Adif-Renfe: the price of a divorce

BarcelonaTwenty-one years ago, on January 1, 2005, the separation of Renfe into two distinct companies—Renfe Viajeros and Adif—was officially formalized. This split, sponsored by a European Union (EU) that demanded measures to end the railway monopoly, was intended to liberalize the rail sector, increasing competition and benefiting passengers. Two decades later, however, the difficult coexistence between Adif and Renfe has also become a governance problem and, incidentally, yet another headache for passengers. The chaos of recent days in Catalonia has once again made this evident.

ARA has spoken with several people who, whether from the Moncloa Palace (the Spanish Prime Minister's residence), the Catalan government (Generalitat), or the companies themselves, have witnessed firsthand the impact that the relationship between Adif and Renfe has had on service delivery over these twenty years. All of them requested anonymity. With one exception, who describes the relationship between the two companies as "cordial," the rest confirm that clashes and mistrust between them are commonplace and often make day-to-day management more difficult. "The relationship is complicated," they emphasize.

To understand the origin of this situation, it's necessary to go back to the early 2000s, with the approval of the railway sector law by the government of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. Unlike countries such as France and Germany—which decided to create different divisions but under the same corporate holding company—in Spain—as in Italy and Portugal—Renfe is divided into two separate companies. And while Adif is responsible for the management and maintenance of the infrastructure, Renfe is in charge of the service. To put it simply, Adif is the tracks, the overhead lines, and the signaling, and Renfe is the trains.

At the outset of this division, a distinction emerged that would explain some future disagreements: Adif was filled with civil engineers, while at Renfe, many management positions were held by former train drivers. This segregation fostered a fragmented view of the service, where infrastructure operation was treated separately from the need to serve users. "There was a sense that those with the best skills went to Adif, and everyone else stayed at Renfe," explains a source with extensive experience in the sector. These misgivings have intensified as both companies have grown, fueled by the fact that for many years the State's railway priority has been Adif, and especially the construction of high-speed rail lines.

"The entire Adif structure is primarily incentivized to collect high fees—the price operators pay to use the infrastructure. This overloads the high-speed network, with the consequent impact on the tracks. It's a structure focused entirely on construction; it has no interest in the quality of service," he explains. The same source also questions why, despite the separation of the two companies, the Ministry of Transport remains the main shareholder in both, as this leads to some decisions being made with an eye toward the upcoming elections. According to him, the focus should be on a more business-oriented model, similar to Aena.

Day-to-day management

The mistrust between the two companies has often prevented them from working in tandem. To the point that, despite collaborating, they don't always share information. The account of a source who has attended numerous meetings with both companies highlights this lack of coordination: "They constantly blame each other." "When there's an incident, the first question is always whether the pantograph is at fault—and therefore the train and Renfe—or the overhead contact line—and consequently, the infrastructure and Adif," adds another source. These differences also arise when deciding on network improvements—often prioritizing larger investments in stations or track coverage over other areas. maintenance– or when making decisions about how to act in the event of an incident.

Without a higher coordinating body, Adif has the final say when it comes to deciding which train departs, which runs slower, or which stops. However, given that communication between companies is not the best, this generates dysfunctions that ultimately affect the user, who suffers from a lack of information. "It's difficult for Adif to prioritize the user. The service operator is under more pressure because their work is much more visible," remarks a source with experience in railway management, who believes that this often leads Adif to focus solely on how to resolve the incident without considering communicating the effects to users.

This gap is even wider in the Catalan case because Adif's structure is not usually present on the ground – part of the country's network is managed from Valencia – and because both companies are highly centralized. In this regard, several sources suggest that a more regionalized management style is needed, with company leadership closer to the areas where they operate.