First reported 27 May 2015•Latest report 4 Mar 2024
Definition
What this concern includes
Includes failures of controls specifically dedicated to preventing or restricting access to railway tracks, including physical barriers or mitigation measures and responses to identified railway-access risks or recommended remedial actions.
Not included
Excludes generic failures in investigation, documentation, training, staffing or governance unless they are directly tied to a dedicated railway-track-access control.
Excludes railway hazards unrelated to preventing access to the tracks.
Excludes general infrastructure or highway safety deficiencies that do not concern access to railway tracks.
Reports
24
Distinct published reports
Individual concerns
31
A report can raise multiple concerns
Date range
2015–2024
First to latest report issue date
Stated actions
60
Described in published responses
Reports over time
Reports over time
Reports about this concern issued each year.
* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.
Most frequent recipients
Most frequent recipients
Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.
Network Rail21
British Transport Police3
Alexandra Park and Palace Charitable Trust1
Arriva Rail North Limited1
Broxtowe Borough Council1
Department for Education1
Derbyshire County Council1
Erewash Borough Council1
Father of the deceased1
First MTR South Western Trains Limited1
London Borough of Hackney1
London North Eastern Railway Limited1
London & South Eastern Railway Limited1
Mother of the deceased1
Nottinghamshire County Council1
Rail infrastructure manager21
Train operating company4
Special police force3
English county council1
English district council1
London borough council1
Ministerial department1
Private limited company1
Rail safety body1
Registered charity1
Type not available1
Concerns and responses across reports
Only concerns grouped under this recurring concern are included. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.
Inner North London
Concerns raised4
Failure of wall mitigation and safety measures to impede railway access
Frequent public access to railway tracks in the Hackney Central/Dalston Kingsland vicinity
Siting of an electrical box facilitating access to the railway wall
Siting of street furniture facilitating access to the railway network
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.6
Action
Review the Martel Place wall following the report as part of continuous boundary asset management.
Stated by Network RailStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 March 2024.
Action
Modify the Martel Place access gate to match adjacent fencing and remove the fence gap and climbing foothold.
Stated by Network RailStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 14 March 2024.
Action
Work with the Local Authority to explore additional wall measures addressing the incident’s specific access risks.
Stated by Network RailStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 14 March 2024.
Action
Support the Local Authority’s exploration of improvements to street-furniture-related risks at Dalston Lane Road Bridge and Martel Place.
Stated by Network RailStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 14 March 2024.
Action
Continue discussions between highways and planning teams to develop a planning-process mechanism for identifying and flagging electrical apparatus and street furniture near railway bridges.
Stated by London Borough of HackneyStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 14 March 2024.
Action
Remove recycling bins near Martel Place that could facilitate access to the railway network.
Stated by London Borough of HackneyStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 March 2024.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.4
Position
Network Rail is responsible for further measures addressing concerns about the Martel Place access gate and railway wall.
Stated by London Borough of HackneyRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Position
The three prior incidents do not indicate that public access to railway tracks is frequent in the Hackney Central and Dalston Kingsland vicinity.
Stated by Network RailDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Position
London Overground, as Station Facility Owner, is responsible for managing the stations and relevant access mitigations.
Stated by Network RailRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Position
The Local Authority manages the street furniture and is responsible for decisions concerning its relocation, outside Network Rail’s control.
Stated by Network RailRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Cumbria
Concerns raised1
Readily accessible railway line for individuals wishing to harm themselves
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.2
Action
Install platform-end gates and anti-trespass matting at the north end of Askam station through the CP7 work bank.
Stated by Network Rail Infrastructure LimitedStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 6 September 2023.
Action
Inspect the boundary between Askam station and Heybank footpath crossing, covering both sides of the railway, to verify its integrity.
Stated by Network Rail Infrastructure LimitedStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 6 September 2023.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
Position
Boundary fencing meets applicable standards, so further action on boundary integrity is not considered necessary in the inspected area.
