The ongoing conversation about ETCS – its cost, its pace of rollout, and whether alternatives might serve the industry better – is one the rail sector genuinely needs to have. The system embodies three decades of hard-won interoperability work across dozens of national signalling regimes and regulatory bodies. That institutional weight is not trivial. Critics who question its economics and timelines are right to do so; defenders who warn of fragmentation risk if it were abandoned outright are also right. Both arguments are valid.

But both are also talking about the same layer of the problem: signalling. And that may not be where the most urgent capacity gains are hiding.

Consider the numbers. A European Commission study published in February 2026 found that just 19% of EU rolling stock currently carries onboard ETCS equipment. By 2030, that estimate rises to 40%. More than half the current fleet – 51% – has no fitment plans at all. Full network-wide benefits, which require near-universal fleet coverage, are realistically a matter of decades, not years.

Meanwhile, rail freight’s modal share in the EU stands at roughly 17% of inland freight tonne-kilometres, essentially flat for over a decade, against a European Commission target of 30% by 2030. Freight customers are already being turned away today because the network lacks capacity. The gap between ambition and reality is not a signalling gap alone. It is an operational gap – and it is widening.

The lesson from a network that did scale

In the 1960s, telecommunications engineers faced a version of this same challenge. The telephone network operated on what became known as circuit switching: every call reserved a dedicated line, end to end, for its entire duration. The system worked. It was reliable, safe, and technically sound. It was also catastrophically inefficient. The reserved wire sat idle most of the time. Scaling was exponentially expensive. The economics broke down the moment volume grew.

Packet switching did not replace the cables, but it changed the protocol for using them. Data was broken into packets, each finding its own path through the network dynamically. There was no reserved capacity, no end-to-end pre-allocation, and no idle infrastructure. The physical layer remained largely the same; the operating logic was reimagined entirely. The internet followed. Then email, video, cloud computing, and the digital economy as we know it – all built not on new cables, but on a smarter way to use the ones that already existed.

European rail still operates on the circuit-switching model. Every train holds a dedicated slot through the network, allocated end to end. Even if only a portion of a freight train needs sorting, the entire consist uses up a yard slot upon entry, delaying the onward movement of the wagons that did not require sorting. A delayed service creates ripple effects across adjacent paths. Capacity is consumed by buffers and waiting time, not by the movement of goods. The tracks exist. The wagons also exist. What has been missing is a different way of thinking about the operating protocol.

Operational innovation as an overlay, not a replacement

The question worth adding to the signalling debate is this: what is rail’s equivalent of packet switching? What operational concepts allow trains to use existing slots more dynamically, within the signalling infrastructure already in place, without waiting for a network-wide upgrade to unlock them?

One emerging direction is the ability for train sections to couple and decouple at operational speed. Take the shunting yard scenario: a freight train where only part of the consist requires sorting no longer needs to commit the entire train to the yard. The section that needs sorting diverges on the run; the rest continues on the main line, preserving the slot from the outside rather than consuming it from within.

The yard, now freed from holding the full consist, can dispatch an already-sorted section that couples on the run with the moving section. The same slot enables two operations. No new track is required. Neither are new signals, nor a change to the signalling certification. The logic of the network changes without the network itself changing.

This is what an overlay approach looks like in practice: operational concepts that sit on top of existing infrastructure, extracting capacity that the current system structurally leaves unused every day. It is not a replacement for signalling modernisation. Rather, it is a parallel track of progress that does not have to wait for the long migration to ERTMS to complete.

Layers, not sequences

The deeper lesson from the internet is not that infrastructure does not matter – it is that infrastructure and operating protocol evolve best together, in parallel, not in sequence. The physical network mattered enormously; packet switching would have had nothing to route across without it. But framing new protocols as something to pursue only after the infrastructure is fully upgraded would have been a costly mistake. Both layers advanced simultaneously, each making the other more valuable.

The same logic applies to rail. ERTMS migration should and will continue; moving block and digital supervision will eventually deliver the headroom that fixed-block signalling cannot. That work is necessary and worth doing well. But treating it as a prerequisite for operational progress means accepting a decade or more of avoidable stagnation on a network that is already turning away demand.

