Rail usage

[John R]

Thanks for posting this.

The headline for me is that while passenger journeys have increased by 7%, revenue has increased by 6%, so that's less revenue per passenger journey than the same time last year. That isn't great news when the government is intent on reducing subsidy to the railways. You really want revenue growth to be ahead of passenger journey growth, otherwise the railways are going to get to the position of needing to put on longer trains or increase services to cater for demand, but can't afford to do so.

I disagree. Given the railway has a lot of fixed costs, and a lot of that extra traffic will be achieved without any increase in operating costs (ie fuller trains) then it is beneficial.

Obviously there comes a point where increased traffic does drive the need for more carriages or even a more frequent service, but even then fixed costs will still be a high proportion of the overall cost base, and any increase in provision (and thus marginal cost) will be carefully considered to make sure that the business case stacks up.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Oct 2025 ==

Having done a bit of analysis of the revenue figure, it's stark how far behind pre-COVID levels it is. Looking at a 12 month rolling average, we are still only at 87%, using "real" (ie inflation adjusted) figures. At the current rate of increase, it will take another 2 years to reach pre-COVID levels - at the moment we are roughly at 2014 levels.

To my surprise, all sectors are below - I would have expected long distance to have recovered quicker, but it's the opposite. Looking at Q1 figures only the comparison with Q1 2019 are:-

Long Distance: 84%
L&SE: 91%
Regional: 94%

(Graph below shows a steady upward trend from 1995 to 2020, followed by a collapse during COVID, rapid recovery at first, but now a more modest growth, and the end point still 13% below the pre-COVID peak.)

 

[Grimsby town]

I disagree. Given the railway has a lot of fixed costs, and a lot of that extra traffic will be achieved without any increase in operating costs (ie fuller trains) then it is beneficial.

Obviously there comes a point where increased traffic does drive the need for more carriages or even a more frequent service, but even then fixed costs will still be a high proportion of the overall cost base, and any increase in provision (and thus marginal cost) will be carefully considered to make sure that the business case stacks up.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Oct 2025 ==

Having done a bit of analysis of the revenue figure, it's stark how far behind pre-COVID levels it is. Looking at a 12 month rolling average, we are still only at 87%, using "real" (ie inflation adjusted) figures. At the current rate of increase, it will take another 2 years to reach pre-COVID levels - at the moment we are roughly at 2014 levels.

To my surprise, all sectors are below - I would have expected long distance to have recovered quicker, but it's the opposite. Looking at Q1 figures only the comparison with Q1 2019 are:-

Long Distance: 84%
L&SE: 91%
Regional: 94%

(Graph below shows a steady upward trend from 1995 to 2020, followed by a collapse during COVID, rapid recovery at first, but now a more modest growth, and the end point still 13% below the pre-COVID peak.)

View attachment 191419

Interesting analysis. The positive is that the rate of revenue increase is higher than pre-covid at least. I imagine long distance operators are still suffering from the huge decrease in business revenue which isn't really coming back.

 

[Snow1964]

To my surprise, all sectors are below - I would have expected long distance to have recovered quicker, but it's the opposite. Looking at Q1 figures only the comparison with Q1 2019 are:-

Long Distance: 84%
L&SE: 91%
Regional: 94%

The split is quite interesting when comparing to 6 years ago, because there has been little transfer of stock from L&SE to the faster recovered Regional, partly because spare EMUs cannot work the diesel lines.

Regional might be closest to back to pre Covid revenue, but a lot of it is still working with 33-40 year old diesel trains.

This data can be used two ways, either the railway has not understood the areas that are growing back quickest and targeted the new growth sector, or the management contracts have inadvertently locked it into pre covid traffic patterns so ongoing subsidy is not now being targeted to where it might be easiest to reduce it.

