London Bridge : Train hit buffers 13/12/24

[cactustwirly]

Would a drugs or alcohol test be done? Or was it a member of the general public arrested?

At the point of arrest yes, the arrest could have been done to facilitate this.

 

[43066]

At the point of arrest yes, the arrest could have been done to facilitate this.

The police don’t routinely arrest staff to breathalyse them after operational incidents. They are medscreened as part of a company investigative process.

 

[cactustwirly]

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



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.

If a med-screen was done by the employers procedure then this may not necessarily be admissable in court. If the BTP suspect criminal involvement then they are well within their rights to investigate.

 

[43066]

If a med-screen was done by the employers procedure then this may not necessarily be admissable in court. If the BTP suspect criminal involvement then they are well within their rights to investigate.

I’m telling you, it’s not how things are normally done. Hence why there is likely more to it.

 

[Horizon22]

Mr Bobby has a better understanding than Mr Bean.

BTP are specialists and have embedded officers in control rooms around the country. But I guess that doesn't fit into your "anti-police" rhetoric. The BTP are mostly decent, just understaffed.

 

[SamYeager]

For an incident that occurred four days ago there seems to be a distinct paucity of information apart from the OP.

 

[cactustwirly]

My two pence, given the limited details.

1) the driver hit the buffers which is classed as an operational incident, was given a mandatory D&A test and failed it. Arrested for being in control of a vehicle under the influence of drink or drugs.

2) a third party gained unauthorised access to the driving cab with a drivers key (hello Ebay) and took malicious control of the train.

I just want to jump to this

The D&A test they will likely be using will be a presumptive test (something like a dipslide with an instant result). It holds no evidential value because it has false positives.
A proper blood sample would have to be taken and submitted to a forensic lab.

In order to maintain the integrity of evidence the normal procedure for a criminal investigation is an arrest and a sample to be collected and submitted at a police station

A sample taken from an employer wouldn't be compliant with PACE and I doubt the correct chain of custody would be maintained.
It is sufficient for a civil case or dismissal but nothing criminal.

RAIB are only an advisory body and can only issue reports and recommendations.

Obviously a low speed collision on the face of it is unlikely to end up in a criminal case, so my gut feeling is option 2 is the most likely. Kr something along the lines of third party involvement

As this is a police investigation a lot of the detail is kept out of the public domain to avoid prejudicing a future trial. There is likely to be a lot more to this

 

[fishwomp]

[..]
Obviously a low speed collision on the face of it is unlikely to end up in a criminal case, so my gut feeling is option 2 is the most likely. Kr something along the lines of third party involvement
[..]

Having a collision is not a prerequisite to arrest. Endangering the safety of persons being conveyed upon a railway has been on the statute book since 1861 offences against the person act - 'endangering' not 'causing something bad to happen'. There are many ways that can happen, and many people - railway workers and not - that can be prosecuted for it.

At this point, there have been some spectacularly ill informed contributions to this thread, and some frankly embarrassing assertions about BTP. BTP may have arrested Mr Happy on the Grassy Knoll for all we know although it seems unlikely, it was clearly Lord Lucan.

We'll find out more in the coming days. Let's leave it at that.

 

[NSEWonderer]

Way to early to speculate. Could have been an individual breaking into the cab, an individual with a laser outside etc. Although at much higher speeds I do remember the BTP were said to have arrested the driver of the Enfield Town buffer collision under similar "Endangerment of the railway" terms but that was more so preceeding a drug and alcohol testing of sorts. BTP clearly mentioned then however who they'd arrested and for what reason, anyway the good thing is that no one was hurt from the apparent reports then.

Happened aswell just before evening peak rather than the morning peak which could have added more momentum.

 

[Bald Rick]

At this point, there have been some spectacularly ill informed contributions to this thread, and some frankly embarrassing assertions about BTP. BTP may have arrested Mr Happy on the Grassy Knoll for all we know although it seems unlikely, it was clearly Lord Lucan.

We'll find out more in the coming days. Let's leave it at that.

Hear, Hear!

 

[87electric]

Way to early to speculate. Could have been an individual breaking into the cab, an individual with a laser outside etc. Although at much higher speeds I do remember the BTP were said to have arrested the driver of the Enfield Town buffer collision under similar "Endangerment of the railway" terms but that was more so preceeding a drug and alcohol testing of sorts. BTP clearly mentioned then however who they'd arrested and for what reason, anyway the good thing is that no one was hurt from the apparent reports then.

Happened aswell just before evening peak rather than the morning peak which could have added more momentum.

