London Bridge : Train hit buffers 13/12/24

[Tetchytyke]

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 just repeat the statements issued by the BTP and GTR. And- understandably- the BTP statement will likely have been light on details.

 

[Horizon22]

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

Well yes but as previous mentioned, the BTP don’t make a habit of routinely arresting staff. GTR can reasonably easily assess whether there was mechanical failure.

 

[Bryson]

The BTP statement is very precisely worded: "officers were called to the collision at 15:53 GMT"

This is making it clear that the officers were not witnesses to the event but were requested to attend by someone else. That someone could be anyone, a railway employee is possible but it could also be a member of the public - we don't know.

Once in attendance they would be required to act on what they find, in the case of an arrest they must have been given reason to believe that an offence had occurred. We still don't know if it was the driver or someone else who was arrested, nor what the outcome of the arrest was.

 

[185143]

The BTP statement is very precisely worded: "officers were called to the collision at 15:53 GMT"

This is making it clear that the officers were not witnesses to the event but were requested to attend by someone else. That someone could be anyone, a railway employee is possible but it could also be a member of the public - we don't know.

Once in attendance they would be required to act on what they find, in the case of an arrest they must have been given reason to believe that an offence had occurred. We still don't know if it was the driver or someone else who was arrested, nor what the outcome of the arrest was.

The train presumably involved arrived at 15:44, for the record.

It could even be a case of someone texting 61016 and saying "my train just crashed at London Bridge"?

 

[Towers]

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

Again, the police may arrest in order to preserve evidence, that is not an assumption of cause or guilt but merely a mechanism by which to secure the scene and those involved. Again, people can be de-arrested if and when it is established that they do not need to be further detained.

How are the BTP supposed to know whether a train suffered mechanical failure?! What they will know, is that it is possible an offence may have been commited.

 

[Mike_0ne]

worthy to add that London Bridge hub office is also home to the Kent EIU - a joint NR/BTP unit with a mobile MOM (they go by another name though), given my experience at my hub, they'd rock up and standard is to raise a log to control encase of medical needs/foul play/preserve site for investigation by relevant authority (raib in this case I'd assume).

 

[Towers]

worthy to add that London Bridge hub office is also home to the Kent EIU - a joint NR/BTP unit with a mobile MOM (they go by another name though), given my experience at my hub, they'd rock up and standard is to raise a log to control encase of medical needs/foul play/preserve site for investigation by relevant authority (raib in this case I'd assume).

Exactly this; I would strongly suspect that any arrest was precautionary, rather than accusatory!

 

[185143]

Exactly this; I would strongly suspect that any arrest was precautionary, rather than accusatory!

Of course, "I'm arresting you on suspicion of endangering the railway", interviewing and then releasing under investigation (from TOC, RAIB and BTP?) is a very different matter to a hypothetical "you stink of drink, you're coming with us sunshine!"

I seem to recall BTP attended the Lumo incident train when it arrived at King's Cross. Don't know how BTP dealt with the driver of that train but I remember reading several tweets from passengers saying the police had collared the driver at KGX.

 

[43066]

I seem to recall BTP attended the Lumo incident train when it arrived at King's Cross. Don't know how BTP dealt with the driver of that train but I remember reading several tweets from passengers saying the police had collared the driver at KGX.

The one that almost derailed at Peterborough?

I’m surprised that a. the driver continued, and that b. they were allowed to continue. Arguably a questionable decision by control.

(Not directly relevant to this thread, I realise).

 

[AlterEgo]

There is a surprising lack of information forthcoming about this incident.

Again, the police may arrest in order to preserve evidence, that is not an assumption of cause or guilt but merely a mechanism by which to secure the scene and those involved. Again, people can be de-arrested if and when it is established that they do not need to be further detained.

How are the BTP supposed to know whether a train suffered mechanical failure?! What they will know, is that it is possible an offence may have been commited.

Indeed. If I crash my car doing 100mph it’s possible that there was a mechanical failure, but it’s also probable too that an offence was committed. The police act based on reasonable suspicion.

 

[GordonT]

for concOf course, "I'm arresting you on suspicion of endangering the railway", interviewing and then releasing under investigation (from TOC, RAIB and BTP?) is a very different matter to a hypothetical "you stink of drink, you're coming with us sunshine!"

It will be interesting to see whether the location of such an incident governs the way in which the BTP respond i.e. if you have a buffer stop collision and don't want to be arrested make sure you have it at Wick rather than London Bridge.
(I realise that even now we don't know if it was the driver who was arrested nor if there was some additional cause for concern.)

 

[LalRattyMember]

Indeed. If I crash my car doing 100mph it’s possible that there was a mechanical failure, but it’s also probable too that an offence was committed. The police act based on reasonable suspicion.

I suspect if you crashed at 100mph the constabulary would certainly like a word

 

[physics34]

The BTP statement is very precisely worded: "officers were called to the collision at 15:53 GMT"

This is making it clear that the officers were not witnesses to the event but were requested to attend by someone else. That someone could be anyone, a railway employee is possible but it could also be a member of the public - we don't know.

Once in attendance they would be required to act on what they find, in the case of an arrest they must have been given reason to believe that an offence had occurred. We still don't know if it was the driver or someone else who was arrested, nor what the outcome of the arrest was.

It was the driver arrested, that is a fact. The specific reasons though have not been released.

 

[Discuss223]

The force of the collision (no idea what speed the train was doing) would have been distributed throughout the length of the train. Damage may have been done between the couplings of the other vehicles. TPWS is designed to ensure the train is not travelling above a predetermined speed, with the buffers designed to bring the train to a stand below that speed (which they obviously did).
If the train wasn't designed to absorb energy in this way, you could easily have fatalities. Look at Cannon Street 1991 as an example.

