The Alloy of Law: Question About the Vanisher's Robberies

[Whittler]

Howdy pardners.

I recently (a week ago as of posting this) read The Alloy of Law.

As I was being introduced to the various exploits of the Vanishers and their empty train cars, I developed two theories as to the how of the robberies.

- The train cars were never being loaded in the first place
- The entire train car was getting swapped out

I quickly dismissed the second theory because of the following excerpts of text:

- "With each case, the details had grown more interesting, as the cargo cars had been better secured. More sophisticated locks, guards riding along. The robberies happened incredibly, considering the weight of goods taken." (Chapter 3)

- "Nobody had been hurt by the Vanishers yet.  They were robbing people, but they weren't harming them." (Chapter 3)
- '"This isn't a question of simple manpower," Waxillium said. "The train cars were locked, and some of the later ones had guards inside.' (Chapter 12)

With increased guard numbers, the chances of pulling off a car swap *unseen* would be low, then by chapter 12 impossible as the car that would be swapped would have had guards *inside* it.

When the rub turned out to be the car getting swapped, I was miffed. How are the guards inside the cars accounted for? The Vanishers haven't hurt anyone yet, but there were guards inside the cars they were swapping which would have needed to have been dealt with.

To my knowledge this was not addressed in the text. My question is do we have a valid explanation for what happened to the guards in the cars in the later of the first 7 robberies? Or is this a minor or unexplained plot hole?

[king of nowhere]

13 hours ago, Whittler said:

Howdy pardners.

I recently (a week ago as of posting this) read The Alloy of Law.

As I was being introduced to the various exploits of the Vanishers and their empty train cars, I developed two theories as to the how of the robberies.

- The train cars were never being loaded in the first place
- The entire train car was getting swapped out

I quickly dismissed the second theory because of the following excerpts of text:

- "With each case, the details had grown more interesting, as the cargo cars had been better secured. More sophisticated locks, guards riding along. The robberies happened incredibly, considering the weight of goods taken." (Chapter 3)

- "Nobody had been hurt by the Vanishers yet.  They were robbing people, but they weren't harming them." (Chapter 3)
- '"This isn't a question of simple manpower," Waxillium said. "The train cars were locked, and some of the later ones had guards inside.' (Chapter 12)

With increased guard numbers, the chances of pulling off a car swap *unseen* would be low, then by chapter 12 impossible as the car that would be swapped would have had guards *inside* it.

When the rub turned out to be the car getting swapped, I was miffed. How are the guards inside the cars accounted for? The Vanishers haven't hurt anyone yet, but there were guards inside the cars they were swapping which would have needed to have been dealt with.

To my knowledge this was not addressed in the text. My question is do we have a valid explanation for what happened to the guards in the cars in the later of the first 7 robberies? Or is this a minor or unexplained plot hole?

to my knowledge, we don't have explanations. 
but i can guess that maybe the locked car was locked and the guards were on adjacent wagons. maybe the vanishers picked their targets specifically based on which trains wouldn't have guards actually inside the locked wagon - and they also needed to have an actual replica of the wagon

[Adonalsium Will Return He/him]

They probably kept the guards in the car until they could deal with them.

[Whittler]

1 hour ago, king of nowhere said:

to my knowledge, we don't have explanations. 
but i can guess that maybe the locked car was locked and the guards were on adjacent wagons. maybe the vanishers picked their targets specifically based on which trains wouldn't have guards actually inside the locked wagon - and they also needed to have an actual replica of the wagon

52 minutes ago, Adonalsium Will Return said:

They probably kept the guards in the car until they could deal with them.

Yeah I have been thinking about various ways that it could make sense.

I just can't get around the word choice of "The train cars were locked, and some of the later ones had guards inside."

The best explanation I could come up with is that the guards are just bad at their jobs. So when the train stopped they unlocked the cars from the inside and went out to check it out. That solves the problem of guards inside, but it now creates the problem of prying eyes during the robbery. Prying eyes that need to be silenced one way or another in the event of their snooping taking purchase, which I feel it would given that they would open the car door to a barge floating in the canal with a huge crane on it.

So maybe the simplest answer is the Vanishers just bought the guards silence? But I struggle to believe the Vanishers would want to part with their coin if they don't have to (as that is a major point of contention for them).

