The authors of the report say there is so much hype over train crashes that most people do not realise fatal accidents have been reduced every decade for the past 70 years.

The reports comes a day after the Rail regulator told Network Rail, the company responsible for maintaining and improving the rail system, to cut its spending by �2bn a year.

Halting work on the West Coast Main Line could save �1bn according to Tom Winsor, but companies like Virgin want visible improvements made that customers can appreciate.

Are the railways less safe than the roads? Should money be spent on improvements to tracks and safety? Or should plans be re-ordered to save money?

This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.

The following comments reflect the balance of views we have received:

The UK has the most expensive and most inefficient railways in Western Europe Paul S Johnson, UK

Once again talk centres on cost-saving and not giving the customer what he or she is paying for. The UK has the most expensive and most inefficient railways in Western Europe. I have no faith in seeing an improvement the provision of rail services until the Government is able to plan for the long-term. Providing affordable, first-class rail services is not difficult. If help is needed, then Politicians and Managers alike should visit other European countries like France and The Netherlands.
Paul S Johnson, UK

The recent findings that safety spending on rail is out of proportion to the problem is correctly being brought to attention by the regulator. The key to this is the impending possibility of holding individuals, possibly entire boards of directors, personally accountable for deaths arising from the operation of their business. The great let off for road transport is that no one is accountable despite the three and a half thousand annual deaths. The sooner we get a 'Road-Track' board with responsibility and accountability for safety the better it will be for us all.
Jim, UK

Of course rail travel is safe! People jump on the bandwagon & criticise rail without thinking about the 10 deaths on the road every day! The problem with rail is one of management. Outsourcing is common in logistics & distribution as retailers recognise that non-core activities are best left to the experts. The Government just needs to ensure that the correct people are doing the job & with the correct goals. Simply seeing the network in terms of hard cash potential is grossly short-sighted.

A further shortcoming is separating track responsibility from train operations. If Branson wants to run high speed tilting trains then let him exploit his foresight by allowing him to upgrade the lines & signalling. Keep the role of Network Rail as one of overall management (with the right people in place) so that fragmentation is avoided & innovation is encouraged not suppressed.
Steve, UK

It seem crazy to be spending millions on improving rail safety when 10 people are killed in car crashes every day. Why not spend the money on road safety instead?
Adam, UK

I think we have had an unacceptable number of accidents in too short a time scale Andy, UK

I think we have had an unacceptable number of accidents in too short a time scale. This is bound to get better. The powers that be know there is too much at stake politically if they don't focus on safety in the future. Rail is still safer than road travel. I fear for my life every time I go anywhere near a motorway!
Andy, UK

If the Government had invested years ago in a good quality Hornby Train set, Airfix railway stations and Trix Tracks like mine, we wouldn't be having these railway problems today.
Mike, England UK

I think there is a valuable lesson to be learned from the train network. Years and years of under investment cannot be clawed back even in a period of 10 years. If services are to be held in the public domain then a long term (20-30yr) budget strategy should be agreed upon to maintain these services; short termism is a recipe for disaster.
Chris, USA(from UK)

I am surprised that the BBC have not given us an option to comment on the lesser article from today's offering - that of the unhygienic conditions to be found on the railway tracks throughout Britain. I take trains daily and the sight has never ceased to upset me. Twenty years ago, rail customers would follow the instructions not to flush the loo when the train was standing in a station. Nowadays, we are facing this horrible, nasty sight on a daily basis. Another outcome - which the BBC has a hand in foisting on us, is the bad language to be heard from passengers on buses or trains - all amounting to a disrespect for other people.
M Brown, Surrey, England

We either want good railways now or we don't Michael Wynne, UK

No surprises about the West Coast upgrade. BR was still in existence when the East Coast was upgraded. The project, if I remember correctly, was completed to time and budget by people with a commitment to the project. Now we're trying to achieve the same results through a collection of contractors paid by an under funded political organisation. We either want good railways now or we don't. If we don't then let's spend on the transport we need now, including enhancements for current rail users, and worry about the future when we get there. Not always the best way but there is no real force for change.
Michael Wynne, UK

