According to the news report I heard, the timeline was:

    20.30                                 Depart Newcastle
    2300 (approx)                    Stopped at Grantham
    2 hours later (i.e. 0100)     Departed Grantham
    0245 or 0315                     Arrive KX

Questions:

1.  Does it take 2 hours to arrest 2 people on a train?  If so, why?
2.  Why such a long time Grantham to KX?

Envo

"Envo"  wrote in message 
news:DWcGe.78953$G8.24634@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

> According to the news report I heard, the timeline was:
>
>    20.30                                 Depart Newcastle
>    2300 (approx)                    Stopped at Grantham
>    2 hours later (i.e. 0100)     Departed Grantham
>    0245 or 0315                     Arrive KX
>
> Questions:
>
> 1.  Does it take 2 hours to arrest 2 people on a train?  If so, why?


Passengers were detrained at Grantham while the train was searched.

-- 
*** http://www.railwayscene.co.uk/ ***
Rich Mackin (rich-at-richmackin-co-uk)
MSN: richmackin-at-hotmail-dot-com

> 1.  Does it take 2 hours to arrest 2 people on a train?  If so, why?


There are probably no firearms trained officers available at Grantham on 
a 24/7 basis as it is not considered a 'high risk' area for any major 
felonies. They would have to be called in from [most likely] Nottingham 
or Peterborough.

http://www.upmystreet.com/local/police-crime/figures/l/Grantham.html


> 2.  Why such a long time Grantham to KX?


No idea at the moment but possibly planned possessions for NR to 
undertake remedial work on OHL, S & T, or even something as mundane as 
painting a footbridge that had started before the incident.

Perhaps driver was replaced due to being 'out of hours' or needed a pnb?

Mark F

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:24:35, "Envo"
 wrote:

>
>1.  Does it take 2 hours to arrest 2 people on a train?  If so, why?


Sometimes.  Because the BTP are so thinly spread; the officers who
made the arrest may have come from some distance away.  If you watched
the series "Rail Cops", you will have noted how much time officers
sometimes spend travelling from one call to another.

If they know they can't get there in a reasonable time, the BTP
sometimes ask the local "plod" to attend on their behalf.

Paul Harley

-- 
Remove "eeek" to contact me!

Paul Harley  wrote:


>On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:24:35, "Envo"
> wrote:
>>
>>1.  Does it take 2 hours to arrest 2 people on a train?  If so, why?
>
>Sometimes.  Because the BTP are so thinly spread; the officers who
>made the arrest may have come from some distance away.  If you watched
>the series "Rail Cops", you will have noted how much time officers
>sometimes spend travelling from one call to another.
>
>If they know they can't get there in a reasonable time, the BTP
>sometimes ask the local "plod" to attend on their behalf.



Perhaps the Police did not want to invite suspicion by making an
unscheduled stop to arrest the two suspects.

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 00:26:42 +0100, Tony Polson  wrote:


>Paul Harley  wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:24:35, "Envo"
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>1.  Does it take 2 hours to arrest 2 people on a train?  If so, why?
>>
>>Sometimes.  Because the BTP are so thinly spread; the officers who
>>made the arrest may have come from some distance away.  If you watched
>>the series "Rail Cops", you will have noted how much time officers
>>sometimes spend travelling from one call to another.
>>
>>If they know they can't get there in a reasonable time, the BTP
>>sometimes ask the local "plod" to attend on their behalf.
>
>
>Perhaps the Police did not want to invite suspicion by making an
>unscheduled stop to arrest the two suspects.  


Why do we have the British "Transport" Police? We don't have the
British "Supermarket" Police or the British "Hospital" Police. Why not
just have "the police", period? Think of all the duplication of
effort, intelligence, budgeting, form-filling, etc. The waste must be
huge.

MM

MM wrote:

> Why do we have the British "Transport" Police? We don't have the
> British "Supermarket" Police or the British "Hospital" Police. Why not
> just have "the police", period? Think of all the duplication of
> effort, intelligence, budgeting, form-filling, etc. The waste must be
> huge.


If you used Home office forces to Police the network you'd find that
the moment something needed a few more officers they'd take them off
the station and you'd end up with no one being there and there would be
no visible presence. You'd need some kind of 'ring fenced' resource.
Although  for most of the country you'd probably not notice a
difference !  ;-)
That all said, the numbers of BTP officers outside of London means that
they are spread very very thin. The areas covered by each Station are
huge.
BTP will not respond to a grade 1 job if they are more than something
like 30 minutes away, which makes sense because the chances of anyone
still being there by the time they get there is pretty low and its not
worth the risk to other road users of blue lighting 30 miles for
nothing. I guess if they are too far away they get the local force to
go and nick anyone needed and then take the body over and do the
investigation.

