Huntingdon incident (01/11/2025) - hypothetical questions regarding alternative possible actions

[jon0844]

Jumping from a train in the dark, possibly in panic, and running around - again in panic - does not seem like a safe plan in any scenario.

Then, you allow the offenders to potentially flee (or inflict more harm) and cause a manhunt that potentially means they're never found and can repeat their acts somewhere else.

Containing the train is the only logical option, even if more people come to harm. The alternative is far worse and in some incidents you have to make a hard decision.

 

[Steve Harris]

Unfortunately in this type of scenario sense goes astray, you would have people in a complete panic who would flee in any direction they could, which will include across running lines.

Besides panic, some would be in shock. But the outcome is still the same, as when panicked or shocked people will do unpredictable things... like running on railway lines.

 

[DNCharingX]

Considering the station v trackside evacuation argument (in general, not in relation to this specific incident),

I would like to think that evacuating at a station, thus giving an attacker potentially more victims (some of whom could just be waiting for a train), and also concentrating people in one area, would not be a wise idea if there was no police response ready at the station.

ESO + LB and disperse in all directions could be safer to reduce the number of victims* and there is merit to both sides of the argument.

*especially if the next station is some distance away, a delay in evacuating people could result in more victims.

 

[JordR]

In this case the balance seems to tip heavily towards stopping at a station because of the location where awareness of the incident was gained and the proximity of Huntingdon station.

Although obviously a difficult and awful decision to have to make, a few minutes longer on the train with the offenders to get to a station where police are immediately available seems preferable to stopping in the dark in the middle of nowhere with no support and I imagine no prospect of receiving it for double-digit minutes.

 

[jon0844]

I think there are clear reasons when evacuating a train might be necessary, such as when the train itself is the risk (e.g. it's on fire). I just don't think it applies for an incident like this.

 

[renegademaster]

Good chance if it wasn't brought into Huntingdon the 10 injured would have bled out and become 10 dead. Being able to to treat the victims as quick as possible is the most essential thing with stabbings. Stopping the train in the middle of nowhere would have done more harm than good and if(it's reading more like gang attack on another gang) the perpetrators where trying to inflict maximum casualties it wouldn't have stopped them just changed the venue

 

[baz962]

Just my two cents worth. Personally I hope I wouldn't panic as if you were aware what was happening and knowing that whatever you choose , could be viewed as right or wrong. However I think a station is the best bet and I wonder if it would go against my instincts to keep going . As mentioned upthread it is quite a drop when not on a platform and onto usually uneven ballast and you could have either Ac or Dc to contend with as well as getting other trains stopped. The thing is though that most people couldn't evacuate particularly quickly and the less fit and also elderly plus disabled or pregnant or children would be stuck and vulnerable and so either way , I wouldn't blame the driver. Platform for me.

 

[jon0844]

It would likely be carnage. While I'm sure some people would help others down, another consideration would be that some people would almost certainly be trying to take their bags down onto the line too.

 

[parkender102]

I'm quite surprised that anyone here has seriously suggested that the train should have stopped anywhere but at a station - the benefits in terms of detraining/rescue and emergency services' access are not remotely comparable to the middle of a field on a high-speed line in the dark!

I was thinking more along the lines of Terrorists or Attackers stopping the train somehow in the middle of nowhere and what the resultant action would be for the authorities. I agree that in this case that the Station was the best bet as Staff were still in control of the train with Huntingdon only minutes away

 

[Richardr]

A lot will depend on exactly how far away the station is. In this case the stations are pretty close, and if it is just a matter of a few minutes - it's what, just over ten minutes from Peterborough. The decision may well be different if the train really was nowhere near a station or where police and medics could be there in such a short time.

 

[35B]

I'm sorry, that is just not true. Anyone on a train with a knife wielding attacker on board is in severe mortal danger. Trackside is also dangerous but less dangerous than that provided a bit of sense is used.

However a station was by far the best option.

