Gelida and the collapse of Rodalies

On 20 January 2026 a Rodalies train hit a wall that had collapsed in the rain at Gelida. A trainee driver died in the accident, and that is where we should begin: with a person who was learning a trade, with their family and their colleagues, who deserve our respect before any analysis.

In the following days service was suspended for safety checks across the network and restored gradually, with restrictions that lasted for months. It was not just another disruption: it affected the system that very many people use every morning to get to work, and it tested the ability of companies in the Barcelona area to keep going when the train does not come. It is a reminder that a company’s continuity depends not only on its own premises but also on the route its staff take to reach them.

A network people depend on

Hundreds of thousands of workers in the Barcelona area rely on Rodalies to get to their jobs. When service is interrupted it is not only a transport problem: punctuality, productivity and shift planning suffer in many companies at once, and the effect is multiplied because almost all of them start and finish the working day at the same hours. It takes only one section failing at peak time for the effects to be felt in many different workplaces.

There is a simple explanation for why the suspension reached the whole network. When a serious incident makes it necessary to check the state of similar infrastructure, it is usual to restrict traffic as a precaution while inspections are completed. The measure is understandable from a safety standpoint, but it passes the cost on to those who have no other reasonable way to travel.

Hours and remote work

Companies had to make hours and remote work more flexible to keep going. Those that already had a clear policy — which roles can work remotely, how disruptions are reported, who decides — reacted faster than those that had to improvise one. In a situation like this, the difference between the two lies in the first hours of the morning.

Forced flexibility also has a delicate side. It helps to agree with staff clear criteria for delays and absences resulting from the disruption, to avoid resentment between roles that can work from home and roles that cannot, and to check with the labour adviser any doubt about how to handle each case. A rule known in advance avoids a great deal of tension. And the sooner it is communicated, the less room remains for misunderstandings between management and teams.

Knowing the team’s commute

Experience shows that it pays to know how each person on the team gets to work and what happens if that route fails. The aim is not to monitor anyone but to see which part of the workforce depends on a single means of transport and where the risks are concentrated, such as customer-facing roles, opening shifts or tasks that can only be done at the workplace. That map, however simple, makes it possible to decide quickly whom to offer remote work and whom to offer different hours.

Documenting alternatives and agreeing flexibility rules in advance avoids hasty decisions and needless tension. A simple plan, with staggered hours, remote days where possible and a reliable way of notifying people, is usually enough. It is worth thinking about customers as well: if they find it hard to get to you, commercial activity will suffer even if the team is in place. A regular conversation with the teams about how they travel is a discreet and inexpensive way of getting ahead of problems.

The logistics of people are also an operational risk.

This article is general information. It is not legal, tax or investment advice, and it does not take anyone’s particular circumstances into account.