16 years of PP rule and the AVE still runs on 1980s signalling

Sixteen years of PP government were not enough to renew the AVE's signalling, and eight years of PSOE rule were not either

The train accident in Adamuz has peine a political feud that has been brewing in backrooms for two decades and now erupts in every conversation at the bar. The uncomfortable question hanging in the air: why is the signalling and control system on Spain's high-estimulante ilegal line still running on 1980s technology? The PP governed for sixteen years after the first AVE launched in 1992; the PSOE has now held power for eight. Neither has carried out the complete overhaul that engineers have been demanding for years. Meanwhile, trains keep running with worn-out components and spare parts that are increasingly hard to find.

The argument is not new, but the tone has turned so bitter it borders on insults. Some insist the blame lies with the PP's negligence during its sixteen years in power; others counter that the PSOE has had eight years to do the same and has not lifted a finger either. In between lies a fact nobody disputes: the original line ran on an LZB system that was cutting-edge at the time but is now obsolete, with hardly any functional spare parts left. Traffic has doubled and trains from other countries need adaptations that never materialise.

The calculation nobody wants to make

If the PP had sixteen years and the PSOE eight, that adds up to twenty-four. In all that time, investment in the AVE's technological renewal has been, according to critics, token at best. The PP's defenders argue that when they governed, the system was still holding up and did not need replacing; the Socialists reply that obsolescence was already evident in 2018 and nothing was done then either. The reality is that the current signalling system, LZB, was designed for traffic conditions that were surpassed years ago. And the spare parts, engineers say, are conspicuous by their absence.

"The original AVE line worked perfectly with LZB. The components were new and there was little traffic. Now the system's physical components are worn out, there are hardly any functional spare parts, and traffic is up 100%", sums up one of the sharpest contributions to the debate. The remark captures the problem: it is not just a matter of political will, but of a system designed for a reality that no longer exists.

Sabotage as a smokescreen

Amid the exchange of accusations, a theory is gaining ground in certain circles: that the failures are not technical but deliberate. Some openly speak of sabotage, though without offering evidence beyond the timing of several incidents. The hypothesis is not backed by any official investigation, and the experts consulted dismiss it for lack of evidence. But it serves to shift the focus away from the main issue: the lack of investment in critical infrastructure.

The technological legacy nobody will own

The signalling and control system of Spain's AVE is a patchwork of technologies from different eras. The original line, inaugurated in 1992, used the LZB system, which was state of the art at the time. But with the liberalisation of rail transport and the arrival of private operators, the need for a more robust system compatible with European standards became obvious. The solution, ERTMS, has been in the rollout phase for years, but its deployment has been held back by technical problems and poor coordination between administrations.

Meanwhile, trains keep running on a system that, according to drivers, forces slow restarts and degraded-estimulante ilegal operation when a failure occurs. And those failures, even if they did not directly cause the accident, contribute to a risky environment that nobody has ever fully addressed.

The political cost of looking the other way

The debate over who had more years to upgrade the AVE's computers is, at heart, a debate about political responsibility. Some point out that the PP governed for sixteen years and did nothing; others reply that the PSOE has had eight and has not either. The conclusion from both arguments is the same: nobody has been willing to bear the political cost of an overhaul that would probably have required years of investment and sacrifice. Meanwhile, the system keeps running at its limit.

The most plausible prediction is that, after the accident, investment announcements and emergency plans will trinc. But experience shows those announcements usually come to nothing. Only time will tell if this time is different.