ERTMS migration should and will continue

The industry needs to think in layers: the long signalling migration on one track, and a parallel investment in overlay operational concepts on another. Modular train formation, smarter slot logic, on-the-run coupling and decoupling – innovations that do not require the signalling layer to change before they can begin delivering value. Both advancing simultaneously. Both contribute to a network that can actually carry the freight volumes Europe needs it to carry if the 30% modal share target is ever to be more than an aspiration.

Rail has the infrastructure. The slots exist and the tracks are there. What the internet showed us is that the operating logic is not fixed: rather, it is a choice. And choosing a smarter one does not require waiting for the hardware to catch up.

Is the industry ready to have that conversation in parallel with the signalling debate – or will operational innovation remain a second-tier topic until the migration is done?

In railway parlance, it is less a derailment and more a controlled shunt. Hardly a few wagons coupled together under new labels and sent off on longer national diagrams, more of a brand new flow, coupled up for the long haul. First into the loop is Roger Neary, formerly Chief Sales Officer, who now takes on the consolidated role of Chief Commercial Officer. This is certainly a move onto the fast lines. In effect, all the commercial rolling stock – Sales, Commercial Development and, notably, Engineering – has been marshalled into one mixed formation.

Engineering’s inclusion is no minor siding move. DB Cargo UK has made clear it sees growth potential in that space. Placing it within the commercial consist signals an intent to monetise maintenance expertise more assertively. The expectation is that a single commercial command will reduce conflicting priorities and keep revenue generation firmly under green signals.

Operations brought into a single control room

On the operational side, Kate Turner moves from Head of Operations North to Chief Operating Officer, with the additional responsibility of Train Planning. That brings frontline operations and the timetable-writing function into one control cabin. A sharp new pencil for Turner – theoretically reducing the risk of crossed wires between what is planned and what is actually delivered.

Turner, who joined the business as an apprentice in 2012, also takes a seat on the UK Management Board. Her appointment reads as both a structural adjustment and a signal to the wider workforce that progression from the footplate to the boardroom remains on the company’s internal route map.

A national remit for train running

Meanwhile, Mark Sargant, previously Head of Operations South, takes on the newly configured role of Director of Operations with a nationwide remit. Rather than north and south working in parallel tracks, train running operations will now report through a single national channel, which sounds like a way to run a railroad.

The aim is consistency in how services are delivered across the UK network – an increasingly important factor as freight operators navigate performance pressures and customer scrutiny. In short, fewer regional variations, more standardised operating practice.

ERTMS project kept on the timetable

Elsewhere, Graham Preston, Head of Operational Projects, adds overall accountability for the company’s activities linked to the introduction of the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) in the UK. As digital signalling inches closer to freight reality, ensuring a clear project lead is unlikely to be optional. The company has already been bringing its own training into the future, with a sophisticated simulator suite at Doncaster and mobile training units deployed around the country.

Chief Executive Andrea Rossi said the changes align the organisation with four key focus areas – Rail, Maintenance, Services and Property – sharpening accountability and commercial focus. Or, to keep the metaphor intact: the wagons have been remarshalled, the brake test has been completed, and DB Cargo UK’s management train has departed the yard with a revised formation and a renewed timetable for growth.

Mainline railways were historically – and many still are – controlled by a wide range of national signalling systems. In the mid 1990s, when cross-border locomotives and multiple units were introduced, the need arose for a unified European signalling and communications system to replace the old ones.

This took the name of European Train Control System (ETCS) and was enhanced by GSM-R communications technology to become the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS), maintaining the same block system philosophy in which trains are separated by fixed blocks with lengths that are at least as long as the braking distance of trains running on the line.

This leads to intervals between trains that are longer than the necessary safe distance between them, which is determined by the braking distance between the moving end of the 1st train and the front of the 2nd plus a safety margin.

