(Austria) OBB cancel Talent 3 EMU order for Vorarlberg S-Bahn, decision on Tyrol fleet to be made imminently.

DanNCL · 21 Jun 2021

OBB has cancelled it's order for 21 Bombardier (now Alstom) Talent 3 6-car EMUs intended for use on the Vorarlberg S-Bahn. A period of trial running in passenger service ended on 28th February without full certification for these units to operate in Austria being achieved. All 21 of the units ordered for the Voralberg S-Bahn have been built, though only two have carried passengers. It's unclear what will now happen with these units, presumably they're now Alstom's responsibility to either sell on to another operator or to scrap.

OBB also had an order for 25 Talent 3 units for use in the Tyrol region, it's not known what the status of that order is, though a decision is expected to be made imminently.

RailUK Forums

StephenHunter · 21 Jun 2021

What currently operates on these lines?

Randomer · 21 Jun 2021

It's an interesting contrast compared to the problems and delays various fleet introductions here have had. Seems the contract must have been clearly defined to allow them to walk away after all the units have been built. I do wonder what is preventing certification it must be pretty major if OBB think Alston can't fix it in a reasonable time frame.

It does make you look and wonder at all the grief and delays to introduction that London Overground had with the 710 fleet which was another Bombardier product with huge issues in being introduced into service. Guessing the OBB doesn't have the immediate pressure of nothing else being available to run the service.

317666 · 21 Jun 2021

StephenHunter said:
What currently operates on these lines?

The S-Bahn Vorarlberg predominantly uses 4024s (the original ÖBB Talents) with some regional express (REX) services in the area provided by Taurus-hauled double deckers. There are also a few peak trains with 1144s on single-deck stock.

dm1 · 21 Jun 2021

The funny part of this whole story is that Alstom are still insisting that they will deliver the trains to ÖBB "as per the contract", despite ÖBB no longer wanting them.

And then there's the fact that under the merger agreement, Alstom have to sell the Talent platform to another manufacturer fairly soon - who most likely doesn't want to deal with the enormous penalty payments due to the delays.

Wolfie · 21 Jun 2021

dm1 said:
The funny part of this whole story is that Alstom are still insisting that they will deliver the trains to ÖBB "as per the contract", despite ÖBB no longer wanting them.

And then there's the fact that under the merger agreement, Alstom have to sell the Talent platform to another manufacturer fairly soon - who most likely doesn't want to deal with the enormous penalty payments due to the delays.

That first para sounds to me like a precursor to legal action if OBB don't accept them. Alstom would need to demonstrate that they have attempted to fulfil the contract before doing so. Even if there are break clauses a Court can always be asked to decide if they are or are not being applied fairly by a party.

Nym · 21 Jun 2021

And Alstom aren't afraid of legal action, no matter how frivolous.

But, I do like that accepting bodies are finally starting to stand up to minimum cost poor build quality from manufacturers.

Wolfie · 21 Jun 2021

Nym said:
And Alstom aren't afraid of legal action, no matter how frivolous.

But, I do like that accepting bodies are finally starting to stand up to minimum cost poor build quality from manufacturers.

In many ways l agree. The problem is that buyers want highest quality and lowest cost. The two are rarely fully compatible.

Nym · 21 Jun 2021

Wolfie said:
In many ways l agree. The problem is that buyers want highest quality and lowest cost. The two are rarely fully compatible.

Indeed.

It needs to be a fight that is started with the finance people at the conception of the bid and carried through.

I doubt that this would have been the first chance to observe poor quality of manufacture. It very much was the case with other stock being manufactured that one could random audit the supply chain at any time and inspect what has been or is being done. It's generally that sending someone who is competent enough to know when the corners are being cut, is expensive, and auditing the initial design (a-la all of our recent fatigue crack issues across various fleets) is something that needs a level of competence that most operators simply don't have, and aren't willing to pay for externally, and even when they do, the external companies generally don't want to provide anything but good news. The fish rots from the head down in most of these instances.

DanNCL · 21 Jun 2021

dm1 said:
The funny part of this whole story is that Alstom are still insisting that they will deliver the trains to ÖBB "as per the contract", despite ÖBB no longer wanting them.

