Lorraine Williamson
The latest development in the Adamuz train crash case is no longer only about what failed on the track. It is now also about the chain of custody of material that investigators may need to establish what happened.
A report seen by RTVE says the Guardia Civil informed the judge that Adif staff removed rail material from the accident site without prior judicial authorisation and also carried out tests on parts of the track without notifying investigators or seeking permission.
What changed since the first reports
There has been an important update since the initial coverage: Adif has publicly responded.
In a later RTVE report (24 February), Adif defended its actions, saying it only moved pieces that the Guardia Civil and the CIAF had not taken, and that the material was moved to a maintenance building and remained available to judicial and police authorities.
At the same time, another major development emerged in Spanish media: the judge reportedly reprimanded Adif and ordered the return of materials considered relevant to the case, warning against further unauthorised handling. El País reports the judge criticised the extraction of “materiales de interés para la causa” before permission had been granted to reconstruct the accident zone.
Why this matters more than a procedural dispute
This is not just a bureaucratic argument between institutions.
The issue goes to the heart of any major accident investigation: whether potentially key physical evidence was moved, tested, or stored in a way that complicates later forensic analysis. RTVE’s report says the Guardia Civil believes Adif carried out operations to extract and transfer material to the Hornachuelos maintenance base and performed tests without prior notice or authorisation.
That matters especially because some of the pieces may include welded joints (soldaduras) that the CIAF wanted to examine as part of its technical analysis. RTVE reports the CIAF requested judicial permission on 3 February to analyse these components officially.
The timeline is becoming central
The chronology described in reporting is now as important as the material itself.
According to RTVE, the Guardia Civil had warned Adif by email on 2 January that no work should be carried out on the welded joints without prior authorisation. Officers later found that relevant rail sections had already been moved to Hornachuelos when they returned with CIAF investigators to take measurements. RTVE also reports that judicial police sealed the stored joints at the maintenance base on 31 January.
El País adds that the reported extraction and transfer of rail segments and welds took place between 22 and 23 January, before later judicial permission was granted for works in the area under strict conditions.
Adif’s defence: preservation, not interference
Adif’s response suggests the company will argue this was a preservation decision, not an attempt to interfere.
RTVE reports Adif said the material was moved to protect it and remained available to the court and investigators. That line is likely to become central to the next stage of the case, especially if the company argues the pieces were not altered in any way that undermines analysis.
But the Guardia Civil’s concern, as reported by RTVE, is not only the move itself. It also includes tests carried out without notice, and uncertainty over the extent of those tests.
Why the Adamuz investigation now risks becoming a trust issue between institutions
For investigators, courts, and families following the case, the problem is no longer only technical. It is institutional.
When the infrastructure manager, police investigators, and technical accident investigators appear to be working on different timelines, the public story quickly shifts from “what broke?” to “who controlled the evidence?”. El País and RTVE reporting now point to exactly that tension.
That does not predetermine wrongdoing. But it does raise the stakes for documentation, custody records, and any future expert findings.
What happens next in the Adamuz case
The judge will now weigh the Guardia Civil’s account, Adif’s defence, and the status of the returned/sealed materials as the investigation continues. The practical next step is likely to focus on whether the relocated rail fragments and welds can still be examined in a way that preserves evidential confidence.
The broader consequence is already clear: the Adamuz case is no longer just a rail safety investigation. It is also becoming a test of how Spain’s institutions handle evidence after a mass-casualty transport disaster.