Who on earth would want to run the trains after this?

Despite recent tragedies, trains remain the safest way to travel. But recent history shows the system is crying out for improvement, says Michael Williams

The panic on the faces of the rail executives as they faced the cameras was all too clear. It did not take a mind reader to spot that they were thinking "Oh God, not again, what did we do to deserve this?".

Indeed, the railway companies have taken an unprecedented battering over the past five years. They have become the favourite Aunt Sally of the media, variously described as fat cats or murderers depending on the whim of the reporter. "I work for a railway company" is a conversation stopper that elicits anger and sympathy in equal measure.

In a way, it is unfair. The railways are suffering the legacy of decades of under-investment and malign interference by governments which never quite knew what they were for. They would want them to break even at the same time as requiring them to run all kinds of uneconomic services. Worse, investment levels would vary sharply from year to year because of Treasury interference, which meant that British Rail could never properly plan its modernisation process.

Privatisation was supposed to change all that by bringing in private sector money and getting the Government off the backs of those running the railways because they would be self-financing. Instead, selling off the railways has made the situation worse. Yes, money has been attracted into the industry, but it has been spent badly. And far from freeing the railways from government interference, the collapse of Railtrack and several train companies has increased the amount of taxpayers' money going into the industry and, consequently, the amount of ministerial interference. The result is a beleaguered and demoralised industry.

The series of recent accidents has compounded the misery. It is easy to jump to the conclusion that the railways have become very dangerous. However, a bit of perspective is needed. Five accidents in five years may seem a lot, but it is pretty average for the railways in the 55 years since the end of the Second World War. In each decade since the war, however, the casualty rate has been lower – fewer died in the 1990s, despite Ladbroke Grove which killed 31, than in the 1980s, when fewer died than in the 1970s, and so on. The number and frequency of fatal crashes has remained pretty constant – one every year to 18 months – but the death toll has gone down because the rolling stock is built to much higher tolerances and can withstand crashes much better than the older stock that has gradually been phased out.

There is no doubt that rail remains the safest form of transport. The simple statistics speak for themselves. In the past decade, there have been 67 deaths in train accidents, including Friday's disaster. Contrast that with the death toll on the roads – around 36,000. That's 500 times more. Rail has around 5 per cent of the transport market by mileage, so if it had the same death rate as motoring, there would have been 1,800 deaths, rather than 67, in the past 10 years. If that had happened, rail transport would long ago have been banned and the rail companies hounded into bankruptcy.

Oddly enough, a death toll of 67 over that time would have been accepted by the public under British Rail because no one would have thought the organisation was skimping on safety in order to make greater profits. Now, the travelling public, faced with the regular flow of horrendous images of mangled trains and bodies on the track, is beginning to doubt the railway industry's claims about safety. You hear of people driving from Edinburgh to London "because it's safer".

It is the privatisation of the railways that has raised doubts in the public's minds. It is too early to know whether the structure of the railways contributed to the cause of the Potters Bar crash but the Hatfield disaster, for example, was the result of pressures brought about by privatisation. The immediate reason for that accident was a broken rail, left unattended for several months even though it was known to be faulty. Its planned replacement was cancelled and despite the obvious deterioration in the rail, managers were reluctant to close the line in order to take out the faulty rail. If they had done so, it would have led to cancellations and delays and Railtrack would have had to pay out compensation to the train operators.

Other recent accidents at Southall and Ladbroke Grove were the result of the way that the industry was broken up and sold off. At Southall, where a train went through a red signal, a botched reorganisation of the maintenance depot after privatisation led to a vital warning device not functioning. Then, key warnings about the state of the defective train were not passed on between the train operator and Railtrack.

At Ladbroke Grove, also the result of a train driver going through a red signal, poor communication between Railtrack and the train operator led to warnings about the visibility of the signal going unheeded. The driver, who had only done the job for a fortnight, was employed by Thames Trains which did not check his references.

In many ways it is not so much privatisation that has created problems, but the fragmentation which accompanied it. While the Transport Secretary, Stephen Byers, has tackled the problems of Railtrack and effectively taken it back into public ownership, he has not addressed this key problem. So far it is impossible to know whether that contributed to Friday's accident, but already the death toll from the consequences of the way the industry was broken up has been high. Does it have to become even higher before action is taken?

Well before Friday's disaster, Stephen Byers plans for Railtrack's successor were in an advanced stage. Network Rail, the new not-for-profit company, was being fashioned with the help of the Government to take over the running of the railways. A deal was due to be announced by the end of this month, and there was pressure from the Secretary of State to have it signed and sealed by July.

Only last week, the chairman of NR, Ian McAllister, and its manager director, Iain Coucher, were assuring the industry that the buyout from Railtrack was on course for July. Mr Byers promised £300m for the buyout but made it clear that the offer could be withdrawn if it were delayed beyond then.

One reason for the haste, after months of preparation, is that the deal needs the approval of the European Union, and the EU bureaucrats go on their long summer break at the end of July. It is unclear whether the Potters Bar crash will delay completion of the takeover, but it must raise questions about the feasibility of the deadline, until the extent of the problem that caused the accident is known.

In theory other consortiums could bid for the Railtrack business, but in practice few were willing to take on the headache of running Britain's railways after the Hatfield crash.

As the full implications of the cause of the Hatfield crash sank in – cracking in the rails, which led to a massive programme of rail replacement across Britain – the senior business figures at Railtrack were publicly pilloried for the failure to maintain the tracks.

Few businessmen were prepared to offer themselves as sacrificial lambs the next time an accident happened. Railtrack shareholders could also block the takeover, but they too may be glad to be relieved of their shares in the company.

Picking up the pieces after Potters Bar may turn a daunting task into a nightmare. Public confidence in the railways once more needs shoring up. The new company must be careful to avoid it collapsing again.

Full details of National Rail have yet to be disclosed, but it will be governed by a small executive board drawn from 100 "stakeholders" – train operating companies, passenger committee leaders, and members of the public. So far the company has established a head office in London with 100 staff.

Mr Coucher is predicting a "big increase in renewals of track, signalling and structures". How he will raise the money is less certain. It cannot come from increases in fares so must come from the taxpayer through the Strategic Rail Authority. Another bail-out by the beleaguered Mr Byers could put the Transport Secretary back on the defensive.

Colin Brown