Major Incident at Huntingdon (01/11/2025)

[norbitonflyer]

- to be able to brake from 120mph+ at a signal that has changed ahead of you from green to single-yellow,

As the driver had requested the unscheduled stop, he was probably braking already, despite the green signal, as he was expecting - indeed hoping - the route could be changed before he got there.
His situational awareness, in the dark in fairly featureless landscape, is nevertheless admirable, to get the train to a place ofcsafety .without overshooting, as quickly as possible.
The smoothness led one of the witnesses interviewed to believe it was the scheduled stoo at Stevenage.

 

[Steve Harris]

As the driver had requested the unscheduled stop, he was probably braking already, despite the green signal, as he was expecting - indeed hoping - the route could be changed before he got there.
His situational awareness, in the dark in fairly featureless landscape, is nevertheless admirable, to get the train to a place ofcsafety .without overshooting, as quickly as possible.
The smoothness led one of the witnesses interviewed to believe it was the scheduled stoo at Stevenage.

Apart from the northern approach to Huntingdon is anything but featureless. There are factories and Industrial estates on both sides of the railway north of the station plus a curve before that. The southern approach is completely the opposite with the river bridge and the A14 overbridge being the only main landscape features.

 

[Archvile]

I have no idea what you're talking about in regard to EBS to get the train moving again. Not on any train I've ever driven. I've always used the override until I can stop in a platform.

I've heard that on some older stock, there doesn't exist a holdover option at all. You're stopping, and the passcom needs manually resetting... It forms part of the train wire, after all.

If this isn't possible, EBS is the only workaround.

 

[357]

I've heard that on some older stock, there doesn't exist a holdover option at all. You're stopping, and the passcom needs manually resetting... It forms part of the train wire, after all.

If this isn't possible, EBS is the only workaround.

Ah yes - I didn't realise you're talking about older stock. Class 321s were a pain with a handle pulled in the rear unit as you were stuck where you were until you could get a line block to reset it as there was no gangway.

 

[Gloster]

I have avoided joining in this thread so far, but I do think that the signaller should also be credited. Faced with a very unusual request from the driver that was contrary to all normal safety procedures, s/he seems to have reacted quickly and carried out the request very rapidly. To make clear: a driver asking for a signal to be replaced in front of him and to be diverted to another line, presumably without stopping, is not normal. The signaller would have every reason for wanting to check that they have properly understood the message and that the driver is fully aware of such things as his location and that of the points, etc.

As far as the frequent complaints in the thread about confusing information in the media, which for a while seemed to be the main topic, just think of the situation. This happened late on a Saturday night when newsrooms are working with a minimum number of (possibly mostly junior) staff and the few correspondents who specialise in rail matters may not be available. LNER was, one hopes, not giving out much information and the emergency services were too busy dealing with the matter to give out detailed updates.

At the same time the newsrooms are probably being bombarded with tweets and the like, some of which may be accurate, some half-right and some inaccurate, sometimes deliberately. They have got to try and find a balance between repeating every bit of information they get or saying nothing until they get official statements. It is an impossible job. I know we seem to demand immediate gratification by being given news immediately in this modern world, but the media can’t give out accurate information until they receive it. Just accept that everybody is doing their best: if you don’t need (and I mean need, not want) to know urgently, be patient.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Apart from the northern approach to Huntingdon is anything but featureless. There are factories and Industrial estates on both sides of the railway north of the station plus a curve before that. The southern approach is completely the opposite with the river bridge and the A14 overbridge being the only main landscape features.

The immediate approach maybe, but less so around Conington, Woodwalton, Abbots Ripton where the call was made from

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

I have avoided joining in this thread so far, but I do think that the signaller should also be credited. Faced with a very unusual request from the driver that was contrary to all normal safety procedures, s/he seems to have reacted quickly and carried out the request very rapidly. To make clear: a driver asking for a signal to be replaced in front of him and to be diverted to another line, presumably without stopping, is not normal. The signaller would have every reason for wanting to check that they have properly understood the message and that the driver is fully aware of such things as his location and that of the points, etc

Should be safe, albeit unusual. A signal can always becset to red in an emergency, but the interlocking needs to time out before another route can be set, so if the driver had not been able to stop in time he would have overshot the signal, but the points could not have been moved until the train had either stopped or passed over them.

