• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

London Bridge : Train hit buffers 13/12/24

MarkWi72

Member
Joined
13 Nov 2017
Messages
300
What happened here? Anyone heard anything about this incident at London Bridge?


A Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR) spokesperson said the train "collided with the buffers at low speed" as it arrived at the station.
A man was arrested on suspicion of endangerment on the railway and has been released on bail, British Transport Police (BTP) confirmed.
In a statement, BTP added officers were called to the collision at 15:53 GMT but there were no reported injuries."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

AndyPJG

Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
501
quote from above article for the record
A man has been arrested after a train collided with buffers at London Bridge station.
The incident on Friday afternoon involved a Southern train travelling from Victoria.
A Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR) spokesperson said the train "collided with the buffers at low speed" as it arrived at the station.
A man was arrested on suspicion of endangerment on the railway and has been released on bail, British Transport Police (BTP) confirmed.
In a statement BTP added officers were called to the collision at 15:53 GMT but there were no reported injuries.
GTR said the Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) had been informed about the incident. They have been contacted for a response.
GTR said passengers on the train left the station and the platform was back in use.
A spokesperson for the RAIB said: "The RAIB has been notified of an incident which occurred on Friday evening at London Bridge mainline station.
"Evidence is being gathered as part of the process of conducting a preliminary examination and a decision on whether an investigation will be launched will be taken in the coming days."
 

physics34

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2013
Messages
3,874
It says exactly what it says on the tin. BTP were already at the station, so dealt with it. Now onto the investigation.
 

Merle Haggard

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2019
Messages
2,770
Location
Northampton
It says exactly what it says on the tin. BTP were already at the station, so dealt with it. Now onto the investigation.

The B.T.P. seem to have very quickly decided that someone is to blame and made an arrest. In the case of a train mishaps isn't that unusual? - no R.A.I.B. involvement.
 

MCR247

Established Member
Joined
7 Nov 2008
Messages
9,862
The B.T.P. seem to have very quickly decided that someone is to blame and made an arrest. In the case of a train mishaps isn't that unusual? - no R.A.I.B. involvement.
Arrests are made when someone is under suspicion of having done something and there needs to be questioning. The quote says the RAIB are investigating also. I would imagine that the BTP making an arrest is because there was something that needed to be looked into - rather than BTP “blaming” the driver, as even if the driver was at fault, this wouldn’t necessarily result in arrest.
 

Discuss223

Member
Joined
30 Oct 2024
Messages
308
Location
Bestwood, Nottingham & Whirlow, Sheffield
It would seem rather harsh to arrest the driver immediately, without establishing the facts. There are various reasons why a train may not stop in time, such as low-adhesion on the railheads, brake tread wear, human error, foul play or derailment.
 

MarkWi72

Member
Joined
13 Nov 2017
Messages
300
Would a drugs or alcohol test be done? Or was it a member of the general public arrested?
 
Last edited:

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
23,098
Location
Rugby
It would seem rather harsh to arrest the driver immediately, without establishing the facts. There are various reasons why a train may not stop in time, such as low-adhesion on the railheads, brake tread wear, human error, foul play or derailment.
There may have been a failed substance test, an admission, or evidence of impairment. Or anything else. It's not really possible to say because we have no facts.
 

Horizon22

Established Member
Associate Staff
Jobs & Careers
Joined
8 Sep 2019
Messages
8,961
Location
London
The fact that someone has been arrested would suggest to me a failed drugs/alcohol test post-incident. Either that or a disgruntled ex-employee deliberately and maliciously taking the controls.

This is merely what I can infer from the context available, not that I am saying this is what happened.
 
Last edited:

Somewhere

On Moderation
Joined
14 Oct 2023
Messages
900
Location
UK
The B.T.P. seem to have very quickly decided that someone is to blame and made an arrest. In the case of a train mishaps isn't that unusual? - no R.A.I.B. involvement.
Only because they were there. If there were no police on site, they wouldn't have arrested anyone, as they wouldn't have known about it
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
11,288
Location
London
The fact that someone has been arrested would suggest to me a failed drugs/alcohol test post-incident. Either that or a disgruntled ex-employee deliberately and maliciously taking the controls.

This is merely what I can infer from the context available, not that I am saying this is what happened.

It is unusual; so seems likely to be either obvious signs of impairment (which I admit was my first thought on reading the article), or the police being highly overzealous.

Either is possible, let’s hope it’s the second.
 

Somewhere

On Moderation
Joined
14 Oct 2023
Messages
900
Location
UK
BTP don't know anything about tickets, let alone railway operations. I suspect they've just gone in with their size tens, and basically impeded the investigation of the incident
 

CC 72100

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2012
Messages
3,812
BTP don't know anything about tickets, let alone railway operations. I suspect they've just gone in with their size tens, and basically impeded the investigation of the incident
You do realise that BTP aren't routinely involved in this sort of thing, don't you?

Something must be * different * about this incident for there to be any BTP involvement.
 

Somewhere

On Moderation
Joined
14 Oct 2023
Messages
900
Location
UK
You do realise that BTP aren't routinely involved in this sort of thing, don't you?

Something must be * different * about this incident for there to be any BTP involvement.
The difference is they were on site when it happened. BTP aren't usually on site, so aren't usually advised of an incident, let alone get involved. They don't know one end of a truncheon from the other..
No one called them. They saw it, said it and sorted it.
 

357

Established Member
Joined
12 Nov 2018
Messages
1,729
As someone who has had lots of experience with BTP - I try to avoid them at all costs. They are constantly too interested in harassing staff for minor things than dealing with any real issues. I used to find the Land Sheriffs were much better at dealing with most of the real issues.

