Europe’s ERTMS rollout continues to be hampered by rising costs, delays and fragmented responsibilities between infrastructure managers, operators and suppliers. Consultant Editor Chris Jackson says the central question is whether stronger leadership and co-ordination can turn a complex technical programme into a deliverable, network-wide business case. August 31 marked a milestone in the UK’s East Coast Digital Programme, when passenger trains began using a 24 km section of ETCS Level 2 between Welwyn and Hitchin. This overlay on the lineside signalling is envisaged as a stepping stone towards a more extensive ‘signals away’ roll-out, accelerating driver familiarisation and the use of more types of rolling stock. It was originally expected to be completed before April 2024, with the 160 km route from London to Peterborough going live by April 2029. Delays to ERTMS projects are nothing new, alas. Norway’s national rollout has been rephased several times, not least because of a shortage of resources for retrofitting the rolling stock, while the challenges of digital signalling are one of the factors behind the decision to put back Germany’s ambitious Stuttgart 21 programme to 2031 at the earliest. As we report on p23, the European Commission’s ERTMS Deployment Management Team has been looking into the factors that have been driving up the cost of trackside equipment, following a similar review of onboard costs last year. While the railway and suppliers associations may disagree with some of the report’s findings, all sides appear to accept that a major part of the problem has been the multiplicity of applications. In particular, early adopters sought to interface ETCS with their own signalling practices and operating rules determined by their legacy systems. Since being designated as the system authority, the EU Agency for Railways has been grappling with the challenge of consolidating the ever-changing specifications whilst paving the way for the addition of further functionality. More than half a century ago, a 1974 report to the British Railways Board explained that the International Union of Railways’ ORE A46 committee had ‘reached the point where a “system” for track to train communications is being proposed as an international standard. The system appears to be complex, not capable of any useful simplification.’ Further work by what became ERRI committee A200 on drafting the technical specifications led to the adoption of ERTMS as the centrepiece of interoperability across the Single European Railway Area. This month’s lead author Dr Frank Heibel pointed out when the ECDP overlay went live that it is the removal of lineside signals that really makes the business case for any cab signalling scheme, increasing capacity and performance, whilst reducing the cost of maintenance and renewals. However, that is entirely dependent on ensuring that every train which uses the line has been fitted with onboard equipment. ‘Fleet fitment is not a workstream running quietly alongside the infrastructure programme’, he emphasised. ‘On a signals-away project it is the critical path of the business case, and it deserves to be governed like one.’ Back in the heady days when ORE and ERRI were formulating their concepts, almost all railways around the world were vertically-integrated organisations. Thus the costs and benefits of moving train control from lineside to onboard would be an internal trade-off. That is one reason why the adoption of CBTC has been much more straightforward on standalone metros. However, the past three decades have seen vertical separation between the infrastructure managers and train operators, as well as the arrival of new entrants. While the competing operators of international services would clearly benefit from interoperability, the fragmentation of responsibility and the partitioning of costs and benefits have undoubtedly increased the challenge. The latest DMT report emphasises that ‘good project management for ERTMS deployment is key’ to an efficient rollout. But having the right overall governance is also critical. Earlier this year, Germany’s federal transport ministry announced that a national ERTMS Co-ordination Office would be established to manage the country’s lagging digitalisation of signalling and safety systems. One of its key tasks would be allocating funding for equipping the rolling stock. ECDP is another case in point. Oversight of the UK’s ERTMS rollout on the ECML and elsewhere is vested in the so-called Industry Partnership for Digital Railway. ‘Progress is monitored through project and programme boards which report, together with the stakeholder and industry groups, into the Digital Signalling Portfolio Progress Group, which includes representatives from Network Rail regions, Technical Authority and Route Services. The Portfolio Progress Group monitors delivery progress and benefit realisation against the portfolio’s masterplan to inform the Portfolio Direction Board’s decision-making.’ Quite. Luxembourg and Belgium have made better progress, thanks in part to having smaller networks. Nevertheless, as Infrabel’s then COO Jochen Bultinck explained, ‘managing such a large project implies facing a variety of difficulties, both technical and non-technical … we had to work with a large number of stakeholders’. The need for better co-ordination and governance has also been highlighted in the latest recommendations of the EU’s ERTMS Co-ordinator Matthias Ruete. However, it is not clear whether setting up more committees will actually drive things forward. Strong leadership is essential, but finding people with the right experience and giving them the remit to cut through the red tape will be far from straightforward. This article first appeared in the October 2026 issue of Railway Gazette International Read the issue
Europe’s ERTMS rollout continues to be hampered by rising costs, delays and fragmented responsibilities between infrastructure managers, operators and suppliers. Consultant Editor Chris Jackson says the central question is whether stronger leadership and co-ordination can turn a complex technical programme into a deliverable, network-wide business case.
