PFD report

Scott RAYNER · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 20 Oct 2017•Hertfordshire

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
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 raised1

  1. Inadequate fencing beside the railway track
    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.2

  1. Action

    Implement a mandatory fencing standard requiring risk-assessed boundary management measures for Network Rail-controlled infrastructure.

    Stated by Network RailStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 5 February 2018.
  2. Action

    Complete enhancement work at identified Watford-area access locations, including installing additional palisade fencing around St Albans Road and Bedford Street.

    Stated by Network RailStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 5 February 2018.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

  1. Position

    The boundary fencing was compliant and inspections identified no faults requiring repair in the St Albans Road and Bedford Street area.

    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

Inadequate fencing beside the railway track

Wider context from the report

“British Transport Police investigating revealed that fencing beside the railway track was inadequate especially at the rear of a scrap metal dealer located off St Albans Road and Bedford Street, leading to a risk that adults and children may trespass on the line where the speed limit is 100mph. ”

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

Implement a mandatory fencing standard requiring risk-assessed boundary management measures for Network Rail-controlled infrastructure.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In accordance with its legal obligations, Network Rail implements a mandatory fencing standard “Management of Fencing and Other Boundary Measures” which applies to the boundary of Network Rail controlled infrastructure (the Fencing Standard).”

Source location

2017-0345-Response-by-Network-Rail
Page 1 · response
Published 5 February 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

Complete enhancement work at identified Watford-area access locations, including installing additional palisade fencing around St Albans Road and Bedford Street.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Although no faults were identified in the boundary fencing around St Albans Road and Bedford Street, the local operations team planned a further multi stakeholder inspection of the wider Watford area in order to investigate trespass incidents where specific locations of access were unknown. This took place on the 30 May 2017 in conjunction with the British Transport Police. A number of lineside locations in the Watford area were inspected and identified for additional enhancement work to prevent access to the railway. Work to implement this enhancement work was completed on 22 February 2018, which included installing additional palisade fencing in the St Albans Road and Bedford Street area.”

Source location

2017-0345-Response-by-Network-Rail
Page 2 · response
Published 5 February 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

The boundary fencing was compliant and inspections identified no faults requiring repair in the St Albans Road and Bedford Street area.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The last annual inspection of the St Albans Road and Bedford Street area, including the area to the rear of the H&D Motors, prior to April 2017 was undertaken on 26 June 2016. This inspection identified that there was no repair work required in the area and the boundary fencing was compliant with the Fencing Standard.”

Source location

2017-0345-Response-by-Network-Rail
Page 2 · response
Published 5 February 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