Because? If there is a question that circulates today in Spain, in the offices of Renfe, Adif and Iryo, the Ministry of Transport, the newsrooms of the media, the unions and of course in the streets and bars, it is this: Why? How is it possible that a practically new train, which it didn’t reach four yearsderailed yesterday afternoon on a track renovated in spring, leaving dozens of victims? All these doubts (and some more) must be answered by a team of experts in railway accidents, a special ‘CSI’ that it won’t be easy.
The Government already warns that the investigation will last at least a monthbut previous incidents (including the fateful Angrois accident 2013) show that final conclusions may take much longer to arrive.
What has happened? It is (unfortunately) the news of the day, if not of the month. Yesterday afternoon, around a quarter to eight, a train from the Iryo operator that covered the Malaga-Madrid route derailed near Adamuz (Córdoba) with 289 passengers on board, in addition to four crew members and the driver.
The incident would have been serious in itself, but fate would have it that part of the convoy (Fracciarssa model) collided with another train that was traveling in the opposite direction just at that moment, a Renfe Alvia that covered the route between Puerta de Atocha and Huelva. The result: 39 deceased (at least) and more than 100 injured.
“Very strange”. The Minister of Transport and Sustainable Mobility, Óscar Puente, was quick to express his surprise at the accident. Not only because of the collision, but because of the derailment itself, since both the machinery used by Iryo and the railway infrastructure were modern. “The Iryo train is practically new, I don’t know if it is four years old, and the track is a completely renovated track, in which 700 million have been invested. Specifically on that section, the work to replace switches, detours… was completed in May,” commented.
“The accident is tremendously strange, on a straight line. All the experts we have been able to consult are tremendously surprised,” added the owner of Transport. “It is strange, it is very strange, it is difficult to explain at the moment. We hope that the investigation will help us clarify what has happened.” Of course, to know these explanations we will probably have to wait.
Minimum one month. Puente already warns that it will take experts at least weeks to collect the data, analyze it and reach conclusions. “We will not have the resolution of the investigation for at least a month,” the minister explained before remembering that the investigations will be carried out, as stipulated by the regulations, by an independent commission that must “shed light and clarify the causes of what happened.” Although each accident has its peculiarities and is not comparable, previous railway incidents have required considerably more time. At least to obtain the reports with the final conclusions.
How long? Beyond the investigations that can be opened by other means, Transport has a special body to clarify accidents like yesterday’s: the Railway Accident Investigation Commission (CIAF), an entity activated at the end of 2007 that acts with “full functional independence” and focuses on the technical study of incidents recorded on the General Interest Railway Network. Its objective is to analyze all types of incidents (including events without victims) and write “technical reports” that include recommendations.
In your website The CIAF itself details that this document must be made public as soon as possible and even sets a time horizon: “This report will in principle be made public within a maximum period of 12 months from the date of the event.”
Right now the commission has six investigations in progress corresponding to incidents that occurred between November 2023 and October 2025. The oldest was a derailment that occurred on November 26, 2023 near the Madrid-Atocha Cercanías station that left 14 injured and in which there were no serious injuries or deaths. The CIAF clarifies that at first it opened a preliminary study, but after its findings it decided to move on to a “formal investigation.”
Is that all? Yes. And no. The CIAF is in a way the ‘CSI’ of railway accidents (in 2024 the Congress approved create an authority that investigates railway, maritime and civil aviation accidents), but that does not mean that it will be the only one to analyze what happened. At least in part. The Country advances that Iryo has claimed and an urgent report to the manufacturer who commissioned the last inspection of the train that derailed yesterday in Adamuz. Its a priori objective is not to analyze what happened, but rather the latest railroad examinations.
Reviewing the case of Angrois. Although the Government warns that the investigation will last at least a month, studies of other recent accidents have required much longer. Perhaps the clearest and most media example is that of Angrois derailmentwhich occurred on July 24, 2013 in Galicia and left 80 dead. The final diagnosis came in June 2014. And it was not without controversy. In 2016 the European Railway Agency prepared a report (at the request of the EC) in which he warned that the CIAF’s work had not been independent and reproached it for not having overlooked “key elements.”
Complex processes. That’s only as far as the CIAF is concerned. The Angrois incident also gave rise to a long judicial investigation that lasted eight years and accumulated thousands and thousands of pages. The victims and their families had to wait years to see the first conviction. In other incidents the CIAF final report has also been delayed more than a yearas occurred with the accident recorded in 2016 near Vigo and which resulted in three fatalities.
Images | Álvaro F. Heredia (X)
GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings