PFD report

Andrew Thomas HANAHOE · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 19 Jun 2018•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
4

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
6

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 raised4

  1. Failure to resolve the safety of the foot crossing
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to resolve closure or rationalisation of hazardous railway crossings
  2. Inadequate trespass deterrence and fencing around the foot crossing
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate physical barriers preventing access to dangerous drops or areasPart of recurring concern: Ineffective controls preventing access to railway tracks
  3. Lack of repeater lights warning foot crossing users of approaching trains
    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.

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

    Continue working with stakeholders to develop a closure proposal, secure funding and progress statutory closure arrangements for Lindsells Level Crossing.

    Stated by Network RailStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 8 July 2018.
  2. Action

    Install audible alarms and larger-lensed miniature stop lights at Lindsells Level Crossing through the planned area-wide programme.

    Stated by Network RailStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 8 July 2018.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.4

  1. Position

    Additional repeater lights are not used because they could confuse users; existing near-side miniature stop lights provide sufficient warning time.

    Stated by Network RailExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

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 resolve the safety of the foot crossing

Wider context from the report

““(1) The Post Incident Site Report states: “Ideally this foot crossing should be closed. It crosses railway line that have trains regularly passing over it at speeds up to 125 mph. “Biggleswade, like many towns, is growing in size and any future development in this area will bring housing closer to the crossing. “Would the crossing be installed today? “If the crossing is a recognised “foot path” then an enclosed foot bridge, to prevent items being thrown at or dropped on trains, should be installed, together with suitable fencing on both sides of the line adjacent to it, to prevent simple access to the tracks. “Currently there is just “post and wire” fencing immediately next to the adjacent railway structure... “If the crossing is to be retained, then “repeater lights” should be installed on either side of the crossing, so that users on the crossing can be made aware that a train is approaching”. “Additionally trespass deterrence “Pyramid matting” that has been approved for use by Network Rail ... or similar should be installed on either side of the crossing, to deter simple access to the railway. Additional fencing is also needed between the existing line side fencing and the trespass deterrence to prevent access to the embankment.” I understand that no decision has been made since this Report was made in January 2018, yet the risk of a future death remains. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to resolve closure or rationalisation of hazardous railway 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

Inadequate trespass deterrence and fencing around the foot crossing

Wider context from the report

““(1) The Post Incident Site Report states: “Ideally this foot crossing should be closed. It crosses railway line that have trains regularly passing over it at speeds up to 125 mph. “Biggleswade, like many towns, is growing in size and any future development in this area will bring housing closer to the crossing. “Would the crossing be installed today? “If the crossing is a recognised “foot path” then an enclosed foot bridge, to prevent items being thrown at or dropped on trains, should be installed, together with suitable fencing on both sides of the line adjacent to it, to prevent simple access to the tracks. “Currently there is just “post and wire” fencing immediately next to the adjacent railway structure... “If the crossing is to be retained, then “repeater lights” should be installed on either side of the crossing, so that users on the crossing can be made aware that a train is approaching”. “Additionally trespass deterrence “Pyramid matting” that has been approved for use by Network Rail ... or similar should be installed on either side of the crossing, to deter simple access to the railway. Additional fencing is also needed between the existing line side fencing and the trespass deterrence to prevent access to the embankment.” I understand that no decision has been made since this Report was made in January 2018, yet the risk of a future death remains. ”

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 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 repeater lights warning foot crossing users of approaching trains

Wider context from the report

““(1) The Post Incident Site Report states: “Ideally this foot crossing should be closed. It crosses railway line that have trains regularly passing over it at speeds up to 125 mph. “Biggleswade, like many towns, is growing in size and any future development in this area will bring housing closer to the crossing. “Would the crossing be installed today? “If the crossing is a recognised “foot path” then an enclosed foot bridge, to prevent items being thrown at or dropped on trains, should be installed, together with suitable fencing on both sides of the line adjacent to it, to prevent simple access to the tracks. “Currently there is just “post and wire” fencing immediately next to the adjacent railway structure... “If the crossing is to be retained, then “repeater lights” should be installed on either side of the crossing, so that users on the crossing can be made aware that a train is approaching”. “Additionally trespass deterrence “Pyramid matting” that has been approved for use by Network Rail ... or similar should be installed on either side of the crossing, to deter simple access to the railway. Additional fencing is also needed between the existing line side fencing and the trespass deterrence to prevent access to the embankment.” I understand that no decision has been made since this Report was made in January 2018, yet the risk of a future death remains. ”

