Arriva Rail North Limited

Private and voluntary organisations · Train operating company

Pin Request correction

First report 19 Jan 2017•Latest report 10 Dec 2018

Reports, concerns and published responses

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

Reports
2

Naming this recipient

Published responses
50%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
2

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
1

Described in responses

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Arriva Rail North Limited linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. County Durham and Darlington

    AI-generated summary

    Christopher Lewis McGUFFIE · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Christopher Lewis McGUFFIE stood on the rails at Chester-le-Street station and was struck by a London to Edinburgh service. The report raised concerns about the lack of immediate and effective means to alert railway staff to people on the line, and the lack of alternative detection and response systems.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Arriva Rail North Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Absence of alternative means of detecting persons on the line and triggering appropriate response at railway stations

    Wider context from the report

    “The absence, at railway stations, of:- (1) the means to raise an immediate and effective alert regarding persons on the line; AND (2) Alternative means of detecting persons on the line and triggering appropriate response. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Arriva Rail North Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Absence of means to raise an immediate and effective alert regarding persons on the line at railway stations

    Wider context from the report

    “The absence, at railway stations, of:- (1) the means to raise an immediate and effective alert regarding persons on the line; AND (2) Alternative means of detecting persons on the line and triggering appropriate response. ”
    Open source report

  2. Cheshire

    AI-generated summary

    Thomas Coyne · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Thomas Coyne consumed alcohol at a stag party, inadvertently entered Earlestown Railway station, accessed the railway lines and was struck by a passing train on 21 May 2016. Concerns were raised that station CCTV did not cover all platform areas and that there was no physical barrier at the end of platform three, allowing access to the tracks.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Arriva Rail North Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure of station CCTV to cover all platform areas

    Wider context from the report

    “1. The CCTV installed at the station and which can be monitored by the staff on duty, does not actually cover all the platform areas, and thus the member of staff could not see Mr Coyne (who was the only passenger on the station at the time) as he mistakenly wandered on to the tracks. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Arriva Rail North Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of a physical barrier at the end of platform three

    Wider context from the report

    “2. There is apparently absolutely no physical barrier of any kind at the end of platform three, thus allowing unfettered access to the tracks at that point. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    CCTV coverage expansion must proceed incrementally across the entire network rather than being delivered immediately at every station.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “As CCTV technology evolves, it is hoped to expend the coverage area and quality of the images produced, but this must inevitably be an incremental programme across the entire network.”

    Source location

    2017-0207-Arriva-Rail-North-Limited
    Page 1 · response
    Published 28 July 2017

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    The station is not considered high risk under the criteria used to prioritise CCTV coverage extensions.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The CCTV system does not extend to the entirety of every platform area on all 500 stations. As the system is developed it has been necessary to prioritise extensions and this has been done by reference to the risk profile of each station, by reference to a diverse range of factors, including the incidence of suicide, vandalism, theft and antisocial behaviour. Earlestown is not considered a high risk station on this evaluation.”

    Source location

    2017-0207-Arriva-Rail-North-Limited
    Page 1 · response
    Published 28 July 2017

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Responsibility for barriers and fencing preventing track access lies with Network Rail as part of the station infrastructure.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “At the outset, it may assist if we clarify responsibility relating to the station. Arriva Rail North Limited manage the station as part of a network of approximately 500 stations. Network Rail are responsible for the infrastructure of the stations themselves.”

    Source location

    2017-0207-Arriva-Rail-North-Limited
    Page 1 · response
    Published 28 July 2017

    Open published response
Back to top

Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026