Recipient

London North Eastern Railway Limited

Pin Request correction

First report 23 Dec 2020•Latest report 23 Dec 2020

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Private and voluntary organisations · Train operating company. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports
1

Naming this recipient

Published responses
100%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
2

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
6

Described in responses

Reports over time

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

Evidence profile

Report topics

Share of this recipient’s reports compared with all other recipients.

100%published responses found
6stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from London North Eastern Railway 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

    Clive OXLEY · 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

    Clive OXLEY entered the track at Durham railway station, climbed the viaduct parapet, and jumped onto North Road below. Concerns included whether the pedestrian barrier adequately prevented access to the track and whether gaps and limited coverage in the wire fence enabled access to the parapet; two similar incidents were also noted.

    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 London North Eastern Railway Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Inadequate construction of the barrier preventing pedestrian access to the track

    Wider context from the report

    “1) It is accepted that the barrier to pedestrian traffic between the southbound platform and the viaduct makes it clear that pedestrians should not access the viaduct from the platform (as does the automatic voice alert which is activated as the barrier is passed). However, I am concerned that the barrier itself is not of a construction adequate to prevent a determined pedestrian such as the deceased from accessing the track at that particular point. ”
    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 London North Eastern Railway Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Incomplete and gapped wire fencing along the viaduct parapet wall

    Wider context from the report

    “2) The impression from officers from the British Transport Police and Durham CID who gave evidence is that the wire fence that extends the height of the viaduct parapet wall runs along only a short length of the wall, and that there are in any event gaps between the sections of that fence, the deceased gaining access to the parapet wall through one such gap. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Contact Network Rail to seek a joint site visit assuring that the fencing meets rail-industry standards.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “LNER have made contact with Network Rail with a view to arranging a joint site visit in order to seek assurance that the fencing meets the requirements of the rail industry standards.”

    Source location

    2020-0301-Response-from-LNER-Redacted
    Page 1 · response
    Published 8 January 2021

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Provide platform-end gates and fencing at higher-risk locations to restrict unauthorised access to the railway.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In order to make suicide and trespass as difficult as possible, platform end gates and fencing is provided, and prioritised at locations deemed higher risk to prevent access to the line wherever possible. With specific regards to Durham, this is supported by signage promoting services offered by the Samaritans and the warning system that is in place at the Station. In addition, LNER have trained a significant number of staff in suicide risk who are given guidance and training in dealing with vulnerable people when they are seen on the rail network.”

    Source location

    2020-0301-Response-from-LNER-Redacted
    Page 1 · response
    Published 8 January 2021

    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

    Network Rail is generally responsible for platform end and boundary fencing beyond LNER’s day-to-day station management.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “LNER work collaboratively with Network Rail to reduce the number of trespass and fatality incidents along the LNER line of route, though in practical terms, LNER operate Durham Station under a long-term lease and are generally responsible for the day to day management of the Station. Platform end fencing and general boundary fencing in place to prevent unauthorised access to the track and other infrastructure is generally the responsibility of Network Rail.”

    Source location

    2020-0301-Response-from-LNER-Redacted
    Page 1 · response
    Published 8 January 2021

    Open published response
Back to top

Published response patterns

Compared with other recipients in reports included in PFD Monitor

Describes published response evidence, not performance.

Published responses found

100%
100%All other recipients 58%
0%100%

How actions were described at the time

This respondent
100%
All other recipients
47%25%27%<1%<1%
  • Completed
  • In progress
  • Planned
  • Unclear
  • Partially completed

Statuses reflect what recipients said at the time. PFD Monitor does not verify whether actions happened.

Types of action described in responses

Percentages use all actions described by each group. An action may have more than one type, so percentages do not total 100%.

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