Jump to content

Talk:Hitachi Rail Italy/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

This article needs a total rewrite

This article needs a complete rewrite from the ground up. Right now, the vast majority of the article is simply a client portfolio, but tells nothing about the company itself. People coming to the article currently learn very little about Breda, and most clients are not notable in the context of Breda. Notable clients would be like Boston, with the Type 8 LRVs that got significant press coverage for their derailments. Most a client list proves is that yes, they have customers, and if they didn't have customers, they wouldn't be in business. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This is basically the rationale for this edit that pruned the article back to a stub. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This article has three blocks stating the products created by this company. First a biased history not containing it`s failures. See discussion below. Secondly a fully comprehensible block Products with four clickable categories. Thirdly a biased unreadable list Rolling_stock, with exactly the same neutrality problems discussed below. I believe one list is enough and all lists should include failures described in Delays_and_technical_problems. These now seem to usually disappear. As the failures are more interesting as successes, I would like to start with Delays_and_technical_problems followed by Products, a complete history including failures in at least six nations. Rolling_stock is the third and most unreadable repetition of the list. It`s contents are too specific for the main page and could be nested under the pages provided by the product section. Are these three lists designed to push down Delays_and_technical_problems? Cobol86 (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I would propose to actually remove any historic content from this article. Ansaldo and Breda still have their own articles on WP and the historic infomation should be on those pages, including all roling stock produced by those companies. Leaving only the information from after the merger into AB into this article. Because only rolling stock produced after the merger has been build and is badged AnsaldoBreda. The only other alternative is to merge the Ansaldo Article with this one since Finmeccanica was already owner of Ansaldo and basicly aqcuired Breda and fused to the two. 83.134.106.71 (talk) 13:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
This matter seems resolved by the textual reductions mentions below.Cobol86 (talk) 07:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

scandals also

We just had a scandal i denmark with anseldobreda, they delivered years after a.s.o a.s.o,first after the threats of complete annulation of the contract AnsaldoBreda "got the finger out".Also something for the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.135.146.194 (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Lol 195.249.188.147 (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Same in Sweden, late delivery and everything they delived where crap. Currently a big hype in mass media. Sounds like a bogus company. 83.252.20.57 (talk) 08:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Current issue

This is still an on-going issue and IC4 trains in Denmark was pulled from service due to breaking problems. Unlike the previous generation IC3 trains needing service every 25,000km the IC4 has broken down every 2,000km. Danish politicians are now considering upgrading/servicing IC3 until 2030 rather than the planned transition to IC4 by 2020.

http://epn.dk/brancher/transport/land/article2608996.ece

A scandal of this magnitude as well as the issues in Sweden should be in the article - but the article requires a rewrite first to provide the structure and content to put it in perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.141.102.62 (talk) 13:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The transportingcompany for AnsaldoBreda has dropped the latest tram for Gothenburg in Kiel for five weeks ago and will not resume transport before ful payment has been made for all the outstanding bills. Göteborgsposten paperedition 20120718 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.24.215.151 (talk) 08:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

2013 03 07 Hi. I saw that articles from GP - Göteborgsposten was included in controversies. Here is the latest article that tells about other countrys having problems with rust, malfunctions and deliverydelays. http://www.gp.se/nyheter/goteborg/1.1371561-problem-i-flera-lander— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.209.148.161 (talk) 11:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

History of production is non neutral

This section only presents successes. Thay maybe fair up to 1989, but the last few decades most of the projects have resulted in substandard trains. The only trains of any value produced in that period appears to be trains developed by someone else where AnsaldoBreda was partner in the project. The addition of the introduction of a co-produced hispeed train in 2013 should be preceded by the production failures in the Dutch, Danish, Swedish markets. Arnoutf (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

