Detailed sector breakdown

Mainline railway

The Railway Safety and Standards Board (RSSB) estimates that 6% of the total mainline system risk is from level crossings. The majority of this risk is borne by members of the public using the crossings, with most casualties being pedestrians and road vehicle occupants.

There are several types of level crossing in use on the mainline network. The table below shows level crossing numbers by type:

Table 5.1: level crossing types

Source: Network Rail (ALCRM), May 2025

The level of protection afforded to users of the level crossing varies with the type of crossing.  Those that provide a higher level of protection do not rely on the user to assess whether it is safe to cross, such as by looking for an approaching train. Instead warning(s) of an approaching train and/ or barriers are provided. Other factors such as the number of crossing barriers and whether the crossing has railway signals protecting it are also important.

The different types of level crossings can be classified in various ways. The previous table used ‘Active, Automatic, Manual and Passive’.

Looking at data for the last 10 years (April 2013 to March 2023) there were 61 fatalities to level crossing users (excluding suicides). The table below shows the types of crossing where they occurred.

Table 5.2: level crossing fatalities

Source: RSSB, February 2024

The data illustrates that the greatest proportion of fatalities occurred at passive footpath crossings, followed by automatic half-barrier and user-worked crossings with a telephone.  Footpath crossings account for 34% of the level crossing estate.  

The last level crossing incident resulting in train occupant fatalities (as of March 2026) occurred at Ufton Nervet in 2004, when a passenger train derailed after striking a car that had been deliberately parked on the crossing by its driver, as a suicidal act. The train driver and five passengers were killed, in addition to the car driver.

Data for the last 10 years (April 2013March 2023) shows there were 67 vehicular collisions. As the table below shows, AHB crossings were the greatest contributor but account for just 7% of Network Rail’s level crossing estate. AHB crossings are very convenient for the user due to their short barrier down time. However, we provide guidance on situations where we consider their application is inappropriate and Network Rail are trialling the use of additional equipment to deter unsafe use (such as weaving around the barriers) of these crossings.

Table 5.3: level crossing vehicular collisions

Source: RSSB, February 2024

As the graphs below illustrate there was a general increase in the number of collisions between road vehicles and trains at level crossings between 2020/2021 and 2023/2024, followed by a small decrease in 2024/2025. As mentioned above, passive crossings are the greatest contributor followed by active-automatic crossings. We are encouraging industry to explore new technologies to improve risk control at these crossings.

Figure 1: 

Source: RSSB annual Health and Safety Report, 2024/25

Network Rail

Network Rail has achieved considerable success in reducing risk at level crossings during Control Period 4 (CP4) and Control Period 5 (CP5). This was largely attributable to dedicated risk-reduction funds, which was strongly managed and directed from their Head Office.  

In Control Period 6 (CP6), Network Rail did not have additional ring-fenced funds [PA1.1]to improve level crossing safety, and decision making was devolved to the routes and regions. In line with statutory requirements, it adopted reasonably practicable improvements in risk control. Network Rail focused on using better techniques and digital technologies to improve the way they maintain and manage their infrastructure and take steps to further reduce risk to the public at their level crossings. This approach has continued into Control Period 7 (CP7).

At CP6 exit, level crossing risk, as modelled by Network Rail’s All Level Crossing Risk Model (ALCRM), was at 8.5 Fatalities and Weighted Injuries (FWI). For the first year of CP7, FWI declined slightly to 8.4.

Figure 2: 

As of February 2026, Network Rail level crossing risk reduction CP7 safety benefits stood at 0.541 FWI. The scorecard target for CP7 is 0.471 FWI.

Network Rail produced a level crossings strategy for 2019-2029, which was adopted soon after the start of CP6. It sets out Network Rail’s strategy to manage the safety and reliability of level crossings for the next 10 years.  

We will continue to monitor Network Rail’s progress against its targets and encourage Network Rail to continue implementing its level crossing strategy for 2019-2029 to reduce risk across the whole crossing population.

Heritage railway

The majority of heritage railways have level crossings as part of their operation; around half have level crossings that cross public carriageways. Our 2014 survey of level crossing types in the heritage sector found that around 16% of these public carriageway crossings were public open level crossings; half being automatic with lights (Automatic Open Crossings Locally Monitored) (AOCL) and half being crossings with signage only, where the train driver is required to observe that the crossing is clear (Open Crossings) (OC).

RIDDOR reportable incidents for the heritage sector show that there have been 9 collisions between trains and vehicles between April 2013 to March 2023[PA2.1]. None of these resulted in reported injuries to the vehicle or train occupants.

Heritage railways generally operate at lower speeds not exceeding 25mph (40kmph).  When compared to the mainline sector, the lower speed profile changes the level of risk associated with level crossings. However, the risk remains significant and our level crossing strategy remains relevant to the heritage sector. The same legislation applies, and we expect the sector to achieve the same legal standard as the mainline sector.

As the heritage sector expands and realises ambitions to extend or reinstate old railway lines, the level of interest in opening new, or reinstating level crossings is increasing. In line with the general principles of prevention, we expect operators to demonstrate that there is no reasonably practicable alternative to the provision of a new or reinstated level crossing; with the analysis based upon a proportionate, but suitable and sufficient, risk assessment. Whilst ORR does not approve or grant permission for new or reinstated level crossings, we may submit an opinion on the level crossing proposal as part of the Transport and Works Act 1992 (TWA) or the Transport and Works (Scotland) Act 2007 (TWAS) Order process.

ORR activity

Acronyms and abbreviations

Glossary of terms