PFD report

Thomas Coyne · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 19 Jan 2017•Cheshire

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
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
1

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 raised2

  1. Failure of station CCTV to cover all platform areas
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable safety CCTV monitoring systemsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable supervision of members of the public on station premises
  2. Lack of a physical barrier at the end of platform three
    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.

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

  1. Position

    CCTV coverage expansion must proceed incrementally across the entire network rather than being delivered immediately at every station.

    Stated by Arriva Rail North LimitedUnable 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

Failure of station CCTV to cover all platform areas

Wider context from the report

“1. The CCTV installed at the station and which can be monitored by the staff on duty, does not actually cover all the platform areas, and thus the member of staff could not see Mr Coyne (who was the only passenger on the station at the time) as he mistakenly wandered on to the tracks. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable safety CCTV monitoring systems; Unreliable supervision of members of the public on station premises.

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 a physical barrier at the end of platform three

Wider context from the report

“2. There is apparently absolutely no physical barrier of any kind at the end of platform three, thus allowing unfettered access to the tracks at that point. ”

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 position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

CCTV coverage expansion must proceed incrementally across the entire network rather than being delivered immediately at every station.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As CCTV technology evolves, it is hoped to expend the coverage area and quality of the images produced, but this must inevitably be an incremental programme across the entire network.”

Source location

2017-0207-Arriva-Rail-North-Limited
Page 1 · response
Published 28 July 2017

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 station is not considered high risk under the criteria used to prioritise CCTV coverage extensions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The CCTV system does not extend to the entirety of every platform area on all 500 stations. As the system is developed it has been necessary to prioritise extensions and this has been done by reference to the risk profile of each station, by reference to a diverse range of factors, including the incidence of suicide, vandalism, theft and antisocial behaviour. Earlestown is not considered a high risk station on this evaluation.”

Source location

2017-0207-Arriva-Rail-North-Limited
Page 1 · response
Published 28 July 2017

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

Responsibility for barriers and fencing preventing track access lies with Network Rail as part of the station infrastructure.

Verbatim wording from the response

“At the outset, it may assist if we clarify responsibility relating to the station. Arriva Rail North Limited manage the station as part of a network of approximately 500 stations. Network Rail are responsible for the infrastructure of the stations themselves.”

Source location

2017-0207-Arriva-Rail-North-Limited
Page 1 · response
Published 28 July 2017

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.1

  1. 1

    Review arrangements at Earlestown Railway Station.

    Stated by Arriva Rail North LimitedStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 28 July 2017.

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 arrangements at Earlestown Railway Station.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Thank you for drawing your concerns to our attention. Your Report has caused us to review carefully the arrangements at Earlestown Railway Station, following the death of Mr Coyne on 21 May 2016.”

Source location

2017-0207-Arriva-Rail-North-Limited
Page 1 · response
Published 28 July 2017

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