"Dave Babb"  wrote in message 
news:1122624420.310558.324670@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>
> MM wrote:
>> Why do we have the British "Transport" Police? We don't have the
>> British "Supermarket" Police or the British "Hospital" Police. Why not
>> just have "the police", period? Think of all the duplication of
>> effort, intelligence, budgeting, form-filling, etc. The waste must be
>> huge.
>
> If you used Home office forces to Police the network you'd find that
> the moment something needed a few more officers they'd take them off
> the station and you'd end up with no one being there and there would be
> no visible presence. You'd need some kind of 'ring fenced' resource.
> Although  for most of the country you'd probably not notice a
> difference !  ;-)
> That all said, the numbers of BTP officers outside of London means that
> they are spread very very thin. The areas covered by each Station are
> huge.
> BTP will not respond to a grade 1 job if they are more than something
> like 30 minutes away, which makes sense because the chances of anyone
> still being there by the time they get there is pretty low and its not
> worth the risk to other road users of blue lighting 30 miles for
> nothing. I guess if they are too far away they get the local force to
> go and nick anyone needed and then take the body over and do the
> investigation.
>

You also need to have personnel with trackside knowledge (I presume they 
have PTSs etc?).
Brian

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 08:33:31 +0100 someone who may be MM
 wrote this:-


>Why do we have the British "Transport" Police?


Because the railway companies created police forces to control
trains and supervise good order on their systems.

The railway companies also owned lots of docks and until ISTR the
1980s the BTP operated in these as well. However, with privatisation
they were replaced by the likes of Securicor.

Given the somewhat unique dangers of railways I think there is still
a role for the BTP. They were in danger of suffering the same fate
as those in the docks a few years ago, but I am told they have now
pulled their socks up.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

"Dave Babb"  wrote >

> If you used Home office forces to Police the network you'd find that
> the moment something needed a few more officers they'd take them off
> the station and you'd end up with no one being there and there would be
> no visible presence. You'd need some kind of 'ring fenced' resource.


It wouldn't surprise me if there was soon a review of the policing of the
London Underground - there may be advantages for this to be carried out by a
division of the Metropolitan Police rather than a division of BTP.

Peter

BH Williams wrote:


> >
> You also need to have personnel with trackside knowledge (I presume they
> have PTSs etc?).
> Brian


I would presume that BTP are subject to the same drink and drugs
screening as other PTS holders (assuming they do hold this), wheras I'm
pretty sure other police don't get tested normally.

If the normal police were to take over the BTP role, this would
effecively force all police officers to comply with the railway drink
and drugs policy. Wheras this this wouldn't be a bad thing as such, I'm
sure that there would be resistance to it as there would be in any
other industry.

Not commenting at all on how justified this resistance would be, many
other industries do have routine testing, but I can understand existing
employees in any job suddenly being forced to comply with any policy to
have some grounds for resistance.

The thing that annoys me most about BTP is the fact they have no
Firearms Officers. The amount of times I've been to a Grade 1 job that
BTP can't deal with because they're not armed...

In message <WhdGe.5323$SO4.837@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>, at 22:49:26 on 
Thu, 28 Jul 2005, mark  remarked:

>> 1.  Does it take 2 hours to arrest 2 people on a train?  If so, why?
>
>There are probably no firearms trained officers available at Grantham 
>on a 24/7 basis as it is not considered a 'high risk' area for any 
>major felonies. They would have to be called in from [most likely] 
>Nottingham or Peterborough.


Reports the following morning consistently referred to Lincolnshire 
police. But finding some armed ones probably did take a while.
-- 
Roland Perry

Boredom wrote:

> The thing that annoys me most about BTP is the fact they have no
> Firearms Officers. The amount of times I've been to a Grade 1 job that
> BTP can't deal with because they're not armed...


There were 2 BTP Officers with guns similar to this
http://www.pbase.com/thenothing/image/46707720
at Aylesbury station the other night. Unless of course they belonged to
another force and had just nicked BTP flourescent jackets.