True; the trains delivered by this company are completely rubbish.137.205.183.114 (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I am FAM1885 am Italian and I am a mechanical engineer (Polytechnic of Milan). The section on the history of the production I wrote it by translating the corresponding Italian version always written by myself. In the Italian version are shown independent and authoritative sources that tell the history of railway construction of the 'Ansaldo and Breda. Insert all the sources that I will be available in addition to those already included with ISBNs related publications in Italian. The AnsaldoBreda is formed by the merger of the divisions stations that were previously owned by Ansaldo and of the Società Italiana Ernesto Breda rand then took over its history. I am willing to send a copy of all the texts in my possession that prove what was stated. I also find that there is an excessive fury against this Italian company, no one denies any mistakes made but I think there is a pallor from someone and not excessive neutral.--FAM1885 (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, you state "no one denies any mistakes made", yet your proposed production history mentions exactly 0 mistakes made. Yes there is some anger as trains have been consistently delivered years later than agreed, performing much below minimum agreed levels since the early 2000's, this is not only in the recent Fyra case (5 yrs late, falling apart in a month of service), but also for the Danes, the Swedish and the Americans. Basically it seems that since the early 2000's the factory wanted to expand, but did so in an irresponsible way by giving unrealistic quotes to whomever was ordering trains at that moment; all of whome are now stuck with low quality trains.
One could almost state the the big problems started after the merger of both companies into AnsaldoBreda in 2001. 83.134.106.71 (talk) 12:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
They actually said poor maintenance (after 36 days of service!!!) and running the trains at the certified speed were principal causes for failures...... That is plain ridiculous!
Perhaps the most angering in all this is that the company just does not admit they delivered substandard stuff, and actively sue companies complaining about their products on the fine print in the contracts, and damage to name! By their actions it looks like the legal department is the only profit center in the factory; and that is no way to treat paying customers in my opinion. Arnoutf (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
For your information the track record of the company since 2000 is appalling: IC4 Denmark - extremely late deliverary largely reconstructed by the Danish railways before it could enter service in mid 2000's; Oslo trams - turning cycle and weight to high for large parts of the system; Gothenborg - Sirio trams rusted through in a fraction of the promised life time - Boston tramsways mid 1990's - Los Angeles trams late 2000's, and of course the Dutch/Belgian Fyra/V250 extremely late deliverary dropping large chunks of steel within a month after entering service. Individual engineers might be fine, but the company has an appalling recent construction history. This does not say anything about the past (pre 1990), but this warrants some attention in the article. Arnoutf (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Just saw a press conference by the Ansaldo director who claimed that the fact that an international (sic!) train had to comply to the legal requirements of no less than 2 countries was unduly complicating construction........Duh, an international train was ordered.... Arnoutf (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

United Kingdon

FAM1885 completely removed reference to the company's UK customer on the grounds that mentioning this was not neutral and was offensive to Italy. I have to disagree and the action seems very similar to what vandalism would look like. 86.139.198.126 (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

There have been no official complaints to supply and for what I can not know the contract has been honored. If anyone has any information about this number are kindly placing them with valuable sources. Are not reported and authoritative third party sources that talk about problems and before insertion of the new tones used were not objective and was used the term "mass of spaghetti." Just check history for confirmation. The sources used are still very questionable and we are also talking about means not built new in 1998 and with many kilometers assets. From Mechanical Engineer and for what I have explained the Polytechnic of Milan I know that I wear and use cause a decline in performance of any mechanical construction. So I find it extremely unfair and untrue to criticize in retrospect.--FAM1885 (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Denmark

The IC4 train in Libya has nothing to do with any problems that have occurred in Denmark. The order was part of an agreement between the then Italian and Libyan government to try to heal the dispute between the two countries has arisen because of the colonial occupation of Libya since Libya was an Italian colony. However, the same information is present in the page IC4.--FAM1885 (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Multiple sources show that is clearly inaccurate, and Garion96 was correct to revert your edit. I am very concerned by your neutrality and by the aggressive attempts you are trying to make in order to remove anything that might be construed as criticism of this company. Barrybounce (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
No one denies that there have been problems and I say Italian, but it seemed to me that he just wanted to shoot in a indiscrimanata with the aim of denigrating. The company has paid strong penalties for mistakes. In addition, the AnsaldoBreda employs 2,400 people, is not a thing to be reckoned with at this time in Italy and we have problems with our economy. It is not right to destroy and denigrate only.--FAM1885 (talk) 00:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry if the article includes criticism of a company that you or a member of your family might feel emotionally attached to or work for. However an objective encyclopaedic article about this company will necessarily include detail of negative as well as positive aspects associated with the company, including curious incidents that are really notable and unusual and which have attracted widespread international attention. Barrybounce (talk) 01:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
@FAM1885 - All countries in Europe have problems with their economy, not only Italy.
This raises the questions whether it is fair to increase the economic problems of one country because of mistakes made by a company in another?
If we look specifically at Fyra/V250 - Chances are that the Dutch national railways will lose their rights to run on the high speed track in favour of foreign train operators. That will cost a lot of jobs and money, and is partly caused by mismanagement but also partly caused by the trains delivered late and substandard by AnsaldoBreda. If you look around all international contracts the poor performance by AnsaldoBreda may perhaps have even caused international operators more than 2400 jobs.
Re your very first comment. Of course the Italian government is free to give trains to foreign powers. However, much of the discussion was about the fact whether it was fair to "skip the cue". If the government had ordered an IC4 (obviously later than the Danes who ordered the first trains of this type) that train should have been the 84th train delivered (ie after the last Danish train). Arnoutf (talk) 07:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I would argue to bring about the same effect for a different reason; being that Wikipedia should objectively record facts irrespective of whether what I can only think of describing as Lashon hara applies to these circumstances. Wikipedia doubtless records many true statements that may cause reputational damage, as this would be the natural result of objectivity and NPOV.
In the case of the Danish train in Libya the relevance is that the train was clearly intended for Denmark as it had Danish language markings on it, and the refurbishment of the train for an African dictator rather than repair and return to the customer is a notorious action that is highly notable. Barrybounce (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