This is called “moving block” or “ETCS Level 3” and has been discussed for decades, but there is no concrete implementation in view for the next years or even decades. It is needed above all on densely trafficked lines such as major parts of the Scandinavian – Mediterranean and the North Sea – Rhine – Mediterranean TEN-T corridors and specific bottlenecks around Lyon, Île-de-France and the Baltic capitals. Awaiting infrastructure upgrades, a special focus should therefore be placed on increasing capacity at the bottlenecks.

Much has changed since the eighties

Since ETCS development, IT has rapidly advanced. Processor speeds are ~10,000x faster, and mobile data transmission went from 0.2 to 10,000 Mbit/s. While slow, unreliable data transmission doomed 1980s remote brake monitoring attempts, this is no longer an issue. Despite this, rail infrastructure managers plan to spend decades implementing the expensive and already dated ETCS across Europe, with full rollout anticipated a century after its initial introduction.

Implementing ETCS could be a suboptimal solution. New and more advanced signalling systems are available. Some rely on fixed signalling installations and some do not require them. Examples include the German Aerospace Centre’s (DLR) TrainCAS, a decade-old train-to-train communication system operating successfully on the Harzer Schmalspurbahn with potential for SIL4 upgrade even in dense fog at high speed.

The French Urbanloop, developed by University of Lorraine students, is a small, AI-assisted urban transport facility using pods that follow each other closely, localised by passive lineside beacons, and has been operating in Paris.

Ecotrain, also in France, is developing a solution for driverless trains on secondary lines to exchange data with level crossings to prevent collisions. Given that modern cars have sophisticated control systems for collision avoidance and autonomous driving (see the image above), it is unclear why simple ETCS train equipment costs hundreds of thousands of euros, when a complete Urbanloop pod or a high-tech car costs only a few thousand. See the price comparison in the graph:

To maximise railway capacity (after prioritising safety, switch control, timetable adherence, and energy efficiency), the signalling system is crucial. It must accurately track the position, direction, and speed of every train within its area. This essential information enables the safe organisation and optimisation of all train operations.

📌 Possibilities for Train Localisation and Safe Operation (click to expand)

A number of possibilities for the determination of the location and provision of safe operation of a train have been used or can be used. All have their own drawbacks when it comes to precise and at the same time reliable positioning.

• Track circuits for positioning and train integrity supervision.
• Axle counters for positioning and train integrity supervision.
• Fixed electric contact shoes for triggering braking.
• Electromagnetic solenoids for triggering braking.
• Continuous lineside data transmission antennae for positioning and speed control.
• Discrete lineside balises for positioning and speed control.
• Discrete passive lineside tags for positioning.
• Radio connection for speed control.
• Satellite-based positioning (GPS, Galileo, Starlink).
• Wheel revolution supervision for positioning and speed and acceleration/deceleration measurements.
• Odometry for positioning and speed and acceleration/deceleration measurements.
• Local earth magnetic field variations.

As there is now a sufficient number of different independent localisation methods available – each with varying technologies, safety certifications (up to SIL4), availability, and reliability – moving block operation (where trains dynamically adjust their spacing based on real-time data) becomes feasible. This is where we can start to think about alternatives to ETCS.

An idea for a better alternative to ETCS

A proposed signalling system should rely on three of these three localisation methods. Normal operation of trains at maximum speed and minimum headway shall be allowed if all three systems produce matching information. Trains will still be able to operate when two systems agree but the third differs. Speed and headway will then be set to values that depend on which systems are in line with each other.

If all three systems give diverging information, trains will not be allowed to run except at low-speed emergency level (typically “on sight”, probably with a maximum speed of 30-40 km/h) through secured human authority procedures.

Railways are systems and the interaction between their subsystems must be managed. It is therefore also imperative to talk about the detection of train completeness, i.e. loss of wagons. These must be secured by on-train equipment depending on the type of train.

For trains coupled with standard “screw” couplings, it is a fact that today no solution for SIL4 train integrity detection exists for serial operation even if several demonstrations have already proven some kind of feasibility. Therefore, a certain level of redesign of freight trains (and adaptations to passenger trains) will be needed, likely by equipping freight trains with electric power and digitalising them.