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

Inadequate physical separation between foot crossing users and the railway

Wider context from the report

““(1) The Post Incident Site Report states: “Ideally this foot crossing should be closed. It crosses railway line that have trains regularly passing over it at speeds up to 125 mph. “Biggleswade, like many towns, is growing in size and any future development in this area will bring housing closer to the crossing. “Would the crossing be installed today? “If the crossing is a recognised “foot path” then an enclosed foot bridge, to prevent items being thrown at or dropped on trains, should be installed, together with suitable fencing on both sides of the line adjacent to it, to prevent simple access to the tracks. “Currently there is just “post and wire” fencing immediately next to the adjacent railway structure... “If the crossing is to be retained, then “repeater lights” should be installed on either side of the crossing, so that users on the crossing can be made aware that a train is approaching”. “Additionally trespass deterrence “Pyramid matting” that has been approved for use by Network Rail ... or similar should be installed on either side of the crossing, to deter simple access to the railway. Additional fencing is also needed between the existing line side fencing and the trespass deterrence to prevent access to the embankment.” I understand that no decision has been made since this Report was made in January 2018, yet the risk of a future death remains. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risks; Inadequate physical separation between pedestrians and vehicular traffic; Inadequate safety controls at railway level crossings; 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

Continue working with stakeholders to develop a closure proposal, secure funding and progress statutory closure arrangements for Lindsells Level Crossing.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is not within Network Rail’s power to simply close a level crossing that carries a public right of way and this requires liaison with stakeholders, including the relevant local authorities, to progress the necessary statutory process. Closing Lindsells Level Crossing would we believe require a large and very expensive ramped bridleway bridge to divert the existing rights of way.”

Source location

2018-0184-Response-by-Network-Rail
Page 2 · response
Published 8 July 2018

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

Install audible alarms and larger-lensed miniature stop lights at Lindsells Level Crossing through the planned area-wide programme.

Verbatim wording from the response

“While the option for closing the level crossing are being pursued, our risk assessment is reviewed regularly to identify if there are any additional mitigation measures that can be implemented to make the crossing safer.”

Source location

2018-0184-Response-by-Network-Rail
Page 2 · response
Published 8 July 2018

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

Additional repeater lights are not used because they could confuse users; existing near-side miniature stop lights provide sufficient warning time.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The PISR suggests that “repeater lights” should be installed on either side of the crossing. It is not immediately clear what is meant by “repeater lights” but we assume this refers to lights facing into the crossing. This design has been considered many times before but after detailed risk assessment, we do not use such a design due to the risk of users becoming confused about whether it remains safe to cross if the light comes once they were on the crossing. Miniature stop lights are therefore installed at the near side of the railway facing towards oncoming users. The warning time gives sufficient time to safely cross to the other side.”

Source location

2018-0184-Response-by-Network-Rail
Page 2 · response
Published 8 July 2018

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

Further boundary mitigation is not required because fencing is in good condition, fit for purpose, compliant, and unrelated to the incident’s access route.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The fencing in the area of Lindsells Level Crossing is a mixture of Class 1 (1.8m high, which includes palisade fencing) and Class 3 (1.4m high), which includes post and wire boundary measures. The latest inspection recorded all fencing in the area of Lindsells Level Crossing to be in good condition, fit for purpose and compliant with the current fencing standard. We understand that there is no suggestion in this incident that access was taken to the railway as a result of failure of the boundary measures, therefore it is not considered that further boundary mitigation is required at this time.”

Source location

2018-0184-Response-by-Network-Rail
Page 3 · response
Published 8 July 2018

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

Anti-trespass matting is not considered appropriate because there is no evidence of shortcuts or trespass at the crossing.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The PISR also suggests that anti-trespass matting should be installed on either side of the crossing. Trespass deterrent measures of this nature are considered and installed if, for example, there is evidence of people using the level crossing to trespass on the railway. There is no evidence of users taking shortcuts or other such behaviour at Lindsells Level Crossing. As a result, it is not considered that this type of deterrent is appropriate at this crossing.”