If you take this split to logical conclusion, then if starting today, would probably be electrifying East Midlands southwards from Sheffield towards London (rather than northwards as happened), and Bristol suburban would have been electrified working back towards London (ahead of starting from Paddington and not getting to Bristol), because the long distance and London area is now the less important relation (based on recent growth rates)

 

[Sleepy]

Very true - but given the leap in the sale of advances hardly surprising. In that context a 1% lag is probably just "noise" unless repeated year after year. Ironically any "return to the office" may well exacerbate this trend - increasing the proportion of short-distance journeys made (even if they are at full fare)

Commuting by Advance ticket is way too high IMO but supposedly Dft love them, Treasury might have different thoughts on this ?!?

 

[Adrian1980uk]

Interesting analysis. The positive is that the rate of revenue increase is higher than pre-covid at least. I imagine long distance operators are still suffering from the huge decrease in business revenue which isn't really coming back.

I think it is generally positive anyway, revenue increasing and passenger numbers increasing, the only issue is the capacity is restraining the potential increase as it's in the wrong place and will take years to change.

Notice EMR have the lower rate of increase as there is limited capacity on most of their services until the new trains come on stream.

 

[philosopher]

Commuting by Advance ticket is way too high IMO but supposedly Dft love them, Treasury might have different thoughts on this ?!?

At my office I know at least a couple of commuters who live further away who buy advances rather than open returns. I get the impression it has only become a thing for commuters to use advance tickets since hybrid working became common.

Ideally the rail industry would want commuters using season tickets. However given some office workers to some extent have a choice how often they come into the office, the rail industry probably has to entice them with cheaper advance fares, otherwise they may miss out on a journey entirely and it’s associated revenue.

 

[Bald Rick]

To my surprise, all sectors are below - I would have expected long distance to have recovered quicker, but it's the opposite. Looking at Q1 figures only the comparison with Q1 2019 are:-

Long Distance: 84%
L&SE: 91%
Regional: 94%

Long distance revenue is down most due to the huge loss of premium (typically business) traffic, ie first class fares and open returns. This has been replaced by an increase in leisure traffic, especially across weekends, in the cheap seats / cheap tickets.

If you take this split to logical conclusion, then if starting today, would probably be electrifying East Midlands southwards from Sheffield towards London (rather than northwards as happened), and Bristol suburban would have been electrified working back towards London (ahead of starting from Paddington and not getting to Bristol), because the long distance and London area is now the less important relation (based on recent growth rates)

I don’t follow that logic at all. Growth rates are one thing, absolute revenue quite another. The regional railway revenue contribution is less than half of long distance, and a third of London / South East. In any event, growth rates change, and regional growth is now much lower than business or commuting.

 

[Horizon22]

To my surprise, all sectors are below - I would have expected long distance to have recovered quicker, but it's the opposite. Looking at Q1 figures only the comparison with Q1 2019 are:-

Long Distance: 84%
L&SE: 91%
Regional: 94%

(Graph below shows a steady upward trend from 1995 to 2020, followed by a collapse during COVID, rapid recovery at first, but now a more modest growth, and the end point still 13% below the pre-COVID peak.)

View attachment 191419

Long-distance probably had a lot of business travel (on anytime tickets), demand which has mostly evaporated with the rapid expansion of online meetings & calls. I don't think it's that surprising.

There's definitely scope for specific peak trains - particularly long-distance ones - to have better demand-based pricing (i.e cheaper) to fill some seats.

 

[Bald Rick]

There's definitely scope for specific peak trains - particularly long-distance ones - to have better demand-based pricing (i.e cheaper) to fill some seats.

And for some very busy trains to have higher prices, to reduce overcrowding and encourage some passenegrs on to services with cheaper fares at quieter times.

 

[Horizon22]

And for some very busy trains to have higher prices, to reduce overcrowding and encourage some passenegrs on to services with cheaper fares at quieter times.

Indeed. Always a balance though - the nature of our social / economic / work life means some trains will always be busier than others where the demand is inelastic. Increasingly though, rail demand is more elastic in the peaks. That "banked revenue" is not a reliable as it once was, as of course you know well.

 

[John R]

Long-distance probably had a lot of business travel (on anytime tickets), demand which has mostly evaporated with the rapid expansion of online meetings & calls. I don't think it's that surprising.