Stated by Network Rail Infrastructure LimitedExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
North London
Concerns raised1
Inadequate fencing preventing ingress to the railway track
This report raised 3 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.3
Action
Repair damage to the Downside access gate and minor fencing defects.
Stated by Network Rail Infrastructure LimitedStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 22 September 2022.
Action
Replace the chain-link fencing section with palisade fencing through the Route’s work bank.
Stated by Network Rail Infrastructure LimitedStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 22 September 2022.
Action
Invest in physical measures to prevent unauthorised railway access, including platform-end barriers, mid-platform station fences and lineside fencing.
Stated by Network Rail Infrastructure LimitedStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 22 September 2022.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.4
Position
The stream lighting and railway-fence adequacy matters concern assets APPCT does not own or operate and therefore do not require action by APPCT.
Stated by Alexandra Park and Palace Charitable TrustOutside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.
Position
Lighting on venue grounds is Alexandra Palace’s responsibility, while railway fencing is Network Rail’s responsibility.
Stated by Thames Water Utilities LimitedRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Position
The route by which access to the railway occurred is inconclusive, and fencing nearest the incident was palisade rather than chain link.
Stated by Network Rail Infrastructure LimitedDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Position
Quarterly inspections and remediation under the boundary fencing standard are considered sufficient for fence-line maintenance.
Stated by Network Rail Infrastructure LimitedExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
West Yorkshire Eastern
Concerns raised2
Failure to provide a meaningful response to an identified railway safety problem and mitigation request
Insufficient curtailment of access to railway tracks at the identified location
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1
Action
Procure and install 8 metres of 2.4-metre palisade fencing, including fabricated fencing to close gaps at both ends.
Stated by Network RailStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 29 December 2021.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.3
Position
The parapet wall was not considered a trespass risk because it was difficult to access, vegetation deterred entry, and no hotspot data existed.
Stated by Network RailDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Position
The area met current fencing and boundary standards, which were considered sufficient arrangements for the location.
Stated by Network RailExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Position
The parapet wall was not the access point; records identified a Network Rail access gate further along the track.
Stated by Network RailDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Nottinghamshire
Concerns raised1
Railway track with multiple easy access points near a popular beauty spot increasing suicide risk
This report raised 4 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1
Action
Meet with Public Health Authority officers to discuss Network Rail deaths and near misses.
Stated by Nottinghamshire County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 28 June 2021.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2
Position
Network Rail is responsible for operating, maintaining and improving the safety of the national rail network, including level crossings.
Stated by Nottinghamshire County CouncilRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Position
Where a person intends suicide, no measures can prevent it, and widespread crossing closures would face overwhelming public resistance.
Stated by Nottinghamshire County CouncilDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough
Concerns raised1
Failure to consider credible alternative routes of access in post-death railway investigations
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.7
Action
Complete the installed 1.8-metre palisade fencing upgrades on the up-side boundary near Cherry Hinton Bypass and the adjacent footpath, Tesco and hospital cemetery.
Stated by Network RailStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 2 June 2021.
Action
Renew and upgrade the remaining 1.04-kilometre up-side boundary to 1.8-metre palisade fencing between 2m 72ch and Teversham level crossing.
Stated by Network RailStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 2 June 2021.
Action
Renew the down-side boundary between Cherry Hinton Bypass and Old Fulbourn level crossings with upgraded fencing.
Stated by Network RailStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 2 June 2021.
Action
Require a recorded fence check within 48 hours after a fatality and share this guidance with Anglia Route operations and crime teams.
Stated by Network RailStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 2 June 2021.
Action
Make national Route Crime teams aware of the need to keep an open mind about track access when the access point is uncertain.
Stated by Network RailStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 2 June 2021.
Action
Deliver ongoing continuous professional development training on railway fatality scene assessments, rationale documentation, access-point evidence and geolocation tools.
Stated by British Transport PoliceStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 2 June 2021.
Action
Apply revised post-incident site-visit procedures requiring incident-log review, pre-deployment liaison, assessment of multiple access points and repeat visits where necessary.
