First reported 27 Feb 2014•Latest report 23 Jun 2021
Definition
What this concern includes
Includes failures of dedicated railway level-crossing safety controls, including the positioning and visibility of boards or signs, pedestrian stop-line arrangements, emergency telephones and comparable controls intended to warn, guide or assist people using the crossing.
Not included
Excludes general railway track-access, platform, station, signalling or train-operation deficiencies where a level-crossing safety control is not the identified unsafe condition.
Excludes failures of emergency communication or equipment unrelated to a railway level crossing.
Excludes the underlying occurrence of a crossing incident where no continuing deficiency in a dedicated level-crossing safety control is identified.
Reports
11
Distinct published reports
Individual concerns
17
A report can raise multiple concerns
Date range
2014–2021
First to latest report issue date
Stated actions
13
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 Rail9
Office of Rail and Road2
Broxtowe Borough Council1
Derbyshire County Council1
Erewash Borough Council1
Nottinghamshire County Council1
Recipient name withheld1
Walsall Borough Council1
Rail infrastructure manager9
Transport regulator2
English county council1
English district council1
English metropolitan district council1
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.
Nottinghamshire
Concerns raised1
Pedestrian crossings requiring people to walk on railway tracks
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.5
Action
Submitted a consultation response supporting proposals to improve crossing safety and accessibility for disabled and non-disabled users.
Stated by Erewash Borough CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 28 June 2021.
Action
Maintain regular dialogue with Network Rail about level-crossing diversions, bridges, future management and safer access to non-operational land.
Stated by Nottinghamshire County CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 28 June 2021.
Action
Continue Countryside Access Team contact and collaboration with Network Rail’s Liabilities Team on public-highway rights across railway land.
Stated by Nottinghamshire County CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 28 June 2021.
Action
Divert public rights of way at specified Nottinghamshire crossings to remove or avoid at-grade railway crossings.
Stated by Nottinghamshire County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 28 June 2021.
Action
Provide temporary emergency closure of Burton Joyce Footpath No.6 to prevent public access during Network Rail emergency safety works.
Stated by Nottinghamshire County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete 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
Network Rail would have to apply under section 119A of the Highways Act 1980 to divert the public footpath’s current alignment.
Stated by Derbyshire County CouncilRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Nottinghamshire
Concerns raised2
Failure to display a Network Rail contact telephone at the crossing
Absence of telephones at the crossing
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.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
Position
A telephone is not required because CCTV monitoring, emergency services and Network Rail’s emergency number provide sufficient reporting arrangements.
Stated by Network RailExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Bedfordshire and Luton
Concerns raised2
Lack of repeater lights warning foot crossing users of approaching trains
Inadequate physical separation between foot crossing users and the railway
This report raised 2 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
Install audible alarms and larger-lensed miniature stop lights at Lindsells Level Crossing through the planned area-wide programme.
Stated by Network RailStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 8 July 2018.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2
Position
Additional repeater lights are not used because they could confuse users; existing near-side miniature stop lights provide sufficient warning time.
Stated by Network RailExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Position
Further boundary mitigation is not required because fencing is in good condition, fit for purpose, compliant, and unrelated to the incident’s access route.
Stated by Network RailExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Black Country
Concerns raised1
Lack of effective protection or warning at the level crossing
This report raised 2 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.6
Action
Progress the statutory process for permanent closure of Wallows Lane level crossing with Walsall Local Authority.
Stated by Network RailStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 11 February 2018.
Action
Risk-assess level crossings and periodically review risks, further mitigation and available technical solutions while crossings remain open.
Stated by Network RailStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 11 February 2018.
Action
Maintain user safety instructions through stop, look and listen signage at Wallows Lane level crossing.
Stated by Network RailStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 11 February 2018.
Action
Use whistle boards requiring train drivers to sound horns to warn crossing users of approaching trains.
Stated by Network RailStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 11 February 2018.
Action
Implement physical safety enhancements including a marked decision point, solar lighting, vegetation clearance and highlighted gates and signage.
Stated by Network RailStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 11 February 2018.
Action
Urgently review revised Network Rail closure applications and supporting evidence, while continuing to provide guidance and support through the closure process.
Stated by Walsall Borough CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 11 February 2018.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.6
Position
Network Rail cannot itself permanently close a level crossing carrying a public right of way.
Stated by Network RailOutside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.
Position
Permanent closure requires the relevant local authority to support and progress the statutory process.
Stated by Network RailRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Position
Risk assessment concluded existing measures reduce risk at Wallows Lane level crossing so far as reasonably practicable.
Stated by Network RailExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Position
Network Rail must make the level-crossing closure application; the Council’s role is to advise and consider it as highway authority.
Stated by Walsall Borough CouncilRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Position
The Council cannot convert the crossing into a controlled crossing because it is neither the landowner nor the operator and lacks legal authority.
Stated by Walsall Borough CouncilOutside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.
Position
If technological safety improvements are required, Network Rail must consider converting the crossing into a controlled crossing as landowner and operator.
Stated by Walsall Borough CouncilRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Bedfordshire and Luton
Concerns raised1
Lack of CCTV monitoring of the level crossing
This report raised 2 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.
No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
Hampshire (North East)
Concerns raised1
Inadequacy of direct warning of approaching trains at the crossing
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.
No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
West Sussex
Concerns raised1
Inadequate warning signage at the foot crossing
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.
No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
West Somerset
Concerns raised2
Telephone located beyond the pedestrian stop line at the level crossing
Obstructed visibility for motor vehicle drivers approaching the crossing
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
Somerset (West)
Concerns raised2
Failure to position S.H.1 boards 3 metres from the line
Reduced sighting time caused by trackside vegetation at the S.H.1 sign
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.1
Action
Cut back vegetation and maintain six-monthly inspections to preserve pedestrian sightlines.
Stated by Network RailStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 8 July 2014.
Nottinghamshire
Concerns raised2
Delays in replacing old-style level-crossing lights with LED lights
Lack of adequately bright wig wag lights at level crossings
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.
No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
Pin
Get email alerts
Request correction
Includes failures of dedicated railway level-crossing safety controls, including the positioning and visibility of boards or signs, pedestrian stop-line arrangements, emergency telephones and comparable controls intended to warn, guide or assist people using the crossing.