It is possible to quite quickly introduce such a modern highly responsive IT-based system to allow train operation under moving block conditions and thus increase line capacity, mainly for freight trains. This could allow a drastic cost reduction for signalling systems.

It could eliminate the need for many of the expensive lineside elements and their cabling, such as track circuits and axle-counters, beacons (balises) that require frequent inspection and maintenance and that are prone to meteorologic impacts and vandalism.

It will also lead to a reduction in the number of interlockings and control centres. In combination with other improvements in infrastructure, terminals and rolling stock design, it will entail a substantial boost at a fraction of the cost of ETCS. It must be designed in such a way as to allow a gradual introduction in mixed operation with ETCS or another legacy system. As long as other trains operate nearby under a traditional signalling in mixed operation, trains that are equipped with the new system must run according to the rules of that system.

Years, not decades

Modern trainborne IT technologies, which require no extensive fixed infrastructure, can be implemented as an overlay and eventual replacement for legacy signalling systems. This approach facilitates a rapid transition to moving block operation on critical bottlenecks. As a result, significant improvements and cost reductions for freight lines can be realised within years, rather than decades.

To ensure an effective improvement of rail transport, political support is mandatory. Politicians should not only suggest but also finance the ideas and transform them into legal instruments. The railway sector at all hierarchy levels should take benefit from new developments in the aerospace and automobile industries. But the full impact on capacity will only materialise if synergies with parallel improvements in logistics, infrastructure design and maintenance, energy supply and freight train design are integrated.

Do you want to share your view? You can reach out to the RailFreight.com editorial team, or to Reinhard Christeller via the button below. You can also leave a comment.

Belgium clearly implemented ETCS at lightning speed. At the same time, the country did not have much choice in implementing the technology. The 2010 rail accident at Buizingen, which left 19 dead and 171 wounded, highlighted the shortcomings of the nearly one century-old national safety system. It could not prevent trains ignoring red signals.

A patchwork of ETCS Levels

Since Belgium already had in-house ETCS expertise after it had taken the first implementation steps in 2009, it opted to accelerate that implementation. In order to do cover the entire mainline network with ETCS within an acceptable timeframe and at a reasonable cost, Belgium chose to install a mix of three variants of ETCS:

• ETCS Level 1 Full Supervision (ETCS L1 FS)
• ETCS Level 2 Full Supervision (ETCS L2 FS)
• ETCS Level 1 Limited Supervision (ETCS L1 LS)

Infrabel chose to implement ETCS L1 FS in places where that was already planned before the 2011 Masterplan, where ETCS L2 FS was not technically possible (such as in large stations), or on short sections between ETCS L1 FS zones. Otherwise, the infrastructure manager installed ETCS L2 FS, except on the more quiet sections. In the latter case, it installed ETCS L1 LS.

What is the difference between Full and Limited Supervision? Infrabel explains:

With ETCS Level 1, both Full and Limited Supervision, a train’s on-board computer receives information about the maximum permitted speed, whether the next signal is open or closed, the gradient of the tracks, etc. With Limited Supervision, the on-board computer receives this information over a shorter distance than with Full Supervision.

Furthermore, with Limited Supervision, this information is not visualised on the train driver’s screen. ETCS Limited Supervision is a system – a mode of ETCS L1 – that runs in the background. The train driver looks outside and follows the signals, as in situations without ETCS. If he or she does make a mistake, for example by driving too fast, the system intervenes and performs an emergency brake application. With Full Supervision, the train driver sees all the information on the screen in the driver’s cab.

The present day

That brings us to 2026. Fifteen years after the 2011 Belgian “ETCS Masterplan” and 2.8 billion euros later, the mainline network is ready for ETCS-only operations. Some 80% of expenditures went to interlocking, a base system for the control of switches and signals. Belgium is making the switch to the digital interlocking systems SmartLock and SIMIS W.