It is appalling how Network Rail are hiding under the safety banner as a justification to indiscriminately cut down trees in many areas without consulting either experts or the communities. Whilst it is appreciated that safety should be a priority, simply cutting back would suffice - do they want to completely wipe out our green areas and wildlife habitats? Perhaps Network Rail could save on employing contractors who carry out this barbaric work which is undemocratic and largely unnecessary. I would like to see statistics on exactly how many accidents have been caused by leaves on the line.
Susan Tewley, United Kingdom

Surely its not a case of appeasing but attracting more customers especially to the West Coast mainline. The likes of Virgin Rail ordered new rolling stock with the promise of improved track and signalling and now its not going to happen. Either we want to have a proper railway system in this country or we don't. If the government wants a public transport system to run safely and efficiently then its going to cost lots of money. Perhaps a few less weeks of all our soldiers in Iraq would help to pay for it - albeit at the expense of Mr Blairs ego.
Michael , England

Railway travel is far to expensive outside London and can't be taken seriously. For me to get to the city from my town in Cheshire involves a trip to Manchester (a fiver) then �50 if I pick the right day and time. By car it costs me �25 in diesel. So even if the government doubled the price of diesel it would STILL be cheaper to go by road. What they should do is get freight off the roads and onto trains, and get people out of their cars and into road train style coaches.
Richard Hough, UK

It needs radical thinking to dig yourselves out of the catastrophe that is public transport JJ, UK

Ok, so Network Rail is now a not for profit organisation, but the maintenance contractors are still public companies, who are beholden to their shareholders. Remove this obstacle and go back to direct labour, at least then you have total control over quality and costs. These big boys squander the money given to them and scrimp on materials used! It needs radical thinking to dig yourselves out of the catastrophe that is public transport.
JJ, UK

Rail cuts may improve punctuality but you will end up with overcrowded trains. Network Rail may have been set up as a non-profit making company but the management team can still award themselves obscene bonuses. Such bonus decisions should be decided by another organisation.
Giles, UK

The problem is not a lack of funding, it's a problem of management. There are so many levels of bureaucracy through which any attempt to actually do any real work has to fight, that little of the money "invested" actually makes its way through to the much needed physical infrastructure. Ok, so the government weren't much better at managing the railways, but at least they were accountable when accidents happened. Now, when an accident happens, there are so many corners to toss blame into that there's little point trying to blame anyone in the first place.
Lloyd Evans, UK

France and Germany have the foresight to see the rail network for what it is - an investment in the country's economy. Getting people to work late loses the economy billions. Spend the money, lose the money, spend more money - the railways don't make money on tickets, they make the country money on punctuality.
Dave M, UK

The work needs to be done, and it will be more expensive to achieve in a year or two Brendan, United Kingdom

I am still unclear how deferring work on the West Coast Main Line will save money, let alone amounts like �1bn. The work needs to be done, and it will be more expensive to achieve in a year or two. Did I imagine that Virgin Trains recently gained compensation because of the delays in getting the WCML upgraded? will they be in line for more money if it is deferred again?
Brendan, United Kingdom

We will live to regret recent decisions to boost road spending at the same time as cutting back on rail funding. Rail funding should not be cut, it should be spent more efficiently and the quickest way to do that is to re-unify the industry. On maintenance or upgrade schemes large sums of money are lost in compensating the Train operating companies for the loss of train paths. A whole night's work might be cancelled due to a late running train, but plant hire and contractor costs still have to be paid. And there's a whole army of people employed working out who owes what to who else. British Rail did wonders considering that it was starved of funds for decades. Today's privatised shambles is subsidised to a far greater extent in real terms. It is about time that the money was spent on new kit and not on compensation payments.
John Hartley, UK

I am not really surprised the decision has been made to delay the West Coast Upgrade. Until Monday I used to work for a company that was installing a brand new �650m signalling system on the route before it was terminated by Network Rail. After spending something like �200m for a lot of paper and no signals it was scrapped and with it my and a 100 other's jobs. The answer is renationalisation and getting rid of Mr Bowker and bringing everything in house. Privatisation is only by name, not money!
Richard Davidson, Ledburn, UK

