So your logic is, any company is capable of having a design issue like Hitachi had so you shouldn’t use Stadler, but instead you should used Hitachi…. The company that had the very problems were discussing?
Not at all.
No one is saying that it’s impossible for these new units to have any major problems, but there is no reason to suspect they will.
The latter point being what I find odd.
Even if nexus had any control over stopping the delivery due to concerns, why on earth would they send it back to the factory rather than letting it go to the Stadler maintenance depot that was specifically designed for the trains in question? Any checks that the Factory can do to make sure it’s not compromised from being nearby some taggers for 30 seconds can likewise be done in the Stadler depot in Gosforth by Stadler staff.
Perhaps. Are we assuming that facility is even already fully staffed and equipped? And even if it is, is that any better for the reputation of Stadler, when considering how easy it could have been to ensure the secure delivery of this single unit, with some suggesting (inadvertently I guess) that it could have been as easy as ensuring the unit was never stationary in a dark place (we can surely all agree vandals don't wait at random signals/loops on the main line if their goal is to tag a specific unit). This idea that this was merely thirty seconds of tagging is obviously false, as shown by the size and detail of the vandalism.
And on that subject, if you think that a train being accessible by taggers for a short window means that it is inherently unsafe due to the possibility that said taggers are stepping on things that shouldn’t be stepped on (or perhaps maliciously cutting things that shouldn’t be cut) then that inherently extends to when it is being tested on the T&W metro system over the next few months.
Does it? Ensuring the security of a single unit being tested on the Metro lines is surely no more onerous than ensuring it can be transported from Switzerland to Newcastle in a secure way.
It will be driven into every siding possible and at some point it will be tagged again, probably multiple times, does that mean that every time it gets tagged it should be ”sent back” incase it’s been tampered with?
I'd be quite confident in saying that for a unit undergoing commissioning as the first of its class, yes, both Stadler's Quality Assurance system and Nexus' Health and Safety obligations (and perhaps even the Rail Regulator's own protocols) demand that it be towed back to the depot for inspection (absent any evidence that it is not already in an unsafe condition).
Because just to make you aware, the old metros and soon the new ones, are commonly left for extended periods (often overnight due to possessions) in sidings that can easily be accessed by taggers. This is the environment in which these trains operate, and they can’t be sent back to a factory every time they are outsabled. They Are generally designed in such a way that any external damage (accidental or otherwise) won’t cause them to lose breaking capability and hurtle into the buffers at 80k killing everyone onboard.
And yet you fail to see the difference between this predictable and proven operational setting, where Nexus has an established policy based on the law and engineering experience, and sole responsibility and the time and resources to deal with these realities of operating a railway (noting as we must that the increasing scarcity of serviceable units to cover leading to gaps in service are one of the many things putting pressure on these unit's timely entry into service without any foreseeable delays), and the situation at hand.
I’m not sure what industry you practiced QA in, but clearly it wasn’t rail, as you would know how rail delivery’s occur and the inherent unavoidable possibly of trains being left in places overnight without the protection of automated attack helicopters with lasers and machine guns to destroy anything that comes near.
it was an industry where planning for predictable situations that have potential serious consequences is expected and required. It is an industry where making absurd arguments in your defence to avoid explaining why you failed in your basic legal/regulatory duties, such as Risk Asessment, would get you fired. I know enough about the rail industry to know this is a fair assessment of how things should be working. If they aren't, well, it's not like this country isn't used to having to conduct expensive and lengthy inquiries to conclude people in this country are all too often workshy if not straight up negligent.
And no we haven’t missed your point about the principle of the delivery being messed up meaning the rest of the project probably being messed up, it’s just that it’s a massive over reaction and completely over the top.
It's a sign, nothing more. Inquiries large and small, are necessarily quite used to having to draw inferences from small incidents just like this, to draw a bigger picture.
He‘s forgetting of course that trains are not kept under armed guard 24/7 during their service life anyway so it’s pretty pointless to expect the same up until delivery.
I'm not forgetting it. I've outlined specific reasons why this specific transit warranted higher than "normal" security, and will happily remind people that under normal conditions, armed guards are not considered a reasonable means of securing units against unauthorized access.
Of course, it's only a happy accident of geopolitical history that in this country, being unwise enough to think spray painting a train carriage is a fun way to spend your evening, and choosing your targets based on which units are in the darkest and most remote areas is wise, doesn't dramatically raise the risk of your early death due to the application of legal but potentially fatal force.
