Rolling stock OEMs can reduce prototype risk by defining the validation scope early, connecting design with FEM analysis, checking critical joints and interfaces, and preparing traceable evidence before manufacturing begins. Simulation does not remove the need for physical testing. It helps make the prototype a confirmation of a mature design rather than the first place where major structural weaknesses are discovered.
A structural problem becomes much harder to solve after tooling has been released, suppliers have started production or the first vehicle has entered the validation programme.
Under programme pressure, one fatigue hotspot or load case, which does not meet the stregth criteria can trigger several redesign and recalculation cycles. The cost is not limited to engineering hours. It may also include a delayed laboratory slot, changes to supplier documentation, additional prototype work and a design freeze that moves while other teams are already working against it.
For engineering leaders, the important question is therefore not only whether the structure will pass. It is whether the most expensive risks can be identified while geometry, materials and interfaces are still flexible.
CAE creates the greatest value when it supports design decisions throughout development instead of appearing only as a final verification step. A simulation-led process helps the team identify critical load paths, compare structural variants, evaluate static strength and fatigue, review crashworthiness concepts and assess joints before physical parts are manufactured.
The objective is not simply to produce a calculation report. It is to shorten the feedback loop between the analyst and the designer. When both disciplines work in parallel, they can compare reinforcement concepts, reduce unnecessary mass and account for welding access, tolerances, assembly sequence and serviceability before design freeze.
Structural validation should begin with a compliance envelope, not only with a CAD model. The OEM and engineering partner should align the applicable requirements, operating conditions, load cases, materials, interfaces, responsibilities and expected report structure before detailed calculations begin.
Depending on the vehicle and subsystem, the scope may include EN 12663 for vehicle structures, EN 15227 for crashworthiness, EN 13749 for bogie frames, EN 61373 for vibration and shock, and relevant methods for welded and bolted joints. The exact stack depends on the product, market and approval strategy.
The modelling plan should also define revision control. A credible report must identify the assessed geometry, material properties, load cases, boundary conditions, connection methods and software environment. When the design changes, the team should be able to determine which results remain valid and which analyses must be updated.
Critical findings are not limited to the main car body. They often occur around welds, bolted connections, brackets, equipment supports, cab structures, body-to-bogie interfaces and locally modified areas. These locations become especially challenging when engineering responsibility is divided between the OEM and several suppliers.
A component can pass its individual analysis while the surrounding structure or mounting arrangement remains insufficient. Local models should therefore reflect the behaviour of the wider vehicle rather than rely on idealised boundary conditions that cannot be reproduced in operation.
No. Physical tests remain an essential part of rolling-stock development and approval. The purpose of virtual validation is to eliminate unsuitable concepts, identify critical areas and compare design variants before a physical test becomes the first source of engineering feedback.
A mature numerical model can make laboratory and prototype activities more focused. It can also help the team prepare instrumentation, anticipate critical zones and interpret differences between predicted and measured behaviour. The test still matters, but it is used to confirm and refine an engineering model rather than begin the design process again.
External support creates more value before the design is frozen and before internal workload becomes critical. Early involvement allows the partner to review the validation scope, identify missing inputs, challenge assumptions and estimate the specialist capacity required.
The cooperation does not have to start with a large work package. A focused model review, a defined FEM assessment or temporary reinforcement of the OEM’s existing team can demonstrate technical fit and reveal the real evidence gap. The key is to start while there are still several practical ways to solve the problem.
Endego combines rolling-stock mechanical development with CAE, virtual validation and structural optimisation for new-build and modernisation programmes. The scope can include car-body static and fatigue analysis, crashworthiness, bogie and vehicle-interface calculations, welded and bolted joints, equipment mountings, CFD, thermal analyses and technical documentation supporting the customer’s review process.
Public Endego references include the type 20D locomotive, where the team developed a comprehensive computational model and worked with the customer on structural reinforcement; the ED72 electric multiple unit, where the scope included a new front structure plus static, fatigue and crashworthiness calculations; and the Eanos 438W freight wagon, where the structure was assessed against railway strength requirements.
Endego engineers work in the customer’s established design, simulation and PLM environment. The value is not tied to one software vendor. It comes from selecting an appropriate method, understanding railway-specific load cases and converting numerical results into practical design decisions and review-ready evidence.
Discuss the risk before it reaches the prototype
InnoTrans 2026 takes place in Berlin from 22 to 25 September 2026. A useful technical conversation can begin with one structural challenge, the current programme stage and the next validation decision. Explore Endego’s rolling-stock engineering capabilities and start the discussion.
The main benefit is earlier visibility of technical risk. CAE helps teams compare concepts and correct structural problems before tooling, prototype or test changes become expensive.
No. FEM supports design maturity and test preparation, but model quality, validation, engineering judgement and physical testing remain essential.
Yes. A focused review of the model, method or technical evidence can be used as a lower-risk starting point before a broader engineering work package.
An electric motor is only one component of a vehicle’s e-drive system. Efficiency, range, performance and durability depend on the combined operation of the motor, inverter, battery, battery management system (BMS), cooling system, transmission, control software and mechanical integration. Electric powertrain development should therefore address the complete system and the vehicle’s real operating profile from the outset.
Read moreEndego, a portfolio company of Abris Capital Partners, has completed the sale of its Siemens and Altair software distribution business to Volupe Group. The transaction allows Endego to sharpen its focus on engineering and digitalization services for customers in the mobility and industrial sectors.
Read moreHybrid powertrains can be a viable direction for automotive development, not merely a transitional compromise between internal combustion engines and battery electric vehicles. Automotive electrification does not follow a single, straightforward path.
Read more