There's definitely scope for specific peak trains - particularly long-distance ones - to have better demand-based pricing (i.e cheaper) to fill some seats.

I'm not sure that the rapid expansion of online meetings and calls was all COVID related though. I worked for a major banking/insurance group from 2017 to 2019 and 90% of my meetings were conducted remotely.

 

[Horizon22]

I'm not sure that the rapid expansion of online meetings and calls was all COVID related though. I worked for a major banking/insurance group from 2017 to 2019 and 90% of my meetings were conducted remotely.

It was definitely happening before and trending that way, but it’s hard to suggest that without Covid it wouldn’t have shifted so dramatically, so quickly.

People tried it for the first time during a period of crisis and realised a) it wasn’t as unreliable as feared b) the “in-person factor” wasn’t as dramatic as it seemed c) it saved businesses quite a lot on expenses.

 

[Snow1964]

It was definitely happening before and trending that way, but it’s hard to suggest that without Covid it wouldn’t have shifted so dramatically, so quickly.

People tried it for the first time during a period of crisis and realised a) it wasn’t as unreliable as feared b) the “in-person factor” wasn’t as dramatic as it seemed c) it saved businesses quite a lot on expenses.

I would caveat that, businesses managed with online short term, but subsequently found out that there were lots of negative side effects too.
a) loss of mentoring and training
b) loss of cover during absence as people no longer knew processes person next to them used as didn't chat or see it.
c) loss of unofficial problem solving, the chats by water cooler or coffee machine when someone was stuck and another employee told them a possible solution.
d) lack of focus over longer time as people became more divorced from bigger picture
e) variant of (d) where multiple offices exist and they all start to drift to doing their own thing as lack of meeting up, sharing ideas and best practice.

It is why there has been a big ramp up in employees being required to go in min 4 days, and often full time.

What has changed though is lack of centralisation, with meetings now held at multiple locations in rotation, rather than in London. I am retired early but using my daughter (based near Poole Dorset) as an example, her recent business meetings within same company have been London, Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Reading (in that order), and many now drive because the railway simply doesn't run quick comfortable trains to those. Only London meetings tend to get universal train travel on business expenses. The company no longer wants to retain space for occasional large meetings in its Head office in central London either.

Premium Business travel won't recover whilst the railway assumes it only happens in London, and doesn't understand that lot now often happens in places like Bristol instead. And many of the longer distance trains serving it (eg those from Southampton, Birmingham etc don't have catering, or it's unreliable on early and late trains), basically discouraging going to a business meeting for a day.

 

[crablab]

her recent business meetings within same company have been London, Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Reading (in that order), and many now drive because the railway simply doesn't run quick comfortable trains to those

If ever there were an argument to increase capacity on Cross Country... Incidentally, which has since a 15% increase in passenger journeys & 17% increase in passenger kilometres, with only a 12% increase in passenger vehicle miles. And, as we know, was already overcrowded to start with.

Interesting to see that season ticket revenue nadir remains albeit with a small increase; "flexi-seasons" presumably count towards that so I think we can safely say they've been a comprehensive failure.

Consolidation of ticket types and discounts is well overdue, as discussed on other areas of the forum. Particularly structural changes to seasons which are rather anachronistic nowadays; hybrid working, flexible hours and different patterns of business travel mean where is no value in "1 month free" when you get at least that by not buying tickets daily. Indeed, season tickets are inflexible and compare unfavourably against the discounts from Advances and Railcards.

 

[The exile]

I would caveat that, businesses managed with online short term, but subsequently found out that there were lots of negative side effects too.
a) loss of mentoring and training
b) loss of cover during absence as people no longer knew processes person next to them used as didn't chat or see it.
c) loss of unofficial problem solving, the chats by water cooler or coffee machine when someone was stuck and another employee told them a possible solution.
d) lack of focus over longer time as people became more divorced from bigger picture
e) variant of (d) where multiple offices exist and they all start to drift to doing their own thing as lack of meeting up, sharing ideas and best practice.