There was an incident a couple of years ago where a driver being relieved took his keys out the train before releasing the doors. BTP later arrested the relieving driver at a station further down the line, despite the protests of control. The line was at a standstill until a spare driver could be sent in a taxi!

I have absolutely no time for BTP to the extent I will not even let them in my cab anymore.
 

skyhigh

Established Member
Joined
14 Sep 2014
Messages
6,209
The difference is they were on site when it happened. BTP aren't usually on site, so aren't usually advised of an incident, let alone get involved. They don't know one end of a truncheon from the other..
No one called them. They saw it, said it and sorted it.
And how do you know this? Or are you just guessing?
 

357

Established Member
Joined
12 Nov 2018
Messages
1,729
You do realise that BTP aren't routinely involved in this sort of thing, don't you?

Something must be * different * about this incident for there to be any BTP involvement.
The difference is they were there already and wanted to get involved.
 

skyhigh

Established Member
Joined
14 Sep 2014
Messages
6,209
The difference is they were there already and wanted to get involved.
From the link in the OP:
In a statement BTP added officers were called to the collision at 15:53 GMT but there were no reported injuries.
Unless the statement is false, they say that officers were called to the collision, not that they were already there. So is it actually reported anywhere that isn't what happened?
 

357

Established Member
Joined
12 Nov 2018
Messages
1,729
From the link in the OP:

Unless the statement is false, they say that officers were called to the collision, not that they were already there. So is it actually reported anywhere that isn't what happened?
Called to an incident could mean they were the other side of the station. It's a standard phrase used in press releases - indeed I have read news articles into incidents I have been involved with before and this phrase has been used, when BTP were in my office drinking tea and eating all our biscuits at the time!

And how do you know this? Or are you just guessing?
As always with this forum, there is inside info that can't be shared publicly.

The driver might have been a bit of a silly billy but he was not under the influence of any illegal drugs or alcohol.
 

Somewhere

On Moderation
Joined
14 Oct 2023
Messages
900
Location
UK
From the link in the OP:

Unless the statement is false, they say that officers were called to the collision, not that they were already there. So is it actually reported anywhere that isn't what happened?
The statement is misleading. Called could mean someone shouted over to them.
The person writing the statement wasn't there, and will be copy and pasting from a pre-written script. The statement wasn't the usual police statement where you sign to say it's accurate.
I wouldn't read too much what's written in some comic that isn't even journalism.
 

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
8,988
I've had positive experiences with the BTP just for balance. Found them supportive when dealing with incidents.
 

Somewhere

On Moderation
Joined
14 Oct 2023
Messages
900
Location
UK
I've had positive experiences with the BTP just for balance. Found them supportive when dealing with incidents.
If they're supporting a competent member of staff doing their job, they're fine.
BTP wouldn't check tickets, as they don't know the first thing about tickets. They shouldn't be investigating operational incidents, as they don't know the first thing about railway operations.
Otherwise they should stick to dealing with anti-social behaviour and picking up bits of dead bodies.
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
11,288
Location
London
Called to an incident could mean they were the other side of the station.

Very likely at a major London terminal such as London Bridge (I think there’s a BTP depot there).

If they're supporting a competent member of staff doing their job, they're fine.
BTP wouldn't check tickets, as they don't know the first thing about tickets. They shouldn't be investigating operational incidents, as they don't know the first thing about railway operations.
Otherwise they should stick to dealing with anti-social behaviour and picking up bits of dead bodies.

Generally BTP wouldn’t involve themselves in something like this, certainly thinking about a low speed collision that occurred at a platform at my London terminal, where there was no police involvement at all despite them being on site. The driver would be med-screened as a matter of course, but that would be via the company procedure (if there were other signs of impairment and/or they failed the med screen the police would likely be called at that point).

I’m not sure it would be right for the police to rock up straight after an incident like this and insist on breathalysing a driver, and I wonder if something along those lines might have led to refusal. I’ve heard of that happening in the context of fatalities, usually where local plod show up on scene before the BTP.
 
Last edited:

Somewhere

On Moderation
Joined
14 Oct 2023
Messages
900
Location
UK
And if the BTP have got themselves inappropriately involved, no doubt the driver is under legal advice to go 'no comment', which will likely mean they'll be going no comment to the RAIB and their employer as well. Ergo incomplete investigation.
 

357

Established Member
Joined
12 Nov 2018
Messages
1,729
And if the BTP have got themselves inappropriately involved, no doubt the driver is under legal advice to go 'no comment', which will likely mean they'll be going no comment to the RAIB and their employer as well. Ergo incomplete investigation.
Highly unlikely.

In face, I'd go as far as saying practically impossible.
 

Lewisham2221

Established Member
Joined
23 Jun 2005
Messages
1,985
Location
Staffordshire
Is there any actual confirmation that it was the driver who was arrested? And, if it was, that BTP acted improperly in arresting him before he had been med-screened or any other reasonable grounds for arrest had been identified? Or are we just slagging off BTP and making assumptions?
 

Somewhere

On Moderation
Joined
14 Oct 2023
Messages
900
Location
UK
Highly unlikely.

In face, I'd go as far as saying practically impossible.
What's unlikely? Normal legal advice is to go 'no comment' to avoid unintentionally incriminating yourself
 

NSEWonderer

Established Member
Joined
5 Dec 2020
Messages
1,886
Location
London
I assume this incident was the one with a 377 /4 which ended up compressing the lower bit of the gangway?
 

Top