"RailServices puts the customer first" - An interview with Kathrin Moder

Ms. Moder, when we spoke about the beginnings of RailServices two years or so ago, you said: “In the past, we were mainly involved in supplying the spare parts operators needed to keep their operations up and running over the long term.” What’s changed?

Safe, long-lasting fleets are still vital for operators today. But in recent years, a number of important new factors have emerged. Increased environmental awareness for one, but also higher energy prices and a sharper focus on rail transportation’s economic viability. The latter two points in particular have caused operators to pay much greater attention to their fleets’ operational efficiency. This includes taking a much more integrated view of total lifecycle costs.

Can you give us an example?

Surprisingly often, seemingly minor details can have a dramatic impact on a vehicle’s operational readiness. If a 20-year-old control board is discontinued, operators need to find a replacement. But if you’re already sending a vehicle back to the depot to make this one replacement, it’s worth exploring whether any other upgrades would also make sense. Installing Wi-Fi and adding USB ports to passenger seats, for example, or upgrading to state-of-the-art sanitary systems.

Following the liberalization of the rail market, Europe in particular saw an explosion of new vehicle orders. These vehicles are now 20 to 35 years old, depending on when they were commissioned. What does this mean for RailServices?

It means that, whether driven by obsolescence or passengers’ rising expectations of comfortable rail travel, operators now face a critical decision: Do we buy new vehicles, or do we modernize our existing fleets to potentially squeeze out another 15 to 20 years of cost-efficient operation?

As Vice President RailServices, you’ll undoubtedly have a clear answer to this dilemma.

Clear, yes, but perhaps not in quite the way implied by your question: We’re focused on finding the best solution for each operator’s unique needs. I see the “new vehicle vs. modernization” conundrum as an exciting challenge that ultimately benefits everyone involved. We approach our service business as enthusiastic innovators, in the firm belief that modernized vehicles can still be incredibly attractive for both operators and passengers.

But doesn’t modernization primarily benefit operators with big fleets? If you’ve only got a few vehicles, doesn’t the cost of developing the relevant upgrades become prohibitive?

You’re describing a challenge we repeatedly hear about in our conversations with our customers. It’s one of the reasons we’ve refined our strategy so we can offer more turnkey modernization solutions and platform-based midlife upgrades. Increasingly, we’re developing concepts for mission-critical subsystems on platforms that either already need or will soon need modernization.

What’s the strategic thinking behind this?

By spreading the development costs of modernization across multiple potential customers, we can make it more attractive. It’s equally beneficial for leasing providers looking to offer their customers life-extending solutions for their vehicles. Sellers of used vehicles will also benefit. Two other key aspects of our strategic refinement: We’re expanding our portfolio of modernization kits and digital upgrades for locomotives and building up our core expertise in hydraulic braking systems and digital solutions. In the rail freight market, we’re driving forward digital transformation by making freight cars “smart”, with the aim of reducing unscheduled maintenance, improving vehicle availability, cutting costs and saving time. Or to put it in industry terms: We’re staying ahead of the curve