[Returned he/him]

I think that "minor plot hole" is the most honest answer. But as I recall, the mystery of the robberies was more about how quickly and thoroughly the goods were stolen given their weight/volume, not that the Vanishers were never known to have entered or interacted with the cars they robbed. But it's possible that:

• The Vanishers' activity in the passenger cars of the trains distracted from the actual train car swaps
• What few windows there were with a reasonable angle on the cars being stolen were especially distracted from, or blocked
• Mists obscured the areas, making the true circumstances hard to see
• In cases where guards were inside the stolen cars, Vanishers entered those cars and removed any guards present there before stealing the car (violently or otherwise)
• "No one was hurt" is a reference to the civilians who happened to be present, not the guards who were on the job
• Things changed over time. There is a shift between the "no one is hurt" period (noted in chapter 3) and the "later trains had guards in the car" period (chapter 12). Recall that by chapter 12 Lord Peterus had been shot dead during a Vanishers robbery, at which point the "no one was hurt" claim obviously no longer stands. It's possible that the later car thefts, with guards inside, were all after the "no one is hurt" period, and Peterus' murder wasn't the event that marked that transition

Edited February 27 by Returned

[Whittler]

2 hours ago, Returned said:

I think that "minor plot hole" is the most honest answer. But as I recall, the mystery of the robberies was more about how quickly and thoroughly the goods were stolen given their weight/volume, not that the Vanishers were never known to have entered or interacted with the cars they robbed. But it's possible that:

• The Vanishers' activity in the passenger cars of the trains distracted from the actual train car swaps
• What few windows there were with a reasonable angle on the cars being stolen were especially distracted from, or blocked
• Mists obscured the areas, making the true circumstances hard to see
• In cases where guards were inside the stolen cars, Vanishers entered those cars and removed any guards present there before stealing the car (violently or otherwise)
• "No one was hurt" is a reference to the civilians who happened to be present, not the guards who were on the job
• Things changed over time. There is a shift between the "no one is hurt" period (noted in chapter 3) and the "later trains had guards in the car" period (chapter 12). Recall that by chapter 12 Lord Peterus had been shot dead during a Vanishers robbery, at which point the "no one was hurt" claim obviously no longer stands. It's possible that the later car thefts, with guards inside, were all after the "no one is hurt" period, and Peterus' murder wasn't the event that marked that transition

I agree with you that it seems like a minor plot hole.

The reason why I bring it up at all is specifically because the "nobody had been hurt" (Chapter 12) is mentioned before Peterus is killed. So your last point can't be the case as all 3 excerpts are talking about the state of things after the first 7 robberies but before Peterus was shot.

To your fourth point, and my biggest point of contention, the guards inside: I could see the Vanishers entering and removing the guards inside assuming the rag tag group of sadistic thugs had the skills necessary to pop the locks one way or other. And in this case I think I have to assume the guards' silence would need to be bought. Because if they ever got knocked out they would report having been and that info would get released to, or uncovered by, the public eventually.

To your second to last point, If I was a journalist or Wax at the time of the events of The Alloy of Law, I would not say "Nobody had been hurt" if the truth of it was that "No *civilians* had been hurt". I feel there is a very big difference between the two, given that said difference could range from 'knocked out guards' all the way up to 'dead guards'.

So we are in a position where the face value of the text just don't add up, and we are left to make assumptions as to how they could've possibly pulled this off in the later of the first 7 robberies in the context of the overall reveal. And I felt the need to call attention to it as the detective work and reveal of the robbery method is a point of focus in the book.

My only guess that still holds any amount of water is that the guards are being paid off.

Edit: I misspoke. Peterus dies in chapter 5, to re-explain what I was trying to say here:

Quote

The reason why I bring it up at all is specifically because the "nobody had been hurt" (Chapter 12) is mentioned before Peterus is killed. So your last point can't be the case as all 3 excerpts are talking about the state of things after the first 7 robberies but before Peterus was shot.

When the characters say "Nobody had been hurt", they are referencing a time when Peterus was still alive, the first 7 robberies.

