PFD report

Anthony Shane Ponting · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 8 Jul 2014•Somerset (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
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
4

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 raised3

  1. Failure to position S.H.1 boards 3 metres from the line
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety controls at railway level crossings
  2. Tripping hazards on the crossing surface
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe walking surfaces creating trip hazards
  3. Reduced sighting time caused by trackside vegetation at the S.H.1 sign
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risksPart of recurring concern: Inadequate safety controls at railway level crossings
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

    Cut back vegetation and maintain six-monthly inspections to preserve pedestrian sightlines.

    Stated by Network RailStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 8 July 2014.
  2. Action

    Renew the crossing surface with rubber panels free of tripping hazards and check its condition during six-monthly inspections.

    Stated by Network RailStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 8 July 2014.

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 position S.H.1 boards 3 metres from the line

Wider context from the report

“(ii) the S.H.1 boards should have been positioned 3 metres from the line. ”

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

Tripping hazards on the crossing surface

Wider context from the report

“(iii) Tripping hazards on the crossing surface ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe walking surfaces creating trip hazards.

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

Reduced sighting time caused by trackside vegetation at the S.H.1 sign

Wider context from the report

“(i) reduced sighting time caused by track side vegetation growth for pedestrians crossing from the downside for both up and down trains and on the upside for down trains at the S.H.1 sign ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risks; Inadequate safety controls at railway level crossings.

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

Cut back vegetation and maintain six-monthly inspections to preserve pedestrian sightlines.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The vegetation growth was cut back during the first week of August 2013. In terms of managing the vegetation going forward, this has been and will continue to be routinely checked at six-monthly inspections. Most recently, those inspections were conducted on 16th”

Source location

2014-0322-Response-by-Network-Rail
Page 1 · response
Published 8 July 2014

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

Renew the crossing surface with rubber panels free of tripping hazards and check its condition during six-monthly inspections.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Concern 5(iii) has been addressed. In early March 2014 and as part of more extensive track works in the area, the surface system was completely renewed in modern rubber panels free of tripping hazards. Again the surface is checked for condition at each six-monthly inspection regime, the next one being in the first week of December 2014.”

Source location

2014-0322-Response-by-Network-Rail
Page 2 · response
Published 8 July 2014

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.2

  1. 1

    Continue improving level-crossing safety through closures, engineering risk controls and targeted action to influence user behaviour.

    Stated by Network RailStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 8 July 2014.
  2. 2

    Move the down-line Stop, Look, Listen sign to three metres and assess crossing signage during routine inspections.

    Stated by Network RailStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 8 July 2014.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    The up-side SLL sign will remain 3.4 metres from the track because its current location is appropriate and fit for purpose.

    Stated by Network RailExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

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 improving level-crossing safety through closures, engineering risk controls and targeted action to influence user behaviour.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I would take this opportunity to highlight Network Rail’s commitment to safety. It is a core Network Rail value and we are committed to making sure everyone gets home safely every day be it employees, contractors or members of the public. We have invested much time, money and effort into reducing the risks inherent in level crossings and our work over the past four years has reduced that risk by 31%. This includes closures, improved engineering risk controls and targeted action to influence user behaviour and we will continue our work to improve safety at level crossings having been entrusted with significant funds over the next five years to do so.”

Source location

2014-0322-Response-by-Network-Rail
Page 2 · response
Published 8 July 2014

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

Move the down-line Stop, Look, Listen sign to three metres and assess crossing signage during routine inspections.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Concern 5(ii) regarding the SLL signs has been addressed. On 8th August 2014, the SLL sign on the down line was moved from 4.9 meters to 3 meters as recommended in your report. The SLL sign on the up side remains at 3.4 meters from the track. There is some troughing at the 3 meter point which makes this sign more difficult to move, but the current location of the sign is appropriate and fit for purpose. As we understand it, the ORR report focussed on the inadequacy of the SLL sign on the down line. The signage will continue to be assessed as part of the routine inspections, the next of which is scheduled for the first week of December 2014.”

Source location

2014-0322-Response-by-Network-Rail
Page 2 · response
Published 8 July 2014

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 up-side SLL sign will remain 3.4 metres from the track because its current location is appropriate and fit for purpose.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Concern 5(ii) regarding the SLL signs has been addressed. On 8th August 2014, the SLL sign on the down line was moved from 4.9 meters to 3 meters as recommended in your report. The SLL sign on the up side remains at 3.4 meters from the track. There is some troughing at the 3 meter point which makes this sign more difficult to move, but the current location of the sign is appropriate and fit for purpose. As we understand it, the ORR report focussed on the inadequacy of the SLL sign on the down line. The signage will continue to be assessed as part of the routine inspections, the next of which is scheduled for the first week of December 2014.”

Source location

2014-0322-Response-by-Network-Rail
Page 2 · response
Published 8 July 2014

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