Source location

2018-0184-Response-by-Network-Rail
Page 2 · response
Published 8 July 2018

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

Closing a level crossing carrying a public right of way is outside the respondent’s power and requires a statutory process with stakeholders.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is not within Network Rail’s power to simply close a level crossing that carries a public right of way and this requires liaison with stakeholders, including the relevant local authorities, to progress the necessary statutory process. Closing Lindsells Level Crossing would we believe require a large and very expensive ramped bridleway bridge to divert the existing rights of way.”

Source location

2018-0184-Response-by-Network-Rail
Page 2 · response
Published 8 July 2018

Open published response

Other statements in published responses

These actions and other statements could not be clearly connected to one concern in this report.

Recipient-stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.4

  1. 1

    Fund and operate eight suicide-prevention patrollers in the Thameslink area, including patrol coverage near Lindsells Level Crossing.

    Stated by Network RailStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 8 July 2018.
  2. 2

    Engage the local authority to discuss community work to reduce suicide risk at Lindsells and other sites.

    Stated by Network RailStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 8 July 2018.
  3. 3

    Fund an embedded British Transport Police inspector to coordinate suicide-prevention patrols and establish joint patrol coverage including the Lindsells area.

    Stated by Network RailStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 8 July 2018.
  4. 4

    Operate a joint Network Rail–British Transport Police emergency intervention unit to respond rapidly to potential suicide and trespass incidents.

    Stated by Network RailStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 8 July 2018.

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

Fund and operate eight suicide-prevention patrollers in the Thameslink area, including patrol coverage near Lindsells Level Crossing.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The railway industry leads the way in helping to reduce the risk of suicide, working with partners such as BTP and The Samaritans. Over 20,000 railway staff are specifically trained to intervene with people who may be at risk, and campaigns like the hugely successful Small Talk Saves Lives initiative are part of that work. As part of our local suicide prevention initiatives, we have funded and implemented a team of eight patrollers in the Thameslink area to conduct suicide prevention patrols. A further emergency intervention unit also operates in this area jointly crewed by Network Rail and BTP to respond to potential suicide and trespass incidents as fast as possible. An embedded BTP Inspector is funded to coordinate our patrolling and this has resulted in a joint patrolling pattern including in the Lindsells Level Crossing area.”

Source location

2018-0184-Response-by-Network-Rail
Page 3 · response
Published 8 July 2018

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

Engage the local authority to discuss community work to reduce suicide risk at Lindsells and other sites.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have also engaged with the local authority to discuss what work can be done in the community to reduce the risk of people taking their own lives at this and other sites.”

Source location

2018-0184-Response-by-Network-Rail
Page 3 · response
Published 8 July 2018

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

Fund an embedded British Transport Police inspector to coordinate suicide-prevention patrols and establish joint patrol coverage including the Lindsells area.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The railway industry leads the way in helping to reduce the risk of suicide, working with partners such as BTP and The Samaritans. Over 20,000 railway staff are specifically trained to intervene with people who may be at risk, and campaigns like the hugely successful Small Talk Saves Lives initiative are part of that work. As part of our local suicide prevention initiatives, we have funded and implemented a team of eight patrollers in the Thameslink area to conduct suicide prevention patrols. A further emergency intervention unit also operates in this area jointly crewed by Network Rail and BTP to respond to potential suicide and trespass incidents as fast as possible. An embedded BTP Inspector is funded to coordinate our patrolling and this has resulted in a joint patrolling pattern including in the Lindsells Level Crossing area.”

Source location

2018-0184-Response-by-Network-Rail
Page 3 · response
Published 8 July 2018

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

Operate a joint Network Rail–British Transport Police emergency intervention unit to respond rapidly to potential suicide and trespass incidents.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The railway industry leads the way in helping to reduce the risk of suicide, working with partners such as BTP and The Samaritans. Over 20,000 railway staff are specifically trained to intervene with people who may be at risk, and campaigns like the hugely successful Small Talk Saves Lives initiative are part of that work. As part of our local suicide prevention initiatives, we have funded and implemented a team of eight patrollers in the Thameslink area to conduct suicide prevention patrols. A further emergency intervention unit also operates in this area jointly crewed by Network Rail and BTP to respond to potential suicide and trespass incidents as fast as possible. An embedded BTP Inspector is funded to coordinate our patrolling and this has resulted in a joint patrolling pattern including in the Lindsells Level Crossing area.”

Source location

2018-0184-Response-by-Network-Rail
Page 3 · response
Published 8 July 2018

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