Milestone completed. Still, that does not mean that there are no more challenges on the horizon. In the coming decade, the 2G communication technology GSM-R should reach end-of-life status and be replaced with the 5G system FRMCS, which offers increased reliability, speed and higher levels of cyber security. This will require more expensive retrofitting and infrastructure work, just as Belgium has completed ETCS implementation.

Infrabel expects that we will end up with a dual system of both GSM-R and FRMCS, and so it does not worry that GSM-R will be defunct from one day to the next. The infrastructure manager is preparing to keep its GSM-R network operational for longer to retain its communications infrastructure.

Simultaneously, Infrabel is preparing GSM-R towers for FRMCS installation. However, not all equipment is commercially available or is even in existence, which means that planning for the switch is difficult. However, Infrabel adds that it maintains its own standalone rail fibre optic network, which offers security and a lack of interference. The “backbone” is there, so the migration to FRMCS has been “prepared” already. To complete the upgrade, Infrabel just needs to change the hardware of the communication system.

Who coordinates problem analysis and resolution?

Operationally, ETCS-only operations also bring about several challenges. Hans-Willem Vroon, director of the Dutch rail freight association RailGood, had earlier explained to RailFreight.com that ETCS operations in the Netherlands are not flawless. A key problem concerns independent investigation of incidents and the allocation of responsibility. The many involved stakeholders, such as part manufacturers, software developers, the infrastructure manager operators and train drivers make that process difficult. “As is so often the case in chains, the temptation is great for chain players to hide behind each other and for important players to disappear.”

The question is who, then, takes responsibility for the independent investigation of incidents or determines where operations derail?

Infrabel explains that it organises quarterly consultations with stakeholders by default. Moreover, the infrastructure manager says that it has traffic reports of all delays that occur on its network. If ETCS is involved in the incident, it consults with stakeholders to identify the problem. This, according to Infrabel, “goes quite well”. In other words, there is no formally appointed entity that takes responsibility, but these processes take place in good faith and in a cooperative spirit.

However, Infrabel does not expect system-breaking issues to arise. The use of technology is as watertight as possible with the help of certificates and homologation procedures. Still, not every supplier implements everything correctly – or identically to one another, despite certification – 100% of the time. There are some hiccups from time to time due to cost reductions, which can cause operational issues.

The latest expansion includes several strategically important corridors, notably the route from the Polish capital eastwards to Terespol on the border with Belarus, the line from Warsaw west to Kunowice on the German border, and part of the E30 main line running from Opole in southern Poland via Wrocław and Legnica to Bielawa Dolna, also at the German border.

Lagging behind but catching up

Compared with several Western European networks that completed large-scale GSM-R deployment years ago, Poland has been relatively late in introducing nationwide digital rail radio coverage. Having long relied on the analogue 150 MHz VHF system, the infrastructure manager says it has faced increasing limitations, including imprecise communication and the risk of unauthorised activation of the “Alarm” signal.

The legacy communications set-up has also complicated Poland’s transition towards the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS), which relies on GSM-R alongside ETCS. Modern digital radio coverage will be essential as Poland prepares for a more demanding future network, with faster services and more international traffic requiring interoperable systems.

The challenge is that although GSM-R remains the current European standard for railway radio, it is based on 2G technology and is expected to be phased out over the next decade as the sector prepares for FRMCS, the future 5G-based rail communications system. Rolling out technology that will eventually be replaced is therefore a delicate timing issue, but GSM-R is widely regarded as a necessary step to secure interoperable digital communications and enable ERTMS before the longer-term migration to FRMCS.

Preparing for full integration

“The system is based on digital technology that enables reliable and stable communication between all participants in the transport process,” said Piotr Wyborski, CEO of PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe SA. “The implementation of GSM-R is a key step towards improving the safety, interoperability, and quality of communication in rail transport.”

The company added that the new system would reduce delays linked to imprecise communication and improve protection against eavesdropping or unauthorised interference. This includes mitigating the risk of unauthorised activation of the “Alarm” signal, which it describes as a key shortcoming of the existing 150 MHz VHF system.