Edited February 27 by Whittler

[Returned he/him]

1 hour ago, Whittler said:

The reason why I bring it up at all is specifically because the "nobody had been hurt" (Chapter 12) is mentioned before Peterus is killed. So your last point can't be the case as all 3 excerpts are talking about the state of things after the first 7 robberies but before Peterus was shot.

Ah, I misread the citation in your first post. My apologies; we can dispense with that idea, then.

The most likely explanations that remain (if we're trying to avoid the plot hole one) are that the guards are neutralized somehow that isn't mentioned (maybe Allomancers assault their emotions, disarm them, or otherwise incapacitate them until Vanishers can manhandle them off of the car to be stolen), or that they're kidnapped along with the cars being stolen and presumed to be unharmed. The latter is the one that makes the most sense from the text, and the former probably ruled out.

Quote

"The train cars were locked, and some of the later ones had guards inside. When the cars arrived at their destination they were still locked, but empty." (chapter 12, page 184)

Two things stand out here:

The cars arrived empty, which means the guards could not have been inside when the trains reached their destinations. That the cars were still locked suggests that the guards were not taken out and placed elsewhere on the trains, though I suppose it's possible that they were unlocked and re-locked. But then the guards would presumably have something to say about that, and the description "still locked" wouldn't make much sense. It would also be a substantial complication to the robberies to move guards around into the replacement cars.

If we're relying on Wax's description and grammar to be accurate then the number of trains with guards in the stolen cars can be no fewer than two and probably not more than 4. "Some of the later ones" is plural, so more than one. But "later ones" suggests the lattermost, implying robberies 4-7 or 5-7. So we can estimate 3-4 train cars' worth of guards who are now missing. Missing and presumed unharmed, much like the hostages, if we take as incontestably true the chapter 3 statement "No one had been hurt by the Vanishers yet." (chapter 3, page 32). Since Wax knows the hostages were taken and that "There wasn't even proof that the hostages were in danger." (chapter 3, page 62), the "no one had been hurt" line can only mean no one had been hurt to Wax's knowledge, which he is aware is incomplete.

 

1 hour ago, Whittler said:

And in this case I think I have to assume the guards' silence would need to be bought. Because if they ever got knocked out they would report having been and that info would get released to, or uncovered by, the public eventually.

Bought off to do what, though? If the guards were giving false stories they would need to have some explanation for what they did to resist the robberies and how they wound up being overwhelmed, especially if they are totally unharmed and the cars were never opened or even unlocked. I can't think of any explanation for why they weren't on the trains when they arrived at their destinations, didn't leave the locked cars, somehow were released later, but also had no knowledge of any of the methods used in the robberies. Nothing that would satisfy investigators or reporters, at least.

So we're left with: 1. plot hole; 2. guards are missing but assumed to be fine; 3. Wax not caring about the guards' condition in any case; 4. Wax being sloppy/careless/wrong in his statement that the Vanishers hadn't hurt anybody; or 5. there is some threshold for "hurt" which has not been met, even if some people were harmed to a lesser degree during the robberies.

Based on the above, I believe that if we are trying to reject (1), (2) is the only conclusion that makes sense. The guards must be missing, but I believe you are correct that Wax (at least) would not disregard the guards' condition, and (4) means that we cannot take any the characters' statements or thoughts as reliable which makes this kind of examination less meaningful.

Edited February 27 by Returned

[Whittler]

4 minutes ago, Returned said:

Two things stand out here: the cars arrived empty, which means the guards could not have been inside when the trains reached their destinations. ...

This is definitely a large part of why I brought it up, the cars that reach their destinations with no contents of any kind including the aforementioned guards. Thanks for bringing attention to this!

6 minutes ago, Returned said:

Bought off to do what, though? If the guards were giving false stories they would need to have some explanation for what they did to resist the robberies and how they wound up being overwhelmed, especially if they are totally unharmed and the cars were never opened or even unlocked. I can't think of any explanation for why they weren't on the trains when they arrived at their destinations, didn't leave the locked cars, somehow were released later, but also had no knowledge of any of the methods used in the robberies. Nothing that would satisfy investigators or reporters, at least.