As for the argument that IC4 is in libya I try to explain the story in a different way: the fact that a train was delivered to Libya has no relevance on trains and problems in Denmark. A company is free to enter into contracts with those who want to. This order was imposed by the Italian government that was in office at the company. The company could have done without this type of contract, (it would seem that he was not paid, was not returned and we know what happened then in Libya). A train, but applies to any product, is owned by the construction company that is free to dispose of it as he wants. In addition, the train has been built from the project IC4 but then changed to the Libyan needs, and had been given only loan, so you can not speak of a train taken to Denmark, because this train would not be in accordance with the specifications Danes. I put a link to an article in the Italian language in which there is a declaration of a railroad executive Danes who says that the trains are the property of AB until they are delivered to the customer.

http://iltirreno.gelocal.it/pistoia/cronaca/2011/02/22/news/quel-treno-ic4-che-gheddafi-non-ha-mai-restituito-1.2338201

in another link I insert that you can clearly see that the interior of the train Libyan train is different from Danish.

http://ic3.dk/?p=2555

To conclude, it seems to me that there is an incorrect data in the section denmark, also is already added to IC4. I ask to make changes. I apologize for my bad English. I hope that it is now easier to understand --FAM1885 (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Almost incomprehensible translation. But as I said above, the issue is not as much if a company can deliver to whomever they want, but whether further delaying an already delayed customer to fit in a new (government-Libya) order is acceptable. Nobody sais the train was stolen from the Danish, but the Danish were hurt by further delivery delays in breach of contract as a consequence. Arnoutf (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

ok then for me it is not important the topic of Libya under denmark. must be properly inserted into the page IC4, where it is right that it is. --FAM1885 (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

FAM1885 it is simply not good enough to repeat ad nauseum "No one denies that there have been problems" and then go on to deny every problem that is pointed out. You are acting very much like a religious zealot 81.178.165.91 (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Only the compensation sum of 98 million floats around, but the reference is clear on this matter. "In exchange for the compensation of DKK 2.25 billion paid by AnsaldoBreda, DSB would complete the trains to the specifications agreed in the IC4 and IC2 contracts entered with AnsaldoBreda in 2000 and 2002." 2,25x10^9 DDK = 300x10^6 Euro. This is the May 2009 settlement. The second source quotes an additional settlement of 98 million around December 2012. Cobol86 (talk) 07:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

text reductions

Today user:Enok removed much of the problems section with the edit summary " NPOV, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not; I left only the most important episodes". While this may be warranted to some extent, there are much larger problems with the History and the Rolling stock sections. That also need to be solved. For now I reverted Enok.

Re the History section. This should be a section on the history of the company (not its production history). As such, the only 2 lines in the History section that can stay are:

1853 The company Gio. Ansaldo & C. producer of steam locomotives, rolling stock and steam engines was registered in Genoa, supported by the Minister of Finance, Camillo Benso, Count of Cavour, who aimed to reduce the State of Savoy's dependence on imported engineering.[4]
1886 Ernesto Breda founded Ing. Ernesto Breda and C.,[5] the company which became Società Italiana Ernesto Breda (SIEB) in 1899.

The rest is just a listing of (some of the) successful products (and none of the problematic products), with a lot of trivia. There is and nothing about the merger between Ansaldo and Breda.

Re the Rolling stock section. Everything in that section is (or should be) listed in their product listings. The reference to main operators might be relevant on this page but should be much shorter (a 10 line paragraph at max or so). As it stands now, I think the article is better by removing this section altogether.

