At or on

Well Paok there's an ever-so-slightly subtle diff. 'On' implies the station itself or parts thereof, or personnel therein, might have been involved

I hope the other fellas provide detail

In traditional British English, people are 'on' the station when they are actually within the station, inside the ticket barriers. Trains are 'at' the station when they are calling at it.

Here are two examples from the online edition of The Independent:

Theresa May has issued a rebuke to Donald Trump, after the US President suggested the person responsible for a suspected terror attack on a London Tube train was “in the sights of Scotland Yard”.

Responding to the terror incident at Parsons Green Tube station, he said that the internet was a terrorist "recruiting tool".

Should I conclude that both prepositions ('at' and 'on') may be used interchangeably in the above examples?

Thank you.

You may not so conclude. The first example is about an attack on (against) something (a train). The second is about an incident at a location (in a named place) (a station).

In the sentence below, should I use 'at' or 'on'?

Theresa May and Sadiq Khan were among the first to react to the reported terrorist incidents at / on London Bridge.

You decide. An attack at London Bridge would be an attack which happened somewhere in the district of London called London Bridge. An attack on London Bridge could either be an attack against the bridge itself (e.g. an attempt to demolish it) or an attack against something or someone else which took place on the bridge (on the road or pedestrian walkways which the bridge supports).

You need to appreciate the ambiguity of "attack on". An attack on something can be an attack directed against that thing - an attack on my reputation, on my book, on my speech, on America, on poverty, on disease, etc.

Don't you think that "incident at" and "attack on" are set expressions and, therefore, "at" is the right preposition to use in the sentence below?

Theresa May and Sadiq Khan were among the first to react to the reported terrorist incidents at London Bridge.

Thanks again for your understanding.

Paok, Cen will prob prov more sensible answer but I think collo would 'on,' esp since it's actually done 'on' the span

Cen doncha agr

That's not accurate. The "London Bridge" attacks took place in two locations: one in the roadway on the bridge itself, where a van was driven at pedestrians, and subsequently, after the van crashed, when its three occupants ran to an area near the south end of the bridge and attacked people with knives. That area is part of the London business district called "London Bridge", which is a strip along the south bank of the Thames between London Bridge and Tower Bridge. Thus 'at' London Bridge is more apt because attacks took place at different locations within the district.

Should I talk about the "London Bridge attacks" or the "London Bridge incidents"?

Official organisations such as the police, fire brigade, etc, tend to use professional language - 'incident' for everything from a massacre to a bicycle accident, 'casualty' for an injured or dead person (who may be called a 'fatality'). The incident was an attack, and the attack was an incident.

Golly Cen dunno what we'd do 'chout ya

You'd have to actually bestir yourselves to use Google?

My God Cen, No; las'time I did that it took me 4 hours to find a synonym for 'synonym,' what a syn; oh, dim'