PFD report

Gregory James Barber · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 24 Dec 2021•West Yorkshire Eastern

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
1

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 a meaningful response to an identified railway safety problem and mitigation request
    Part of recurring concern: Ineffective controls preventing access to railway tracks
  2. Insufficient curtailment of access to railway tracks at the identified location
    Part 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.1

  1. Action

    Procure and install 8 metres of 2.4-metre palisade fencing, including fabricated fencing to close gaps at both ends.

    Stated by Network RailStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 29 December 2021.

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

  1. Position

    The parapet wall was not considered a trespass risk because it was difficult to access, vegetation deterred entry, and no hotspot data existed.

    Stated by Network RailDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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 a meaningful response to an identified railway safety problem and mitigation request

Wider context from the report

“The BTP investigation identified a clear problem and recommended a mitigation measure to which there has been no meaningful response, or at all, from Network Rail within the terms of the specific request to so respond within 60 days of the incident. On the evidence that I heard at the inquest, it would appear that the weakness identified by the British Transport Police remains as it was at the time of their investigation and I am concerned that access to the railways tracks is not sufficiently curtailed at the location identified, as recommended. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Ineffective controls preventing access to railway 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. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Insufficient curtailment of access to railway tracks at the identified location

Wider context from the report

“The BTP investigation identified a clear problem and recommended a mitigation measure to which there has been no meaningful response, or at all, from Network Rail within the terms of the specific request to so respond within 60 days of the incident. On the evidence that I heard at the inquest, it would appear that the weakness identified by the British Transport Police remains as it was at the time of their investigation and I am concerned that access to the railways tracks is not sufficiently curtailed at the location identified, as recommended. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — 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

Procure and install 8 metres of 2.4-metre palisade fencing, including fabricated fencing to close gaps at both ends.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Despite these findings, Network Rail is committed to maintaining a safe railway and to reducing opportunity for members of the public to harm themselves on or near the railway. As such, following further engagement with the BTP in December 2021 in relation to this incident, Network Rail remitted works at this location to address the concern raised in the BTP PISR (and since raised in your Regulation 28 report). Specifically, Network Rail is procuring the installation of 8 metres of 2.4m palisade fencing behind the wall (before the land begins to slope downwards), together with specially fabricated palisade fencing closing off the gaps at either end of the new fence. This will further deter potential access over the parapet wall and down to the railway.”

Source location

2021-0429-Response-from-Network-Rail_Published
Page 1 · response
Published 29 December 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

The parapet wall was not considered a trespass risk because it was difficult to access, vegetation deterred entry, and no hotspot data existed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition, on consideration of the PISR, Network Rail did not consider that the parapet wall was a trespass risk for the reasons explained below.”

Source location

2021-0429-Response-from-Network-Rail_Published
Page 1 · response
Published 29 December 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

The area met current fencing and boundary standards, which were considered sufficient arrangements for the location.

Verbatim wording from the response

“4. The area meets Network Rail’s current standards for fencing and boundaries.”

Source location

2021-0429-Response-from-Network-Rail_Published
Page 1 · response
Published 29 December 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

The parapet wall was not the access point; records identified a Network Rail access gate further along the track.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The PISR refers to Mr Barber’s most likely access point as being over the parapet wall at the end of Wyther Lane. However, on the evening of the incident on 12 April 2021, Network Rail representatives attended the area of Kirkstall Lineside near Bridge Road, Leeds along with the BTP to undertake a post-incident site visit. During this visit, the BTP and Network Rail carried out an immediate inspection of the area and our records show that Mr Barber’s access point was agreed to have been at a Network Rail access gate further down the track towards Kirkstall Forge Station. Mr Barber’s personal possessions were found by BTP at this location.”

Source location

2021-0429-Response-from-Network-Rail_Published
Page 1 · response
Published 29 December 2021

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