PFD report

Colin Duncan Whistler Cameron · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 26 Jun 2019•Gloucestershire

Report record

Published report and response evidence

This page connects the concerns raised in this report with statements found in recipients’ published responses. A link shows a clear evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
5

Described in responses

Recipients and published responses

Source document

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised2

  1. Failure to provide signallers with instructions on extracting information from users
  2. Failure to give sufficient consideration to whether the crossing can be closed
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 recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.5

  1. Action

    Close 1,203 level crossings since 2009.

    Stated by Network RailStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 July 2019.
  2. Action

    Ask Gloucestershire County Council’s public rights of way officer to consider diverting or extinguishing the bridleway crossing the railway.

    Stated by Network RailStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 July 2019.
  3. Action

    Ask the authorised user to consider releasing vehicular crossing rights and offer to discuss reasonable compensation.

    Stated by Network RailStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 July 2019.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.3

  1. Position

    Network Rail cannot control the outcome of a public inquiry concerning extinguishing or diverting the bridleway.

    Stated by Network RailUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to provide signallers with instructions on extracting information from users

Wider context from the report

“1. Whether sufficient consideration has been given to address the absence of any instructions to signallers on how to extract information from the user, ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to give sufficient consideration to whether the crossing can be closed

Wider context from the report

“2. Whether the relevant authorities and persons authorised to use this crossing have given sufficient consideration to whether this crossing can be closed. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Close 1,203 level crossings since 2009.

Verbatim wording from the response

“With regard to the second concern raised, level crossings represent the highest risk on the railway and Network Rail always seeks to close crossings wherever possible. Since 2009 Network Rail has closed 1203 level crossings.”

Source location

Colin-Cameron-Response
Page 2 · response
Published 9 July 2019

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

Ask Gloucestershire County Council’s public rights of way officer to consider diverting or extinguishing the bridleway crossing the railway.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Network Rail has written to the public rights of way officer at Gloucestershire County Council to consider the feasibility of extinguishing or diverting the bridleway where it crosses the railway. However, there are significant difficulties associated with extinguishing or diverting public rights of way, and any proposal to do so can be subject to a public inquiry. Network Rail can present evidence to support closure at such an inquiry, but the outcome is not one that Network Rail can control.”

Source location

Colin-Cameron-Response
Page 3 · response
Published 9 July 2019

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

Ask the authorised user to consider releasing vehicular crossing rights and offer to discuss reasonable compensation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“After making renewed enquiries since the inquest, we believe there to be one authorised user of the vehicular level crossing at Frampton. This individual is under no legal obligation to release their rights and Network Rail cannot compel them to do so. Demands for compensation for the release of these rights must be proportionate and give due consideration to the use of public money.”

Source location

Colin-Cameron-Response
Page 2 · response
Published 9 July 2019

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

Pursue diversion of the bridleway, in association with the Council officer and with public support, using all reasonable efforts.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Notwithstanding these difficulties, Network Rail will do all it reasonably can to remove the vehicular rights at the crossing and, in association with the Council public rights of way officer and with public support, will do all it reasonably can to divert the bridleway so the crossing can be completely closed.”

Source location

Colin-Cameron-Response
Page 3 · response
Published 9 July 2019

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

Pursue removal of vehicular rights at the crossing using all reasonable efforts.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Notwithstanding these difficulties, Network Rail will do all it reasonably can to remove the vehicular rights at the crossing and, in association with the Council public rights of way officer and with public support, will do all it reasonably can to divert the bridleway so the crossing can be completely closed.”

Source location

Colin-Cameron-Response
Page 3 · response
Published 9 July 2019

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 cannot control the outcome of a public inquiry concerning extinguishing or diverting the bridleway.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Network Rail has written to the public rights of way officer at Gloucestershire County Council to consider the feasibility of extinguishing or diverting the bridleway where it crosses the railway. However, there are significant difficulties associated with extinguishing or diverting public rights of way, and any proposal to do so can be subject to a public inquiry. Network Rail can present evidence to support closure at such an inquiry, but the outcome is not one that Network Rail can control.”

Source location

Colin-Cameron-Response
Page 3 · response
Published 9 July 2019

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 cannot compel an authorised user to release rights needed to close the vehicular crossing.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Network Rail does not have unilateral powers to close level crossings as many have public or private rights. Closure of a user-worked crossing such as Frampton requires the consent of the authorised users. Efforts to close Frampton crossing in the past have been unsuccessful.”

Source location

Colin-Cameron-Response
Page 2 · response
Published 9 July 2019

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

Existing rules, local training and prompt cards provide signallers with instructions to obtain information from level-crossing users.

Verbatim wording from the response

“This first concern refers to there being an absence of any instructions to signallers on how to extract information from a level crossing user. However, the evidence presented at the Inquest highlighted that instructions are provided to signallers. The Inquest heard evidence that the signaller is required to follow the railway industry Rule Book GE/RT 8000, Module T9 ‘Level crossings – signallers’ regulations’, issue 3 dated 05/12/2015.”

Source location

Colin-Cameron-Response
Page 1 · response
Published 9 July 2019

Open published response
Back to top

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

Official responses located
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026