181:1783174 said:
The newer it is the more reliable if you look at the figures...
But is that because the most reliable stock was so old that it's been withdrawn?
Of course some things break down more because they're old, but I seem to remember reading a few years ago that the 3rd-rail slam-door units were then among the most reliable stock in the country, presumably because they didn't have much to go wrong. Will today's modern trains still be that reliable when they're approaching 40 years old, I wonder?
Spot on. Anybody who worked for Southern when the Electrostars first turned up will tell you all about how reliable modern stock is!
The 'Slammers, are about the best example of why basic is often better, but there are plenty of others. A ride from A to B on a new generation EMU is better than a 'Slammer why? Smoother ride, sure. Cumfier coaches, sure (unless you're of the many who far preferred the proper seats in a MK1 to the slabs in a Desiro, but that's another issue). Power doors, yup. Aircon and decent heating, definitely. And that's pretty much it really. So, how much of that acually requires a supercomputer to work? Umm....none of it. So why don't we have a stab at building some trains which are simpler, lighter and less prone to 'mind of its own' computer glitches?!
TheKnightWho:1783304 said:
Yet those silly people never think about all those faults which those 1980s trains suffer from that never crop up in modern trains due to computers. But, you know, confirmation bias is easier than actually thinking about it for a second, because it's funny how modern trains have lower failure rates than older trains had even when they were new.
Do you really think they'd shove in computers just to make it more complex because they felt like it?
No. I really think they shove in computers because we live in an age where a certain faction has conditioned industry into thinking that everything simply must run off enormously complex computers which cost millions and ultimately offer the same end result that was once achieved without them.
There was a time, not so long ago, when people could service their cars on their driveway. But then the motor manufacturers decided that everything needed to have a computer in it, which nobody but the chosen few could possibly comprehend, and so now we have a generation of cars which cost a small fortune every time you need to open the bonnet, and which will grind to a shuddering halt whenever the manufacturer decides that it's time to stop offering support because everybody should have thrown away their disposable car and bought a new one by now. Did you see the reports in the news about how Microsoft have helpfully decided to cease supporting the particular version of Windows that half the world's businesses apparently seem to still be using, provoking mass panic and seemingly likely to result in much cash swiftly heading their way in the form of bespoke support packages?! Oh yes, the computer-dependant world is fantastic, isn't it?!
Anyway, back on topic... Please enlighten me with a huge list of faults that a Pacer or a 150 wouldn't suffer if only there was a ton of computer stuffed into it?!