Stated by British Transport PoliceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 2 June 2021.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2
Position
The British Transport Police has jurisdiction over post-incident investigations, and Network Rail relies on its investigation and conclusions after immediate actions.
Stated by Network RailRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Position
Network Rail is responsible for deciding whether appropriate and proportionate action is needed to implement BTP’s proposed access-point improvements.
Stated by British Transport PoliceRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
County Durham and Darlington
Concerns raised1
Inadequate construction of the barrier preventing pedestrian access to the track
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.3
Action
Provide platform-end gates and fencing at higher-risk locations to restrict unauthorised access to the railway.
Stated by London North Eastern Railway LimitedStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 8 January 2021.
Action
Contact Network Rail to seek a joint site visit assuring that the fencing meets rail-industry standards.
Stated by London North Eastern Railway LimitedStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 8 January 2021.
Action
Complete southbound platform-end alterations, including a lockable gate, robust obscuring fence, audible warning, signage and anti-trespass flooring.
Stated by Network RailStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 8 January 2021.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2
Position
Network Rail is generally responsible for platform end and boundary fencing beyond LNER’s day-to-day station management.
Stated by London North Eastern Railway LimitedRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Position
A full-width southbound platform fence cannot be installed because mandatory gauging standards prohibit it.
Stated by Network RailUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
Surrey
Concerns raised1
Lack of physical boundaries preventing public access to railway tracks
This report raised 3 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.2
Action
Deploy Rail Safety Accredited Security Officers to patrol for trespass and antisocial behaviour and target hotspot locations with partner agencies.
Stated by First MTR South Western Trains LimitedStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 16 April 2020.
Action
Add extra platform markings and barriers at Ashford station to further deter trespass.
Stated by Network RailStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 16 April 2020.
Inner North London
Concerns raised2
Failure of track-engineer challenge of missed fence inspections
Failure of internal audit to identify missed inspections and absent challenge
This report raised 5 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.7
Action
Implement the revised Boundary Fencing Inspection Standard requiring electronic inspection records, non-tactile inspection documentation and supervisory approval.
Stated by Network RailStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 5 November 2019.
Action
Conduct onsite reviews of route inspectors’ non-tactile inspection reports and processes.
Stated by Network RailStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 5 November 2019.
Action
Provide engineers with a report flagging consecutive non-tactile inspections and inspection forms not completed within 180 days.
Stated by Network RailStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 5 November 2019.
Action
Apply the revised audit protocol to check electronic inspection records against the new boundary inspection standard.
Stated by Network RailStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 5 November 2019.
Action
Amend the audit protocol by adding guidance to review example F3212 forms from inspectors.
Stated by Network RailStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 5 November 2019.
Action
Complete the national review of sampled Off Track sections to assess compliance with the boundary inspection requirements.
Stated by Network RailStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 5 November 2019.
Action
Commission a national special-topic audit of compliance with the revised boundary inspection standard for non-tactile forms.
Stated by Network RailStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 5 November 2019.
Cumbria
Concerns raised1
Failure to prevent access to the railway line through adequately secure fencing
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.3
Action
Install additional meshing and netting at the location to deter climbing.
Stated by Network RailStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 11 June 2019.
Action
Review trespass risk around the area and identify the bridge wing wall and track-level safety rail for further mitigation.
Stated by Network RailStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 11 June 2019.
Action
Investigate whether attaching mesh to the bridge’s tubular handrail or safety rail would improve security.
Stated by Network RailStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 11 June 2019.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.3
Position
The line speed at this location is 110mph, not 125mph, although trains still travel at high speed.
Stated by Network RailDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Position
Current boundary measures meet the reasonably practicable obligation, and no further assessment is triggered because there is no prior evidence of trespass.
Stated by Network RailExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Position
Replacing all fencing with palisade is not reasonably practicable given the scale of the railway network and local risk assessment requirements.
Stated by Network RailUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
Pin
Get email alerts
Request correction
Includes failures of controls specifically dedicated to preventing or restricting access to railway tracks, including physical barriers or mitigation measures and responses to identified railway-access risks or recommended remedial actions.
