"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.