PFD report

Daniel Campbell · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 13 Apr 2017•North Northumberland

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
1

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 raised1

  1. Failure to maintain fencing and walls separating the public footpath from the railway line
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate physical barriers preventing access to dangerous drops or areasPart of recurring concern: Ineffective controls preventing access to railway tracks
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

    Complete an extensive lineside fencing upgrade north of the location between Spittal and Berwick.

    Stated by Network RailStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 2 June 2017.
  2. Action

    Conduct a site walk-through between Scremerston and Spittal to assess boundary robustness.

    Stated by Network RailStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 2 June 2017.
  3. Action

    Deliver planned fencing and boundary repairs in the incident section, restoring smaller stone-wall sections and replacing failed larger sections with lineside fencing.

    Stated by Network RailStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 2 June 2017.

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 maintain fencing and walls separating the public footpath from the railway line

Wider context from the report

“Disrepair of walls, fences or other barriers:- Photographs of the location where the death occurred, provided by British Transport Police show that various sections of fencing and walls separating the public footpath from the railway line were broken, missing or in disrepair. While more substantial fencing is unlikely to prevent the trespass and death of a person who is determined to take his own life, insubstantial fencing or barriers create an easy opportunity for persons who might not otherwise act impulsively on fleeting suicidal thoughts after they have passed. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate physical barriers preventing access to dangerous drops or areas; Ineffective controls preventing access to railway tracks.

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

Complete an extensive lineside fencing upgrade north of the location between Spittal and Berwick.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Network Rail has completed an extensive upgrade of our lineside fencing to the north of this location in conjunction with significant trespass and another suicide incident between Spittal and Berwick.”

Source location

2017-0122-Response-by-National-Rail_Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 2 June 2017

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

Conduct a site walk-through between Scremerston and Spittal to assess boundary robustness.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In May, my team walked through the section between Scremerston and Spittal, whilst the fencing already meets Network Rail standards further works will be planned to improve the robustness of this boundary.”

Source location

2017-0122-Response-by-National-Rail_Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 2 June 2017

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

Deliver planned fencing and boundary repairs in the incident section, restoring smaller stone-wall sections and replacing failed larger sections with lineside fencing.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I can confirm that Network Rail has reviewed the active fencing proposals for upgrade on both sides of the track in the section where the incident occurred and have included these in our 2018 renewals plan. Stone walls are a specialist entity, which require specialist contractors. We will aim to repair/restore the smaller sections where possible, but large sections which have failed will be plugged with appropriate lineside fencing to maintain integrity.”

Source location

2017-0122-Response-by-National-Rail_Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 2 June 2017

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

Review active fencing upgrade proposals for both sides of the incident section.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I can confirm that Network Rail has reviewed the active fencing proposals for upgrade on both sides of the track in the section where the incident occurred and have included these in our 2018 renewals plan. Stone walls are a specialist entity, which require specialist contractors. We will aim to repair/restore the smaller sections where possible, but large sections which have failed will be plugged with appropriate lineside fencing to maintain integrity.”

Source location

2017-0122-Response-by-National-Rail_Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 2 June 2017

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

Plan further works to improve boundary robustness between Scremerston and Spittal.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In May, my team walked through the section between Scremerston and Spittal, whilst the fencing already meets Network Rail standards further works will be planned to improve the robustness of this boundary.”

Source location

2017-0122-Response-by-National-Rail_Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 2 June 2017

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