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

Prayers for the brave LNER staff member in a critical condition. I imagine they were attacked while trying to protect their passengers and colleagues. 800111 should well be named after them, with their permission of course.

800111 is the unit currently wearing the Poppy Day livery.

 

[DMckduck]

So we now have a dreadful situation where somebody who was not involved in the incident the 35 year old, was wrongly arrested.

More importantly, we have a member of staff in a critical state because of said incident.

The 35 year old would have been arrested, which upon further investigation was proven to be the wrong call. It would have been stressful for the person in question, but there are more important variables in play.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Should be safe, albeit unusual. A signal can always becset to red in an emergency, but the interlocking needs to time out before another route can be set, so if the driver had not been able to stop in time he would have overshot the signal, but the points could not have been moved until the train had either stopped or passed over them.

Hence my earlier post that the driver should be commended for a deep professional understanding of what his train could achieve and for the excellent performance of the 80x stock itself.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Hence my earlier post that the driver should be commended for a deep professional understanding of what his train could achieve and for the excellent performance of the 80x stock itself.

Absolutely.

 

[Steve Harris]

The immediate approach maybe, but less so around Conington, Woodwalton, Abbots Ripton where the call was made from

So which one of them was where "the call was made from", because it can't be all 3.

Besides, you still have the street lights in Woodwalton and Abbots Ripton (along with it's church) as features on the landscape. Plus you used to have the light pollution from USAF Alconbury as a guide. Yes the base is no longer there but as it is now Alconbury Weald with thousands of houses it's probably kicking out even more light pollution !

Plus you have the 2 curves in the line to also help a driver get his bearings in the dark. In fact, there's a reason why train drivers have to route learn in daylight as well as the dark, this incident is proof that it works and why it is necessary and it pays off when the brown stuff hits that spinning thing.

Even I have been down this stretch of line as a passenger in the dark and I've had a good idea where I am when looking out the window. It's really not as featureless as your trying to make out.

However it is commendable that the driver and signaller were both on the ball to get the route changed so the train could be platformed in a timely manner.

 

[sharpener]

I can pretty much assure you that the driver wasn't careering towards a red hoping it'll change on approach and that he won't trip the grids. This is especially important considering the close proximity of the train in front.

This was exactly my point upthread. To get into P2 he has above all to be prepared to come to a stand before the signal controlling the crossover and adopt a braking profile that will achieve that (overspeed grids as well). If he can achieve that, it buys him unlimited time for the signaller to set the route. Overrunning the decision point is disastrous to the plan whereas having to take power again is not so bad. So 1. start to brake 2. call signaller.

If the punters thought the result was a routine station call (albeit at Stevenage) then the decision-making under fire and implementation were flawless - perhaps as a result of military background - and show exemplary teamwork by both driver and signaller.

I experienced something a bit similar recently when I had a tyre blowout on lane 2 of the A505 and had to decide whether I could brake for an upcoming slip road without tearing the tyre off the the rim or causing a crash. It certainly sharpens the mind!

 

[Gloster]

Should be safe, albeit unusual. A signal can always becset to red in an emergency, but the interlocking needs to time out before another route can be set, so if the driver had not been able to stop in time he would have overshot the signal, but the points could not have been moved until the train had either stopped or passed over them.

I was making the point that it is contrary to a signaller’s normal instincts to put a signal back to Danger and move a set of points when a train is closely approaching it, even allowing for the delay caused by approach locking. A signaller would normally want to be quite sure that s/he has come to a ‘proper understanding’ of what the driver wants and that the driver is fully aware of where he is and what his request involves. The driver presumably wanted to avoid the train the being brought to a stand and the signaller must have acted very quickly after being contacted, rather than asking several questions so as to be sure that what the driver wants is the best thing to do.

Playing safe and not doing anything unusual until everybody fully understands what is going to happen is why the railway has a good safety record, but it can take up time.