And then there's the fact that under the merger agreement, Alstom have to sell the Talent platform to another manufacturer fairly soon - who most likely doesn't want to deal with the enormous penalty payments due to the delays.

Wolfie said:
That first para sounds to me like a precursor to legal action if OBB don't accept them. Alstom would need to demonstrate that they have attempted to fulfil the contract before doing so. Even if there are break clauses a Court can always be asked to decide if they are or are not being applied fairly by a party.

Sounds not too dissimilar to the Fyra situation nearly 10 years ago - manufacturer delivers trains several years late and with faults severe enough to prevent the regulator from certifying them, yet the manufacturer still tries making the operator accept the trains when the operator has had enough and decides to walk away. Didn't AnsaldoBreda try insisting that NS accepted the full fleet of V250s even after they were no longer wanted? That one didn't end well for AnsaldoBreda...

Nym said:
But, I do like that accepting bodies are finally starting to stand up to minimum cost poor build quality from manufacturers.

I wish UK operators did this!

Austriantrain · 22 Jun 2021

Randomer said:
It's an interesting contrast compared to the problems and delays various fleet introductions here have had. Seems the contract must have been clearly defined to allow them to walk away after all the units have been built. I do wonder what is preventing certification it must be pretty major if OBB think Alston can't fix it in a reasonable time frame.

It does make you look and wonder at all the grief and delays to introduction that London Overground had with the 710 fleet which was another Bombardier product with huge issues in being introduced into service. Guessing the OBB doesn't have the immediate pressure of nothing else being available to run the service.

Actually ÖBB have huge pressure and we are expecting quite a few problems in the coming year regarding rolling stock availability.

It is just that after years of delay (mainly software issues, which Bombardier far to often had, also in the UK) they have lost any hope that the trains would ever be in service in a reasonable timeframe, so they are cutting their losses and buying somewhere else.

The final nail was that Alstom has to sell the Talent platform as a takeover condition, so their focus is likely to be on other products. I don’t know if they have a buyer yet (Skoda is rumored), but the new owner will take some time to turn things around too.

There might be a stopgap at ÖBB in another small batch of Desiro ML (class 4746), maybe as Four-car sets. And ÖBB has just issued a tender for up to 540 single-Deck EMUs.

Of course, if Alstom can achieve a miracle solution, I am sure that a way can be found that these ready-built trains can still enter service.

Wolfie · 22 Jun 2021

Austriantrain said:
Actually ÖBB have huge pressure and we are expecting quite a few problems in the coming year regarding rolling stock availability.

It is just that after years of delay (mainly software issues, which Bombardier far to often had, also in the UK) they have lost any hope that the trains would ever be in service in a reasonable timeframe, so they are cutting their losses and buying somewhere else.

The final nail was that Alstom has to sell the Talent platform as a takeover condition, so their focus is likely to be on other products. I don’t know if they have a buyer yet (Skoda is rumored), but the new owner will take some time to turn things around too.

There might be a stopgap at ÖBB in another small batch of Desiro ML (class 4746), maybe as Four-car sets. And ÖBB has just issued a tender for up to 540 single-Deck EMUs.

Of course, if Alstom can achieve a miracle solution, I am sure that a way can be found that these ready-built trains can still enter service.

The problem OBB may have is that if they didn't react in the same way with previous stock orders that were delayed for similar reasons (and l have read that a change in software regulations is one of the issues causing delay) and/or state upfront a new policy of clamping down on delayed delivery then a Court may well find that behaviour inconsistent with past norms (i.e. established behaviour which raises expectations about how they would behave) is in itself unfair.

Austriantrain · 22 Jun 2021

Wolfie said:
The problem OBB may have is that if they didn't react in the same way with previous stock orders that were delayed for similar reasons (and l have read that a change in software regulations is one of the issues causing delay) and/or state upfront a new policy of clamping down on delayed delivery then a Court may well find that behaviour inconsistent with past norms (i.e. established behaviour which raises expectations about how they would behave) is in itself unfair.

I don’t think that would be so in our legal system. If the contract has not been met and it has a clause that allows it to be rescinded in such a cause, ÖBB should be fine. Past behavior is irrelevant.

