Could Australia learn from the US’s rail innovation landscape?

When Australian CEO Joanne Wust moved to the US to pilot a rail technology, she uncovered something more profound than the pilot itself ever could – a major gap in the innovation landscape between the US and Australia.

With access to a repurposed military site in the Colorado Springs desert, rail innovators in the US can conduct pilots on a dedicated test track facility – infrastructure that does not yet exist on Australian soil.

“Currently, Australia tests new rail products on live, operational track - and often through private operators, who each have their own business objectives and operating rules, set by the infrastructure owner,” Joanne said.

“This creates project and accreditation risks, because multiple runs aren’t always possible within the possession period, or during live running. To take out a possession on operational track is no small task and is quite expensive to do.

"It also creates a challenge when it comes to writing standards for new systems, because there is no place where this expertise can be specialised. Ultimately, this means a less efficient ecosystem for implementing new rail technologies.”

US model

In contrast, the US's test track facilities are often controlled environments, disconnected from the main network.

Some, like the MxV facility Joanne visited, have the capacity to test everything from axle encounters to firefighting equipment.

“They can host penetrative testing, including lighting trains on fire, because they’re not on operational lines.

“And because the test environments have specialised research teams, the standards and best practice which result from that can be shared with operators around the country,” Joanne said.

How does it work?

MxV is part of the Association of American Railroads - a member-owned organisation whose mission is to share industry best practice.

Each year, members set focus areas and then form sub-interest groups, to allow participation from supplier industries.

When a test campaign is carried out, MxV shares any lessons learned and writes new standards to ensure interoperability.

“It's a really good system,” Joanne said. “Here in Australia, we have many operators who run trains across multiple adjoining networks and it’s quite a competitive environment.

“It takes effort to share information between these parties. And I think the US’s collaborative system is something we could really benefit from.”

Addressing the sector’s biggest pain-points

MxV mediates between the market and operators to address multiple industry pain-points.

Instead of prescribing technology for a particular issue, it gives target outcomes.

“They put it to the market: what can you do to resolve this problem?” Joanne said.

From there, there is a structured process, which includes market engagement, parameter defining, and product testing.

MxV monitors the outcomes and defines what is reasonable to expect from this technology in the current market.

It then highlights which interfaces can ensure its interoperability between different PTC networks.

Joanne says the process, which is funded by members and suppliers, is sensible in the current climate.

“It’s a great model for introducing new technologies, especially when they are progressing in such leaps and bounds.

“It’s also a chance for suppliers who might otherwise not have had the opportunity to test independently or with a particular customer,” she said.

Robust funding arrangement

Joanne said the model’s success largely hinges on its funding arrangement – something she believes Australia could also adopt.

“The majority of funding comes from member organisations. They set the agenda for the year, and the funding is allocated accordingly.

“The team that runs the test track facility then go out to the market, find respondents, and perform testing – and that potentially has its own bucket of separate government funding,” she explained.

The model also comes with commercial opportunities, with MxV allowing suppliers to ringfence parts of the track.

“If you have something commercially sensitive, which you don't want to be sharing to the wider industry, you can lock out the track and do that testing.

“So, there is a possibility to monetise this system, too.”

Mutual benefit

Active participation from operators is also crucial to the model’s success.

Operators are essentially custodians, each giving their input on which technologies should be tested each year.

“They talk about the different pain points and commercial issues they're trying to address – and usually, there are common themes. We're all facing similar issues in terms of where the market's going.”

Similarities with US

Joanne does not think a like-for-like system is necessary in Australia but says a degree of crossover could be beneficial.

“We're not dealing with the same constraints and issues that exist in the US, but we do have our own unique challenges - particularly with the size of the services we need to provide and the higher per capita investment, given our smaller population.

So, it’s certainly worth exploring a more efficient way to tackle our industry pain-points.”

Sharing more on what this could look like in practice, Joanne will address the upcoming Rail Technology & Interoperability Conference.

This year’s event will be held 20-21 October 2026 at the Swissotel Sydney.

Learn more and register your tickets here.