Bad business decisions don't usually require complex conspiracy theories of purported corruption as an explanation.

Maybe sometimes, businesses, (like all human institutions made up of "perfect" and "rational" human beings) make a bad decision? Sometimes it may be made for what seemed like a good reason, sometimes for a dumb one.

Is there any actual evidence of any corruption or favoritism? No.

Is there evidence that with full knowledge, some folks chose to ignore coming regulatory changes in locomotive emission standards, which have been coming for nearly fifteen years, while other firms did not? Yes.

It is not EPA's job to choose a winner, or to coddle firms that make poor decisions. The EPA has, under the requirements of the Clean Air Act, passed by Congress in 1990 and signed by Bush the Elder, set an emission standard, for oxides of nitrogen which we breath, and which also creates ozone, which we also breath. It's bad for us. And, all competitors were free to meet it in the most competitive and cost effective way they could develop.

Some firms chose to invest and take a risk, to innovate and invent, and will meet the standard. While other firms maybe hoped that lobbying for offsets, or delays, and possible changes to the rule was the strategy to pursue.

They made a bad decision. And, if anything, the firm playing politics and whining, seems to be the firm that made a bad decision.