We are currently paying the price for repeated short-termism in decision making, cost-cutting and under-investment Matt Prescott, Oxford

The fact that so many permanent posts have been replaced by the outsourcing of short-term contractors who are in short supply and have no inbuilt loyalty must play a role in the current "efficiency" problem. I feel we are currently paying the price for repeated short-termism in decision making, cost-cutting and under-investment. This can only be tackled by providing long-term, stable funding and jobs and good quality materials. So much of the UK's infrastructure has been weakened by the imposition of false economies where the non-monetary aspects (good will, enthusiasm, experience) of an employee are not appreciated and we are all the poorer for it.
Matt Prescott, Oxford

This is just symptomatic of the crass British understanding of what public service should be all about. You cannot have a public service that is part-privatised. It is a conflict of interests. How can the desires of shareholders be reconciled with the needs of a public service? Cuts means cuts in service. Result: worse service. And typical of this country that we put a bean-counter in charge of deciding how a service is to be provided!
Nigel, UK

Are the rail networks of France or Germany, which are much better than ours, run more efficiently? Of course not - they are simply better funded and the populations are prepared to pay higher taxes to achieve this. The British obsession since the war with whittling down taxes has left us with the worst public services in Europe. People have to realise that you can't get something for nothing.
Frank, UK

Railways cannot be run for profit in a market place. The whole privatisation scheme has proved a non-stop disaster compounding decades of government and business prejudice for road transport and rail under funding. Public services should be seen as investments by us all and not a cost. We all have to pay for them via taxes and fares and the railway network should be taken back into public ownership to stop the profiteering by useless train operating and maintenance companies, legal advisors and consultants etc and the rest of the bandwagon merchants who will continue to demand more money from the rail passenger and taxpayer knowing at the end of the day the rail customers have no real choice about the shambolic service offered.
Mike Harris, England

It is hardly surprising that costs have spiralled out of control. Network Rail is dependent upon private sector contractors to carry out the work, they have profits to make, shareholders to pay, executive bonuses to award and City investors to keep sweet. Like all outsourcing the first year is cheap and once dependency has been established companies ratchet up the cost. I am reminded of the fad for outsourcing IT in the 1980s which ran out of steam as soon as companies realised how much it was actually costing. The only way to contain cost is bring all maintenance work back in house and eliminate the profiteering something which unfortunately is politically unacceptable to the government because they will then be accountable.
Andy,UK

The point is that the money comes from somewhere - about half from general taxation, despite the fact that rail users are a minority (vanishingly small round here). The money would be better spent upgrading and providing new roads, cycleways and footpaths, from which everyone could benefit. We simply can't afford to subsidise the rail network any more. If it can't pay for itself, scrap this relic of 19th century transport technology.
Brian, UK

Why is Britain unable to fund any public service? Toby, Spain (originally UK)

Why is Britain unable to fund any public service? The NHS, the railways, the dome - all have been underfunded or, more probably, the money wasted or siphoned off by overly generous contracts. As a taxpayer, I would like to see tax revenues spent with the same degree of care as I would spend my own money. Spending should be cut and better deals should be made for any construction work that is to be undertaken. Those responsible for budgets should be held responsible for any discrepancies or overspending.
Toby, Spain (originally UK)

The government should introduce a windfall tax on the maintenance companies and plough the money back into the network - keeping up the levels of investment and instantly clawing back the overcharging.
Matt, UK

It is very easy to make sweeping statements about inefficiency but much harder to back them up. Where is this money going? Are Network Rail hiring expensive contractors instead of cheaper ones to do work? Are there too many layers of administration and management? Safety is more important than value for money, if hiring cheaper firms to do maintenance work is being envisaged, this could lead to another Hatfield.
Matt, UK

What will this spending cut mean? Dirty stations? Tracks and signalling equipment even more poorly maintained than they are now? People dying because of a fault that would not have happened had enough money been spent on maintenance? Spend the money. Improve the network. An improved network will attract more passengers, which will bring in more money and pay back what was spent on improvements.
Antony, UK