"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.