The job of the pilot has always been to deflect objects on the track, or at least to prevent them from getting underneath so as to raise the car/locomotive off the track. That requires considerable strength and rigidity. Ideally, consider the plow pilots used by many railroads on their locomotives, and the "cow-catchers" on old steam locomotives. Crash Energy Management involves deformation structures to reduce accelerations inside the train on impact with something large (like another train) - not the same thing.

Mandatory car analogy: in the mid-1970s to early 1990s, car bumpers in the US had to withstand a 5 mph barrier crash without damage; that dealt with minor bumps in parking lots and the like without engaging the body structure. It also produced ugly cars with heavy bumpers that adversely affected handling and often enhanced damage in higher-speed crashes, but low-speed crashes usually did result in no damage. Think of them as "pilots" for the cars of the day, though considering relative masses the pilot on a locomotive or cab car is negligible compared to the total vehicle, unlike the car bumpers.

I didn't see much "crush" in the pictures of the Ventura wreck, though what was in the news and here may not have been at the correct angle to show it. That's consistent with hitting something relatively light (a pickup truck and trailer doesn't have much mass compared with, even, a cab car). However, if the pilot didn't do the job of deflecting the truck or preventing large pieces from getting under the car it would have allowed derailment with or without crushing. Having the truck wedged into the track may have contributed to the mess, similar to the Glendale wreck.

I think we can trust NTSB to look at all the angles; they have come up with interesting findings before.