 

[bramling]

I was making the point that it is contrary to a signaller’s normal instincts to put a signal back to Danger and move a set of points when a train is closely approaching it, even allowing for the delay caused by approach locking. A signaller would normally want to be quite sure that s/he has come to a ‘proper understanding’ of what the driver wants and that the driver is fully aware of where he is and what his request involves. The driver presumably wanted to avoid the train the being brought to a stand and the signaller must have acted very quickly after being contacted, rather than asking several questions so as to be sure that what the driver wants is the best thing to do.

Playing safe and not doing anything unusual until everybody fully understands what is going to happen is why the railway has a good safety record, but it can take up time.

It seems the driver must have been extremely clear and precise in his communications in order for this all to have happened seemingly seamlessly. An example of why it’s so important for the industry to recruit people with good comms ability.

Reminds me of the “runaway train” incident on LU. One person on site realised what had happened, and more importantly what was going to happen, and in one sentence imparted this to the control room in precise terms. Likewise the person taking the call immediately understood the message, and was able to prevent a collision, bearing in mind at one point the two trains were only a couple of hundred metres apart.

 

[dk1]

It seems the driver must have been extremely clear and precise in his communications in order for this all to have happened seemingly seamlessly. An example of why it’s so important for the industry to recruit people with good comms ability.

It’s drilled into all of us now even those like me dating back to the 80s where everything between signaller & driver was all very cosy and matey until 10-15 years ago. Can’t say that when I originally passed out that either fully knew the phonetic alphabet if I’m honest.

 

[brad465]

Can we raise a glass to @ainsworth74 for his watchful eye on the forum yesterday evening when there were at one point over 1000 people viewing this thread?

Hopefully those visitors lurking will have seen that Rail Forums is the antithesis to the cesspool that is Twitter/X.

I hope he gets a nice Christmas bonus from the forum for that

 

[357]

It seems the driver must have been extremely clear and precise in his communications in order for this all to have happened seemingly seamlessly. An example of why it’s so important for the industry to recruit people with good comms ability.

Fully agree. Within the last couple of years I've noticed signallers answer an emergency or priority call by stating my own headcode, clarifying they can see me on their diagram by telling me where I am, and saying "pass your message".

For me, who's normally got multiple things going on at the same time when making one of these calls, it makes my life much easier to jump right into what the problem is and telling the signaller what I need from him/her.

 

[stu]

Of course they might but they are the state broadcaster and we expect them to get things right. If it is not the correct information you should correct the BBC by complaining or contacting them.

FYI, the BBC are not a state broadcaster. But rightly, because of their position, we do expect them to get it right.

 

[sharpener]

The driver presumably wanted to avoid the train the being brought to a stand

Ideally yes but it is not essential for the plan for getting into P2 to succeed

and the signaller must have acted very quickly after being contacted, rather than asking several questions so as to be sure that what the driver wants is the best thing to do.

before he can set the new route the signaller has the whole two-minute timeout period to establish all that. To begin with he only has to consider the risks of unsetting the original one. These don't seem to be very great, AIUI the driver's action combined with approach control will avoid a SPAD under normal railhead condx.

Can’t say that when I originally passed out that either fully knew the phonetic alphabet if I’m honest.

With a military background the one thing you can be sure of is that the driver knew it backwards.

 

[Bald Rick]

I hope he gets a nice Christmas bonus from the forum for that

Seconded!

 

[dk1]

Ideally yes but it is not essential for the plan for getting into P2 to succeed

before he can set the new route the signaller has the whole two-minute timeout period to establish all that. To begin with he only has to consider the risks of unsetting the original one. These don't seem to be very great, AIUI the driver's action combined with approach control will avoid a SPAD under normal railhead condx.

With a military background the one thing you can be sure of is that the driver knew it backwards.

Oh yes of course and so do we now. Wasn’t the same a few years ago though.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Even I have been down this stretch of line as a passenger in the dark and I've had a good idea where I am when looking out the window. It's really not as featureless as your trying to make out.

However it is commendable that the driver and signaller were both on the ball to get the route changed so the train could be platformed in a timely manner.

Point taken - and it is of course the drievr's awareness of where he was and what his train was capable of, and his composure under pressure, that got the message to the signaller to allow him to stop the train at the earliest opportunity. (presumably an unscheduled stop at St Neots would have been his Plan B if the route couldn't be re-set in time, or if 9J61 was unable to be despatched from the platform for any reason.