It is why there has been a big ramp up in employees being required to go in min 4 days, and often full time.

That’s very different from the routine meetings that “required” business travel - often first class. A lot of those were probably happening because they always had - and once COVID gave proof that they could be done online (or that the number of face-to-face meetings could be cut) it was impossible to argue that “it wouldn’t work”.

 

[hwl]

It is probably worth pointing out that currently only about half the TOC revenue gap compared to pre Covid is due to reduced ticket revenue, about half is from non-ticket revenue e.g. station car parking, cafe / shop space rental, advertising (hoardings in stations or "cards" on trains).

 

[InTheEastMids]

there has been little transfer of stock from L&SE to the faster recovered Regional, partly because spare EMUs cannot work the diesel lines

This is also - to me - a failure of privatisation which has led to loads of orders for boutique, highly specialised stock to deliver very specific service levels on specific routes. . It's not just about electrification (though agree it's a factor). We are now more than 2.5 years since GTR tendered for the 379s, and they are not yet all in service, despite being by any measure very similar to existing 387s. I also see it in 350/2 discussion where everything is so optimised for 323s, there are doubts about whether a powerful, more modern EMU is up to the job.

Commuting by Advance ticket is way too high IMO

Managers also have eye-watering commuting costs too (especially with a cost-of-living crisis); withdrawing it is a good way to get good people to leave, hence lots of people game advance fares, work flexibly to travel off-peak, and so on.

a) loss of mentoring and training
b) loss of cover during absence as people no longer knew processes person next to them used as didn't chat or see it.
c) loss of unofficial problem solving, the chats by water cooler or coffee machine when someone was stuck and another employee told them a possible solution.
d) lack of focus over longer time as people became more divorced from bigger picture
e) variant of (d) where multiple offices exist and they all start to drift to doing their own thing as lack of meeting up, sharing ideas and best practice.

It is why there has been a big ramp up in employees being required to go in min 4 days, and often full time.

Accepting some job roles have to be in offices, but most of these are solvable with good management! I agree that face to face is not without value, but we are doing all of the above with MS Teams. Some of these are frankly excuses from poor managers who count jackets on chairs as an indicator of productivity. My employer could not go back as it has closed/downsized/relocated offices and would lose talent to competitors.

It's also an employer-centric view. Employees matter as they can leave, and it's fair to say some senior managers lost sight of the value of offices. They had spare bedrooms/garden offices, families and golf club memberships giving space to work and avoid isolation. It's much harder to thrive if you live alone, and are sat on the end of the bed using a window sill for a desk (as one colleague of mine had to do during lockdown).

 

[deltic]

Looking at load factors (passenger kilometres/passenger vehicle kilometres) highlights the impressive load factors that Lumo is achieving ie passengers per coach. It is way ahead of the other open access operators and long distance TOCs

Lumo -- 57.6
Hull Trains 38.3
Grand Central 36.6
LNER 30.8
Cross Country 25.4
Great Western 22.7
West Coast 22.5
East Midlands 22.2

At the other end of the scale is HEX, averaging just 10.7 passengers per coach

 

[The exile]

Looking at load factors (passenger kilometres/passenger vehicle kilometres) highlights the impressive load factors that Lumo is achieving ie passengers per coach. It is way ahead of the other open access operators and long distance TOCs

Lumo -- 57.6
Hull Trains 38.3
Grand Central 36.6
LNER 30.8
Cross Country 25.4
Great Western 22.7
West Coast 22.5
East Midlands 22.2

At the other end of the scale is HEX, averaging just 10.7 passengers per coach

Much easier to achieve when you operate “cherry/picked” services on an oversubscribed route, compared with offering regular interval throughout the day.

