PFD report

Harminder DHILLON · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 6 Nov 2017•Bedfordshire and Luton

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
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
2

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.

Concerns raised3

  1. Misuse of the level crossing exceeding reported levels
  2. Lack of CCTV monitoring of the level crossing
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety controls at railway level crossings
  3. Failure of the half barrier to deter road users from misusing the crossing
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.2

  1. Action

    Replace Marston level crossing with a vehicular road bridge, eliminating the need for vehicles to traverse the crossing.

    Stated by Network RailStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 18 December 2017.
  2. Action

    Develop additional safety enhancements targeting accidental and deliberate misuse at automatic half-barrier crossings.

    Stated by Network RailStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 18 December 2017.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.2

  1. Position

    Full barriers do not necessarily prevent deliberate misuse, so crossing design must be determined through local risk assessment.

    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

Misuse of the level crossing exceeding reported levels

Wider context from the report

“(1) The level crossing is not monitored by CCTV and it is likely that the crossing is misused more than is reported ”

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 CCTV monitoring of the level crossing

Wider context from the report

“(1) The level crossing is not monitored by CCTV and it is likely that the crossing is misused more than is reported ”

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

Failure of the half barrier to deter road users from misusing the crossing

Wider context from the report

“(2) The half barrier is not a deterrent to a road user who believes that their journey is being held up more than is necessary. (3) A full length barrier, which is used on adjacent crossings on that line, would appear to be able to prevent misuse and prevent potential future deaths ”

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

Replace Marston level crossing with a vehicular road bridge, eliminating the need for vehicles to traverse the crossing.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Marston level crossing is scheduled to be replaced by a vehicular road bridge in 2019; this will eliminate the need for vehicles to traverse the crossing.”

Source location

Harminder-Dhillon-Response
Page 2 · response
Published 18 December 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

Develop additional safety enhancements targeting accidental and deliberate misuse at automatic half-barrier crossings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Network Rail is constantly striving to improve passenger and level crossing user safety on our network. To this end Network Rail is currently, developing additional enhancements targeting accidental and deliberate misuse at AHBCs.”

Source location

Harminder-Dhillon-Response
Page 1 · response
Published 18 December 2017

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

Full barriers do not necessarily prevent deliberate misuse, so crossing design must be determined through local risk assessment.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3. “A full barrier, which is used on adjacent barriers on the line, would appear to be able to prevent misuse and prevent potential future deaths.””

Source location

Harminder-Dhillon-Response
Page 2 · response
Published 18 December 2017

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

Half barriers and associated warnings discourage deliberate misuse, although they cannot prevent it completely.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. “The half barrier is not a deterrent to a road user who believes that their journey is being held up more than is necessary””

Source location

Harminder-Dhillon-Response
Page 1 · response
Published 18 December 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

Data last updated 7 September 2026