PFD report

Adam Lee Connelly · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 17 Jul 2015•Manchester West

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
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
2

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 raised1

  1. Inadequate restriction of public access to the railway track from the steps accessing footbridge 57
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to prevent public access to closed or restricted hazardous sitesPart 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

    Install shorter palisade pales on the lower flight to connect with the boundary fence and raise the parapet to at least two metres.

    Stated by Network Rail Infrastructure LimitedStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 17 July 2015.
  2. Action

    Raise the upper-flight stepped parapet with engineering brick and bullnose units to prevent scaling and access behind the lower-flight palisade.

    Stated by Network Rail Infrastructure LimitedStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 17 July 2015.

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 restriction of public access to the railway track from the steps accessing footbridge 57

Wider context from the report

“i. Due to the height of the walls of the steps which are used to access footbridge 57 on the railway line between Walkden and Atherton train stations, a person of reasonable athletic ability could gain access to the railway track, which could lead to future fatalities at this location on the railway ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to prevent public access to closed or restricted hazardous sites; 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

Install shorter palisade pales on the lower flight to connect with the boundary fence and raise the parapet to at least two metres.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The bridge is not known to Network Rail as being used by members of the public to gain access to the infrastructure. However, as a consequence of this event, I can confirm that we intend to undertake the following works:”

Source location

2015-0284-Response-by-Network-Rail
Page 2 · response
Published 17 July 2015

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

Raise the upper-flight stepped parapet with engineering brick and bullnose units to prevent scaling and access behind the lower-flight palisade.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The bridge is not known to Network Rail as being used by members of the public to gain access to the infrastructure. However, as a consequence of this event, I can confirm that we intend to undertake the following works:”

Source location

2015-0284-Response-by-Network-Rail
Page 2 · response
Published 17 July 2015

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
1/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026