Michael Dean YOUNGHUSBAND · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 23 Mar 2016•Exeter and Greater Devon

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
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

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. Potential tripping hazard from a metal section standing proud of the crossing track bed
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe walking surfaces creating trip hazards

Stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.2

  1. Network Rail

    Clearly mark the edges of trip hazards at the crossing to highlight them to the public.

  2. Network Rail

    Complete ballast surface improvement works at the crossing to minimise stepping hazards.

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

  1. Network Rail

    Routine inspections, defect repairs, ballast improvements and hazard marking are considered to have addressed the level crossing’s identified safety issues.

    Existing arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

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

Potential tripping hazard from a metal section standing proud of the crossing track bed

Wider context from the report

“(1) The poor state of the crossing point was of concern to Mr Younghusband’s family as they believed it was a potential tripping hazard as they had observed a metal section, on the Lympstone side of that crossing, standing proud of the track bed. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe walking surfaces creating trip hazards.

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

Clearly mark the edges of trip hazards at the crossing to highlight them to the public.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The last routine inspection of the level crossing prior to Mr Younghusband’s death took place on 16 September 2015. The LCM noted that the track ballast was low to the level crossing so he built it up again. A more recent inspection took place on 4th March 2016 followed by another site check 21 June 2016 revealed that the ballast had moved again, so in late June the LCM discussed with maintenance colleagues the fitting of more substantial ‘ballast boxes’ so as to contain movement more effectively and minimise the stepping involved. I am happy to confirm that ballast surface improvement works were completed at the crossing point on 20 July 2016. Further the edges of any trip hazards have been clearly marked in order to highlight them to the public.”

Source location

2016-0235-Response-by-Network-Rail
Page 2 · response
Published 23 June 2016

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 ballast surface improvement works at the crossing to minimise stepping hazards.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The last routine inspection of the level crossing prior to Mr Younghusband’s death took place on 16 September 2015. The LCM noted that the track ballast was low to the level crossing so he built it up again. A more recent inspection took place on 4th March 2016 followed by another site check 21 June 2016 revealed that the ballast had moved again, so in late June the LCM discussed with maintenance colleagues the fitting of more substantial ‘ballast boxes’ so as to contain movement more effectively and minimise the stepping involved. I am happy to confirm that ballast surface improvement works were completed at the crossing point on 20 July 2016. Further the edges of any trip hazards have been clearly marked in order to highlight them to the public.”

Source location

2016-0235-Response-by-Network-Rail
Page 2 · response
Published 23 June 2016

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

Routine inspections, defect repairs, ballast improvements and hazard marking are considered to have addressed the level crossing’s identified safety issues.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As with all crossings of this type, it is routinely inspected six-monthly by a Level Crossing Manager (“LCM”), who is responsible for reporting all defects found to maintenance teams. When safe to do so, the LCM carries out certain minor repairs and reports them accordingly.”

Source location

2016-0235-Response-by-Network-Rail
Page 1 · response
Published 23 June 2016

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