The inspectorate does not provide a single explanation for the development, but says that more regular checks could have contributed to it. ILT has doubled its inspection capacity in recent years.

Most often, ILT finds that broken components, such as valves, cause the leaks. Fuels and oil, alcohols and other hazardous materials were most often leaked. Ethers and plastic resources did not show a notable increase in leakage incidents.

New inspection strategy expected to reduce incidents

ILT says that it intends to do more inspections during loading and unloading procedures in terminals. That should also decrease the number of leakages, the inspectorate says. DB Cargo Netherlands is happy with that plan, spokesperson Jelle Rebbers tells our colleagues at SpoorPro. “It will prevent irregularities being discovered on public infrastructure […] and that rail traffic needs to be stopped.” By taking up that position, DB Cargo represents a part of the rail freight industry that is supportive of ILT’s approach.

“By sharing targeted knowledge with all parties in the chain about the cause of the irregularity, we expect to achieve a substantial reduction in the number of irregularities”, Rebbers adds. “What would help us here is if the ILT were willing to share information about the nature of the leak more quickly with the sector. The confidentiality of this data, which in some cases is sensitive competition-wise, seems to be hindering the ILT in this regard. We are currently discussing this with the inspectorate.”

By contrast, Hans-Willem Vroon, head of the rail freight association RailGood, is not pleased with the ILT report. Vroon points out that ILT is very strict in its checks for leakages, so it also finds them more often. “Our wagon inspectors and train drivers sometimes also discover drop leakages. That is then taken care of very professionally.” In other words: not a reason for concern.

The RailGood head also questions the intensity of the Dutch ‘fixation’ on leakages compared to neighbouring countries. Other European countries do not nearly consider them as important as the Netherlands, says Vroon.

Reverse modal shift

The Netherlands’ focus on these leakages also has a negative impact on the Dutch rail freight industry. “Last June, there were strong complaints from Slovakia about the Dutch approach from wagon owners and industry”, the RailGood head states. “At the time, they were already threatening to avoid the Netherlands and to transport more by road.”

Moreover, rail operators cannot do much to resolve the problem, according to RailGood. The leakage problem often arises during loading and unloading, Vroon explains, and sometimes because there is a defect in the wagon and items have not been properly tightened or closed. “Parties that tend to cause this problem must be addressed by the competent authority and dealt with within the legal framework. This also applies elsewhere in Europe.”

ILT shared with RailFreight.com that 45% of the leakage cases in 2025 were found on foreign-origin trains (import) and 55% on trains handled in the Netherlands (export). Given the over 1400% increase in reported leakages since 2023, it logically follows that this surge cannot be attributed solely to careless operations during loading, unloading, or maintenance in the Netherlands. If domestic operations were the primary cause, we would expect a much higher share of leakages on export trains, which are handled within the country. Instead, the data suggests that the increase is likely due to another reason, such as a Europe-wide security issue or more frequent inspections and incident reporting in the Netherlands.

A common European approach

Both RailGood and DB Cargo advocate for a common European approach to the issue. RailGood believes that the Netherlands is disproportionately concerned about these “drop leakages”. DB Cargo, similarly, sees a divergence in approaches to the issue within Europe. The Netherlands can combat these incidents, but if European countries don’t follow suit, then the Dutch approach will only help for domestically formed trains.

For RailGood, the demand for checks also extends to other modes of transport, such as the road sector and inland waterways. “How often are there controls on tank trucks? How about venting gases on barges?”, the association rhetorically wonders.

According to the investigation, there were no acutely unsafe situations detected. However, the number of switches meeting the standards was lower (87.2 percent) than the national average (97 percent). The ILT wants ProRail to take action in the short term to make sure the switches at Kijkhoek meet the standard.

Risk analysis

The ILT also concluded that ProRail must always perform a risk analysis in the event of breaches of standards that may affect safety. The inspectorate believes that this is done insufficiently at Kijkhoek at the moment. For the remainder of this year, it will monitor when and whether the suggested improvements are successfully implemented.

Since the accidents of last year, the inspectorate has since been present at all planned construction work on the railroad track. From October 2018 these inspections were scaled down. Up till now, the ILT is still present at all repair work carried out after a failure. In addition, inspectors pay an unexpected visit twice a week at other activities.