I never really thought about energy absorption. I believe the issue at Cannon Street was that the doors of the train had started to be opened (in those days, not all trains had interlock), and this changed the structural integrity of the unit causing it to weaken and crumple. Modern units have re-enforced steel pillars and thicker walls to be stronger against impact. The gangways may have compressed slightly (I believe they are spring loaded) but hopefully the steel brackets will have kept any customer unfortunate enough to be in the gangway safe (even if a little shaken).

 

[Towers]

The one that almost derailed at Peterborough?

I’m surprised that a. the driver continued, and that b. they were allowed to continue. Arguably a questionable decision by control.

(Not directly relevant to this thread, I realise).

Open Access TOCs aren’t overburdened with spare crew mid-route, I suppose.

 

[GordonT]

Open Access TOCs aren’t overburdened with spare crew mid-route, I suppose.

One of the best examples of understatement I've read in a long time.

 

[takno]

Open Access TOCs aren’t overburdened with spare crew mid-route, I suppose.

If I remember the RAIB report correctly the driver didn't continue. An off-duty driver who was on the train took it forward from Peterborough

 

[Northerngirl]

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

About the most truthful thing I've read on here for a long time

 

[Towers]

If I remember the RAIB report correctly the driver didn't continue. An off-duty driver who was on the train took it forward from Peterborough

That does a ring a bell, yes…

 

[43066]

Open Access TOCs aren’t overburdened with spare crew mid-route, I suppose.

True. Although that shouldn’t affect things, I’m sure it might, in reality.

If I remember the RAIB report correctly the driver didn't continue. An off-duty driver who was on the train took it forward from Peterborough

Thanks, that makes sense. Various unpleasant scenarios could flow from continuing:

1. Driver has another incident because he’s distracted thinking about the first (sadly happened to a colleague of mine not so long ago);

2. Driver ploughs into the buffers at Kings Cross, killing people, and it turns out he was drunk all along. How would that make LUMO look?

For a driver the best approach is always to come off immediately, following any kind of incident.

 

[800001]

Of course, "I'm arresting you on suspicion of endangering the railway", interviewing and then releasing under investigation (from TOC, RAIB and BTP?) is a very different matter to a hypothetical "you stink of drink, you're coming with us sunshine!"

I seem to recall BTP attended the Lumo incident train when it arrived at King's Cross. Don't know how BTP dealt with the driver of that train but I remember reading several tweets from passengers saying the police had collared the driver at KGX.

BTP attended the train at Kings Cross more for welfare to the customers, as people suffered injuries. BTP along with ambulance crews met the train.

As others have said, the Lumo driver was relieved of duty at Peterborough, and an off duty driver travelling on board, was authorised to take the train forward.

 

[357]

Open Access TOCs aren’t overburdened with spare crew mid-route, I suppose.

But are much more likely to be double-crewed due to short turnarounds in London.

 

[MadMac]

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.

I attended a briefing on the T&WA by a BTP Sergeant prior to its implementation in late 1992. The way it was explained as it related to alcohol etc. was that the “Rules of the Game” were the same: testing only “post-incident“ or where reasonable grounds for suspicion existed e.g. smell of alcohol or erratic behaviour. Limits were the same as Road Traffic Act and refusal was the same as a failure. Prior to that, no powers existed to require a specimen from someone driving a train, as explained by a Met Inspector in this inquiry: https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/MoT_Wimbledon1972.pdf

 

[NSEWonderer]

RAIB have confirmed they'll be investigating this incident: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/buffer-stop-collision-at-london-bridge-station

At around 15:45 on 13 December 2024, the 14:50 Southern passenger service from London Victoria to London Bridge collided with the buffer stops on platform 12 at London Bridge station.

The train entered the platform at a speed of 13.6 mph (21.9 km/h) and was travelling at a speed of 2.3 mph (3.7 km/h) when it collided with the buffer stops. There were no reported injuries to the train’s driver or the passengers on the train as a result of the collision, although minor damage was sustained by the train and the buffer stops.

Our investigation will seek to identify the sequence of events that led to the accident. It will also consider:

• the actions of the train driver involved and anything which may have influenced them
• the management of the train driver, including their training and competence
• the arrangements in place to manage and control the risks associated with buffer stop collisions
• any underlying management factors, including any actions taken in response to previous relevant safety recommendations.

Our investigation is independent of any investigation by the railway industry, the British Transport Police or the industry’s regulator, the Office of Rail and Road.

We will publish our findings, including any recommendations to improve safety, at the conclusion of our investigation. This report will be available on our website.

 

[PG]

RAIB have confirmed they'll be investigating this incident: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/buffer-stop-collision-at-london-bridge-station

View attachment 173612

Can the distance (if any) that the train travelled once it had collided with the buffer stops be (roughly) determined from the picture provided?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Can the distance (if any) that the train travelled once it had collided with the buffer stops be (roughly) determined from the picture provided?

Yes, because the stops on 12 and 13 are usually level with each other. If the distance between the front set of doors and the front of the train is known, that will be the answer. About 5 metres or thereabouts?

 

[PG]

Yes, because the stops on 12 and 13 are usually level with each other. If the distance between the front set of doors and the front of the train is known, that will be the answer. About 5 metres or thereabouts?

Thank you. I'm not familiar with such details at London Bridge, hence my query.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Thank you. I'm not familiar with such details at London Bridge, hence my query.

No problem. It's my regular way back to Epsom after a day out - usually off platform 13, as it happens...

 

[greatkingrat]

It shows the buffers did at least do their job of absorbing the impact.

 

[RGM654]

Was it ever confirmed who was arrested or what they were charged with?