However I would be very surprised if the matter didn’t get settled out of court in the end - it is what usually happens, a PR slam fight before the court, and a quiet settlement later on.

Wolfie · 22 Jun 2021

Austriantrain said:
I don’t think that would be so in our legal system. If the contract has not been met and it has a clause that allows it to be rescinded in such a cause, ÖBB should be fine. Past behavior is irrelevant.

However I would be very surprised if the matter didn’t get settled out of court in the end - it is what usually happens, a PR slam fight before the court, and a quiet settlement later on.

Re your last para l think that is wholly accurate. It would particularly be so if Alstom already have another home in mind for the stock should OBB stand firm.

I'll take your word re the Austrian legal system. From personal work experience I know that precedent very definitely is considered in the UK legal system and legitimate expectation in international law.

dm1 · 22 Jun 2021

I think the point is if you can't get regulatory approval for your trains after so long, then at some point ÖBB must be able to cut their losses. Clearly they have decided that now is the time.

Wolfie · 22 Jun 2021

dm1 said:
I think the point is if you can't get regulatory approval for your trains after so long, then at some point ÖBB must be able to cut their losses. Clearly they have decided that now is the time.

I imagine that in part would be dependent on the cause of the delay in getting approval. I certainly agree that the timing couldn't be open ended.

Austriantrain · 22 Jun 2021

Wolfie said:
I'll take your word re the Austrian legal system. From personal work experience I know that precedent very definitely is considered in the UK legal system and legitimate expectation in international law.

As I said, don’t think it is in Austrian law. I am no contract lawyer, though, but I would be surprised if it were. Doesn’t really make sense either - either you comply with a contract or you don’t. And if you don’t, the other party needs to be able to adress it.

In any case, while delays in rolling stock approval are common, I don’t remember something even coming close to this case, so this shouldn’t be an issue for ÖBB.

Bletchleyite · 22 Jun 2021

Wolfie said:
I'll take your word re the Austrian legal system. From personal work experience I know that precedent very definitely is considered in the UK legal system and legitimate expectation in international law.

Much more common for European legal systems to be explicit rather than based on developing precedent. UK (not Scotland) common law is the odd one out in that regard. If you read EU laws they are incredibly detailed and specific compared with UK ones which instead tend to document a basic idea and leave the judiciary to interpret it.

Austriantrain · 23 Jun 2021

Bletchleyite said:
Much more common for European legal systems to be explicit rather than based on developing precedent. UK (not Scotland) common law is the odd one out in that regard. If you read EU laws they are incredibly detailed and specific compared with UK ones which instead tend to document a basic idea and leave the judiciary to interpret it.

In general, you are right. Contract law, however, is still mainly judiciary-based in reality. The legal provisions are not very detailed and usually quite old (in Austria, the main contract law body is from 1916; other civil law parts from 1812...).

Fragezeichnen · 24 Jun 2021

I doubt we'll ever find out, but given that the Talent3 was only a evolution of the successful Talent2 unit and not a totally new design, I would love to know how they managed to screw up the design and/or build quite so badly.

Particularly given that at the same time they managed to do the same thing with the Traxx3(successor to highly popular and widely-travelled Traxx2, notorious for computer failures, and efforts to approve in Switzerland abandoned forcing DB to buy Stadler trains instead), and the new Electrostar.

Austriantrain · 24 Jun 2021

Fragezeichnen said:
I doubt we'll ever find out, but given that the Talent3 was only a evolution of the successful Talent2 unit and not a totally new design, I would love to know how they managed to screw up the design and/or build quite so badly.

Particularly given that at the same time they managed to do the same thing with the Traxx3(successor to highly popular and widely-travelled Traxx2, notorious for computer failures, and efforts to approve in Switzerland abandoned forcing DB to buy Stadler trains instead), and the new Electrostar.

It always seems to be software problems, not build quality. Definitely was the case with Talent3, Traxx3 (especially in combination with the IC2 sets) and AFAIK also with the UK Aventras.