So we're left with: 1. plot hole; 2. guards are missing but assumed to be fine; 3. Wax not caring about the guards' condition in any case; or 4. Wax being sloppy/careless/wrong in his statement that the Vanishers hadn't hurt anybody (to his knowledge)

100% agree here that the guards being bought is a crackpot theory at best. I think your explanations make much more sense, and that is what I was hoping to get out of this post, better explanations, so thank you for entertaining my nonsense! I think options 2 through 4 all hold more water than my ideas. I feel like 3 isn't particularly likely given what we know of Wax's personality and disdain for criminal violence. And I also think that he is portrayed as a good detective in terms of option 4 but that's not to say he is infallible.

In the end, we may never know, or perhaps someone else can find a piece of text that explains the situation better. Nevertheless, I like your ideas and thank you for not just dismissing me as having misunderstood the text, as I am pretty confident I didn't. But at the same time I found it hard to believe that no one else has ever pointed this out, so perhaps someone can come along and set me straight.

[Returned he/him]

It was a fun exercise! I appreciate the opportunity to look through Alloy of Law critically, as it's probably the Cosmere book I know the least well (tied, maybe, with Lost Metal). This is the kind of thing that keeps me coming back to the 17th Shard.

[king of nowhere]

if the guards inside simply disappeared, it's possible they were not counted as "being hurt" because their wereabouts were still unknown.
nobody was hurt as far as the public knew.

just in the same way that the hostages were disappeared

[Whittler]

1 hour ago, king of nowhere said:

if the guards inside simply disappeared, it's possible they were not counted as "being hurt" because their wereabouts were still unknown.
nobody was hurt as far as the public knew.

just in the same way that the hostages were disappeared

Yeah, I had not considered this before @Returned mentioned it. It's definitely possible that the public are just including missing guards in their mentions of "hostages". But it's not directly mentioned that guards went missing, just civilians. So if that is the case I wish there was mention of it. It is absolutely a possibility though!

Perhaps the public views the guards as sub-human and therefore just don't count them as people at all, they're just fixtures to be used, like lights, or doorknobs.

[Treamayne]

6 hours ago, Whittler said:

Perhaps the public views the guards as sub-human and therefore just don't count them as people at all, they're just fixtures to be used, like lights, or doorknobs.

To be fair, we don't know what the "public" thinks at all - we know what Wax said the broadsheets were reporting. Yellow journalism is yellow in fiction too:

• "Underpaid Great House guards missing after robbery" does not sell papers
• "Mystery train robbery" sells papers

Subverting that mystery with conjecture means your readers switch to a different broadsheet next issue - "no evidence of casualties" is a fact they can print while hyping the mystery, though.

Edited March 1 by Treamayne
SPAG

[offspec]

2 minutes ago, Treamayne said:

To be fair, we don't know what the "public" thinks at all - we know what Wax said the broadsheets were reporting. Yellow journalism is yellow in fiction too:

• "Underpaid Great House guards missing after robbery" does not sell papers
• "Mystery train robbery" sells papers

Subverting that mystery with conjecture means your readers switch to a different broadsheet next issue - "no evidence of casualties" is a fact they can print while hyping the mystery, though.

This seems the most in line with reality while still assuming it's not just an oversight. Plenty of examples of equivalent journalism even in today's news cycle.

[king of nowhere]

6 hours ago, Whittler said:

Yeah, I had not considered this before @Returned mentioned it. It's definitely possible that the public are just including missing guards in their mentions of "hostages". But it's not directly mentioned that guards went missing, just civilians. So if that is the case I wish there was mention of it. It is absolutely a possibility though!

Perhaps the public views the guards as sub-human and therefore just don't count them as people at all, they're just fixtures to be used, like lights, or doorknobs.

no need to be so cynical. it is often the case that without proof of the worst happening, public opinion - or at least the media and the government spokespeople - must assume the worst didn't happen.

just like the hostages are just disappeared, so are the guards

[Treamayne]

56 minutes ago, offspec said:

This seems the most in line with reality while still assuming it's not just an oversight. Plenty of examples of equivalent journalism even in today's news cycle.

Welcome to the Shard. Please consider an Intro Post to let us know what you have or have-not read (whichever list is shorter). Also, please consider checking out the Sharder FAQ for some useful forum info and tips. 

