What is the point of having a public inquiry if its recommendations are then ignored by the railway industry?

Maureen Kavanagh Victim's mother

But Thursday's report is expected to argue more time is needed so an advanced version of the technology can be fitted.

And the government's own advisers, the Commission for Integrated Transport, said earlier this week the system will reduce rail capacity while it is being set up.

This would force more people into cars and bring about more deaths on the roads, the commission said.

An official public inquiry report last year recommended ERTMS should be introduced on all UK 100mph lines by 2010.

The options being outlined on Thursday by the Strategic Rail Authority and the Railway Safety group include which type of system to install and how long to take trains out of action to do it.

The report will now go to the Health and Safety Executive for three months of consultation.

Signals at danger

The 2010 deadline for ERTMS was set in a joint report by Lord Cullen, who chaired the inquiry into the Paddington crash, which claimed 31 lives, and Professor John Uff, who chaired the inquiry into the September 1997 Southall crash, in which seven people died.

Both disasters were caused by trains going through signals at red.

Maureen Kavanagh, whose son died in the Southall crash and who is chairman of the Safety on Trains Action Group, fears the 2010 timetable will not be met.

She said: "What is the point of having a public inquiry if its recommendations are then ignored by the railway industry?"

Raising standards

Simon Benham, chairman of the Paddington Survivors Group, said: "We are looking to the government to implement the UFF - Cullen report. If it is not implemented, we shall be disappointed."

Professor Andrew Evans, professor of transport safety at University College London, says the more simple Train Protection Warning System (TPWS) being installed by the end of next year could adequately prevent accidents such as Paddington.

He said: "At billions of pounds, installing ERTMS after TPWS for safety reasons alone would be an unjustified use of public money.

"It is better to think of ERTMS not primarily as a safety measure but as a new signalling technology which will increase capacity and reduce infrastructure costs.

"Therefore, the timescale for installing it and the technology to be used should be driven primarily by the social and commercial benefits."