As this would imply removing a large section altogether, and reducing another section by about 90% I have not been that bold and just reverted the reduction of the problem section. Please discuss how to take the article forwards in its entirety before removing parts of sections you don't like. Arnoutf (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not able to discuss about this company which I barely know. With my edits I just wanted to remedy the non-neutral point of view on the page. It's inconceivable that 3/4 of the article are focused on the technical problems of the trains. Wikipedia should not be a way to discriminate companies or individuals. Why does the fact that some trains sold in Norway had a problem with the signaling should be of interest to a reader of an encyclopedia? Any train in the world can encounter problems like these. I would say to leave only the most relevant news, like the "Denmark-Lybia issue" and the "Fyra affair" in Netherlands.--Enok (talk) 16:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
That is fine with me, but following the same guideline WP:DISCRIMINATE the listing of successful product launches (history) and a list of customers and there catalogue of rolling stock is unacceptable. Besides giving a non neutral image of an important and trustworthy company the other way around. It seems that the company was fine in the past (pre 2000) and is generally ok if it delivers within Italy, on the other hand it appears that the vast majority of international orders are (forgive me the wording) FUBAR by the company. Arnoutf (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me that your goal is just to put a bad light on this company, instead of creating a good encyclopedia entry. --Enok (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
WP:AFG
I think the article would become much better if we rewrite: Merge Company details - with Company history - Into a single section about the company and not its products.
Rewrite history section - now aimed at specific train types, to a Production History section which focusses on major shifts in production paradigm (first steam - first electric - first high speed)
Overhaul rolling stock section to a Major operators list - A table with a single row per operator (first column), national flagicon (2nd column) and operated types (3rd column)(btw did you notice the level of detail there, that is an order of magnitude less relevant than any of the deleted information) Arnoutf (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
For now I've deleted unnecessary sections. I agree with your suggestions.--Enok (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I have been fairly bold and restructured the company and history sections. I think both the section can be somewhat expanded, but please do not make them a listing of trivia as the previous listing was. I have not enough background in the company to add much but interesting additions in my opinion would be: The first trams/metros constructed. The first foreing (ie non Italian contract). Did they ever built Diesel Locs?? If so that may be worth mentioning. Please add if you know and have sources. Arnoutf (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I reinserted the technical and historical data that have been deleted. This information is known internationally as well as being present in the books of university mechanical engineering and magazines. This information is documented by authoritative sources. Furthermore, this information is present in the Italian wiki. I understand the criticism for the mistakes, I do not understand the desire to highlight errors only and do not insert positive information.--FAM1885 (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I Like the textual reductions. However, why did we lose the NSB_Class_72 affair? Ordered in 1997 to be delivered in 2000/2001, but received in 2003/2004. Late delivery by a couple of years seems to be a modus operandi. It wasn't a simple problem with signalling, the train was designed completely overweight. Cobol86 (talk) 07:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Enok thought there was too much emphasis on problems and removed some of the less notable issues. I do not know enough about these problems to be sure. It may be considered to put it back. Perhaps best to discuss first as this articles appears to raise nationalistic non neutral point of view all around (basically: Great company from Italian editors, Mafia practices in export from all others) Arnoutf (talk) 07:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
There should be a balance between cheerful celebrations and bitter disappointments. What`s currently lost in the controversies section is not just the Norwegian and other examples. It is the pattern of missing delivery schedules by a factor of two (even with good products), excruciating mistakes on very basic engineering (complex electronics & high speed works versus train overweight, fire, rust) and the management living in a completely different reality than it`s customers. Not saying who is right, but the path to peace starts by sharing a reality. Cobol86 (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
My personal feelings about this company is that since the 2000's it has been grossly overpromising and under-delivering, especially in its international contracts (I would say that is a pattern). I see no evidence of major problems for deliveries to Italian railroad companies. If this is the case, we need an introductory paragraph stating something like this. Arnoutf (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I insert again the historical and technical data that have been deleted. The data are documented with sources. I insert a link to a site created by an Italian cultural foundation that explains the importance of the company through the photos and projects that it has manufactured. I believe that as a reference to prevent the erasure of historical data and technical means should be sufficient: http://www.fondazioneisec.it/breda/index.htm --FAM1885 (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
First - You did not insert again, you blanket reverted my reductions including corrected language errors in the parts I did not remove. Don't. Inserting information again is not the same as reverting to a version with many typo's.
Second - It has never been about sourcing. If I would like to I could probably find a lot more detailed production data. I might perhaps even find references to the production of nuts and bolts used on the train. My remarks and reason for removal were never ever about lack of sourcing, but about level of detail (way too much) and relevance to the article (trivial listings should not be made). If you disagree, fine but give arguments on topic, that is why these are not trivia. Arnoutf (talk) 07:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Much of these facts are better suited under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:AnsaldoBreda_high_speed_trains, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:AnsaldoBreda_locomotives, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:AnsaldoBreda_multiple_units or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:AnsaldoBreda_trams. Readers can first meet the company on this wiki and if still interested follow up with their products. Start off with loads of minute details and the reader will be baffled, fail to see structure and fail to read or process the information. Cobol86 (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree, this information is relevant in the mentioned lists, but not here. Arnoutf (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on AnsaldoBreda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on AnsaldoBreda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on AnsaldoBreda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on AnsaldoBreda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 10 March 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane talk 01:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