 

[zwk500]

Looking at load factors (passenger kilometres/passenger vehicle kilometres) highlights the impressive load factors that Lumo is achieving ie passengers per coach. It is way ahead of the other open access operators and long distance TOCs

Lumo -- 57.6
Hull Trains 38.3
Grand Central 36.6
LNER 30.8
Cross Country 25.4
Great Western 22.7
West Coast 22.5
East Midlands 22.2

At the other end of the scale is HEX, averaging just 10.7 passengers per coach

Comparing Lumo to GWR or EMR's total numbers is completely misrepresentative given those operators also run a wide array of regional and rural services.

Although it'd be interesting to see Lumo/HT/GC vs LNER/XC/Avanti's revenue factors compared.

 

[Horizon22]

I would caveat that, businesses managed with online short term, but subsequently found out that there were lots of negative side effects too.
a) loss of mentoring and training
b) loss of cover during absence as people no longer knew processes person next to them used as didn't chat or see it.
c) loss of unofficial problem solving, the chats by water cooler or coffee machine when someone was stuck and another employee told them a possible solution.
d) lack of focus over longer time as people became more divorced from bigger picture
e) variant of (d) where multiple offices exist and they all start to drift to doing their own thing as lack of meeting up, sharing ideas and best practice.

It is why there has been a big ramp up in employees being required to go in min 4 days, and often full time.

What has changed though is lack of centralisation, with meetings now held at multiple locations in rotation, rather than in London. I am retired early but using my daughter (based near Poole Dorset) as an example, her recent business meetings within same company have been London, Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Reading (in that order), and many now drive because the railway simply doesn't run quick comfortable trains to those. Only London meetings tend to get universal train travel on business expenses. The company no longer wants to retain space for occasional large meetings in its Head office in central London either.

Premium Business travel won't recover whilst the railway assumes it only happens in London, and doesn't understand that lot now often happens in places like Bristol instead. And many of the longer distance trains serving it (eg those from Southampton, Birmingham etc don't have catering, or it's unreliable on early and late trains), basically discouraging going to a business meeting for a day.

That is true on the negatives, however I wasn’t really referring to the rise in working from home - mostly out of necessity and the gradual urge for companies to get people back. This was more about executive business travel which has taken a nosedive for the reasons I mentioned, and yours are no doubt contributing factors.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Oct 2025 ==

Much easier to achieve when you operate “cherry/picked” services on an oversubscribed route, compared with offering regular interval throughout the day.

And you haven’t got a resurgent and convenient competitor (HeX vs Elizabeth line).

 

[Snow1964]

I thought ai would delve into ORR figures, and compare the latest quarter with same quarter in 2019 (last year before lockdown and covid)

Figures are passenger km 2025 as percent of 2019

Elizabeth line 407.09%
Hull trains 136.80%
Grand Central 130.52%
LNER 109.87%
Transport for Wales 106.38%
East Midlands 105.16%
London Overground 104.78%
Merseyrail 103.95%
Northern 103.50%
GWR 103.72%
Transpennine 102.17%
West Midlands 99.58%
Greater Anglia 95.90%
Scotrail 93.56%
Govia Thameslink 90.01%
Avanti West Coast 87.36%
Cross Country 87.35%
SWR 85.65%
South Eastern 84.40%
Caledonian sleeper 81.80%
Chiltern 77.35%
C2C 76.55%
Heathrow Express 75.00%
Lumo (no figures for 2019, so cannot compute percentage)


Interestingly journey length (dividing passenger km by passengers numbers) gave wildly varying figures too, not clear why some operators have people on average travelling further, but others operators have them doing shorter journeys

journey length change 2025 vs 2019

GWR 111.96%,
Northern 111.95%
West Midlands 110.27%
Transpennine 107.91
South Eastern 106.78
Transport for Wales 105.91%
SWR 105.41%
Heathrow Express 104.72%
Merseyrail 102.02%
Govia Thameslink 101.56%
Scotrail 101.25%
London Overground 101.08%
Caledonian sleeper 98.41%
Greater Anglia 95.95%
Hull Trains 95.69%
Grand Central 94.82%
Avanti West Coast 94.38%
C2C 93.89%
Chiltern 93.60%
Cross Country 91.74%
East Midlands 86.12%
Elizabeth line 85.02%
LNER 84.52%
Lumo (no figures for 2019, so cannot compute percentage)

I wonder if average distance travelled increase for SWR and SE means they have gained more long distance and/or lost short distance commuters.

