Jakovas Fofonovas
PFD Report
All Responded
Ref: 2016-0077
All 1 response received
· Deadline: 22 Apr 2016
Coroner's Concerns (AI summary)
Safety recommendations from a British Transport Police report to restrict public access and enhance safety at a railway bridge remained unaddressed by the time of the inquest.
View full coroner's concerns
The MATTER OF CONCERN is as follows, Recommendations in The BTP Post Fatality Report to create & safer environment at the bridge and restrict public access to the railway had not been effected by the time of the inquest: The court not have the benefit of Network Rail spokesperson in court to provide evidence of future plans ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and I believe that that if the Network Rail is in a position to do s0. YOUR RESPONSE You are under a to respond to this report within 56 days of the date of this report; namely by Monday 25u April 2016. 1, the coroner; may extend the period Your response must contain details ofaction taken O proposed to be taken, setting out the timetable for action. Otherwise You must explain why no action is proposed: If you require any further information about the case,please contact the case officer; If YOu require further information about the process of responding to this report my clerk to whom your response should be sent COPIES and PUBLICATION Ihave sent a copy of my report to the following Interested Kwife). am also sending copy to the Coroners Liaison for London South British Transport Police Iam also under a to send the Chief Coroner a copY of your response: The Chief Coroner may publish either or both in a or redacted or summary form. He may send a copY of this report to any person who he believes may find it useful or of interest: You may make representations to me; the coroner, at the time of your response; about the release or the publication of your response by the Chief Coroner [DATE] [SIGNED BY CORONER] Written: 26.02/16 Sent: 'i/o16 did duty Persons: duty complete Xuk
Responses
Action Taken
Network Rail demolished and replaced the footbridge at Bostall Manor Way with a new, safer design, including industry standard height railings (1250mm) and acoustic fencing with anti-climb extensions. Old building materials have been removed from the site. (AI summary)
Network Rail demolished and replaced the footbridge at Bostall Manor Way with a new, safer design, including industry standard height railings (1250mm) and acoustic fencing with anti-climb extensions. Old building materials have been removed from the site. (AI summary)
View full response
NetworkRail Mr A Harris Network Rail Infrastructure Limited Senior Coroner Cottons Centre Inner London South Coroner's Court Cottons Lane Tennis Street London Southwark SE1 2QG SE1 1YD 25 April 2016 Jakovas Fofonovas Decd Regulation 28 Report refer to your report dated 26 February 2018 sent in accordance with paragraph 7, schedule 5, of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 and regulations 28 and 29 of the Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013 in relation to very sad death of Jakovas Fofonovas who died on 23 2015 on the railway tracks near Abbey Wood Station. Background The footbridge at Bostall Manor Way is owned and maintained by the Royal Borough of Greenwich_ As of the works currently being carried out by Network Rail and Balfour Beatty on behalf of Crossrail at Wood Station the original footbridge has now been demolished. #t has been replaced with completely new and much improved specification footbridge which accommodates the additional railway tracks which have been laid at Wood. The new footbridge attach 2 photographs one of the old footbridge and the other of the new footbridge during construction: also attach plans of the new footbridge detailing specification. The footprint of the bridge on the north side of the railway now extends over Mottisfont Road. The benefit of this is that pedestrians using the footbridge no longer exit close to the railway tracks but directly onto pedestrian pavement next t0 the road the May part Abbey Abbey the the
The section of the new footbridge which spans the live railway is completely encased which improves the safety of pedestrians using the footbridge by preventing accidents and intentional acts The new structure has been designed with ramps (on both the north and south sides) which improves accessibility for wheelchair users, cyclists and parents with young children in pushchairs_ The area around the new footbridge will be fully landscaped and it is proposed to install improved lighting; Once this structure is fully brought into use, it will be handed back to the Royal Borough of Greenwich who are asset owner and who will be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the footbridge. In response to the specific points raised in your regulation 28 report set out below my response below your questions and confirm that: The stairs to the footbridge had low railings that enabled easy access to the track: The new footbridge railings are at the current industry standard height of 1250mm_ Further, as set out below we are in the process of installing acoustic fencing along both sides of the track at height of 3m. Additionally this will have anti-climb extensions fitted at certain sections_ This fencing is designed to prevent access to the railway tracks