Way too early to speculate? And then you go and speculate. Jeez, this thread.

 

[king_walnut]

I know of 4 incidents at my company over the past several years where a train has hit the buffers at a terminus station. None of them resulted in the BTP arresting them.

Someone else I know of had a spad in the yard and sent the train off some catch points. They weren't arrested either.

However, the guy who hit the buffers at Enfield in 2021 tested positive for drugs and was arrested and charged with endangering the safety of people on a railway.

Rather than some pie in the sky ideas about laser pointers, let's just apply Occams Razor and some common sense to this ...

 

[Harpo]

let's just apply Occams Razor and some common sense to this ...

As opposed to the hyopethesis with the most outrageous accumulated speculation?
There must be a (polite!) technical term for that other than utter b……..

 

[king_walnut]

As opposed to the hyopethesis with the most outrageous accumulated speculation?
There must be a (polite!) technical term for that other than utter b……..

Could be that the driver failed a D&A ... or it's equally as likely that a Russian spy was remote controlling an apache helicopter with a Delner coupler that was modified to have 400 lasers and Class 377 software and he pushed the train into the buffer from the rear.

 

[cf111]

Could be that the driver failed a D&A ... or it's equally as likely that a Russian spy was remote controlling an apache helicopter with a Delner coupler that was modified to have 400 lasers and Class 377 software and he pushed the train into the buffer from the rear.

This is ridiculous, it was actually a MI-24 helicopter.

 

[boiledbeans2]

After reading this entire thread, my conclusion isn't the BTP are useless.
It's the BBC which is useless. The BBC article in the first post is awful. No one understands what's going on.

 

[MotCO]

After reading this entire thread, my conclusion isn't the BTP are useless.
It's the BBC which is useless. The BBC article in the first post is awful. No one understands what's going on.

But it's given us 76 posts on this forum!

 

[PG]

As opposed to the hyopethesis with the most outrageous accumulated speculation?
There must be a (polite!) technical term for that other than utter b……..

It may not be technical but I think the polite term would be nonsense.

 

[MadMac]

Worth a read about a broadly similar incident, particularly the Inspector’s comments on the driver’s “no comment” stance (Paragraph 285 on): https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/HSE_Cannon1991.pdf

 

[NSEWonderer]

Way too early to speculate? And then you go and speculate. Jeez, this thread.

Should have a proper read again.. I've just hashed out random possibilities as clearly we dont have the evidence to state one, none of which are that of my own opinion hence why it's not speculation by definition since we're going there...

 

[Towers]

It is entirely normal for the BTP to become involved if a staff member has been found to be intoxicated on duty, there is nothing unusual about that scenario. Turning up to work a train p*ssed is an offence in itself, and staff members doing so can and have been put in front of a Magistrate for it, even where no incident has occured as a result.

There would very definitely have been BTP nearby already, and the collision would initially have been dealt with as pretty major incident, certainly within the station itself, so it’s entirely feasible that had the driver failed a test they would have been subsequently arrested. It has nothing to do with opportunistic BTP officers getting exciteable, it’s exactly what you would expect to happen under those circumstances.

Of course we don’t know what happened, he may have been as clean as a whistle and simply detained as he left the cab merely as a precaution, which would also be entirely reasonable following a collision in order to preserve evidence in the first instance.

 

[43066]

Of course we don’t know what happened, he may have been as clean as a whistle and simply detained as he left the cab merely as a precaution, which would also be entirely reasonable following a collision in order to preserve evidence in the first instance.

I wouldn’t say a driver being detained by the police when leaving the cab would be “entirely normal”, based on the low speed collisions I’ve been aware of. If the person was smelling of booze and/or failed a D&A test done by the company the police would be called at that point.

 

[Towers]

I wouldn’t say being detained by the police when leaving the cab would be “entirely normal”, based on the low speed collisions I’ve been aware of. If the person was smelling of booze and/or failed a D&A done by the company the police would be called at that point.

If a Constable happened to be there, perhaps before any management or other appropriate staff presence, they would likely know that a D&A was required in the immediate future. So placing the individual under arrest, albeit briefly, would seem reasonable to me?

I did say “entirely reasonable”, not “entirely normal”!

 

[43066]

If a Constable happened to be there, perhaps before any management or other appropriate staff presence, they would likely know that a D&A was required in the immediate future. So placing the individual under arrest, albeit briefly, would seem reasonable to me?

Not quite sure it would, to be honest, as there’s no real suggestion of criminality at that point. For me that would probably fall into the category of “over zealous”, and getting involved into something that is a railway management issue, although I agree that’s a possibility here.

