Industries · Rail operator / infrastructure manager
Rail operator / infrastructure manager
A rail infrastructure manager has to demonstrate SFAIRP to a safety regulator while delivering a renewal programme that has been cut twice. Track, signalling and structures compete for the same possession windows as well as the same money.
Who this is for
Three people, one budget argument
Track engineer
Owns the plan and answers for it. Everything on screen is built to make that week easier.
Signalling asset manager
Holds the budget line and carries the valuation. Cares about defensibility before features.
Executive, network safety
Signs, and is the one asked the awkward question in public. Needs one page, not a tour.
Asset classes
What AIPP scores in this industry
Configured for this industry out of the box: condition on the IIMM_1_5 scale, the RAIL weighting profile, budget shown as Renewal programme + possession hours, and the instruments it answers to (EN50126, ONRSR_RISSB, UIC712, IEC61508_61511) named on every score. All of it is yours to change — the weights are sliders, not our opinion.
The honest bit
6 of 30 assets will not score
That is the demo register for this industry, and the gaps are deliberate. AIPP refuses to rank an asset the evidence does not support — it will not apply a curve, a zero or a middle grade to a thing nobody has inspected. 20% of this register comes back unranked, with the reason named.
6 of 30 assets carry NO condition evidence and NO age. That is deliberate. A demo register where everything scores teaches a prospect nothing about what happens to the two-thirds of their own register that will not — and it is exactly where most tools quietly invent a zero. Open the demo on these.
How it runs
From export to defensible programme
Track geometry and rail condition load per segment; signalling loads with its SIL rating, which is read as a barrier integrity, not recalculated.
Safety weight sits above service — the emphasis a rail safety regulator expects and will test.
Level crossings rank on exposure as well as condition, which is where a pure condition ranking fails hardest.
The optimiser constrains on money AND on possession availability, so the plan is deliverable rather than merely affordable.
The SFAIRP narrative exports with the risk retired and the residual explicitly stated.
What you will see
The screens that matter here
Fair questions
What this industry actually asks us
EN 50126 RAMS is a formal process. Do you implement it?
No. It is referenced, and its vocabulary is carried. AIPP does not produce a RAMS case; it produces the prioritisation and the evidence that supports one.
Our rolling stock is maintained on an RCM programme.
RCM is listed as a declared gap — AIPP selects interventions on condition and economics, not failure modes. For rolling stock, feed the RCM output in as the intervention and use AIPP for the portfolio allocation.
We cannot expose safety data to a vendor.
Nothing leaves the tenant. AIPP runs on BTP or self-hosted in your own environment, and the AI features are optional and off by default.
Run it on your own worst class
Bring one export — the class with the missing condition data and the costs from 2019. If AIPP tells you the truth about it in twenty minutes, that is worth a conversation. If it scores everything and looks clean, tell us so.