> The company hardcoded algorithms that would report failures of parts that work correctly (like a compressor), if it detected that train has been repaired by another company (based on location readings), and stop the train from running

This isn't correct by my understanding - there's actually two separate things here:

- The company made their trains stop functioning after spending 10 days at competing maintenance locations, based on GPS

- In one firmware, they hardcoded to pretend a compressor failure a few days after the next scheduled maintenance for the train