Indeed, RTT shows 9J61 departing Huntingdon slightly ahead of schedule 19:39:45 instead of 19:40 in the WTT - were the crew asked to leave early to clear the platform for the incoming 1Y90, or is this just an artefact of the precision of RTT only being to the neraest quarter minute?

Did the emergency services have time to reach the station before the train did?

 

[Meglos]

I assume the Railway will hold their own internal inquiry of the incident to assertain what went right, and what they can learn (if anything) to improve the rules if something similar happens in the future. That would involve LNER, the train staff, the station staff at Huntingdon, and Network Rail (specifically at the York ROC).

Am I right in assuming that although this was wasn't an accident, or that those injured weren't due to the railway's proceedures, it will still be lead by the RAIB?

 

[Trainguy34]

Indeed, RTT shows 9J61 departing Huntingdon slightly ahead of schedule 19:39:45 instead of 19:40 in the WTT - were the crew asked to leave early to clear the platform for the incoming 1Y90, or is this just an artefact of the precision of RTT only being to the neraest quarter minute?

I would guess it's just the 30 second early door close and the driver being quick off the mark.

 

[Bald Rick]

Indeed, RTT shows 9J61 departing Huntingdon slightly ahead of schedule 19:39:45 instead of 19:40 in the WTT - were the crew asked to leave early to clear the platform for the incoming 1Y90, or is this just an artefact of the precision of RTT only being to the neraest quarter minute?

The latter.

Am I right in assuming that although this was wasn't an accident, or that those injured weren't due to the railway's proceedures, it will still be lead by the RAIB?

I’d be very surprised if RAIB were involved. This is a police matter.

 

[Dave W]

I assume the Railway will hold their own internal inquiry of the incident to assertain what went right, and what they can learn (if anything) to improve the rules if something similar happens in the future. That would involve LNER, the train staff, the station staff at Huntingdon, and Network Rail (specifically at the York ROC).

Am I right in assuming that although this was wasn't an accident, or that those injured weren't due to the railway's proceedures, it will still be lead by the RAIB?

I can't see what remit RAIB would attend under.

Even when RAIB conduct an investigation this doesn't preclude parts of the industry holding their own internal review - I would be surprised if LNER didn't review events to see if there are any lessons to be learned. Ditto NR. But not a priority right now, of course.

 

[dk1]

One thing that I noticed on live TV reports from Peterborough station today and frequently when I pass through is how often the ticket gates are left wide open. Not saying that would’ve stopped last nights attacker passing through but has always seemed odd how it is the case at this particular station.

 

[Steve Harris]

I would guess it's just the 30 second early door close and the guard being quick off the mark.

I didn't know Thameslink services had a guard ! I could swear Huntingdon station had been DOO since it was electrified, how wrong am I !!

 

[Trainguy34]

I didn't know Thameslink services had a guard ! I could swear Huntingdon station had been DOO since it was electrified, how wrong am I !!

I completely forgot DOO was a thing quite honestly, in which case it was the driver being quick off the mark. Duly edited, thanks for pointing it out!

 

[jfowkes]

I assume the Railway will hold their own internal inquiry of the incident to assertain what went right, and what they can learn (if anything) to improve the rules if something similar happens in the future. That would involve LNER, the train staff, the station staff at Huntingdon, and Network Rail (specifically at the York ROC).

Am I right in assuming that although this was wasn't an accident, or that those injured weren't due to the railway's proceedures, it will still be lead by the RAIB?

I asked this earlier today, @KevinBrum12 replied:

I don't think it would be the purview of the Rail Accidents Investigations Branch, but their opposite numbers at the Rail Safety and Standards Board.

I'm tempted to say that some kind of report should be produced by some railway body, if only as an example of best practice and training working as intended.

 

[Hadders]

I completely forgot DOO was a thing quite honestly, in which case it was the driver being quick off the mark. Duly edited, thanks for pointing it out!

It's not unusual for Thameslink trains to leave a few seconds early. Posters at stations advertise that doors close 15 seconds before departure.