I’m sorry if there are inaccuracies in my post. Could you could be more specific – I’m always up for being corrected, if I get things wrong. Re-reading Philp's comments (and his subsequent ones), we appear to be pretty much on the same page.
No, I’ve not had sight of the contracts, nor do I have access to inside information. But I have read in several places that Stadler / CAF have been unwilling to share proprietary data re communication between 68s and DTs, which is unlikely to have happened had relevant undertakings been incorporated within legally enforceable contracts.
Perhaps they were in the contracts, but then it’s difficult to understand why TPE has not sought redress through the courts (or perhaps it has, but this is not in the public domain?). Isn’t it more likely that they weren’t in the contracts, than TPE has chosen not to seek enforcement (given the costs TPE has incurred)? But I could be wrong – it would be interesting to know definitively one way or the other – can anyone enlighten me/us?
Yes, I do remember TPE’s predicament, but it seems that TPE took a gamble on the 68s/Mk5s that hasn’t come off, and further, that they should have known it wouldn’t come off without assurances about communication between 68s and DTs. That said, I am aware that many people have been working extremely hard to rectify the situation, and it’s a credit to them that the problems are now largely resolved. And I genuinely want to see the Nova3 project succeed (and not just for loco haulage!).
Unfortunately, the situation concerning TPE’s 68s and DTs may not be a ‘one off’. For Crossrail, Siemens’ signalling solution was chosen for the central section, the plan being to buy Siemens’ trains. And then it was decided to switch to Bombardier trains. I’ve read that trying to get Siemens’ signalling solution and Bombardier’s trains to communicate properly is giving Crossrail’s engineers similar headaches to those experienced by TPE, and is a significant contributing factor to the ongoing Crossrail delays.
Which leads to my main motivation, which is to see the railway acknowledging and learning from (ie not repeating) costly mistakes that damage the railway’s reputation. I’m no advocate for the legal profession generally, but the increasing prevalence of critical dependencies between different suppliers heightens the need to ensure contracts anticipate and include all factors necessary for successful implementation and operation over expected service life. Prevention is nearly always less costly than cure.
And thanks for this info. I didn't pay much attention to the Nova 3s at the time so this info is invaluable to me for my rolling stock spreadsheet needs!