ii. There were temporary mesh extensions and fencing in poor condition We are in the process of installing acoustic fencing on both sides of the track at height of 3m. This will also have anti-climb wire extensions fitted as an additional deterrent at certain sections_ iji. The mid elevation turn back was of great concern due to possible access to railway land This refers to the old structure which is no longer in situ and there is no longer a mid- elevation turn back in the new design. Further the installation of the acoustic fencing alongside the south side of the track and alongside the Mottisford Road, with anti- climb wire extensions, prevents access to the railway tracks from the footbridge steps and ramps_ the
iv. There are no measures in place to mitigate against the railings climbed over At the shoulder of the stepslramps and main span there is an anti-climb guard at greater height than the railings as further mitigation: In addition there is the acoustic fencing and anti-climb wire extensions to prevent anyone accessing the track if were to climb over the railings. Building materials under the bridge offer aids to climbing down confirm that the old building materials under the bridge have now been removed from this site hope this response provides you with adequate information and assurance that the issues you identified have been considered and addressed. If can be of any further assistance or you would like any further clarification please do not hesitate to contact me_
The section of the new footbridge which spans the live railway is completely encased which improves the safety of pedestrians using the footbridge by preventing accidents and intentional acts The new structure has been designed with ramps (on both the north and south sides) which improves accessibility for wheelchair users, cyclists and parents with young children in pushchairs_ The area around the new footbridge will be fully landscaped and it is proposed to install improved lighting; Once this structure is fully brought into use, it will be handed back to the Royal Borough of Greenwich who are asset owner and who will be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the footbridge. In response to the specific points raised in your regulation 28 report set out below my response below your questions and confirm that: The stairs to the footbridge had low railings that enabled easy access to the track: The new footbridge railings are at the current industry standard height of 1250mm_ Further, as set out below we are in the process of installing acoustic fencing along both sides of the track at height of 3m. Additionally this will have anti-climb extensions fitted at certain sections_ This fencing is designed to prevent access to the railway tracks
ii. There were temporary mesh extensions and fencing in poor condition We are in the process of installing acoustic fencing on both sides of the track at height of 3m. This will also have anti-climb wire extensions fitted as an additional deterrent at certain sections_ iji. The mid elevation turn back was of great concern due to possible access to railway land This refers to the old structure which is no longer in situ and there is no longer a mid- elevation turn back in the new design. Further the installation of the acoustic fencing alongside the south side of the track and alongside the Mottisford Road, with anti- climb wire extensions, prevents access to the railway tracks from the footbridge steps and ramps_ the
iv. There are no measures in place to mitigate against the railings climbed over At the shoulder of the stepslramps and main span there is an anti-climb guard at greater height than the railings as further mitigation: In addition there is the acoustic fencing and anti-climb wire extensions to prevent anyone accessing the track if were to climb over the railings. Building materials under the bridge offer aids to climbing down confirm that the old building materials under the bridge have now been removed from this site hope this response provides you with adequate information and assurance that the issues you identified have been considered and addressed. If can be of any further assistance or you would like any further clarification please do not hesitate to contact me_
Sent To
- Network Rail
Response Status
Linked responses
1 of 1
56-Day Deadline
22 Apr 2016
All responses received
About PFD responses
Organisations named in PFD reports must respond within 56 days explaining what actions they are taking.
Source: Courts and Tribunals Judiciary
Similar PFD Reports
Reports sharing organisations, categories, or themes
Related Inquiry Recommendations
Public inquiry recommendations addressing similar themes
Uniform policy for obtaining technical advice
Scottish Hospitals Inquiry
Major project lessons learned
Streamlining NHS construction quality procedures
Scottish Hospitals Inquiry
Major project lessons learned
Independent validation of hospital construction
Scottish Hospitals Inquiry
Major project lessons learned
Clarify whether HCRS and OCS assessment processes differ
Post Office Horizon Inquiry
Major project lessons learned
Reconsider Phase 1 recommendations in light of Phase 2
Grenfell Tower Inquiry
Major project lessons learned
Add legal requirements warning to statutory guidance
Grenfell Tower Inquiry
Major project lessons learned
Include academics on statutory guidance advisory bodies
Grenfell Tower Inquiry
Major project lessons learned
Data sourced from Courts and Tribunals Judiciary under the Open Government Licence.