Data from ORR tables 1223, 1233, 1243, 1253

 

[dk1]

I thought ai would delve into ORR figures, and compare the latest quarter with same quarter in 2019 (last year before lockdown and covid)

Figures are passenger km 2025 as percent of 2019

Elizabeth line 407.09%
Hull trains 136.80%
Grand Central 130.52%
LNER 109.87%
Transport for Wales 106.38%
East Midlands 105.16%
London Overground 104.78%
Merseyrail 103.95%
Northern 103.50%
GWR 103.72%
Transpennine 102.17%
West Midlands 99.58%
Greater Anglia 95.90%
Scotrail 93.56%
Govia Thameslink 90.01%
Arriva West Coast 87.36%
Cross Country 87.35%
SWR 85.65%
South Eastern 84.40%
Caledonian sleeper 81.80%
Chiltern 77.35%
C2C 76.55%
Heathrow Express 75.00%
Lumo (no figures for 2019, so cannot compute percentage)


Interestingly journey length (dividing passenger km by passengers numbers) gave wildly varying figures too, not clear why some operators have people on average travelling further, but others operators have them doing shorter journeys

journey length change 2025 vs 2019

GWR 111.96%,
Northern 111.95%
West Midlands 110.27%
Transpennine 107.91
South Eastern 106.78
Transport for Wales 105.91%
SWR 105.41%
Heathrow Express 104.72%
Merseyrail 102.02%
Govia Thameslink 101.56%
Scotrail 101.25%
London Overground 101.08%
Caledonian sleeper 98.41%
Greater Anglia 95.95%
Hull Trains 95.69%
Grand Central 94.82%
Arriva West Coast 94.38%
C2C 93.89%
Chiltern 93.60%
Cross Country 91.74%
East Midlands 86.12%
Elizabeth line 85.02%
LNER 84.52%
Lumo (no figures for 2019, so cannot compute percentage)

I wonder if average distance travelled increase for SWR and SE means they have gained more long distance and/or lost short distance commuters.

Data from ORR tables 1223, 1233, 1243, 1253

Arriva West Coast??

 

[The exile]

I wonder if average distance travelled increase for SWR and SE means they have gained more long distance and/or lost short commuters

The latter, I should imagine.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Also included in this release is commentary about revising the data to take account of split ticketing. They are inferring that number of journeys may have been overstated back to 2020 so we could see some downward adjustment of the data. Will this impact all operators or will it be more centred on the long distance operators where split ticketing is more prevalent?

 

[John R]

Also included in this release is commentary about revising the data to take account of split ticketing. They are inferring that number of journeys may have been overstated back to 2020 so we could see some downward adjustment of the data. Will this impact all operators or will it be more centred on the long distance operators where split ticketing is more prevalent?

Though note that in the same report passenger kms data are published, which shows a very similar trend to passenger journeys. So I don’t believe in the grand scheme of things any adjustment will be material.

 

[Snow1964]

Also included in this release is commentary about revising the data to take account of split ticketing. They are inferring that number of journeys may have been overstated back to 2020 so we could see some downward adjustment of the data. Will this impact all operators or will it be more centred on the long distance operators where split ticketing is more prevalent?