AnsaldoBreda → Hitachi Rail Italy – The company officially changed its name (as also noted in the article lead). The new page already exists as a redirect. Ita140188 (talk) 02:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree: AnsaldoBreda didn't dissolve but sold as a whole to Hitachi, so there is continuation. --Will74205 (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hitachi Rail Italy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hitachi Rail Italy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hitachi Rail Italy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 12 August 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


Hitachi Rail Italy → Hitachi Rail – Wanted to build consensus before changing the name of a major manufacturer. The website for Hitachi Rail lists its structure.

A global head office in London, with the headquarter for the specifically named Hitachi Rail SpA based in Pistoia - https://www.hitachirail.com/it/

The overarching name seems to be Hitachi Rail with a head office in London

They then have 2 HQs

Hitachi Rail SpA (HQ in Pistoia) - focus of this article

Hitachi, Ltd. Railway Systems Business Unit (HQ in Tokyo)

All official documents for tenders are also made under this name and the website of Hitachi Rail makes no mention of anything called “Hitachi Rail Italy” anymore - https://www.hitachirail.com/it/

Seems a shame that following Hitachi Rail’s numerous acquisitions and restructuring to become a key player, has meant that their presence here is so disjointed.

Would appreciate other opinions AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 14:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Trains has been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 14:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
  • support: yeah, why not. One thing that has to be pointed out (probably in the article) is that Hitachi already was manufacturing trains before they bought Ansaldo Breda. Having the former AnsaldoBreda article just under the title "Hitachi Rail" might imply that Hitachi's rail manufacturing business only consists of the former AnsaldoBreda (which it doesn't), especially since as of now Hitachi Rail is a redirect to a section in the main Hitachi article. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support From what I found by looking up the company, the nom is correct that they no longer seem to use the name Hitachi Rail Italy. This move seems logical for that reason. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose, this article is only about Hitachi's Italian operations that traded as AnsaldoBreda until 2015. Hitachi has a much longer rail manufacturing history in Japan going back at least until the 1920s, thus it is appropriate for Hitachi Rail to remain as a redirect to Hitachi. Mausefields (talk) 07:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
  • support AnsaldoBreda hq was temporary in Nola. Ansaldo was a multinational of Genoa, Breda was a multinational of Milan. With Hitachi acquisition of AnsaldoBreda from Finmeccanica (multinatinal of Roma, now called Leonardo S.p.a.) the name changed in Hitachi Rail Italy with the temporary headquarter remained in Nola. After Hitachi renamed Hitachi Rail moved Hq to Pistoia but now (Septemper 2021) there is no Hq in Italy. In Italy there are only production sites but only for retrofitting in many parts of Italy. The only presence of Italy like Hq is in Genoa (aquisition of Andaldo STS). Sorry, I changed content of first request (I don't know if I can in English wikipedia, but created involontary confusion)
  • Oppose per Mausefields. This is about a specific division of Hitachi Rail, which was formerly a separate company. It is not about the whole rail operation.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Hitachi has 20 subsidiaries with names beginning "Hitachi Rail", only one of which will be the article subject. I would guess that it's "Hitachi Rail STS S.P.A." because SpA is the Italian company suffix, but I suggest leaving the article where it is unless and until we have a clearer understanding of its current status and relationship to Hitachi Rail. For example, if the reality is that Hitachi has now intergrated the operations of the former Italian company into its rail division, this article can stand for historical interest. We don't need a separate article for each Hitachi subsidiary.Havelock Jones (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hitachi_Rail_Italy/Archive_1&oldid=1136799079"