"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.

"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.

"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.

Tony Polson wrote:
"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.

Fatigue is critical for aluminium alloy structures such as aircraft,
because aluminium has no fatigue limit, meaning that airframes have a
service life limited by fatigue (with a suitable safety margin).
--
Jeremy Double {real address, include nospam}
Rail and transport photos at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmdoubl...7603834894248/

"Recliner" wrote in message
...


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.
It does seem that older model trains are more sturdy and run better, doesn't
it?

In article ,
wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message
...


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[1].

I, OTOH, would take the '67 car (well, at least one model of '67 car,
provided it was fettled up well and I wasn't going to try and tow my boat
with it) over pretty near of the iterative bore-boxen being ground out
now. Handling matters to me, as does driving pleasure and I'm willing to
compromise on NVH supression. OTOH, I'd avoid any pre-Mk.3 train like the
plague, and off the IC routes would prefer to shun anything pre-158. If
I'm sitting in something as a passenger, then ride comfort comes very high
up the list, and I want seats that don't wreck my back (equally vital in a
car, of course, but then the '67 design wins there as well, with better
seats than anything else I've come across[2]. And if I'm a passenger,
then wind noise and suspension vibration matter more as well. Modern stock
really do win out there[1], as well as providing what's generall/y a nicer
passenger environment.

It does seem that older model trains are more sturdy and run better, doesn't
it?

No. Not in any way at all. When we had eaqrly Mk2s down here last summer
for the steam specials I had to stand most of the way from Dovey to
Portmadoc and back, the seats were so bad. And as for the noise and
vibration and poor ride (oh, and the water leaking into the vestibules..).
Horrible things, just horrible. Even the Purple Moose beer couldn't redeem
them.

[1] Clearly better in every way (bar towing capacity and the heater) to
the 1997 car I now own, for example, and cars in general have only
declined in appeal since '97 (I can't think of a single
marginally-appealing car in the mass market at the moment, aparet from
maybe the 1-series BMW - and you'd need to put a bag over your head when
walking out to it to avoid being horrified by just how ugly it is..
[2] Apart from that shame of the railways, the 185, of course.

--
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)

In article ,
Andrew Robert Breen wrote:

Duh. Swap order of footnotes (1) and (2). I'm very, very tired.

[1] Clearly better in every way (bar towing capacity and the heater) to
the 1997 car I now own, for example, and cars in general have only
declined in appeal since '97 (I can't think of a single
marginally-appealing car in the mass market at the moment, aparet from
maybe the 1-series BMW - and you'd need to put a bag over your head when
walking out to it to avoid being horrified by just how ugly it is..
[2] Apart from that shame of the railways, the 185, of course.

--
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)

--
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)

"Andrew Robert Breen" wrote in message

In article ,
wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message
...


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[1].

OTOH, I'd avoid any
pre-Mk.3 train like the plague, and off the IC routes would prefer to
shun anything pre-158. If I'm sitting in something as a passenger,
then ride comfort comes very high up the list, and I want seats that
don't wreck my back (equally vital in a car, of course, but then the
'67 design wins there as well, with better seats than anything else
I've come across[2]. And if I'm a passenger, then wind noise and
suspension vibration matter more as well. Modern stock really do win
out there[1], as well as providing what's generall/y a nicer
passenger environment.

I rode on the nicely refurbished Mk 1 stock (Royal Scot rake) to Swanage
and thoroughly enjoyed the well-sprung armchairs and copious shiny wood.
The plush seats were a lot more comfortable than on a Mk 3 or 4, with
large windows perfectly aligned with the seats. Yes, the ride does get
lively when you get near t0 100mph, and there's no air-conditioning, but
it's a very pleasant experience.

In article ,
Recliner wrote:
"Andrew Robert Breen" wrote in message

In article ,
wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message
...


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[1].

OTOH, I'd avoid any
pre-Mk.3 train like the plague, and off the IC routes would prefer to
shun anything pre-158. If I'm sitting in something as a passenger,
then ride comfort comes very high up the list, and I want seats that
don't wreck my back (equally vital in a car, of course, but then the
'67 design wins there as well, with better seats than anything else
I've come across[2]. And if I'm a passenger, then wind noise and
suspension vibration matter more as well. Modern stock really do win

I rode on the nicely refurbished Mk 1 stock (Royal Scot rake) to Swanage
and thoroughly enjoyed the well-sprung armchairs and copious shiny wood.

Your back obviously has a much higher tolerance of bad seats than mine
does. If the seats in those coaches are anything lke the usual Mk.1
horrors, I'd have had to stand the whole way.

And then there's the noise, harshness and vibration, all there in copious
proportions. I can understand how some (not me!) would like this as an
occasional novelty, but it's not up to the job of day-to-day transport.

And no, polished wood doth not a quality package make (unless it's a boat
by Fairey Marine). The aforementioned 1967 (design..) car was blessedly
free of such nonsense.

--
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)

On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 08:15:11 +0100, (Andrew Robert
Breen) wrote:

Your back obviously has a much higher tolerance of bad seats than mine
does. If the seats in those coaches are anything lke the usual Mk.1
horrors, I'd have had to stand the whole way.

Steamed-up windows is what kills it for me. I like looking out. This
is a real downer on bus travel - double glazing would be very nice,
though the top-deck extractor fans used in London are also quite good
at preventing steaming up and that typical "rotting passenger" smell,
if a little noisy.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.