“Thanks to the implementation of GSM-R, the Polish railways are not only gaining a new level of communication quality, but are also preparing for full integration with the European ERTMS system,” said Michał Gil, Member of the Management Board, Director of Operations at PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe SA. “This increases safety, streamlines international cooperation, and raises the standard of passenger and freight transport services.”

Would you like to find out more about Europe’s newest digital signalling and comms projects? To meet some of the key voices defining EU rail policy regarding ERTMS and cross-border rail, consider joining the RailTech Europe conference in Utrecht on 5 March. The second day of our summit examines Europe’s defence-driven shift and its implications for the rail sector, with ERTMS the main topic of Session 3, ‘Security through digital unity – accelerating ERTMS and interoperability’. Top-level speakers include Head of the ERA’s ERTMS Unit, the CEO of Nordic Signals, the ERTMS Program Directorate in the Netherlands, and many more. 

RailTech Europe

The team also discussed the upcoming RailTech Europe, which will take place on 4 and 5 March 2026 in Utrecht, the Netherlands. RailTech Europe is one of the biggest events focussing on rail technology across the continent, both for passengers and freight. Some of the highlights of the event will include military mobility, infrastructure management and financial availability. Thousands of visitors are expected, get your ticket here.

The entire Belgian rail network of 6,400 kilometres is now covered by ETCS, according to the Chief Operating Officer of Infrabel, Jochen Bultinck. The COO adds that 92% of each driven train-kilometre is currently covered by the system.

The ETCS implementation project started in 2015, and was completed exactly a decade later. Of the 6,400 kilometres of the Belgian rail network, the project saw 2,274 kilometres upgraded to ETCS level 2.
Siemens Mobility explains that the project delivered significant improvements in operational efficiency and seamless cross-border train operations thanks to the integration of advanced interlockings and by enabling continuous digital communication.

An example for Europe

“Belgium is the first country to implement ETCS across a highly complex network under rolling conditions with almost no closures – setting the example Europe must follow”, comments Michael Peter, CEO of Siemens Mobility.

“The on-time completion and commissioning of this project, exactly ten years after its start, reflects the strength of our partnership with Infrabel and the consortium’s unwavering commitment. With much of Belgium’s rail network now running on ETCS Level 2, our proven signaling technology delivers the highest safety standards and a more efficient, future-ready rail system for the entire country.”

Like in other European countries, Belgium’s railway network previously operated on older systems. That hindered reliability, efficiency, and cross-border compatibility. Europe-wide implementation of ETCS (and the broader ERTMS framework) should increase the level of interoperability among European countries and make international traffic more efficient.

On-board ETCS L2

The ETCS version which will be tested over the next month in Italy allows for continuous information communication. This means that locomotives and trains can be constantly monitored in real-time, while with ETCS L1 the information is transmitted only when a train passes above a trackside balise.

‘Stable situation, but costs worry’

ETCS is always a hot topic, especially regarding the financing and the fragmentation among Member States, which are carrying out the project at different speeds. Lacchini pointed out that, thanks to the efforts made by the country’s infrastructure manager RFI, the situation is stable at the moment. “The fact that RFI agreed to proceed with the implementation of ETCS BL3.4 on board locomotives represented a major step forward for locomotive owners”, he explained.

However, “the organisation of test runs remains quite complex given the large number of fleets affected in relation to network availability”, Lacchini added. Another issue concerns the costs, which are higher than those imagined a few years ago, increasing the complexity of its financial sustainability. Various industry associations, including ERFA, AERRL and ALLRAIL, went as far as saying that the current costs for ETCS deployment outweigh the advantages it will bring.

ETCS is designed to keep trains within safe speed limits and ensure they can always stop before a signal or target. To do this, it uses “braking curves” — formulas that predict how quickly a train can slow down. ETCS constantly checks the train against these curves, and if the driver isn’t braking enough, it steps in and applies the brakes automatically. Still, one of its main goals of ETCS is to boost railway capacity by allowing more trains to run safely on the same line — and the current braking rules may be holding that back.

