Criminal negligence: Spain's rail disasters await their verdict
An article by Carlos Martínez Gorriarán in Vozpópuli argues that the rail disasters at Adamuz and Urda in Spain share a common cause: lack of maintenance. A look at its data and its thesis.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
An article by Carlos Martínez Gorriarán in Vozpópuli, published on 29 October 2026, argues that the rail accidents at Adamuz and Urda share causes rooted in lack of maintenance and describes the situation as «incivil negligence». The piece, strongly political in tone, blames the accidents on the Government's management and calls for electoral consequences to be drawn.
The article that **Carlos Martínez Gorriarán** published in **Vozpópuli** on **29 October 2026** under the title «Negligencia incivil: visto para sentencia» is not a technical report. It is a piece of political opinion that uses two rail accidents to build a sweeping accusation against the Government. It should be read for what it is: a thesis, not an expert assessment.
The central idea is simple and is repeated throughout the text. One accident can be bad luck. Two in ten months, the author argues, no longer is. And if they happen in the middle of an election campaign, the matter leaves the campaign «seen to verdict». The phrase that sums up his position is that the governing coalition «not only lies, steals and betrays, it also kills». It is a partisan claim, with no judicial proof, and should be read as such.
## Adamuz, Urda and the lack of budgets
The article links the two rail disasters, in **Adamuz** and **Urda**, to a common cause: the lack of proper maintenance. Why is maintenance lacking? According to the author, because there is no General State Budget (Spain's national budget law). That is the backbone of his economic argument, and it is worth separating it from the politics.
The chain he describes is this: without approved budgets, there are no maintenance allocations; without maintenance, the tracks age; with old tracks and obsolete safety systems, trains carry passengers at full estimulante ilegal over unsafe infrastructure. The author compares it to playing «paid Russian roulette». The image is his, not a fact.
What the text does provide as a concrete figure is the death toll from **Adamuz**: **48 deaths**. It is the only casualty figure given for the rail accidents. For Urda it offers no number. And here caution is warranted: the article cites no official reports, no investigation bodies, no court rulings. The link between budgets and accidents is a hypothesis the author defends, not an established fact.
## A state that does not guarantee safety
There is a deeper argument that goes beyond the train. The author holds that the only reason to accept the state is that it guarantee the safety of public services and a reasonable order. If a state turns taking a train, once a source of pride, into a mortal danger, he says, it is a «failed state, without legitimacy». It is a classic political thesis, that of the security contract, applied here to rail transport.
To reinforce it, the text reviews what it calls «the end of sanchismo» (the political era of Pedro Sánchez) and lists a series of episodes. Some are verifiable as events that occurred; others are claims the author presents without documentary backing in the article itself. Among the former is the **Dana flooding in Valencia**, with **233 deaths** according to the text, and the **Adamuz** accident. Among the latter, the accusations about an alleged attempt to hire drug traffickers against judge **Biedma**, or the manipulation of the electoral roll through the «grandchildren law». These are serious accusations the article makes without providing proof, and they should not be taken as confirmed.
The text also mentions the **nationwide power blackout** lasting a day, unexplained officially according to the author, and the situation in **Ceuta**, where it claims the Audiencia Nacional (Spain's high court) is working on the hypothesis of a crime of high treason. These are claims readers should verify for themselves.
## Those responsible and the «Frankenstein train»
The article devotes a section to the reactions of public officials. It places **Pedro Sánchez** posting on the social network X, **forty minutes** after the Urda crash, a video with two journalists against a pink background and an optimistic electoral message. And minister **Óscar Puente**, responsible for rail safety according to the text, opening an international infrastructure event three hours later while bodies were being recovered near Madrid. These are facts the author presents as such and which, if true, carry undeniable political weight.
Then there is the article's account of the historical memory of Spanish railways. It recalls the **11M of 2004**, the **Angrois** accident of **24 July 2013** and the so-called «Frankenstein Train», an Alvia made up of parts from different trains, the work of Socialist minister **José Blanco**, rushed into service to sell Galician high-estimulante ilegal rail during the regional elections. And it adds a detail: on **18 January 2026**, a new tragedy at Adamuz, with a rail defectively repaired, according to the text, for lack of maintenance budgets after four years without a General State Budget.
The author's conclusion is that corruption, trains and insecurity are the three roots of three rail tragedies: **Angrois**, **Adamuz** and **Urda**. And that all of them occurred amid the decomposition of left-wing governments. It is a political thesis, not a technical conclusion. No investigation report cited in the article supports it as a proven cause.
## What can be taken from all this
If the text has anything useful for those who belong to no camp, it is the underlying question: how is the maintenance of critical infrastructure funded when there is no budget? It is a legitimate and verifiable question, and it affects the railways, the roads and everything that ages while the debate drags on.
But the article does not answer that question with data. It answers it with an accusation. And there lies its limit. The victims of **Adamuz** and **Urda** deserve technical investigation, not just political rebuttal. Any reading of this text that ignores that distinction risks confusing indignation with proof. On legal and liability matters, the last word belongs to the courts and the investigation bodies, not to a column.
The article that **Carlos Martínez Gorriarán** published in **Vozpópuli** on **29 October 2026** under the title «Negligencia incivil: visto para sentencia» is not a technical report. It is a piece of political opinion that uses two rail accidents to build a sweeping accusation against the Government. It should be read for what it is: a thesis, not an expert assessment.
