Thanks for posting that update, Stuving. A very sad and distressing incident. I wonder if the level crossing has an event recorder (data logger)? Not seen one mentioned in the reports you have linked to so far.
Initially, I understood
SNCF▸ 's comments on whether the level crossing operated properly to be based on recorded remote monitoring. However, I have not seen any clear statement of that; just references to what witnesses said. My assumption was based on the notion that keeping the crossing safe needs remote monitoring, at least of its power supply (including backup batteries, since there are press reports of thefts of those). Otherwise how can train drivers be told to proceed at caution?
The level crossing closure is triggered by the train at a treadle, as is its opening. I can't fathom quite how these are positioned, given the number of crossings, often close to stations. For example, on leaving Millas (where all trains stop) there is a crossing after 150 m, then the site of the accident after a further 740 m. The train, by the way, was Z 7369 - a 2-car
EMU▸ built in 1980-1984 by Francorail-ANF (now Bombardier). I also went searching for any safety-related text, e.g. a report or regulation, about on-board video recorders. I found none!
The line's signalling is very French - you might not recognise it as signalled at all. Information on this single track line is contradictory, but it's most likely to be CT (
cantonnement téléphonique) updated to CAPI-95 (
Cantonnement assisté par informatique). That means each block has a control point at each end (almost always a station), with a single signal controlling access to the block, and also interlocked with the points exiting a passing loop. Here, there is no loop from the junction at Le Soler to Ille-sur-Tet, and as I can see no signals I assume this is one block of nearly 20 km.
The operators (probably
chefs de gare) exchange messages to request the block, notify that a train has entered it, and confirm all of it has left at the other end. CT has just a telephone link, and a log book to record events, while CAPI has screens for the operators and a datalink, and records all transactions automatically. It (as CAPI-95, an update) also has a train detector that replaces the human eyeball component, and can stop a train entering without permission. The signals are not interlocked with CAPI!
So while you might expect some remote monitoring, most likely at the next station, it doesn't look as if there is any system that would record it.