And here is the nub of the issue. Centralising to "improve efficiency" will by its nature introduce the ability to have a far wider consequence from failure than is the case in a less centralised system.
The standard-gauge rail network in Switzerland is probably one of the most centralised. Nevertheless, it is also one of the most reliable and resilient. This is not in spite of centralisation, but largely because of it. Improving efficiency is only a small part of the picture. It is much more about ensuring a continuous flow of information, which simplifies the management of both major and minor disruptions. Whilst normal operations are largely automated, staff can focus on dealing with incidents. As an example, operators can set route
macros to automate bypasses when technical disturbances occur. The same applies to passenger information, which also draws on data from the system. Gone are the days when the information displayed at station X was completely different from that at station Y, because each was managed locally. The same applies to ensuring connections (not only) in the event of delays. These are also managed centrally within the system (often automatically by the system) and are forwarded to the peripheral systems (station displays, online services, apps). No more guesswork on the part of staff or customers.
I remember the old "through routes" mode on the Western psbs. Basically the show was run in a pre-determined layout by the local interlocking whilst the central brain sorted itself out and then took back control.
Even in centralised systems, there is nothing that would make something like this impossible. In fact, it is a technique used almost everywhere in Switzerland to overcome local failures. Signal box technology is, after all, still largely based on a local infrastructure. Thanks to sensible data network planning, there is usually more than one way to (remote) control these local signal boxes, and the core hardware of the control system itself also incorporates built-in (geo-)redundancy.
The cost of efficiency is loss of resilience, twas ever thus. The modern culture also being a slavish follower of the Religion of Progress (I.e. New and Shiny must always be better than old and reliable and computers are always better than people) doesn't help.
The benefits in day-to-day operations far outweigh the potential for large-scale outages. A fundamental feature of the system used in Switzerland is the separation of the functional level and the operational level. The functional level consists of so-called ‘cells’, which are responsible for controlling the signal boxes and for automatic train control. The operator level comprises a small number of ‘operator clusters’, which are used to operate the individual cells. This breaks down the original operational boundaries, as the entire rail network can be accessed from any operator workstation. Should a workstation within an operator cluster fail, any other workstation can take over its function.