Q and A: Rail safety report

A joint report from the inquiry into the Southall and

Paddington train crashes has recommended that a sophisticated but expensive form of Automatic Train Protection (APT) is swiftly introduced on Britain's railways to stop trains going through red signals.

BBC transport reporter Tom Symonds answers the key questions:

---

What are the main recommendations made in the report?

The two inquiry chairmen want train companies to be forced to fit the new European Train Control System by 2008 on high speed lines and trains will not be able to use those lines unless they are fitted with this equipment by 2010.

Is it feasible that the deadlines will be met?

It is going to be very difficult. The rail industry say they think it is going to take at least 10 years to modify the trains, 15 years to modify the high speed lines and another five years beyond that - 20 years in total to do the whole of Britain's rail network.

What will happen if they do not meet the deadlines?

The Health and Safety Commission is going to write up some legally binding regulations from the recommendations. If the train companies do not keep to the regulations they will have to pay fines; they may even have their trains stopped from using certain lines until they are made fully compatible with the new system.

Will the measures prevent another Paddington, Southall or Clapham rail disaster?

Yes, I think they will. At the most advanced level Automatic Train Protection can allow trains to almost drive themselves with the computer deciding how fast the train goes. It will prevent about 95% of train crashes caused by trains going through red lights.

It is going to be very expensive to bring in, so where will the funding come from?

It will cost about £3bn according to the rail industry. But crucially the government has said that it will find the money for this. The mechanism is the important issue - the government might want this to come in through a public private partnership and these have proved very problematic in the past, where the rail industry is concerned.

Are the victims' relatives and the survivors of rail accidents right to be worried about "get out clauses" for rail operators?

I do think they have a fair concern. The HSC is going to take three years to write the regulations so there is already a delay built in at the beginning of the process. The concern is that in those three years, the train companies might start to negotiate a more relaxed timetable.

Why has it taken more than 12 years since the Clapham rail crash for these measures to get under way?

Partly the technology itself - we do have ATP on one line and it has not proved completely reliable. But mainly it is because in 1995 the government decided that the cost of ATP was really too high to justify given the number of lives it would save. They worked out - perhaps harshly in some people's views - that it would cost about £14m to save each life; the then government thought that was too much but there have been many crashes since and things seem to have changed.