PFD report

Sarah Athermith · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 30 Nov 2017•Black Country

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
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
3

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 3 recipients

Stated actions
10

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 raised3

  1. Lack of effective protection or warning at the level crossing
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety controls at railway level crossings
  2. Pedestrian confusion about the presence of a further train on the opposite track
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risks
  3. Obscured visibility of opposing trains for train drivers
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.6

  1. Action

    Maintain user safety instructions through stop, look and listen signage at Wallows Lane level crossing.

    Stated by Network RailStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 11 February 2018.
  2. Action

    Risk-assess level crossings and periodically review risks, further mitigation and available technical solutions while crossings remain open.

    Stated by Network RailStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 11 February 2018.
  3. Action

    Progress the statutory process for permanent closure of Wallows Lane level crossing with Walsall Local Authority.

    Stated by Network RailStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 11 February 2018.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.7

  1. Position

    No known product can show passive-crossing users which line an approaching train is travelling on.

    Stated by Network RailUnable 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 effective protection or warning at the level crossing

Wider context from the report

“1. Evidence emerged during the inquest that the Wallows Lane level crossing is an unprotected crossing and there is no method of warning of an approaching train. 2. There are whistle boards (train drivers should sound their whistles/horns on approach) in place to warn users. However, the crossing relies on users actively stopping, looking and listening for approaching trains before deciding if it is safe to cross. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety controls at railway level crossings.

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

Pedestrian confusion about the presence of a further train on the opposite track

Wider context from the report

“3. There is a clear and present danger that pedestrians can become confused, as happened in this case when two trains pass each other at the same time and do not realise there is a further train on the opposite rail track. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risks.

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

Obscured visibility of opposing trains for train drivers

Wider context from the report

“4. It also emerged that the freight train carriages were double height and obscured the opposite train drivers view. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Maintain user safety instructions through stop, look and listen signage at Wallows Lane level crossing.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In accordance with the risk assessment of the crossing, the protection measures at Wallows Lane level crossing rely on users actively stopping, looking and listening for approaching trains before deciding if it is safe to cross. These instructions are provided to crossing users via signs installed at the crossing.”

Source location

2017-0350-Response-by-Network-Rail
Page 2 · response
Published 11 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

Risk-assess level crossings and periodically review risks, further mitigation and available technical solutions while crossings remain open.

Verbatim wording from the response

“All level crossings on Network Rail’s infrastructure are risk assessed to determine the level of protection that is required to reduce the risk associated with that crossing so far as is reasonably practicable.”

Source location

2017-0350-Response-by-Network-Rail
Page 2 · response
Published 11 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

Progress the statutory process for permanent closure of Wallows Lane level crossing with Walsall Local Authority.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We confirm that Network Rail's preferred option is permanent closure of Wallows Lane level crossing. The crossing was closed to members of the public on 26 September 2017 via temporary order granted by Walsall Local Authority and remains closed today.”

Source location

2017-0350-Response-by-Network-Rail
Page 1 · response
Published 11 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

Use whistle boards requiring train drivers to sound horns to warn crossing users of approaching trains.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Further protection has been installed at Wallows Lane level crossing in the form of whistle boards. Train drivers are required to sound their horn at the whistle boards to warn users of an approaching train. The sound of the horn is intended to be a further warning to any user who is actively assessing whether it is safe to cross.”

Source location

2017-0350-Response-by-Network-Rail
Page 2 · response
Published 11 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

Implement physical safety enhancements including a marked decision point, solar lighting, vegetation clearance and highlighted gates and signage.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As part of Network Rail’s continuous improvement to level crossing safety, in 2016 a number of enhancements were made at Wallow Lane level crossing to encourage safer user behaviours. These included:”

Source location

2017-0350-Response-by-Network-Rail
Page 3 · response
Published 11 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

Urgently review revised Network Rail closure applications and supporting evidence, while continuing to provide guidance and support through the closure process.

Verbatim wording from the response

“25. As in the past, WMBC are undertaking an urgent review of the NR’s revised closure application and will continue to provide assistance and guidance to NR in the closure application process.”

Source location

2017-0350-Response-by-Walsall-Council
Page 6 · response
Published 11 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

No known product can show passive-crossing users which line an approaching train is travelling on.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Trains (passenger and freight) pass frequently at Wallows Lane, as they do at many level crossings. There is currently no known product that may be installed at passive level crossings to show users which line an approaching train is travelling on.”

Source location

2017-0350-Response-by-Network-Rail
Page 2 · response
Published 11 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

Network Rail cannot itself permanently close a level crossing carrying a public right of way.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It should be noted that, regrettably, it is not within Network Rail’s power to simply close a level crossing that carries a public right of way. Even when a clear safety case exists for closure of a crossing, Network Rail requires the relevant local authority to first support and then to progress the necessary statutory process.”