If that train was 25% full, that’s over 100 people aboard. 11 visited hospital of whom 4 have been discharged, and 2 are classed as “life threatening injuries”. Those numbers tell us that the risks to life and limb for those aboard were not as high as “anyone is in severe mortal danger”, and the risk assessment needs to be considered in that light.

Given that the assailants were quickly arrested on arrival, and that the emergency services believed that 9 people had life threatening injuries, it’s hard to see how a decision to stop between stations could have not increased the risks to life and limb.

While Huntingdon seems a pretty random station to use, it did have the massive advantage of being almost next door to the Cambridgeshire police HQ, so really well placed for a quick response. Those involved in the immediate decision making deserve huge praise for their speed of thought.

 

[mrcheek]

Deciding where to stop is of course a modern variation of the old trolley problem.
Sorry to sound like a lawyer here, but if a passenger is maimed by terrorists, the rail company isnt responsible.
But if they stop in the middle of nowhere in the dark and people get off the train onto the tracks and are then injured, imagine how much criticism LNER would now be getting

Of course, terrorist incidents will often involve some rather unpleasant trade offs.
When I underwent security and terrorism training, we were given the following scenario to consider:
There is a terrorist attack by armed persons on your building. You lock yourself in a room where you feel safe.
Then , someone you dont know, and cant see, starts banging on the door, pleading with you to let them in so they can be safe too.
What do you do?
Well, the official advice is this: Ignore them. Unless you know who they are, they could easily be a terrorist

 

[Bletchleyite]

If that train was 25% full, that’s over 100 people aboard. 11 visited hospital of whom 4 have been discharged, and 2 are classed as “life threatening injuries”. Those numbers tell us that the risks to life and limb for those aboard were not as high as “anyone is in severe mortal danger”, and the risk assessment needs to be considered in that light.

Given that the assailants were quickly arrested on arrival, and that the emergency services believed that 9 people had life threatening injuries, it’s hard to see how a decision to stop between stations could have not increased the risks to life and limb.

While Huntingdon seems a pretty random station to use, it did have the massive advantage of being almost next door to the Cambridgeshire police HQ, so really well placed for a quick response. Those involved in the immediate decision making deserve huge praise for their speed of thought.

As I said I agree with where it was stopped. What I'm taking issue with is people saying that if it had stopped outside of a station that those pulling the egress to escape a clear mortal threat would be in any way wrong to do so.

It is also utterly nonsensical to suggest that a knife man does not pose a mortal threat. Even though luckily nobody has died of this incident, it is still a potential mortal threat.

 

[andy33gmail]

Not suggesting this happened, but;

What would have happened if a passenger had pulled a green door release handle, in a bit of desperation to get off?

Would that trigger the alarm in the same way & mechanically release the door, or would that have forced the brakes on - which based on discussions above would have made the situation worse

 

[stevieinselby]

Risk of injury getting off the train versus risk of injury getting stabbed. There’s certainly a case to say the former is the lesser of two evils, as at least it’s a risk that’s - to some extent - within control.

Agree with the point about access for emergency services though. There’s no good answer for this scenario.

This is a classic example of game theory and the prisoner's dilemma.
For an able-bodied person with their wits about them, the personal risk to themselves may be lower if they were able to jump from the train rather than being kept aboard.
But the overall risk to everyone on the train, and potentially to people living in nearby communities if the attacker was able to escape, is dramatically higher if the train stops in the middle of nowhere where there is (a) no easy access for the emergency services, (ii) a high risk of people making unsafe evacuations, jumping and injuring themselves, falling on ballast or tripping over rails, or straying into the path of another train, and (3) the increased risk of the attacker getting away without being caught.

 

[NSEWonderer]

Not suggesting this happened, but;

What would have happened if a passenger had pulled a green door release handle, in a bit of desperation to get off?

Would that trigger the alarm in the same way & mechanically release the door, or would that have forced the brakes on - which based on discussions above would have made the situation worse

Green egress wouldn't apply brakes automatically, would be an alarm to driver however that its been attempted usually know as stage 1, if that isn't overrode by driver then usually the brakes come on and after a set speed the doors can be released by the egress, going into stage 2.

