Line 03

Rolling stock maintenance optimisation — Headway Fleet

Treats the fleet as a system: prioritises critical components, sequences the workshop by effect on availability and sizes the spare parts stock that sustains the plan.

For whom
Operators with their own locomotive and wagon fleets
Timeline
Follows a validated Track deployment, unless contracted as a bundle
Commercial model
Implementation + annual licence + variable component on measured gain

Context

Asset availability is decided in three places at once: the workshop, the store and the schedule. Handling them separately produces the familiar result — the workshop occupied by the wrong vehicle, a critical part missing, and fleet standing idle waiting for something already purchased.

The plan is built for the fleet, not for the individual vehicle. The question is not which locomotive fails first; it is which workshop entry sequence, given stock and the transport demand of the period, delivers the availability the operation needs when it needs it.

Failure in service cascades: it blocks track, displaces crews and delays the trains behind. That effect enters the prioritisation explicitly — it is what separates predictive from prescriptive maintenance.

What you get

What you get

01

Component and vehicle forecasting

Models fed by onboard telemetry, wayside detectors, workshop history and each asset’s utilisation regime.

02

Fleet-level maintenance plan

Interventions sequenced against the transport demand of the period and real workshop capacity.

03

Workshop sequencing

Entry order by impact on availability, rather than by arrival or by component criticality in isolation.

04

Spare parts policy

Recommended stock level per item, tied to the intervention plan — immobilised capital treated as a decision variable.

05

Repair or replace

Component-level recommendation with explicit life-cycle cost, including the effect on the next stop.

When this applies

Situations in which this line of work is the right starting point.

  • Availability is systematically below plan and the cause is spread across workshop, parts and scheduling.
  • Material capital sits in spare parts with no policy tied to the maintenance plan.
  • Failures in service repeat within known component families.
  • The workshop is a bottleneck and its queue is ordered by arrival.
Discuss your case

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

Why does Fleet come after Track?

The reason is commercial, not technical: both families share much of the data and model architecture, and proving value on two fronts at once delays the first proof. If an anchor client contracts both as a bundle, the order is flexible.

Do we have to replace our maintenance system?

No. The platform integrates with the existing ERP/EAM. Replacing the maintenance management system is out of scope and is not a prerequisite.

Is the recommendation binding?

Never. Every recommendation carries a rationale and a confidence level, and the recorded decision is the client’s. A recommendation not executed generates no charge on unrealised gain — and does not invalidate the baseline either.

Next step

How much of your maintenance budget is well allocated?

The conversation starts with the problem, not the platform: which decision is made today without enough data, and what the order of magnitude would be if it improved. Thirty minutes, no corporate deck.