In article , MM
 writes

>On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 00:26:42 +0100, Tony Polson  wrote:
>
>>Paul Harley  wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:24:35, "Envo"
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>1.  Does it take 2 hours to arrest 2 people on a train?  If so, why?
>>>
>>>Sometimes.  Because the BTP are so thinly spread; the officers who
>>>made the arrest may have come from some distance away.  If you watched
>>>the series "Rail Cops", you will have noted how much time officers
>>>sometimes spend travelling from one call to another.
>>>
>>>If they know they can't get there in a reasonable time, the BTP
>>>sometimes ask the local "plod" to attend on their behalf.
>>
>>
>>Perhaps the Police did not want to invite suspicion by making an
>>unscheduled stop to arrest the two suspects.  
>
>Why do we have the British "Transport" Police? We don't have the
>British "Supermarket" Police or the British "Hospital" Police. Why not
>just have "the police", period? Think of all the duplication of
>effort, intelligence, budgeting, form-filling, etc. The waste must be
>huge.
>
>MM

1.  Surely this is a very delicate matter arresting suspected terrorists
which could be suicidal. The persons may be armed and decide to try to
shoot there way out, with several potential passengers caught in the
cross-fire. Or they may have a bomb, and take out the train, station and
everyone else at the same time. 

I understand when the train was halted pax were advised a track fault
ahead, while they awaited the Police.

2. I am not sure how the BTP came about but presumably having a force
focussed on transport issues (particularly the workings of a railway
system) allows them to be more effective than the local bobby.



-- 
Al

"Alan Osborn"  wrote

>
> 2. I am not sure how the BTP came about but presumably having a force
> focussed on transport issues (particularly the workings of a railway
> system) allows them to be more effective than the local bobby.
>

BTP can trace the history of Railway Police back to the Liverpool &
Manchester Railway.
http://www.btp.police.uk/History%20Society/Publications/History%20Society/The%20history/History%20of%20Policing%20the%20Railways.htm
In the early days Railway Police had among their duties those later carried
out by signallers (do drivers still address signallers as 'bobby' when they
call them up on the SPT?), and on the Liverpool & Manchester as ticket
clerks (to travel you had to apply to a constable the day before for a
ticket, and if he was satisfied that your journey was for a 'just, lawful
cause' he would issue one).

Peter

BH Williams wrote:


> >
> You also need to have personnel with trackside knowledge (I presume they
> have PTSs etc?).
> Brian



They do have PTS.

In article <dcjb5r$g7o$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, Peter 
Masson  writes

>(do drivers still address signallers as 'bobby' when they
>call them up on the SPT?)


I believe so.

Ross?

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather                       | Home: 
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work)             | Web:  <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937                    | Work: 
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

Very doubtfull if "Bobby" still used on S.P.T's nowdays as majority now
subject to voice recorders  with regular
random auditing of quality of safety critical information protocol.

May be a few diehards still using old railway language but gradually
changing over to comply.

Wagn DC


Clive D. W. Feather wrote in message ...

>In article <dcjb5r$g7o$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, Peter
>Masson  writes
>>(do drivers still address signallers as 'bobby' when they
>>call them up on the SPT?)
>
>I believe so.
>
>Ross?
>
>--
>Clive D.W. Feather                       | Home: 
>Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work)             | Web:  <http://www.davros.org>
>Fax: +44 870 051 9937                    | Work: 
>Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:  

In article <LGtIe.30492$Ag3.2035@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>, david cockle 
 writes

>Very doubtfull if "Bobby" still used on S.P.T's nowdays as majority now
>subject to voice recorders  with regular
>random auditing of quality of safety critical information protocol.


Not even "Hello Bobby, driver of Wun Romeo Fife Niner at Kilo Six Six 
Six"?

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather                       | Home: 
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work)             | Web:  <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937                    | Work: 
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

david cockle  writes

>>Very doubtfull if "Bobby" still used on S.P.T's nowdays as 
>>majority now
>>subject to voice recorders  with regular
>>random auditing of quality of safety critical information 
>>protocol.


"Clive D. W. Feather"  wrote

> Not even "Hello Bobby, driver of Wun Romeo Fife Niner at Kilo 
> Six Six Six"?


Got to admit Clive, that would still be what I sometimes do. I 
believe very much that you should use careful and respectful 
proper radio procedures, but if the signalperson is responsive 
and friendly, then a friendly tone of voice with what I would 
consider a respectful nickname for the grade might seem 
appropriate.
Nev