 

[bramling]

This is a classic example of game theory and the prisoner's dilemma.
For an able-bodied person with their wits about them, the personal risk to themselves may be lower if they were able to jump from the train rather than being kept aboard.
But the overall risk to everyone on the train, and potentially to people living in nearby communities if the attacker was able to escape, is dramatically higher if the train stops in the middle of nowhere where there is (a) no easy access for the emergency services, (ii) a high risk of people making unsafe evacuations, jumping and injuring themselves, falling on ballast or tripping over rails, or straying into the path of another train, and (3) the increased risk of the attacker getting away without being caught.

So a rational person is going to want to remove themselves from the situation ASAP. It’s certainly what I’d be looking to do, in the absence of any means of incapacitating the attacker.

It seems some passengers utilised toilets as a refuge, though hardly ideal, not least because a few toilets doesn’t provide a refuge for a whole train or passengers, and you’re probably in an even worse position if the attacker manages to get in.

 

[John Webb]

......If this had happened back in the days of the old communication cords and manual doors - the cord would have been pulled train would have halted and passengers could have self evacuated....

I have to point out that 'in the days of the old communication cords', pulling the cord did not fully apply the brakes and stop the train. The reasons for this are clear; you don't want to stop the train in a hazardous place, such as a tunnel, deep cutting or high viaduct, and it is preferable that the driver can move the train to a safe place, such as station or at least in the past, close to a signal box to make it easier to obtain help.

 

[stevieinselby]

So a rational person is going to want to remove themselves from the situation ASAP. It’s certainly what I’d be looking to do, in the absence of any means of incapacitating the attacker.

While a rational person might want to remove themselves from the situation, the likelihood is that giving them that opportunity would lead to far worse outcomes overall.

 

[paulmch]

Quick question for those who work in DOO land - if the incident had happened on a Thameslink train would the driver have stopped the train immediately once the passcom went off, or is there a similar convention to guarded trains where the passcom is held over until it can be investigated by the guard or at a more suitable location?

 

[HSTEd]

I'm sorry, that is just not true. Anyone on a train with a knife wielding attacker on board is in severe mortal danger. Trackside is also dangerous but less dangerous than that provided a bit of sense is used.

However a station was by far the best option.

In 14 minutes, in an environment where the victims cannot really escape, the attacker managed to wound only ten people.

Knives are not really able to create mass casualty events in the same way that a firearm can.
Any individual person might wish to take their chances on the lines nad hoping they don't get struck by a train, but in aggregate staying in the train is likely preferable from a safety standpoint.

Especially as the attacker will not be apprehended or disabled by police if they stop in the middle of nowhere because it will take police and ambulances 30+ minutes to arrive - assuming they don't get lost.

 

[andy33gmail]

The speed of response was excellent. The train would have been south of Conington loop when the 999 call was received, and there would have been very little time to divert the train into the platform at Huntingdon. The turnout is 40 mph and has some quite severe approach control.

In a situation this extreme, how much flexibility does the driver have with rules, including speed limits?

 

[NSEWonderer]

In a situation this extreme, how much flexibility does the driver have with rules, including speed limits?

It would be part of their route knowledge and assuming there was prior warning by the signaller of a diversion into Huntingdon platform 2 then even if the Driver didn't know the exact point speeds, they'd have either asked the signaller what it was or done a safe 15mph. It would have been potentially more complicated if the platform was a shorter platform vs the train length etc.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Nov 2025 ==

I'm sorry, that is just not true. Anyone on a train with a knife wielding attacker on board is in severe mortal danger. Trackside is also dangerous but less dangerous than that provided a bit of sense is used.

However a station was by far the best option.

What sense would passengers who've not been PTS trained have in the middle of nowhere, in the night and just having climbed almost a 1meter down a train in a panic to escape a knife wielding individual whilst at that time the train traffic around was still running? Passenger were much safe onboard the train and barricaded behind the intercarriage doors, in toilets etc than the tracks.

A nutter knife man getting trackside would be even more dangerous to passengers and attending response personnel / staff as now there more free to roam.

