The State refuses to specify what the incidents on the Barcelona-Madrid AVE are

Madrid / BarcelonaThe tragedies in Adamuz and Gelida in January, which caused 47 fatalities, cast doubt on the entire Spanish railway system, not only because the accidents called into question the maintenance and safety of the network, but also because since then train travel has not been the same. In Catalonia, Rodalies still suffers from line closures, speed restrictions and service delays, and high-speed journey times have lengthened. Trips from Barcelona to Madrid now take half an hour longer due to the system, and there are unexpected delays and stops on the tracks without anyone providing any explanation to users. The reason is the speed restrictions imposed by the ministry – especially on the Zaragoza-Calatayud stretch – following incidents reported by train drivers. What complaints are we talking about? Were there more incidents than usual after Adamuz? Did the labor dispute between the Semaf union and the ministry, which ended in a strike, have anything to do with it? And more importantly, what actions has Transport taken to resolve the state of the infrastructure? ARA made a transparency request to the Spanish government to clarify these points, but the request has been rejected. In other words, the public administration has refused to release this information, and the Communications Department of the Ministry of Transport refers to the official response given through the transparency process.

Let's break it down. This media outlet made a public information access request on February 2nd, under the protection of the transparency law, regarding the following issues: the number of incidents reported by train drivers on the Barcelona-Madrid AVE line just before the Adamuz and Gelida accident – from January 1st to January 18th, 2026 –; the number of incidents reported after the accident – from January 18th onwards – and the technical and descriptive specifics of all complaints registered by the Ministry of Transport, Adif, or Renfe and what has been done to fix them. Furthermore, the same data was requested, but from a year earlier, from 2025 – to allow for comparison – and the same information request was also made regarding the Madrid-Seville line, where the accident between Iryo and Alvia occurred in Adamuz. The objective was to understand the real state of these lines, specify the reasons that had led to speed reductions, and clarify which incidents had already been acted upon to resolve them.

The response from Renfe Operadora – to whom the ministry forwarded the questions – has been negative. The request has been deemed inadmissible and, therefore, access to this information has been denied, with an argument that transparency experts consulted by ARA consider to lack legal basis. Renfe's resolution states: "It is not appropriate to provide access to the requested information, as Renfe Viajeros does not have the status of a public administration nor does it have administrative competence in relation to railway accidents." It adds that the requested information falls outside its scope because "it is not acquired in the exercise of public functions." They also state that a new "report" ad hoc would need to be prepared to answer the questions, as the technical specifics of the incidents are requested along with the dates, which – the resolution states – requires creating a "list" of both. "This does not exist as an already prepared document and would require creating a new list or statistic through synthesis" of documents that are now "dispersed," it states.

Regarding the information about the Madrid-Seville high-speed train, it is argued that there is an ongoing investigation by the Commission for the Investigation of Railway Accidents (CIAF) and that any information made public prematurely could affect the inquiries. In view of this resolution, an appeal can now be filed with the Transparency Council, a body responsible for reviewing the decisions of the general administration of the State and the public sector as a whole. This newspaper is working legally to file this appeal and continue demanding this information.

The opinions of transparency experts

"A scandal," summarizes the current parliamentary lawyer – former chief lawyer –, Joan Ridao, recalling that Renfe is part of the public sector and must be subject to transparency. Antoni Bayona, former chief lawyer of Parliament and also a professor of constitutional law at UPF, points out that it is a resolution with a desire "not to supply the information, because it lacks legal basis." To begin with, he says, it is striking that Transports refers the request to Renfe Operadora and that it, in turn, passes it on to Renfe Viajeros, a legal entity to which they cling to say they are not subject to the transparency law. A maneuver, Bayona believes, to try to evade having to respond. Pep Mir, professor of administrative law and transparency expert, adds that it is "false" that it is not public information, considering that the norm "subjects commercial companies in the public sector" and that Renfe does have the requested data in its hands because it obtained it through the provision of the public railway service.

Bayona also emphasizes that a new report is not being requested, but rather that the administration use the data it already has at its disposal – the incidents reported by the drivers – and the actions that have been derived from them by Transports to answer the questions. "To reject a request for this reason, it must be that a special report is being requested and not a mere data connection task, as is the case – says expert Pep Mir –. Renfe's resolution does not weigh whether the invoked limit should prevail or the right to access information, a weighing that should consider the informational interest that the requested data has, especially in the current circumstances."

Continued opacity

The sources in the railway sector consulted are also surprised by the argumentation. "Especially because actions are indeed being taken. This is the case, and they could be explained, it makes no sense not to do so," says a worker who prefers to remain anonymous. Several drivers confirm in this newspaper that in the days following the tragic accidents, Renfe ordered drivers to report "anything" they detected on the tracks. The internal sources consulted also admit that incident reports increased "a great deal" in the days following the accidents and corroborate that reports and data do exist in this regard.

This is not the first time that attempts have been made to control information relating to temporary speed restrictions (LTV). The spokespeople for the Dignitat a les Vies platform know this well: only a few weeks ago Adif blocked the website they launched where all affected sections on the conventional network could be consulted. The company referred the case to its cybersecurity service, alleging "security" reasons because "sensitive information" was published there. In a statement, it regretted that the Spanish government "preferred opacity to public service" and argued that in other European Union countries – in a context of sector liberalization – there are public portals with this data.

Last Thursday, the president of Adif admitted in Congress that the closure of this website had been an "error" and Dignitat a les Vies republished the data –obtained through information provided by drivers and other sector personnel– the very next day, Friday. "At the point we are at, if they continue to hide information, it means there are still many more things we don't know," reflects the spokesperson for Dignitat a les Vies, Anna Gómez. "Everyone can understand that chaos is not resolved in two days –Gómez continues–, but at the gates of the creation of a new company [Rodalies Catalunya] information should be opened up and it should be possible to verify if everything they say they are doing in terms of investment, works, improvements, more personnel... is true. Transparency and information are two things they have at their disposal and do not do".

"Information on temporary speed restrictions and infrastructure incidents must be very, very transparent, and this is promoted by Europe, even more so in a process of sector liberalization," argues Joan Carles Salmerón, director of the Terminus Transport Studies Centre. "For peace of mind and good planning, this information should be public, just as we would never even consider an airport closing a runway without communicating the reason to either airlines or citizens," he concludes.

"We have the feeling that sometimes we inconvenience Renfe, Adif and the ministry, because we want to go further and provide more information to users –Gómez adds–. Sometimes I wonder why we don't ask an independent company to come and audit what we have and what needs to be fixed." Adif, when asked about this matter, had also not responded, at the time of closing this edition, to ARA's questions about the incident reports registered on each line.