[Whittler]

1 hour ago, Treamayne said:

To be fair, we don't know what the "public" thinks at all - we know what Wax said the broadsheets were reporting. Yellow journalism is yellow in fiction too:

• "Underpaid Great House guards missing after robbery" does not sell papers
• "Mystery train robbery" sells papers

Subverting that mystery with conjecture means your readers switch to a different broadsheet next issue - "no evidence of casualties" is a fact they can print while hyping the mystery, though.

1 hour ago, offspec said:

This seems the most in line with reality while still assuming it's not just an oversight. Plenty of examples of equivalent journalism even in today's news cycle.

Do you think they would sell more papers by leaving out juicy details though? I am not a media mogul so I can't say, but I assume the more dirt they can dig up the better to retain public interest. So I guess I assume if guards were missing it would be reported on.

31 minutes ago, king of nowhere said:

no need to be so cynical. it is often the case that without proof of the worst happening, public opinion - or at least the media and the government spokespeople - must assume the worst didn't happen.

just like the hostages are just disappeared, so are the guards

I promise I am not really that cynical, I am just filling a missing link in a chain holding a concept together however I can think to fill it, just for the sake of throwing around ideas. That is why I originally posted at least, put out feelers and see what the people say.

So I would say another explanation I hadn't really considered based on what @Treamayne and @offspec were saying is just simply that the media is either uninformed or intentionally shifting the public eye. And that theory does unfortunately hit close to home in the climate we're in these days.

Either way I like the idea as I think it fits neatly enough.

[Treamayne]

15 minutes ago, Whittler said:

Do you think they would sell more papers by leaving out juicy details though? I am not a media mogul so I can't say, but I assume the more dirt they can dig up the better to retain public interest. So I guess I assume if guards were missing it would be reported on.

We do not know that it wasn't reported - we only know Wax did not mention it directly. He was fairly straight forward at the Ball that his line (to become involved) was murder - not kidnapping or missing guards. When Miles shot Lord Peterus (Ch 5), everything about the case changed for Wax. So him not mentioning a detail in Ch 3 does not, to me, indicate a plot hole - it's Unreliable Narrator (just like every other Cosmere book, so far). Also, consider that months had passed between those twe chapters, things had continued to escalate. 

Also, please keep in mind that AoL started as a Short Story - so there are some eccentricities derived from how the story grew (rtaher than starting as a complete novel outline, like Brandon usually prefers - AoL Annotations to Ch 5:
 

Spoiler

That brings us to this sequence. When I planned the original short story, this sequence at the party was going to be the end of it. The Vanishers weren’t in the book—it was just a simple gang of thieves taking a hostage. The prologue didn’t exist, as I’ve spoken of earlier. It was a more simple story of a man coming into his own and deciding to fight again after losing someone dear to him.

For that reason, this sequence here—this chapter with the next—may feel like a climactic sequence to you, of the stort you often find at the end of my books. Originally, this was going to be the ending. (Though by the time I reached this chapter in the writing, I’d already decided I was going to make the story much longer, and had greatly expanded my outline. Hints of the story’s origins can still be found, however. Note that we don’t get a Wayne or a Marasi viewpoint until after this sequence when we hit the expanded outline material.)

 

Edited March 1 by Treamayne
SPAG

[Whittler]

5 minutes ago, Treamayne said:

We do not know that it wasn't reported - we only know Wax did not mention it directly. He was fairly straight forward at the Ball that his line (to become involved) was murder - not kidnapping or missing guards. When Miles shot Lord Peterus (Ch 5), everything about the case changed for Wax. So him not mentioning a detail in Ch 3 does not, to me, indicate a plot hole - it's Unreliable Narrator (just like every other Cosmere book, so far). Also, consider that months had passed between those twe chapters, things had continued to escalate. 
 

The problem is not that he doesn't mention a detail in chapter 3, it's that he specifically does mention a detail that creates a problem in chapter 12, that nobody had been hurt during the first 7 robberies.

Ostensibly he mentions this detail because the fact that nobody had been hurt was a big deal to him and the story progression. The comment reinforces the reasoning behind why he jumped and started acting when he did. And therefore reinforces his knowledge of the lack of "hurt" before the Peterus incident.