Indeed, according to a paper in SIGNAL+DRAHT by three engineers from Czech signalling company AŽD Praha — including UNISIG braking curves task force leader Jakub Marek — the current rules assume that a train keeps running at a constant speed until ETCS intervenes, even if the driver or an Automatic Train Operation (ATO) system is already braking.

The result is what the authors call unnecessary “double braking.” To make a comparison, it’s a little like a car with cruise control that doesn’t notice you’ve already pressed the brake. Even though you’re slowing down, the system panics and slams on the brakes anyway — bringing you to a stop far earlier than needed.

“It may very well occur that a train which is braking sufficiently to a target can easily (and systematically) be further braked by ETCS,” the paper states, warning that this has “a very negative impact on railway operations and possibly on the overall capacity of the railway infrastructure.”

Real-world consequences – and a potential fix

In practice, this means ETCS can command additional braking when it isn’t needed. A passenger service might be stopped short of the end of a platform, while a freight train could be forced to halt hundreds of metres before a signal, blocking track space that could otherwise be used. Marek says the problem is widespread enough that drivers and operators routinely fall back on workarounds like Release Speed or Override EOA — functions that let trains move past ETCS restrictions but in a reduced safety mode. These degraded modes are apparently widely used across Europe.

For Marek and his co-authors, the fix is clear: “remove, or at least minimise, the need for suppressing the ETCS speed supervision by either using a non-zero Release Speed or selecting the Override EOA.” The engineers’ proposal is relatively straightforward: instead of ignoring real-world braking, ETCS should take into account the actual deceleration of the train. That way, the system can tell whether the train is already slowing down enough, and only intervene if safety really demands it.

“A new proposal will enable ETCS to consider the current deceleration of the train,” the article explains. “This will allow ETCS to predict whether the train is able to stop in rear of the target … and to take any corrective actions only if truly necessary.” The authors also suggest reducing the so-called “brake build-up time” — the margin ETCS allows for the train’s brakes to fully engage — when a train is already braking. This would again make supervision less restrictive while maintaining safety.

What that means for Europe’s ETCS rollout

The proposal is now on the table at European level, with the authors pushing for it to be raised as a Change Request in the next update of the CCS TSI, the EU’s binding rulebook for signalling. With Marek also leading the UNISIG task force on braking curves, the idea comes from inside the very body that drafts the ETCS specifications used across Europe.

If accepted, the change would not create a new ETCS Level but would be built into the next Baseline update of the specifications. In practice, that would mean software updates for on-board ETCS units, rolled out across fleets during scheduled maintenance cycles. While infrastructure such as balises and radio block centres would remain unaffected, the cost would lie mainly in software development, validation and certification, with suppliers like Alstom, Siemens, and Hitachi then having to integrate the change into their ETCS products.

The decision on whether to adopt the proposal will fall to the European Union Agency for Railways (ERA), advised by UNISIG and the Member States. National railways and operators would also be consulted through the ERA’s working groups, thus whether the proposal makes it into the next Baseline depends on consensus among these players. Indeed, with one of the key points of ETCS being to boost capacity, the case for a less restrictive braking model treated as a simple software update may prove persuasive. As Marek put it: “Let’s make the ETCS braking curves less restrictive while keeping the same level of safety.”

The new version of Alstom’s onboard system enables corridor interoperability under ETCS Baseline 3. “Notably, it reopens operations in Austria, where ETCS-only operations are authorised on dual-equipped Class B lines”, writes Alstom.

“Cross-border traffic is very important for freight transport in Europe. With the fully approved version VR01.5, our customers can continue to operate locomotives on corridors in Germany, Austria, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Luxembourg, Hungary, Croatia, Slovenia and Serbia. This is an important step not only for us at Alstom, but for European rail interoperability as a whole,” Dan Kurucz added.

RegioJet and ČD Cargo

According to Alstom, the approval is particularly important for two Czech freight operators: RegioJet and ČD Cargo. RegioJet has 13 locomotives with software version VR01.5, of which six have been in operation in Czechia since late 2024 with a test permit. ČD Cargo has locomotives equipped with version VR01.2, which can now be upgraded to the new version.