Bletchleyite · 24 Jun 2021

Austriantrain said:
It always seems to be software problems, not build quality. Definitely was the case with Talent3, Traxx2 (especially in combination with the IC2 sets) and AFAIK also with the UK Aventras.

Indeed so. Why is the industry so bad at writing/testing quality software? Is it because it's not used to it compared with the "proper" IT industry?

(The IT industry isn't perfect, of course, but there seem to be serious issues with almost all rolling stock these days)

YorkshireBear · 24 Jun 2021

Isn't there a global shortage of competent software engineers? Might lead to people doing work they aren't quite ready for, or experienced in causing problems. As trains are mostly bought as part of public transport I would be surprised if they pay as well as software engineers in other industries.

Meerkat · 24 Jun 2021

Bletchleyite said:
Indeed so. Why is the industry so bad at writing/testing quality software? Is it because it's not used to it compared with the "proper" IT industry?

(The IT industry isn't perfect, of course, but there seem to be serious issues with almost all rolling stock these days)

Won’t it be partly the usual IT issues such as the software writers (understandably) not understanding the context of the industry and uses they are writing for, and the users not understanding what the software people need to know (‘its obvious innit!’), and throw in some Chinese whispers between the users and the writers via various project and commercial people who don’t know enough detail about either end?

dm1 · 24 Jun 2021

From what I've heard Bombardier also outsourced much of their software development, which seems not to have gone so well.

The problem with software on trains is that much of it is safety critical, meaning it has to be tested and verified very carefully, and this verification is enormously complex. Until that verification is complete, a train will not get regulatory approval.

Bletchleyite · 24 Jun 2021

dm1 said:
From what I've heard Bombardier also outsourced much of their software development, which seems not to have gone so well.

The problem with software on trains is that much of it is safety critical, meaning it has to be tested and verified very carefully, and this verification is enormously complex. Until that verification is complete, a train will not get regulatory approval.

Which means you'd think it'd work when it was deployed.

Umm...

dm1 · 24 Jun 2021

Bletchleyite said:
Which means you'd think it'd work when it was deployed.

Umm...

One of the things you test, is that if something fails, that it does so safely. That doesn't mean it has to work as it's supposed to

Wolfie · 24 Jun 2021

Austriantrain said:
It always seems to be software problems, not build quality. Definitely was the case with Talent3, Traxx3 (especially in combination with the IC2 sets) and AFAIK also with the UK Aventras.

If l was to speculate, they may have tried to come up with some sort of common core software which has proven problematic. The fact that the timing of this is broadly contemporaneous with financial problems in Bombardier's aerospace division which may have limited investment may not be coincidental.

Fragezeichnen · 24 Jun 2021

I am actually a software developer for rail vehicle onboard systems, although not for Bombardier, obviously.

In my view software developers in the rail industry are underpaid(compared to Google, Apple, Goldman Sachs etc.) and underappreciated(since there are relatively few of us, and the correct development of the software is dependent on extremely specialist knowledge built up over many years). That are probably only a handful of people in the world who understand how to implement ETCS braking curve calculations and verify the results.

The software must be and is very well tested in individual components. The problems tend to appear when you integrate everything together, and discover that one team had a slightly different idea of how an interface was supposed work as another one. And if you find a problem only in the final acceptance tests, the number of steps to go through to get a new certified version means it can take weeks or months to fix.

Outsourcing can be a minefield, because the safety certification model in Europe depends not just verifying the result, but the development process. So if the outsourcing company fails to follow the process correctly, the result is useless or requires extensive review.

pcrail · 25 Jun 2021

I guess ETCS could be the issue of all these delayed trains since Talent 3 and Traxx 3 seems to use the same ATP system. In my opinion, the European railway certification development is not a good one. Compared to early days, it needs much more paper work and certification runs than ever before. So even, the issues are known, and the software is fixed, it takes ages till the new solution is certified. Lots of verifications cannot be done in the lab, but only on the real vehicle. On the other hand, the complicated certification process keeps the Chinese at bay. CRRC is not yet able to do the certification on its own in Europe. It's typically subcontracted to an European company.

(Austria) OBB cancel Talent 3 EMU order for Vorarlberg S-Bahn, decision on Tyrol fleet to be made imminently.

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member