August 31 marked a milestone in the UK’s East Coast Digital Programme, when passenger trains began using a 24 km section of ETCS Level 2 between Welwyn and Hitchin. This overlay on the lineside signalling is envisaged as a stepping stone towards a more extensive ‘signals away’ roll-out, accelerating driver familiarisation and the use of more types of rolling stock. It was originally expected to be completed before April 2024, with the 160 km route from London to Peterborough going live by April 2029.
Delays to ERTMS projects are nothing new, alas. Norway’s national rollout has been rephased several times, not least because of a shortage of resources for retrofitting the rolling stock, while the challenges of digital signalling are one of the factors behind the decision to put back Germany’s ambitious Stuttgart 21 programme to 2031 at the earliest.
As we report on p23, the European Commission’s ERTMS Deployment Management Team has been looking into the factors that have been driving up the cost of trackside equipment, following a similar review of onboard costs last year. While the railway and suppliers associations may disagree with some of the report’s findings, all sides appear to accept that a major part of the problem has been the multiplicity of applications. In particular, early adopters sought to interface ETCS with their own signalling practices and operating rules determined by their legacy systems.
Since being designated as the system authority, the EU Agency for Railways has been grappling with the challenge of consolidating the ever-changing specifications whilst paving the way for the addition of further functionality.
More than half a century ago, a 1974 report to the British Railways Board explained that the International Union of Railways’ ORE A46 committee had ‘reached the point where a “system” for track to train communications is being proposed as an international standard. The system appears to be complex, not capable of any useful simplification.’ Further work by what became ERRI committee A200 on drafting the technical specifications led to the adoption of ERTMS as the centrepiece of interoperability across the Single European Railway Area.
This month’s lead author Dr Frank Heibel pointed out when the ECDP overlay went live that it is the removal of lineside signals that really makes the business case for any cab signalling scheme, increasing capacity and performance, whilst reducing the cost of maintenance and renewals. However, that is entirely dependent on ensuring that every train which uses the line has been fitted with onboard equipment.
‘Fleet fitment is not a workstream running quietly alongside the infrastructure programme’, he emphasised. ‘On a signals-away project it is the critical path of the business case, and it deserves to be governed like one.’
Back in the heady days when ORE and ERRI were formulating their concepts, almost all railways around the world were vertically-integrated organisations. Thus the costs and benefits of moving train control from lineside to onboard would be an internal trade-off. That is one reason why the adoption of CBTC has been much more straightforward on standalone metros.
However, the past three decades have seen vertical separation between the infrastructure managers and train operators, as well as the arrival of new entrants. While the competing operators of international services would clearly benefit from interoperability, the fragmentation of responsibility and the partitioning of costs and benefits have undoubtedly increased the challenge.
The latest DMT report emphasises that ‘good project management for ERTMS deployment is key’ to an efficient rollout. But having the right overall governance is also critical.
Earlier this year, Germany’s federal transport ministry announced that a national ERTMS Co-ordination Office would be established to manage the country’s lagging digitalisation of signalling and safety systems. One of its key tasks would be allocating funding for equipping the rolling stock.
ECDP is another case in point. Oversight of the UK’s ERTMS rollout on the ECML and elsewhere is vested in the so-called Industry Partnership for Digital Railway. ‘Progress is monitored through project and programme boards which report, together with the stakeholder and industry groups, into the Digital Signalling Portfolio Progress Group, which includes representatives from Network Rail regions, Technical Authority and Route Services. The Portfolio Progress Group monitors delivery progress and benefit realisation against the portfolio’s masterplan to inform the Portfolio Direction Board’s decision-making.’ Quite.
Luxembourg and Belgium have made better progress, thanks in part to having smaller networks. Nevertheless, as Infrabel’s then COO Jochen Bultinck explained, ‘managing such a large project implies facing a variety of difficulties, both technical and non-technical … we had to work with a large number of stakeholders’.
The need for better co-ordination and governance has also been highlighted in the latest recommendations of the EU’s ERTMS Co-ordinator Matthias Ruete. However, it is not clear whether setting up more committees will actually drive things forward. Strong leadership is essential, but finding people with the right experience and giving them the remit to cut through the red tape will be far from straightforward.
This article first appeared in the October 2026 issue of Railway Gazette International
Read the issue
Source: Railway Gazette
