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?

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.

Multi-billion-pound upgrade

As well as this extensive signalling upgrade, which will see 29 new signals installed, the wider project will also see Network Rail replace almost 4000 metres of track and secure over 2800 meters of train-powering electric cable. More than 450 engineers will work around the clock from Thursday 2 June, ready for the railway to reopen on Monday 6 June.

According to Network Rail, this part of the multi-billion-pound Transpennine Route Upgrade will bring faster, more reliable services between York, Leeds and Manchester. “This major investment will unlock more reliable journeys in Manchester and the potential for faster trains in the future”, said Neil Holm, Transpennine Route Upgrade Director for Network Rail. “We’ve worked with our train operating partners to plan alternative routes and keep disruption to a minimum.”

Progress elsewhere on project

Transferring operational control to the new signalling centre in Manchester is just part of the overall upgrade to the Transpennine Route, which connects ports and passengers on the west coast with destinations and terminals on the east coast of England and north to Scotland—wiring the routes for electric traction is also underway. Network Rail says progress continues on a major scheme to raise the height of two bridges in central Manchester – Granville Street and Southampton Street – so that electric wires can eventually pass beneath them, clearing the way for a fully electrified railway between Manchester and Stalybridge.

Concerns have been expressed that capacity will be adversely affected since the cancellation of the dedicated high-speed line between Manchester and Leeds in favour of upgrading existing routes. However, there are hopes that improved signalling, coupled with electric traction, will go some way towards redressing the impact on the capacity for local passenger trains and freight services.

The electrical, telecom and energy installations will be modernised. In total, 215 kilometres of electrical cables will be rolled out and 21 new technical centres installed. The old technical buildings will be demolished.

This year, six companies will be involved in the works, including Alstom, Guintoli and TSO. On average, 50 employees will be working on the railway line each day. Other modernisation work on the same line caused significant disruption on the weekend of 19-20 March, and will also on 26-27 March.

Rail recovery plan

The signalling modernisation is part of the French government’s plan to revitalise the rail sector, presented in September 2020 by Transport Minister Jean-Claude Dupuis. 4.7 billion euros will be invested, the majority (4.1 billion) in the railway network. The end goal is to increase the modal share of the rail in transport.

Next to modernising major railway lines such as Paris-Lyon, SNCF will also invest in smaller regional lines to increase services in less densely populated areas. Finally, the modernisation and regeneration of the rail network aims to develop rail freight transport to serve companies, logistics platforms and ports better.

This article was originally published on our sister publication RailTech.com.

Also read:

• SNCF back in the black: who would have thought?

• SNCF Réseau and French Senate collide over rail freight recovery plan

Great North Rail Project

Signalling and infrastructure equipment which was nearly 40 years old around Manchester’s busy Trafford Park freight hub and main line has been replaced with the latest digital technology. Network Rail says it has installed a total of 23 new signals and a further 109 pieces of associated signalling equipment as part of a 36 million pound (42 million euros) Great North Rail Project investment.

According to NR, the work will improve reliability and safety on tan important route into Manchester. It will allow longer freight trains to run in the North West taking traffic off the region’s roads. Now that the work is complete, a total of 26 signals are controlled from Manchester’s signalling centre.

Significant environmental gains

The project is designed to future proof the rail link through Manchester, as Britain emerges from the coronavirus pandemic. “This major work on this key rail artery into Manchester will transform connectivity across the North West”, said Roisin Nelson of Network Rail. “Work like this has never been more important. The investment will keep passengers on the move, products on supermarket shelves and vital goods going to businesses across the country for decades to come.”

“Manchester is a key location for Freightliner with eight trains currently operating on a daily basis to key intermodal ports at Felixstowe, London Gateway and Southampton”, said Tim Shakerley, UK rail managing director for Freightliner. “This investment will allow us to continue our train lengthening trials which has seen us running the longest intermodal trains in the UK at 775 metres, increasing the efficiency and productivity of our services.  Moreover, there are significant environmental gains from running longer and heavier services. Moving more freight from road to rail will help ease congestion on the UK’s busy roads and thereby reduce CO2 emissions within the supply chain.”

Welcomed by the freight sector

The upgrade started in August 2020 and finished over the 2021 August bank holiday weekend. Signalling equipment between Flixton Station and Manchester city centre has been modernised, as well as improvements within Trafford Park Depot estate. Network Rail say this will bring huge benefits to rail freight companies, increasing the frequency and length of trains they can run and goods they can carry.

While there are still calls for more capacity – particularly through the notoriously congested Castlefield Corridor which feeds traffic into Trafford Park – the signalling improvements were welcomed by the freight sector. Ian Langton, production director of GB Railfreight, was expecting the work to facilitate growth. “The new state-of-the-art signalling system serving Trafford Park will further enhance reliability on this vital freight route into Manchester”, he said. “This major investment will provide better connectivity, whilst supporting intermodal volume growth enabling more goods to be delivered sustainably across the country.”