The central idea is simple and is repeated throughout the text. One accident can be bad luck. Two in ten months, the author argues, no longer is. And if they happen in the middle of an election campaign, the matter leaves the campaign «seen to verdict». The phrase that sums up his position is that the governing coalition «not only lies, steals and betrays, it also kills». It is a partisan claim, with no judicial proof, and should be read as such.
## Adamuz, Urda and the lack of budgets
The article links the two rail disasters, in **Adamuz** and **Urda**, to a common cause: the lack of proper maintenance. Why is maintenance lacking? According to the author, because there is no General State Budget (Spain's national budget law). That is the backbone of his economic argument, and it is worth separating it from the politics.
The chain he describes is this: without approved budgets, there are no maintenance allocations; without maintenance, the tracks age; with old tracks and obsolete safety systems, trains carry passengers at full estimulante ilegal over unsafe infrastructure. The author compares it to playing «paid Russian roulette». The image is his, not a fact.
What the text does provide as a concrete figure is the death toll from **Adamuz**: **48 deaths**. It is the only casualty figure given for the rail accidents. For Urda it offers no number. And here caution is warranted: the article cites no official reports, no investigation bodies, no court rulings. The link between budgets and accidents is a hypothesis the author defends, not an established fact.
## A state that does not guarantee safety
There is a deeper argument that goes beyond the train. The author holds that the only reason to accept the state is that it guarantee the safety of public services and a reasonable order. If a state turns taking a train, once a source of pride, into a mortal danger, he says, it is a «failed state, without legitimacy». It is a classic political thesis, that of the security contract, applied here to rail transport.
To reinforce it, the text reviews what it calls «the end of sanchismo» (the political era of Pedro Sánchez) and lists a series of episodes. Some are verifiable as events that occurred; others are claims the author presents without documentary backing in the article itself. Among the former is the **Dana flooding in Valencia**, with **233 deaths** according to the text, and the **Adamuz** accident. Among the latter, the accusations about an alleged attempt to hire drug traffickers against judge **Biedma**, or the manipulation of the electoral roll through the «grandchildren law». These are serious accusations the article makes without providing proof, and they should not be taken as confirmed.
The text also mentions the **nationwide power blackout** lasting a day, unexplained officially according to the author, and the situation in **Ceuta**, where it claims the Audiencia Nacional (Spain's high court) is working on the hypothesis of a crime of high treason. These are claims readers should verify for themselves.
## Those responsible and the «Frankenstein train»
The article devotes a section to the reactions of public officials. It places **Pedro Sánchez** posting on the social network X, **forty minutes** after the Urda crash, a video with two journalists against a pink background and an optimistic electoral message. And minister **Óscar Puente**, responsible for rail safety according to the text, opening an international infrastructure event three hours later while bodies were being recovered near Madrid. These are facts the author presents as such and which, if true, carry undeniable political weight.
Then there is the article's account of the historical memory of Spanish railways. It recalls the **11M of 2004**, the **Angrois** accident of **24 July 2013** and the so-called «Frankenstein Train», an Alvia made up of parts from different trains, the work of Socialist minister **José Blanco**, rushed into service to sell Galician high-estimulante ilegal rail during the regional elections. And it adds a detail: on **18 January 2026**, a new tragedy at Adamuz, with a rail defectively repaired, according to the text, for lack of maintenance budgets after four years without a General State Budget.
The author's conclusion is that corruption, trains and insecurity are the three roots of three rail tragedies: **Angrois**, **Adamuz** and **Urda**. And that all of them occurred amid the decomposition of left-wing governments. It is a political thesis, not a technical conclusion. No investigation report cited in the article supports it as a proven cause.
## What can be taken from all this
If the text has anything useful for those who belong to no camp, it is the underlying question: how is the maintenance of critical infrastructure funded when there is no budget? It is a legitimate and verifiable question, and it affects the railways, the roads and everything that ages while the debate drags on.
But the article does not answer that question with data. It answers it with an accusation. And there lies its limit. The victims of **Adamuz** and **Urda** deserve technical investigation, not just political rebuttal. Any reading of this text that ignores that distinction risks confusing indignation with proof. On legal and liability matters, the last word belongs to the courts and the investigation bodies, not to a column.
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (1 replies).
More summaries
-
A mountain of filth, a collapse waiting to happen (Carlos Martínez Gorriarán in Vozpópuli)
The 2020 accident at the Zaldívar landfill in Spain killed two workers and six years on the investigation is still stalled. The article compares that mountain of garbage with the government's crisis.
-
The fall of Sánchez's faction: a regime in its final days
In Vozpópuli, Carlos Martínez Gorriarán analyses the decline of sanchismo, Spain's Sánchez-led political machine, compares its end to Francoism and calls for constitutional reform.
-
Twelve Urgent Constitutional Reforms to Protect Democracy
Discover twelve proposed constitutional reforms aimed at safeguarding democracy from future "sanchismos" and ensuring state stability. Key proposals outlined.
-
Montero keeps her European Parliament seat while running in Spain's general election
Irene Montero will keep her European Parliament seat until 2029 while running in Spain's general election, a safety net against electoral uncertainty.
-
Blocus: minor arrested and questions over who was behind it
A Senegalese minor with a criminal record ran the Blocus Vlc channels that called for looting shops in Valencia, Spain, according to police. No political network has been confirmed.
-
Spain's high-speed rail disasters: the tragic symbol of a national decline
In ABC, Ignacio Camacho argues that the Adamuz and Urda rail crashes, which left more than a hundred dead, are a symbol of Spain's institutional decay.