Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Top-level
SuperMoosie

@outie
There might also be good reasons why its there.

Contract of purchase that maintenance has to be proformed by train manufacturer. Ie they might have paid less upfront as the profit is from the later maintenance over x years of contract.

Critical safety systems such as Automatic Train Control that should only be touched by suitably qualified staff. Mess with this and the safety certification goes, which might mean the train isn't allowed to run on the network, not have insurance or mass fatalities.

@JohnJBurnsIII @q3k

4 comments
Palanix :linux:

@SuperMoosie
This makes no sense. If this is put in place because of contract violations, the manufacturer can simply sue.

If the 3rd party workshop is unequipped to deal with the safety systems, which might mean loosing safety certification, then that is for actual authorities to decide and enforce

Niall in Raglan :laserkiwi:

@SuperMoosie @outie @JohnJBurnsIII @q3k this not some random dude servicing the train. It's a train service yard with huge infrastructure and a huge contract. In this story they describe going through the huge maintenance manual and finding no mention of these things. If it's a certification thing then it should clearly state this.
badcyber.com/dieselgate-but-fo

honk honk I'm a truck *brrrrr*

@SuperMoosie @outie @JohnJBurnsIII @q3k

Nope.

Critical safety / infrastructure systems can only be serviced by authorized service providers - valid concept.

Authorized by the manufacturer? Sketchy.

Enforced through secret code that locks the train using bogus fault codes? No excuses, that needs to be a heavy financial penalty for the company.

Go Up