PFD report

Robert Grey English · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 25 Jul 2025•North London

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
3

Named on the report

Responses found
3

Of 3 recipients

Stated actions
7

Described in 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. Absence of suitable lights for locating people on or near railway lines at night
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate outdoor safety lighting
  2. Failure to provide distinct night-time protection for railway trespassers
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate outdoor safety lighting
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

    Test and risk-assess a high-output cab-mounted lighting rig for locating people on open-air track at night, identifying required improvements.

    Stated by Transport for LondonStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 29 July 2025.

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

  1. Position

    TfL is wholly responsible for the operational safety of the London Underground network and is addressing the report’s findings.

    Stated by Department for TransportRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.

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

Absence of suitable lights for locating people on or near railway lines at night

Wider context from the report

“The provision to protect a trespasser at night are the same as those during the day. The ability to locate a person close to or on the railway lines at night is made more difficult by the absence of suitable lights on the track or the train. In this case Mr English was not seen and run over by the train that has been asked to look for a person on the line. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate outdoor safety lighting.

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 to provide distinct night-time protection for railway trespassers

Wider context from the report

“The provision to protect a trespasser at night are the same as those during the day. The ability to locate a person close to or on the railway lines at night is made more difficult by the absence of suitable lights on the track or the train. In this case Mr English was not seen and run over by the train that has been asked to look for a person on the line. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate outdoor safety lighting.

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

Test and risk-assess a high-output cab-mounted lighting rig for locating people on open-air track at night, identifying required improvements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“You highlighted the need for more suitable lighting for locating a trespasser at night. We are actively assessing options for new equipment to provide additional lighting.”

Source location

Response from Transport for London
Page 2 · response
Published 29 July 2025

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

TfL is wholly responsible for the operational safety of the London Underground network and is addressing the report’s findings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Transport for London (TfL) are wholly responsible for the operational safety of the London Underground network, and I understand that they have now responded to you, setting out how they are addressing the findings of your report. I understand that the actions TfL are taking will be implemented rapidly, which reflects the seriousness with which they take their responsibilities.”

Source location

Response from Department for Transport
Page 1 · response
Published 29 July 2025

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

Continuous lineside illumination is not reasonably practicable because mainline trains operate primarily to signals and access is normally restricted.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The mainline rules for train drivers responding to reports of trespassers require a driver to proceed ‘at caution’. This requires drivers to be able to stop within the distance that they can see to be clear. As the rule is the same irrespective of lighting conditions, this means in practice, drivers are likely to travel at a lower speed when proceeding at caution in darkness than in daylight. In darkness the above regulations mean that the headlamps are designed to illuminate the track when proceeding at caution. As trains principally drive to signals rather than on sight on national mainline infrastructure to which access is normally restricted (by fencing, for example), it is not reasonably practicable to provide continuous lineside illumination.”

Source location

Response from Railway Safety Board
Page 1 · response
Published 29 July 2025

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

Existing mainline rules and train headlamps, with no recorded caution-speed trespasser strikes since 2015, are considered sufficient for the identified risk.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The operating context of the mainline railway can be different to London Underground. The current regulation for mainline train headlamps is the Locomotives and Passenger National Technical Specification Notice, enforced by the Railways (Interoperability) Regulations 2011 (as amended).”

Source location

Response from Railway Safety Board
Page 1 · response
Published 29 July 2025

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.6

  1. 1

    Review the need for additional rail-safety training for Metropolitan Police officers and reach a conclusion.

    Stated by Transport for LondonStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 29 July 2025.
  2. 2

    Communicate revised real-time pursuit procedures to affected personnel.

    Stated by Transport for LondonStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 29 July 2025.
  3. 3

    Establish a cross-organisational review group to examine procedures for deploying police on or near railway tracks.

    Stated by Transport for LondonStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 July 2025.
  4. 4

    Replace the slow-speed track-search rule with a specific maximum-speed instruction and formally update and brief train operators.

    Stated by Transport for LondonStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 29 July 2025.
  5. 5

    Require physical track-environment searches whenever the identity of an object on or around the track is uncertain.

