As pointed out by others, comparison between mil and civ incidents of this nature are facile. Civair and rail disasters are usually investigated by independent authorities with the power to impose their solutions on the situation, largely (fully?) irrespective of the commercial implications whereas mil incidents are obfuscated by security considerations and a lack of independence in the post-incident chain where "get the job done" is holy writ.
We can only hope (wouldn't wish such a disaster on someone once let alone twice) that we don't have an opportunity to compare SRB's modus operandi in a situation where his operations were at fault, such as if the A346 fuel incident had not ended up without damage to either persons or property. Instead I choose to assume that SRB would have been as forthcoming on that occasion.
SRB is also fortunate to have beem operating comparatively new railcars - not all current railstock in the UK might have survived this incident so well. Safety standards do evolve but normally for new vehicles, or sometimes for older vehicles given a mid-life update/rebuild, but unrefurbished older vehicles are usually grandfathered. One would hope that Nimrod MR4 for instance is being built to modern safety standards rather than those that prevailed for their predecessors.