I did say “entirely reasonable”, not “entirely normal”!

Ah yes, so you did .

 

[Towers]

Not quite sure it would, to be honest, as there’s no real suggestion of criminality at that point. For me that would probably fall into the category of “over zealous”, and getting involved into something that is a railway management issue, although I agree that’s a possibility here.



Ah yes, so you did .

But there is, I would think, in police terms, a reasonable suggestion of criminality? It’s one significant possibility? There’s the wider charge of endangerment, which could apply to circumstances other than intoxication - mobile phone use, unfit through undeclared fatigue or illness, etc etc. Any of those being applicable would mean that it is most certainly not just “a railway management issue”, but a potential crimescene. It takes time to establish whether anyone on board might be seriously injured, and so on. An arrest would also allow for a personal mobile device to be seized, for example, something which TOC management may struggle to achieve without the cooperation of the individual concerned.

I’ve no idea if BTP have a particular protocol for these occasions, but I wouldn’t find it unreasonable for them to act in the first instance. They are police, and they can’t really be blamed for thinking as such, being a railway colleague doesn’t and shouldn’t make you exempt from that. It’s a bit like saying a bus driver who just deroofed their vehicle under a bridge shouldn’t be arrested at the roadside because a manager turns up. The law extends beyond that. A person can be de-arrested instantly, but you can’t go back in time and preserve lost evidence.

*Edited to add that I very much hope the driver involved is fit, well and has a healthy return to their duties in swiftest manner, whatever the specifics of this unfortunate matter.

 

[43066]

But there is, I would think, in police terms, a reasonable suggestion of criminality? It’s one significant possibility? There’s the wider charge of endangerment, which could apply to circumstances other than intoxication - mobile phone use, unfit through undeclared fatigue or illness, etc etc. Any of those being applicable would mean that it is most certainly not just “a railway management issue”, but a potential crimescene. It takes time to establish whether anyone on board might be seriously injured, and so on. An arrest would also allow for a personal mobile device to be seized, for example, something which TOC management may struggle to achieve without the cooperation of the individual concerned.

I’ve no idea if BTP have a particular protocol for these occasions, but I wouldn’t find it unreasonable for them to act in the first instance. They are police, and they can’t really be blamed for thinking as such, being a railway colleague doesn’t and shouldn’t make you exempt from that. It’s a bit like saying a bus driver who just deroofed their vehicle under a bridge shouldn’t be arrested at the roadside because a manager turns up. The law extends beyond that. A person can be de-arrested instantly, but you can’t go back in time and preserve lost evidence.

*Edited to add that I very much hope the driver involved is fit, well and has a healthy return to their duties in swiftest manner, whatever the specifics of this unfortunate matter.

Put like that, perhaps you’re right. It just seems different to how these things are usually handled, although I do take the point that police may just happen to have been on hand when this event occurred, while they weren’t on the occasions I’ve been aware of.

Appreciate this is moving away from the incident being discussed, but it would be interesting to know what the BTP protocol is, for example can they demand a breath sample in the same way they can from a vehicle driver involved in a car/bus crash?

*Edited to add that I very much hope the driver involved is fit, well and has a healthy return to their duties in swiftest manner, whatever the specifics of this unfortunate matter.

Totally agree mate.

 

[PupCuff]

Appreciate this is moving away from the incident being discussed, but it would be interesting to know what the BTP protocol is, for example can they demand a breath sample in the same way they can from a vehicle driver involved in a car/bus crash?

Yeah, Transport and Works Act. A constable in uniform can require a sample of breath if they believe someone working on in a safety critical role is either under the influence, or where they have been involved in an accident or incident where an act or omission from them may have caused it. It would be an offence to refuse to undertake the test.

 

[Horizon22]

After reading this entire thread, my conclusion isn't the BTP are useless.
It's the BBC which is useless. The BBC article in the first post is awful. No one understands what's going on.

The BBC will only report on what is available to them and are unlikely to go much deeper. They are not a specialist railway reporter, nor are they the internal log which would likely have more info.

Most people will not care beyond the info in the article; this is a dedicated railway forum so of course people think it is light on detail!

 

[43066]

Yeah, Transport and Works Act. A constable in uniform can require a sample of breath if they believe someone working on in a safety critical role is either under the influence, or where they have been involved in an accident or incident where an act or omission from them may have caused it. It would be an offence to refuse to undertake the test.

Thanks - makes sense.

 

[66701GBRF]

But there is, I would think, in police terms, a reasonable suggestion of criminality? It’s one significant possibility?

if you want to ignore any possibility of mechanical failure then sure.