The reporter has raised a safety concern in relation to insufficient trespass mitigation measures at [Location] station, [State].
The reporter advised of a recent incident in which a person was struck by an approaching train after forcing their way through the 'old-style' pedestrian gates and attempted to climb up to the platform.
The reporter advised, this station, along with many others, does not have mitigation measures such as rubber anti-trespass panels (spikes to visually and physically deter people walking in an unsafe area) or rubber platform end extensions in order to prevent people climbing the platform. The reporter states, 'It is very common for people to run the gauntlet to make the train in this way'. The reporter is further concerned that given the frequency of trespass incidents at this location, the station should also have upgraded pedestrian gates that are not able to be forced open or able to be climbed over.
The reporter also advised that there are anti-trespass panels currently available in stockpiles at [Location 2] yard and other locations. An information circular was distributed to staff advising that anti-trespass panels were being installed in identified hot spots.
The operator provided a document to the ATSB and ONRSR showing controls at the [Location 1] crossing, in particular, the pedestrian crossing warning devices, signs, gates, and locking mechanisms. The operator also provided a [trespasser report document] to demonstrate what is being undertaken across the network. This document highlights current measures, and details the strategic goals aimed at reducing the frequency and impact of trespassing incidents.
The operator has reviewed their incident data that has recorded two incidents at [Location 1] railway station. One involved a coupler riding, and the other one was related to the retrieval of a [public transport card] that had fallen into the pit. [Location 1] is not considered to be a trespasser hotspot.
The trespasser panels that the REPCON refers to were not effective and required a lot more panels to install them properly at significant cost. If there are gaps, the panels can be bypassed and as such have not been deemed an effective control.
ONRSR confirms receipt of ATSB REPCON report number RR2025-00019, dated 13 August 2025 regarding insufficient trespass mitigation measures at a specific rail station on the metropolitan passenger network in [State]. ONRSR has reviewed the reporter’s concerns and the operator’s response including additional supporting information provided by the operator and previously provided to ONRSR through regulatory interactions.
ONRSR can confirm the REPCON refers to a recent incident which has been reported as a Category A notifiable occurrence to ONRSR (reference number supplied to the ATSB). In this instance the occurrence report was reviewed within ONRSR and additional information sourced from relevant authorities. ONRSR also reviewed notifiable occurrence data related to the location and the location specific information provided by the operator.
Regarding trespasser mitigation, ONRSR has previously conducted regulatory activities on the relevant rail transport operator as part of the 2024-25 National Work Program. This included a focus on examining the operator’s approach to trespasser mitigation, evaluation of potential risk controls and methods of data analysis to inform the application of their safety management system (SMS).