Taiyah-Grace Sharon Peebles · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 24 Jul 2018•North East Kent

Published report and response evidence

This report’s concerns and statements found in recipients’ published responses. Statements are included even where no link to an individual concern is recorded. A link shows an evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
3

Described in responses

Recipients and published responses

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 raised2

  1. Lack of end-of-platform barriers on platforms
  2. Failure to prevent public access to live rails at ground level
    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

Stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.3

  1. Network Rail

    Improve fencing at higher-risk locations through a programme including £800,000 of work due for completion by April 2019.

  2. Network Rail

    Continue developing reasonably practicable safety solutions for the ground-level conductor rail system.

  3. Network Rail

    Install platform-end gates and anti-trespass measures at more than 50 South East route stations, with works already completed at 30 locations.

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

  1. Network Rail

    Converting or replacing the ground-level conductor rail is not reasonably practicable because of the railway system’s complexity and cost.

    Unable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant 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

Lack of end-of-platform barriers on platforms

Wider context from the report

“The absence of an end of platform barrier and the existence of a live rail at ground level that might be accessible to members of the public may in my opinion create a risk that future deaths will occur unless action is taken. The Assistant Coroner understands that a barrier has since been constructed at Herne Bay Station to help prevent deaths in similar circumstances but that other platforms in the area have no such barrier. His further understanding is that in other parts of the country trains are powered by electric current supplied by way of overhead cables rather than live rails at ground level thereby making contact with the power supply less likely ”

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

Failure to prevent public access to live rails at ground level

Wider context from the report

“The absence of an end of platform barrier and the existence of a live rail at ground level that might be accessible to members of the public may in my opinion create a risk that future deaths will occur unless action is taken. The Assistant Coroner understands that a barrier has since been constructed at Herne Bay Station to help prevent deaths in similar circumstances but that other platforms in the area have no such barrier. His further understanding is that in other parts of the country trains are powered by electric current supplied by way of overhead cables rather than live rails at ground level thereby making contact with the power supply less likely ”

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

Improve fencing at higher-risk locations through a programme including £800,000 of work due for completion by April 2019.

Verbatim wording from the response

“There are also programmes to improve our fencing at areas we consider to be at higher risk of intentional or unintentional public access and this includes £800,000 of work which is due to be completed by April 2019.”

Source location

2018-0239-Response-by-Natwork-Rail
Page 2 · response
Published 23 September 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

Continue developing reasonably practicable safety solutions for the ground-level conductor rail system.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The ground level conductor rail system on the South East route was installed in the 1950s and, although Network Rail has no future plans to install new conductor rail systems, it is not reasonably practicable to convert the system to an overhead contact line due to the complexity and cost to the railway industry. Whilst the ground level conductor rail cannot be replaced, Network Rail is committed to continue to develop reasonably practical solutions to improve the safety of the system wherever possible.”

Source location

2018-0239-Response-by-Natwork-Rail
Page 2 · response
Published 23 September 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 platform-end gates and anti-trespass measures at more than 50 South East route stations, with works already completed at 30 locations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“With regards to platform-end fencing, historically the fencing has not been installed as standard practice. The risks involved in intentional and unintentional accessing of the rail network were controlled via warning notices at the platform-end. The platform-end fencing and anti-trespass panels that have been installed at Herne Bay are part of a wider program of mitigations that are being applied to locations across the South East route to address the risks associated with members of the public either intentionally or unintentionally accessing the rail network. There are currently two programmes of activity which will see platform-end gates installed at over 50 stations on the South East route. We have already completed works on 30 locations over the Kent and Sussex areas. We expect the majority of works to be completed by the end of 2018 with some being finished in early 2019.”

Source location

2018-0239-Response-by-Natwork-Rail
Page 2 · response
Published 23 September 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

Converting or replacing the ground-level conductor rail is not reasonably practicable because of the railway system’s complexity and cost.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The ground level conductor rail system on the South East route was installed in the 1950s and, although Network Rail has no future plans to install new conductor rail systems, it is not reasonably practicable to convert the system to an overhead contact line due to the complexity and cost to the railway industry. Whilst the ground level conductor rail cannot be replaced, Network Rail is committed to continue to develop reasonably practical solutions to improve the safety of the system wherever possible.”

Source location

2018-0239-Response-by-Natwork-Rail
Page 2 · response
Published 23 September 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