PFD report

Emma Isabel Lifsey · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 7 May 2014•Nottinghamshire

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
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
0

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
0

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 raised3

  1. Delays in replacing old-style level-crossing lights with LED lights
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety controls at railway level crossings
  2. Delays in researching the effect of glare on signal visibility
  3. Lack of adequately bright wig wag lights at level crossings
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety controls at railway level crossings
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 clearly linked to these concerns.

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

Delays in replacing old-style level-crossing lights with LED lights

Wider context from the report

“We heard evidence from several witnesses about the effect of glare – both directly from the low sun and reflected from the road surface – and how this may have affected the visibility of the wig wag lights in particular. We heard that the wig wag lights at Beech Hill crossing had old-style 36W filament bulbs. The optical consultant described these lights as being “the worst he had seen”, and less than half as bright as they should have been. Network Rail witnesses gave evidence about changes being implemented. In particular, we heard of the decision to change all 36W lights at level crossings to LED lights. We were told that 494 level crossings have been identified as having the old-style lights. This information was available in December 2013. To date, 58 have had the lights changed to LEDs. The current plan, we were told, was to complete this by October 2015. We were also told that Network Rail is considering commissioning research into the effect of glare on signals. I heard evidence (in the absence of the jury) about RAIB recommendations made after collisions at Wraysholme in 2008, and Halkirk in 2009. These incidents were not identical factually to the collision at Beech Hill, but it is clear that the issue of sun glare and visibility of signals is not a new one. I noted at the inquest that Network Rail is seeking to reduce these risks, but my concern relates to timescale. The proposed changes and research are simply taking too long, and I am concerned that this risk will not be reduced quickly enough to avoid further tragedies. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety controls at railway level crossings.

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

Delays in researching the effect of glare on signal visibility

Wider context from the report

“We heard evidence from several witnesses about the effect of glare – both directly from the low sun and reflected from the road surface – and how this may have affected the visibility of the wig wag lights in particular. We heard that the wig wag lights at Beech Hill crossing had old-style 36W filament bulbs. The optical consultant described these lights as being “the worst he had seen”, and less than half as bright as they should have been. Network Rail witnesses gave evidence about changes being implemented. In particular, we heard of the decision to change all 36W lights at level crossings to LED lights. We were told that 494 level crossings have been identified as having the old-style lights. This information was available in December 2013. To date, 58 have had the lights changed to LEDs. The current plan, we were told, was to complete this by October 2015. We were also told that Network Rail is considering commissioning research into the effect of glare on signals. I heard evidence (in the absence of the jury) about RAIB recommendations made after collisions at Wraysholme in 2008, and Halkirk in 2009. These incidents were not identical factually to the collision at Beech Hill, but it is clear that the issue of sun glare and visibility of signals is not a new one. I noted at the inquest that Network Rail is seeking to reduce these risks, but my concern relates to timescale. The proposed changes and research are simply taking too long, and I am concerned that this risk will not be reduced quickly enough to avoid further tragedies. ”

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

Lack of adequately bright wig wag lights at level crossings

Wider context from the report

“We heard evidence from several witnesses about the effect of glare – both directly from the low sun and reflected from the road surface – and how this may have affected the visibility of the wig wag lights in particular. We heard that the wig wag lights at Beech Hill crossing had old-style 36W filament bulbs. The optical consultant described these lights as being “the worst he had seen”, and less than half as bright as they should have been. Network Rail witnesses gave evidence about changes being implemented. In particular, we heard of the decision to change all 36W lights at level crossings to LED lights. We were told that 494 level crossings have been identified as having the old-style lights. This information was available in December 2013. To date, 58 have had the lights changed to LEDs. The current plan, we were told, was to complete this by October 2015. We were also told that Network Rail is considering commissioning research into the effect of glare on signals. I heard evidence (in the absence of the jury) about RAIB recommendations made after collisions at Wraysholme in 2008, and Halkirk in 2009. These incidents were not identical factually to the collision at Beech Hill, but it is clear that the issue of sun glare and visibility of signals is not a new one. I noted at the inquest that Network Rail is seeking to reduce these risks, but my concern relates to timescale. The proposed changes and research are simply taking too long, and I am concerned that this risk will not be reduced quickly enough to avoid further tragedies. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety controls at railway level crossings.

Open source report
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
0/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026

No official response is included in the current published snapshot.