So we see Wax mention the guards in the cars, and then we see him mention that nobody was hurt, and I can write that off as him being an unreliable narrator and just doesn't know that guards had in fact been hurt. But that just leaves a bad taste in my mouth as I feel Wax is portrayed as someone with a high regard for life and justice that just so happens to have completely missed the truth behind a statement he himself makes.

So I was hoping there was a better explanation.

[Treamayne]

44 minutes ago, Whittler said:

The problem is not that he doesn't mention a detail in chapter 3, it's that he specifically does mention a detail that creates a problem in chapter 12, that nobody had been hurt during the first 7 robberies.

Technically, the detail that he shares is that there is no evidence anybody has been harmed in the first seven robbaries (after praying and because he is trying to convince himself to return to the ledgers, like a good House Lord). AoL Ch 3:

Spoiler

Oh, Harmony, he thought, raising a hand to his head and slowly sitting down, back to the wall. It really is about her, isn’t it? I can’t do that again. Not again.

He dropped the round, pulled off his earring. He stood, walked over, cleaned up the broadsheets, and closed the drawing pad. Nobody had been hurt by the Vanishers yet. They were robbing people, but they weren’t harming them. There wasn’t even proof that the hostages were in danger. Likely they’d be returned after ransom demands were met.

I understand this bothers you - you have the right to be bothered. But there is so much unknown data, I do not think there is a way to make a clean set of details and deductions that will clear it up for you. Wax is unrelaible, emotionally distraught, and being manipulated by Tillaume in this scene - I think having a clean and linear recounting would be less in-character than the potential character break that seems to bother you.

I'm sorry. 

Edited March 1 by Treamayne
SPAG

[Whittler]

6 minutes ago, Treamayne said:

Technically, the detail that he shares is that there is no evidence anybody has been harmed in the first seven robbaries (after praying and because he is trying to convince himself to return to the ledgers, like a good House Lord). AoL Ch 3:

  Hide contents

Oh, Harmony, he thought, raising a hand to his head and slowly sitting down, back to the wall. It really is about her, isn’t it? I can’t do that again. Not again.

He dropped the round, pulled off his earring. He stood, walked over, cleaned up the broadsheets, and closed the drawing pad. Nobody had been hurt by the Vanishers yet. They were robbing people, but they weren’t harming them. There wasn’t even proof that the hostages were in danger. Likely they’d be returned after ransom demands were met.

 

Well it's good to hear other people agree that something is amiss is all.

What did you mean in your reply here? I am referencing the bit in chapter 12 when he says no one had been hurt. I agree with what you're saying about his emotional state in chapter 3 of course.

[Treamayne]

10 minutes ago, Whittler said:

I am referencing the bit in chapter 12 when he says no one had been hurt.

Can you please quote that?
Because I can find no reference in Ch 12 to injuries (or lack thereof) in any form. I thought you meant your Ch 12 quote from the OP:

On 2/26/2026 at 9:55 PM, Whittler said:

- '"This isn't a question of simple manpower," Waxillium said. "The train cars were locked, and some of the later ones had guards inside.' (Chapter 12)

 

[Whittler]

1 hour ago, Treamayne said:

Can you please quote that?
Because I can find no reference in Ch 12 to injuries (or lack thereof) in any form. I thought you meant your Ch 12 quote from the OP:

 

I am very sorry, I got my quotes mixed up! I completely lost the thread on that one haha!

I got mixed up because the excerpt in chapter 12 where he talks about the guards inside the cars is referencing the same time period as the excerpts from chapter 3. Sorry about that.

So now I understand what you meant earlier. Didn't spare any extra points for sanity in my character sheet, put it all in strength, ungabunga and all. You know how it is.

[Duxredux he/him]

I think others have made very good points, and if I'm repeating anything anyone has already said, it's so I can frame it into a specific context.

Let's start with the question of why Wax believes that no one was hurt despite earlier noting that the Vanishers needed time to process the first shipment of stolen aluminum to make bullets to kill Allomancers. That would be this line based on info I assume he learned from the broadsheets: "The robberies weren't about money, they were about the captives. That was why no bounty had been demanded, and why the bodies of the captives hadn't been discovered dumped somewhere." (ch. 3) Presumably there was no evidence of anyone showing up dead, guard or captive.