Physical state

The general safety situation at Kijfhoek was also examined. To this end, the ILT investigated the physical state of the railway infrastructure beginning 2019. Switches, crossings/paths, tracks (100 m sections), ES welds, flyovers and relay boxes were inspected. This research shows that the quality of the railway infrastructure at Kijfhoek is currently sufficient.

In addition to switches that do not meet ProRail’s standards, the ILT also sees that the wear and tear of rail objects is higher due to heavy goods transport than in the rest of the Netherlands. The inspectorate therefore wants to see changes at ProRail in the short term.

Investigation

On Wednesday, the Dutch State Secretary for Infrastructure and Water Management and ProRail received the research results. The results of a study by the Crisislab commissioned by ProRail were also submitted to the Lower House this week.

On 15 June a wagon carrying dangerous goods rolled down a hill, colliding with a flat wagon. The flat wagon derailed as a result. It was the fourth accident that took place in less than two months, urging the ILT to start an investigation into the safety situation at the site. ProRail commissioned an independent investigation into the safety culture at Kijfhoek.

Also read:

• Measures to improve safety at Dutch classification yard Kijfhoek
• Concerns over safety Dutch classification yard Kijfhoek

The ILT presented the 2017 Annual Report on Railway Safety, concluding that it considers the Dutch railway network to be safe. The Netherlands ranks 6th in Europe in terms of rail safety. However, there are certain measures that could be taken to increase the level of safety. The most significant difference could be made by reducing the number of level crossings, the ILT argues.

Level crossings

In 2017, twelve fatalities were reported, of which half were on a level crossing. Moreover, three fatalities occurred alongside a track. Level crossings are not only considered a risk for road traffic, but they also offer unauthorised access to the track, the ILT pointed out.

The Netherlands currently has almost 2,500 level crossings. Over the past few years, several crossings have already been lifted, with the cancellation of another 17 in 2017. But more efforts are needed in securing the remaining crossings, the report reads. On the same day that the report was presented, the Dutch State Secretary Stientje van Veldhoven of Infrastructure and Water Management announced the ambitious plan to bring to zero the number of unsecured crossings within five years, by either securing them or closing them.

Train drivers

The professional competence of train drivers is insufficiently guaranteed by rail companies. This is necessary to prevent incidents on the track. Several incidents occurred in the country, where a train driver did not react correctly to signals from train security. This created dangerous situations. For example, in the first half of 2018, drivers of railway company Keolis crossed a red signal nine times.

Operators must not only have the right papers but also be able to apply the specific rules and safety systems of their own company when operating other trains, on other routes. Railway companies must invest in training programmes to update the knowledge of train drivers, and when recruiting new train drivers, these companies have to look at their practical experience, rather than only the driver’s certificates. Knowledge and experience are not or hardly tested, the impression of the candidate is more important. This means that there is ‘insufficient insight’ into the actual skills of the driver, the ILT recommends.

Damage reports

The ILT presented an additional report on the reporting mechanism of damaged rolling stock. When these damages exceed a certain norm, they are considered to be a risk and must be reported. In 2017, the number of such reported damage increased, after several years of a downward trend. The ILT urges railway companies to reverse this development.

The reporting mechanism is called Quo Vadis. In the past, accidents have occurred where certain damages had been detected, but not properly communicated, resulting in derailment. ILT pleads for a more efficient use of the data. For example, significant damage must be reported faster, and not only to the manufacturer but also to the operator running the rolling stock. In case of a damage report, all parties involved must communicate about the action taken, states the report.

Train inspection

Apart from these recommendations, the ILT expressed other concerns. It also represented a report about the companies certifying new trains on the market. These companies are not always unbiased and do not carry out the inspection in a sufficient manner. In order to save time and money for their clients, they do not always make the right choices, the report reads.

In another report, the ILT pleads for more time to prepare a concession when a railway company takes over passenger transport in a region from another company. More time will result in less pressure on the new railway company, which should ultimately lead to less chance of errors and other security risks.

Inspection

The Human Environment and Transport Inspectorate (ILT – Inspectie Leefomgeving en Transport) carried out an inspection of the area where the incident occurred, at Nieuwdorp in the municipality of Borsele, around 11pm. ProRail says the wagons involved are developed in such a way that they are strong enough to withstand incidents of this type  The wagons were recovered the following evening and further information about how the incident occurred will be provided by the ILT at a later date.