Not sure about the split ticketing

I used passenger km in #52 (which is distance travelled regardless of configuration of tickets, so split ticketing is irrelevant)

Some of the long distance operators passenger numbers change 6 years from 2019 to 2025 are:

Passenger journey (quantity) change, second figure passenger km change
Avanti West Coast 92.56% 87.36% so journeys length 94.38% of 2019
Cross Country 95.22% 87.35% so journey length is 95.69% of 2019
LNER 130.00% 109.87% so journey length 84.52% of 2019
Grand Central 137.65% 130.52% so journey length 94.82% of 2019
Hull Trains 142.97% 136.80% so journey length is 95.69% of 2019

But looking at operators with mix of long and short journeys
GWR 92.64% 103.72% so journey length grown to 111.96%
Transpennine 94.68% 102.17% so journey length 107.91%
TfW 100.44% 106.38% so journey length 105.91% of 2019

Picture is more muddled when look at average journey length change for commuter operators (2025 as percent of same quarter 2019)
C2C 93.89% so journeys have got shorter
Chiltern 93.60%
GTR is 101.56% so slight increase in longer journeys
Merseyrail 102.02%
SWR 105.41% so average journey length is up
South Eastern 106.78%
Northern 111.95% similar to GWR with nearly 12% longer journeys

How much of this is actual customer journeys, and how much is wrong interpretation of split tickets I haven't a clue.

One thing that is clear is the railway is not very responsive to changes in passenger km, as vehicle km changes do not match (andsome operators clearly have increased passengers per coach, and even cut km operated even when passenger km is up. Possibly because most are still operating same basic timetable as 2019, but in some cases with thinned out services.

Although can derive the average numbers of passengers per coach doesn't automatically mean more crowded as token number of operators have introduced longer coaches (but most still using same stock as 6 years ago).

 

[Djgr]

I thought ai would delve into ORR figures, and compare the latest quarter with same quarter in 2019 (last year before lockdown and covid)

Figures are passenger km 2025 as percent of 2019

Elizabeth line 407.09%
Hull trains 136.80%
Grand Central 130.52%
LNER 109.87%
Transport for Wales 106.38%
East Midlands 105.16%
London Overground 104.78%
Merseyrail 103.95%
Northern 103.50%
GWR 103.72%
Transpennine 102.17%
West Midlands 99.58%
Greater Anglia 95.90%
Scotrail 93.56%
Govia Thameslink 90.01%
Avanti West Coast 87.36%
Cross Country 87.35%
SWR 85.65%
South Eastern 84.40%
Caledonian sleeper 81.80%
Chiltern 77.35%
C2C 76.55%
Heathrow Express 75.00%
Lumo (no figures for 2019, so cannot compute

A heads-up to those who see HEx as best thing since sliced bread

 

[dk1]

A heads-up to those who see HEx as best thing since sliced bread

I don’t think many think of it quite like that. Just that it does the job for many who prefer it. To be fair in my opinion it’s doing better than I expected after the opening of the Elizabeth Line.

 

[hwl]

Picture is more muddled when look at average journey length change for commuter operators (2025 as percent of same quarter 2019)
C2C 93.89% so journeys have got shorter

Loss of lots of every week day Greater Southend area commuters (work from home).

Chiltern 93.60%
GTR is 101.56% so slight increase in longer journeys
Merseyrail 102.02%
SWR 105.41% so average journey length is up
South Eastern 106.78%

Loss of shorter distance passengers to Elizabeth line and GTR Rainham. The metro area service level is still quite poor compared to what it was which isn't encouraging people to go into the office + reasonable volumes of work from home.
SWR Metro service is poor on many lines compared to what it was and lots of people have the option for home working. It will be interesting to see what 701 roll out does (firstly in terms of 10 car trains and air con and then later in terms of potential service uplifts).
Southern Metro service levels are also poor compared to 2019 so unsurprisingly usage is not recovering well when some trains are rammed (ditto some SWR metro).

But looking at operators with mix of long and short journeys
GWR 92.64% 103.72% so journey length grown to 111.96%

Most of the in the increase in GWR average journey length is due to transfer of the stopping services east of Reading to Elizabeth line.

One thing that is clear is the railway is not very responsive to changes in passenger km, as vehicle km changes do not match (and some operators clearly have increased passengers per coach, and even cut km operated even when passenger km is up. Possibly because most are still operating same basic timetable as 2019, but in some cases with thinned out services.

Although can derive the average numbers of passengers per coach doesn't automatically mean more crowded as token number of operators have introduced longer coaches (but most still using same stock as 6 years ago).