    Stated by Transport for LondonStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 July 2025.
  6. 6

    Finalise a real-time pursuit policy, including communications arrangements between the three control centres.

    Stated by Transport for LondonStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 29 July 2025.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    RSSB standards do not apply to London Underground because it is a metro system outside the mainline railway.

    Stated by Rail Safety and Standards BoardOutside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.

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 the need for additional rail-safety training for Metropolitan Police officers and reach a conclusion.

Verbatim wording from the response

“To support this, the need for additional rail safety training for Metropolitan Police officers will also be reviewed with a conclusion to be reached by the end of October 2025.”

Source location

Response from Transport for London
Page 2 · response
Published 29 July 2025

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

Communicate revised real-time pursuit procedures to affected personnel.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As part of our investigation into Mr English’s death, we recognise the opportunity to make communication between our operational staff and police more robust. As a result, we have established a review group comprising of representative from TfL Compliance, Policing, Operations and Security, the TfL Rail Control Centre, the Metropolitan Police Service and the British Transport Police. The purpose of this Group is to review the operational procedures for deploying the police on or near to rail tracks. We will finalise a real time pursuit policy, including communications arrangements, between the three control centres by the end of September 2025 with plans to communicate the revised procedures to those affected by the end of October 2025.”

Source location

Response from Transport for London
Page 2 · response
Published 29 July 2025

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

Establish a cross-organisational review group to examine procedures for deploying police on or near railway tracks.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As part of our investigation into Mr English’s death, we recognise the opportunity to make communication between our operational staff and police more robust. As a result, we have established a review group comprising of representative from TfL Compliance, Policing, Operations and Security, the TfL Rail Control Centre, the Metropolitan Police Service and the British Transport Police. The purpose of this Group is to review the operational procedures for deploying the police on or near to rail tracks. We will finalise a real time pursuit policy, including communications arrangements, between the three control centres by the end of September 2025 with plans to communicate the revised procedures to those affected by the end of October 2025.”

Source location

Response from Transport for London
Page 2 · response
Published 29 July 2025

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

Replace the slow-speed track-search rule with a specific maximum-speed instruction and formally update and brief train operators.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We are also in the process of changing our Rule Book to remove existing references to a train undertaking a track search operating at ‘slow speed’. Under our new operational rules, train operators will be given very specific instructions, requiring them to operate ‘at a speed of no more than 10mph, or the closest speed value available on lines with automatic train operation’. This will better manage the speed at which trains travel through the affected area. The Rules will be formally updated and briefed to our train operators by the end of October 2025.”

Source location

Response from Transport for London
Page 2 · response
Published 29 July 2025

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

Require physical track-environment searches whenever the identity of an object on or around the track is uncertain.

Verbatim wording from the response

“On 12 May 2025, we updated our operational rules related to track searches. Our rules now require our teams to physically search the track environment where there is any doubt about the identity of an object on or around the track environment.”

Source location

Response from Transport for London
Page 2 · response
Published 29 July 2025

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

Finalise a real-time pursuit policy, including communications arrangements between the three control centres.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As part of our investigation into Mr English’s death, we recognise the opportunity to make communication between our operational staff and police more robust. As a result, we have established a review group comprising of representative from TfL Compliance, Policing, Operations and Security, the TfL Rail Control Centre, the Metropolitan Police Service and the British Transport Police. The purpose of this Group is to review the operational procedures for deploying the police on or near to rail tracks. We will finalise a real time pursuit policy, including communications arrangements, between the three control centres by the end of September 2025 with plans to communicate the revised procedures to those affected by the end of October 2025.”

Source location

Response from Transport for London
Page 2 · response
Published 29 July 2025

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

RSSB standards do not apply to London Underground because it is a metro system outside the mainline railway.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The mainline railway of Great Britain is defined in the Railways and Other Guided Transport (Safety) Systems Regulations (2006) (as amended). London Underground-owned infrastructure, including the Northern Line, is not part of the mainline railway (it is a metro system) and so RSSB standards do not apply to London Underground.”

Source location

Response from Railway Safety Board
Page 1 · response
Published 29 July 2025

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
3/3

Data last updated 7 September 2026