Blog

Rail is competing for startup attention at a moment when venture capital is flowing into climate tech, autonomous vehicles, and adjacent infrastructure markets, and largely bypassing rail. The structural barriers to entry remain stubbornly unchanged. Most founders who do try to engage end up walking away, and the sector loses them quietly, without ever finding out why. What the industry tends to miss is that this is a competitive position. Rail isn't entitled to startup atten

We've seen encouraging developments in accessibility apps and digital tools across the rail sector but let's not forget the on-the-ground reality. If a physical barrier exists, a lift is broken or an information screen faulty, the service remains inaccessible. Often the digital layer is moving forward faster than the physical one it describes. The pattern is everywhere. An operator launches a beautiful mobile app with real-time accessibility information. The press release goe

A tech company with a strong track record in another sector looks at rail and sees an obvious fit. They've delivered at scale. They know they can do the work. So they approach the industry expecting their existing credentials to open doors. They don't. Rail buyers are polite. They take the meeting. But nothing moves. The tech company assumes the problem is awareness, so they sponsor an event, take a stand at a trade show, maybe join an industry body. Still nothing moves. At t

Rail innovation rarely fails because the technology is wrong. It fails because the trust and the translation needed to move an idea into service aren't there, and most of the sector has no reliable way to build them. Building that trust is most of what we do at the Rail Innovation Group. A recent Supplier Challenge we ran is a good example of what it takes. A few weeks before the pitch session, we recorded a podcast with the operator's leadership. Nothing elaborate. The point

Picture the scene. A startup gets ten minutes in front of a train operating company at an industry event. They've rehearsed the pitch, the slides are sharp. They spend the entire time selling something the operator has no authority to buy. The pitch is often strong. The technology is genuinely good. What the startup hasn't done is the basic work to understand who actually maintains the trains. In many cases, that function sits with the ROSCO or with a separate maintenance con

I've helped design supplier challenges for rail organisations over a number of years now. Some of them produced real operational outcomes. Others launched with energy and quietly disappeared within six months. The difference between the two is almost never about the quality of the startups who applied. It's about what happened in the design phase, weeks before anyone pitched. The pattern is consistent enough to describe. There are six things that, if I see them missing in the