Some questions, to which I don't know the answers, therefore arise:
There answers to most of them.
Is Network Rail (NR» ) always solely responsible for the maintenance of lineside fencing or are there instances where the landowner might be (partially) liable?
From the
RSSB▸ report cited earlier:
3.3 Fencing
The relationship between railways, landowners and farmers was established in our industry’s earliest days. Landowning interests were extremely powerful in Victorian Britain and the arrival of a new line was not always welcome.
Each line was subject to a separate Act of Parliament. In order for them to be successful, arrangements had to make to made to maintain farmers’ access to their land, by means of bridges or crossings. It therefore became the railways’ responsibility to ensure that livestock
could not stray onto the track. These requirements were embodied in the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act 184527 which is still in force today.
Section 68 of the Act states:
The (railway) company shall make and at all times thereafter maintain… sufficient posts, rails, hedges, ditches, mounds, or other fences, for separating the land taken for the use of the railway from the adjoining lands not taken, and protecting such lands from trespass, or the cattle of the owners or occupiers thereof from straying thereout, by reason of the railway, together with all necessary gates, made to open towards such adjoining lands, and not towards the railway, and all necessary stiles; and such posts, rails, and other fences shall be made forthwith after the taking of any such lands, if the owners thereof shall so require.
This effectively made the GB▸ rail industry responsible for erecting and maintaining fences along the entire length of the network, both to prevent trespass and straying animals; today the onus falls on Network Rail as the direct successor of the original railway companies. This arrangement is unusual internationally and railways are not routinely fenced in continental Europe or North America, except on high-speed lines. Indeed, the line involved in the Langenhorn incident had been fenced by the farmer, not the railway (although in this case the cattle had accessed the line via a level crossing).
What is more difficult to deal with is when livestock escape but not to the railway, either to a road or to land not fenced for livestock.
Either way is there a process by which landowners can quickly inform NR of lineside fencing damage?
From the NR web site:
Please call our emergency 24 hour helpline on 03457 11 41 41 if there's a safety threat to you or to others such as:
People, animals, trees or objects on or near the track
Damage or fault at a level crossing
A vehicle has hit a bridge
A broken fence or open gate allowing access to the track
If you report a problem relating to safety, we will give this priority.
Similarly can landowners make direct contact with the signallers if they become aware that their animals have strayed onto a line?
I doubt there is a direct number, only lineside phones at crossings - not intended for that, but unlikely to lead to objections.
Do NR have a routine lineside fencing inspection programme which could identify issues, and get them fixed, before they result in a major issue such as this one?
More from the RSSB report:
3.3.3 Fencing management
Network Rail carries out routine inspections at varying intervals and takes into account condition of fencing the number of instances of trespass or vandalism or livestock incursions through the fence by large or small boned animals.
All the company’s Delivery Units have a plan for carrying out fencing inspections. Records are kept and faults are reported through control. If the nature of the fault is severe enough, the inspector will stay at the fence until the repair team arrives. Network Rail is also informed at local level if adjacent land use changes (from, say, arable to animal).
As a result of accidents like Letterston Junction, and other near miss events, however, Network Rail has put standards in place to mitigate the different types of risks posed at different locations. The current standard for the Management of fencing and other boundary measures (NR/L2/TRK/5100, Version 2) was updated and re-issued in 2008.
The standard uses the likelihood of unauthorised access, the consequences of unauthorised access, adjacent land use and the condition of existing boundary measures to determine the initial level of fencing required and the subsequent level of inspection, repair or replacement needed.
[The process was originally devised to prevent trespass on the railway by people; later versions have addressed livestock incursions and principles of evaluating risk.]
Is it possible that the old concrete post & wire fencing is life expired and should be replaced in all 'at risk' locations by more robust palisade fencing?
The above continues:
Furthermore, the company has considered three separate papers on animal incursions since April 2010; as a result, NR/L2/TRK/5100 Version 3 has been drafted for publication.
Version 3 will require the fence inspector to verify the condition of the fencing physically, rather than just visually, and sign to confirm that they have done so. Network Rail envisages that this physical verification of fence condition will reduce the number of incursions caused by fencing being in a poor condition.
In addition, animal incursions are a standing item at the company’s regular boundary risk management liaison meetings, and will also be covered by an ‘objects on the line’ deep dive review, which will start in July and end in September 2014.
The challenge comes with wild animals like deer, as these not only sit outside all legislative requirements, they also have a great capacity for jumping fences of any height. Furthermore, as many are wild, the railway cannot always control their movement in conjunction with the relevant land owner.
Click on the map to explore geographics
