Generally digital systems are more resilient than their analogue counterparts. The issue is when you introduce programmers who have absolutely no concept of how their code will be used in the real world. This results in little/no resiliency for external devices failing (e.g. power dropping) and poor user feedback (e.g. non-specific, difficult to understand, error codes). Most of this can be attributed to laziness and silly management practices - See: Agile.
I can absolutely see how different implementations of these systems could result in very different levels of reliability in a trains computer systems. It does not surprise me that Hitachi trains are accommodating in this manner, generally the Japanese do well in building for resiliency.
As a software developer I do find your comment extremely condescending and quite harmful to an entire industry, especially the "Agile" method, which when done correct, has been proven in more cases than not to actually produce better quality code, that matches specifications far better.
In my experience, issues are almost always created due to poor specifications or communications. We software developers are NOT railway engineers, train drivers, etc. We dont and more importantly are not EXPECTED to know all the nuances of the railway, just like the engineers and drivers are not expected to know programmign and how software is made.
All the details need to be specified in the requirements, otherwise the developer may not know about it. Indeed, even if a developer sees a issue that is not in the specs, we often do approach the client to try and discuss the resolution to it, and in some cases the client works with us, in other cases, the client doesnt care, putting us in a dilema.
Note the Agile method you are pretty much critisizing orinated in Japan and is used by the Japanese extensively, including Hitachi, having worked with them before. In japanese companies, the software developers and engineers (and all other sections) work better at communicating, hence the "better quality". Sadly in many traditional western companies, there is no such good communication, as well as a lot of interference by accounting, MBEs and other persons who are trying to justify their positions and push costs and other agendas over quality.
I have worked for good companies and poor companies, even different projects within the same company where communication/specifications were great versus very poor, and seen the resulting software.