As for how the guards were dealt with, let's follow what had been the original plan with the Breaknaught before Wax stepped in. Presumably when the Vanishers came to steal a train car, they locked the cars with the same method that Miles used to isolate Wax when he tries to kill him on the train, by jamming metal rods into the mechanisms. With the compartment locked, and the guards are now trapped in what was intended to be a heavily reinforced and defensible train car. The Vanishers take the car back to their hideout then use the mechanical winch to rip the door off and surround the guards with men and a rotary gun to boot. The guards, heavily outgunned, surrender and the Vanishers go from there. The reason this whole scheme worked was that Miles spotted the security hole that that all the focus was on the the contents of the cargo car, not the car itself - and presumably this was their MO the whole time, not just when Wax was along for the ride.

Keep in mind that apparently one of the pioneers in this security schema was the heavily targeted House Tekiel who escalated the format to the Breaknaught - maintaining the train security race's focus on the cargo. In the context that the Vanishers, Mr. Suit in particular, had to have a mole in Tekiel to obtain the schematics for the Breaknaught to build a copy. That mole presumably pushed for this security setup with the aim to maintain this vulnerability. As we find out at the end, Tekiel getting targeted by the Vanishers was setup for insurance fraud. When the security and the robbers are colluding, it shouldn't be too hard to minimize casualties, reducing the general fear, and lowering the probability that Wax would involve himself (with the butler, Tillaume's nudging).

[Whittler]

2 hours ago, Duxredux said:

In the context that the Vanishers, Mr. Suit in particular, had to have a mole in Tekiel to obtain the schematics for the Breaknaught to build a copy. That mole presumably pushed for this security setup with the aim to maintain this vulnerability. As we find out at the end, Tekiel getting targeted by the Vanishers was setup for insurance fraud. When the security and the robbers are colluding, it shouldn't be too hard to minimize casualties, reducing the general fear, and lowering the probability that Wax would involve himself (with the butler, Tillaume's nudging).

So are you implying that perhaps the mole that helped with the security may have been manipulating the situation so that the guards in the cars are more inclined to surrender and keep their mouths shut? I like that train of thought as I hadn't considered extra mole involvement!

Or are you in the group that thinks that when Wax makes his chapter assertion about people hurt, he's just uninformed and doesn't know people have been hurt already?

[Duxredux he/him]

1 hour ago, Whittler said:

So are you implying that perhaps the mole that helped with the security may have been manipulating the situation so that the guards in the cars are more inclined to surrender and keep their mouths shut? I like that train of thought as I hadn't considered extra mole involvement!

No, I'm suggesting that the mole pushed for guards sitting in effectively a mobile bunker. The trains were still arriving, so presumably the security rationale was that a heavily reinforced train car with a natural choke point could be defended by the guards until the train got moving again. Miles removed that choke point by first moving the car into his hideout and then ripping the side right off, creating a kill box with a rotary gun pointed at the suddenly exposed guards. It doesn't take a great stretch to assume the guards would surrender on the spot, particularly if Miles demonstrated his durability. They were horribly unprepared for Miles Hundredlives, unlike Wax.

1 hour ago, Whittler said:

Or are you in the group that thinks that when Wax makes his chapter assertion about people hurt, he's just uninformed and doesn't know people have been hurt already?

According to the broadsheet before chapter 3, no blood had been spilled in the Vanisher's attacks - so again, what makes you think anyone had already been hurt? I'm in the camp that Wax made his assertion that no one had been hurt (yet) based on the given evidence. Guards vanishing is the same degree of troubling as hostages never being held up for ransom, but apparently there was no evidence of blood or bodies. If I read your original post (often shortened to OP here) correctly, you were trying to reconcile what had happened to the guards with the assertion that no one had been hurt and I think there's been some good options that don't require the guards being killed, injured, or even allowed to resist while the car was still connected to the train. As for where they ended up, read and find out (or RAFO) and decide if the mystery of where the kidnapped people ended up could account for the missing guards too. Logistically, the guards ended up at the Vanisher hideout and could easily have been moved with the kidnapped women.

Edited March 6 by Duxredux