As to long-lived stuff, there's a '38 Morris 8 in daily use around here
(as it has been over the last 27 years), and a '30ish Royce 20 which does
at least twice-weekly shopping trips (a 1930 Royce shooting brake parked
outside Aldi is an interesting juxtaposition)

:-)

Nearly bought a Roller once, going remarkably cheap. Trouble is I knew why
it was going cheap and didn't want to meet any of his Italian creditors who
might not have heard about the transfer of ownership.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
"Recliner" wrote:

I agree that cars do have a much shorter design life, but it's
certainly
more than five years and 60k miles.


It might be longer now, but it certainly wasn't in the 1960s. Ford
used
5 years and 60,000 miles as their yardstick; the Austin/Morris Mini
was
designed for 5 years but only 45,000 miles. I got that information
from
a lifelong friend who worked for British Leyland/Austin Rover and is
currently at Ford, and whose father worked at Ford in the 1950s and
60s
and helped design the Cortina Mk1 and Mk2.

Well, I had my 1966 1200cc Cortina from 1974 to 1978, and then sold it
on to someone who managed to write it off in a winter crash a couple of
years later. It wasn't a cherished, cosseted car, either.

I parked it by the roadside, and regularly applied fibre-glass patches
to the wings (as well as getting the McPherson strut towers welded). I
remember having the big-ends fail on the M6, and finding a refurbished
engine for all of £60. I then had to do a 190 mile motorway journey,
running it in at 35mph. But none of those seemed like reasons to scrap
the car. Other than replacing the engine or clutch, I could do most
other things myself.

It had servo brakes, but everything else was manual: no power steering,
no factory-fitted heated rear window or wing mirrors. By contrast, in
my current car, absolutely everything that can be power operated, is,
and almost anything that could be automated, also is.

The only problem I had was when the parking brake computer got dirty
data on its bus line through a low battery condition, and had to be
rebooted, and its firmware upgraded. The technician did everything with
his laptop, never having to use a screwdriver or spanner, or to open the
bonnet or any panels. I've never had a car before where the parking
brake was entirely computer-controlled, with no mechanical link from a
lever or pedal.

I wouldn't have a chance to fix anything that goes wrong with this car,
and neither would even an AA or RAC man without the appropriate
diagnostic software. So, however well built this car is, it'll probably
have a shorter economic life.

On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 12:42:25 +0100, Recliner wrote
"Stimpy" wrote in message
. co.uk
On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 20:39:55 +0100, Recliner wrote

And I can't remember when I last saw a first generation Ford Escort
from the same era.

My mate a mile up the valley from here has one in his garage.

Of course, if it spends most/all of its time in his garage it rather
proves my point about any other surviving 1960s machines being treated
as preserved equipment, rather than being in full-time use like the 1967
stock.

He has it out most weekends, even if only for a blast to the pub although it
*is* still rallied from time to time.

But, I take your point that it requires constant fettling to keep it on the
go, but then what airliner doesn't?

Remember also that the design life of *any* Ford from 1968 was, by modern
standards, about four years of average use; those that were built for
motorsport were built to higher standards but, 40 years on, that makes
precious little difference!

On Apr 3, 1:34 pm, "Recliner" wrote:

Viscounts, all of which appear to be long gone, alas.

The experience wasn't helped by the steady trickle of oil flowing out of
the number 1 Dart engine

I moved to Luton in 1987.

Before then I took no interest in aircraft, never flown until then.
Luton was new job, international travel, flying. Started taking
interest in planes. Discovered Viscounts fron Luton airpirt to Dublin
and Maastricht, did some trips on both, incl. day trips to Dublin, and
one LHR-IOM return trip. IIRC almost every flight there was a oil
flowing out engines, a small thin brown trail in a neat air swept line
along the engine nacelle. I just thought it was a Dart characteristic.

--
Nick