An accident involving a train occurred in the Volgograd region, attributed to a KamAZ truck driver who violated traffic rules at a railway crossing. The incident is described in detail by the Russian Railways Telegram channel.
The report states that the car driver disregarded standard traffic rules and entered the crossing ahead of an approaching train that had a fully functioning warning system. The locomotive crew followed safety protocols, taking all necessary precautions in line with established instructions.
Despite the driver’s application of emergency braking, the collision could not be avoided because the train was very close to the vehicle when the brakes were engaged. The locomotive was traveling at a speed of around 65 km/h at the time of impact.
Russian Railways emphasized that the railway crossing in this area is highly visible from a distance, and the train’s approach visibility extends for more than one kilometer. This visibility makes the failure of the vehicle to stop even more surprising, given the clear signals and warning devices at the crossing.
Earlier, a KamAZ driver named in connection with the Volgograd collision stated that he did not have time to slow down before he started to move across the crossing, suggesting a misjudgment of distance or a delayed reaction.
Eight carriages of the Kazan–Adler train, service number 491, derailed in the Volgograd region on July 29 following the impact with the KamAZ truck. Approximately 100 people were injured, including six children. Rail traffic was halted at the scene to allow emergency response teams to assess the situation and secure the area.
Subsequent updates indicated that both the KamAZ driver and the train operator survived the crash, though the event prompted a renewed review of crossing safety measures and driver compliance near active rail lines. The incident has drawn attention to the ongoing challenge of ensuring that heavy vehicles comply with crossing signals in busy corridors.
Authorities noted that the KamAZ involved in the Volgograd collision faced legal scrutiny over outstanding debts, reflecting broader concerns about vehicle operation and accountability in road-rail interaction. Investigations were understood to be ongoing as officials and rail safety experts assess contributing factors and potential preventive measures for future incidents.