Japan shinkansen e4 series, 700 series from mainline, 300 series, E1 series.
Bzzt!
Show me a train, any train, from anywhere in the world, any time period, that is/was not a lemon, cheaply built, or retired due to political reasons (like British Railways' modernization plan) that retired after a mere 20 years of use.
We can dismiss any example from Japan, because, while they don't exactly go for "planned obsolescence", trains in Japan tend to be built much more cheaply, with a shorter intended lifespan. So a single order will be less costly compared to an order for similarly spec'ed rolling stock from Europe, but over a long period of time, it's a strategic choice. It's not actually a major cost-saver in the long run. They'll pay less per trainset order, but then need to order new ones sooner.
If you compared a batch of trainsets ordered for JR with a batch ordered for European operators, and assume rough parity in terms of type of trainset (i.e. for HSR vs. commuter trains or whatever), the cost of the European order will be higher initially, and the cheaper Japanese train will wear out and need to be replaced or at least majorly overhauled sooner. To figure out which strategy is more successful you need to look at the big picture, and that means maintenance and operational costs - if the train was a lemon, that favors the JP strategy, because you can cut your losses and move on more quickly, while losing less. If the train was the *opposite* of a lemon (i.e. one that ended up being particularly well-designed and needs *less* maintenance costs than the average for its type and age) then that favors the EU strategy, because you can hang onto it for longer and refurb it for cheaper than replacing it.
Then there is of course the fact that switching strategies will do NOTHING for trying to jump start a near non existent rolling stock manufacturing industry serving a country that basically still doesn't give a fuck about trains. It would take a biblical change in passenger rail planning, operations, and expenditure for the country as a whole to make Canada having its own manufacturing industry viable, and moving to a nonsensical 20 year lifespan for rolling stock isn't going to make anyone want to bother with that, when they can just as easily order from any variety of international manufacturers.
Ah, you mean the train of which 0 cars have been retired? Fantastic argumentation!
Retired after 29 years, which is almost the exact lifespan of unrefurbished railway stock. Another winning argument.
Perhaps the least valid example of all. These trains were built from 1988-1992, meaning they range in ages 32-36. Of the 18 train sets built, only 2 of them have been scrapped. Where exactly were you going with this?
Just look at British rail and how many generations of MUs they have.
Have
you? Is this a discussion of how many generations they have, or about rolling stock ages? Because if we're talking about rolling stock ages, as I was under the impression we were, there have been a few classes of MUs that have been retired due to being prototypes or non standard, but many more have, again, lasted more than 20 years. The class 121 DMU was in service a whopping 57 years, and the class 101/102 was 47 years at retirement. Again, where were you going with this?