 

[OhNoAPacer]

So a rational person is going to want to remove themselves from the situation ASAP. It’s certainly what I’d be looking to do, in the absence of any means of incapacitating the attacker.

It seems some passengers utilised toilets as a refuge, though hardly ideal, not least because a few toilets doesn’t provide a refuge for a whole train or passengers, and you’re probably in an even worse position if the attacker manages to get in.

You only have to think about yourself, and maybe friends and family with you, the authorities have to think about everyone.

Obviously in such an imaginably horrific situation such as this, any action by any passenger on that train is totally beyond any criticism.

I would also not make criticism of persons in authority, be they police or railway, in decisions and actions they take, you can game the scenarios and do exercises but these can never fully replicate an actual incident. The only difference here is that there will be learning, what went to plan, what didn't, what could have been done differently etc.

 

[bramling]

You only have to think about yourself, and maybe friends and family with you, the authorities have to think about everyone.

Obviously in such an imaginably horrific situation such as this, any action by any passenger on that train is totally beyond any criticism.

I would also not make criticism of persons in authority, be they police or railway, in decisions and actions they take, you can game the scenarios and do exercises but these can never fully replicate an actual incident. The only difference here is that there will be learning, what went to plan, what didn't, what could have been done differently etc.

I’m not intending to criticise what was done, as clearly it seems to have resulted in what probably was the least worst outcome in the circumstances.

I wouldn’t however have blind faith in any kind of emergency response. If you look at a few situations where people have followed the crowd, it hasn’t always resulted in a good outcome. 9/11 for example, where people were told to remain in the south tower. Likewise the Austrian funicular disaster some years ago.

I’m afraid in this situation I’d be taking my chances with the ballast. I can’t think of any scenario where you’d be safer in a confined space than not, even taking into account how the railway environment is hazardous.

 

[43096]

I’m afraid in this situation I’d be taking my chances with the ballast. I can’t think of any scenario where you’d be safer in a confined space than not, even taking into account how the railway environment is hazardous.

Really? What about if the train stops in a tunnel. Or on a bridge. Or with a steep embankment.

Fortunately, it is not actually your decision on most stock now, as passcom activation can be over-ridden by the driver.

 

[andy33gmail]

I’m afraid in this situation I’d be taking my chances with the ballast. I can’t think of any scenario where you’d be safer in a confined space than not, even taking into account how the railway environment is hazardous.

I’d like to believe I’d take a break glass axe when they were facing away, but I doubt it’s realistic. I’d also run if the opportunity presented itself

 

[speedy1]

I feel uneasy reading this thread as it is giving a lot of information to a future attacker that almost certainly a train would not stop anywhere except at a station, which in many sections would give them plenty of time.

 

[Bantamzen]

It's probably too early to properly discuss what happened and what might have been done differently. There will be plenty of reporting on that in the week and months to come, which will give us all a better understanding of the hows and whys of the decisions made in the moment.

But my instinct fully backs the decision to get the service to a station where armed officers could be ready and waiting to arrest the suspects (as there were two at that time, with one subsequently being released without charge). Stopping on a busy high speed line in the middle of the countryside would have added countless logistical problems for all the emergency services, and would have given the attacker not only more time to attack additional people, but also get away from the scene. At least at Huntingdon the authorities could quickly contain the situation and get medical assistance to those who needed it. As I say we will learn more as time goes on, but for now I can only commend the quick thinking of all staff, as well as the incredible bravery of the crew members directly involved in this terrible incident. They doubtless saved many lives.

 

[andy33gmail]

I feel uneasy reading this thread as it is giving a lot of information to a future attacker that almost certainly a train would not stop anywhere except at a station, which in many sections would give them plenty of time.

One hopes that the benefits of improved understanding/appreciation of safety & processes by the travelling public would ought-weigh that.

For example, Air incidents including ones involving violent crime have been openly reported by the authorities & broadcast by Mayday

But I’m aware that people here might know domain-specific reasons to the contrary - if so I’d be happy to curb my curiosity