Source location

2017-0350-Response-by-Network-Rail
Page 1 · response
Published 11 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

Permanent closure requires the relevant local authority to support and progress the statutory process.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It should be noted that, regrettably, it is not within Network Rail’s power to simply close a level crossing that carries a public right of way. Even when a clear safety case exists for closure of a crossing, Network Rail requires the relevant local authority to first support and then to progress the necessary statutory process.”

Source location

2017-0350-Response-by-Network-Rail
Page 1 · response
Published 11 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

Risk assessment concluded existing measures reduce risk at Wallows Lane level crossing so far as reasonably practicable.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The risk assessment for Wallows Lane level crossing has considered if any existing technology may be used to warn of approaching trains at this location. Due to the close proximity of signals and junctions in both upside and downside directions, options to use technology are very limited and the evaluation concluded that risk at the crossing is reduced so far as is reasonably practicable.”

Source location

2017-0350-Response-by-Network-Rail
Page 2 · response
Published 11 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

If technological safety improvements are required, Network Rail must consider converting the crossing into a controlled crossing as landowner and operator.

Verbatim wording from the response

“30. If NR determines (whether as a result of the Coroner’s Regulation 28 Report or for any other reason) that a technological safety improvement is required, NR as the landowner and operator will have to consider converting the Wallows Lane Railway Crossing into a controlled crossing using suitable methods.”

Source location

2017-0350-Response-by-Walsall-Council
Page 7 · response
Published 11 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 Council cannot convert the crossing into a controlled crossing because it is neither the landowner nor the operator and lacks legal authority.

Verbatim wording from the response

“29. As WMBC is not the landowner or the operator on which the Wallows Lane Railway Crossing is located, it has no authority or legal power to convert the Wallows Lane Railway Crossing into a controlled crossing using suitable methods.”

Source location

2017-0350-Response-by-Walsall-Council
Page 6 · response
Published 11 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

Network Rail must make the level-crossing closure application; the Council’s role is to advise and consider it as highway authority.

Verbatim wording from the response

“5. The closure application needs to be made by Network Rail (“NR”) and will then be advised upon and considered WMBC as the Highway Authority.”

Source location

2017-0350-Response-by-Walsall-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 11 February 2018

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.4

  1. 1

    Install census cameras to gather information about crossing usage.

    Stated by Network RailStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 11 February 2018.
  2. 2

    Conduct community safety-awareness events and engage crossing users to promote safer behaviours.

    Stated by Network RailStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 11 February 2018.
  3. 3

    Consult prescribed interest groups and other relevant parties during statutory and informal consultation if a closure order proceeds.

    Stated by Walsall Borough CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 11 February 2018.
  4. 4

    Obtain Road Safety Team advice on the proposed alternative route and forward that advice to Network Rail.

    Stated by Walsall Borough CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 11 February 2018.

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 census cameras to gather information about crossing usage.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Census cameras have also been installed to gather further information about the usage of the crossing. There was no reported misuse at this location between November 2015 and September 2017.”

Source location

2017-0350-Response-by-Network-Rail
Page 3 · response
Published 11 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

Conduct community safety-awareness events and engage crossing users to promote safer behaviours.

Verbatim wording from the response

“To supplement these measures, Network Rail’s Level Crossing Managers undertake safety awareness events in the local community and regularly stop crossing users to promote and encourage safe behaviours.”

Source location

2017-0350-Response-by-Network-Rail
Page 2 · response
Published 11 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

Consult prescribed interest groups and other relevant parties during statutory and informal consultation if a closure order proceeds.

Verbatim wording from the response

“There is no specific reference within the prescribed application form for wider consultations to be undertaken, although during statutory consultation on a Rail Crossing Extinguishment Order under s118A of the Highways Act, the Council has a duty to serve notice on a list of additional prescribed interest groups including, for example, the Ramblers Association, Open Spaces Society and British Horse Society. The Council will consult all relevant parties including these when making an order in accordance with the statutory procedures. We would also contact these parties at the informal consultation stage, which we would arrange following receipt and validation of your application.”

Source location

2017-0350-Response-by-Walsall-Council
Page 5 · response
Published 11 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

Obtain Road Safety Team advice on the proposed alternative route and forward that advice to Network Rail.

Verbatim wording from the response

“closure on cycling as well as walking and it would be useful to check whether there are any known Road Safety concerns at the location.”

Source location

2017-0350-Response-by-Walsall-Council
Page 4 · response
Published 11 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

Official responses located
2/3

Data last updated 7 September 2026