[tw]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

The cynic in me says they deliberately won't be fixing the circuits until the whole investigation and final rulings are done, ...

I also integrated late 1950 electronic technology into 1980s equipment. It's not hard or difficult. It does not create reliability failures. Electricity never changed. But it requires an engineer (or other patriotic American) to have proper information (ie all tech specs) AND for management to understand significance of technical facts so that management can provide the necessary "attitude and knowledge". What did change?

Alstom warned against mixing components across all train control systems.

That says near zero - by itself is literally insulting to all readers. But then something cryptic follows about power mismatches. Ok. Reporter is not doing her job. Posting hearsay rather than numbers. Good reporters, at a minimum demand and then quote numbers even if she does not understand them.

However the reporter did include what any 15 year old would understand:

Moreover, employees said they were frustrated at their inability to fix problems linked to the new gear and were discouraged about trying to get the construction crews that installed the devices to return to adjust them.

"It fell on deaf ears most of the time," said Bruce Weibel, an automatic-train-control mechanic.

Is that hearsay - subjective statements - more informative? No numbers means the reporter's information is almost insulting. But at least she provided something minimal.

The Alstom bi-phase data port can only output 10 milliamps. The Union Signal receiver requires 12 milliamps minimum. We don't know anything until we have those numbers. Then a significant minority learn from the 1% how simplistic this really is AND how much contempt management had by not knowing something that students in college physics labs measure. If responsible management was told this, then a responsible management would have shut down that entire region - replaced all signaling with emergency flagmen.

If those numbers were provided, then reporter’s other hearsay (subjective) quote has credibility. Any manager in Metro - even personal director - who could not understand significance in those numbers should be fired for not being sufficiently educated in basic management principles. Answers must always include the perspective of numbers. Without numbers, then perspective is easily replaced by emotion and wild speculation.

Demonstrated is the same problem in this discussion: Toyota stop sale.

Apparently we do not only have a serious Metro management problem. We also have an investigation committee or newspaper reporter with the same problem. Answers given without numbers should result in sharp condemnation. People died. Subjective citations simply insult even the victims. No numbers why the problem would not be fixed; requiring, if necessary, widespread and public condemnation.

There is sufficient evidence to indict management. The investigation committee’s job is to obtain facts – especially numbers – to convert an indictment into a scathing accusation. Doing any less would even insult victims of that crash. And should concern every Metro user.

How to have a solution. It starts with the reporters always including numbers. If a power mismatch exists, the reporter must include the appropriate numbers or a URL. Numbers must always exist to provide the necessary perspective. No numbers is how the "politically correct" get problems ignored.