| 
 |
 |
This section provides many figures about railway operation. However, not all statistical sources agree precisely.
In addition, comparisons between sources and periods need to be handled with care and sometimes cannot be made without a degree of qualification, because methods and definitions used by statisticians have tended to change over the decades.
Indeed, some categories of statistic are relatively new.
The Board of Trade/Ministry of Transport Railway Returns – the main primary source before 1948 – counted passenger journeys but did not provide a total for the distances travelled.
When ‘passenger miles’ (now passenger kilometres) did start to appear in official figures, they were marked ‘estimated’ until computerised ticketing had become universal. Even now, there has to be a degree of informed guesswork in relation to passenger travel, because some types of ticket allow unrestricted journeys which are not counted precisely.
In this introduction we discuss some of the factors which make historical comparisons difficult, and also why certain figures may be distorted or exaggerated.
Early statistics
Railway statistics began to be compiled officially as a result of provisions in the 1840 Regulation of Railways Act. The earliest figures we quote on this site relate to 1842.
Until the early 1920s, the figures published in the Board of Trade's Railway Returns included Irish railways, because the whole of Ireland was part of the United Kingdom until then. The creation of the Irish Free State in 1922 caused a major 'break in series' in most railway statistics, which from 1923 usually related to Great Britain only. However, the totals were still not necessarily comparable with their modern equivalents, because from 1863 the Metropolitan Railway (and the later London tube railways) were often included.
There were four main line companies from 1 January 1923, following the 'grouping' of more than 100 companies which was authorised by the 1921 Railways Act, and figures published by the 'Big Four' from 1923 are probably the closest in scope to the present day National Rail statistics. The consolidation of most public transport services in Greater London into one organisation – the London Passenger Transport Board – from July 1933 also meant that London Underground statistics were now presented separately from the main line traffic figures.
Changes in series
'Changes in series' are another problem, caused by revisions to the methods of gathering the figures. Season tickets were not treated consistently before the 1920s, being included or excluded at various times. Neither is it always clear what estimates were made for season ticket journeys, even when they were included.
When making comparisons, therefore, we need to consider that some historical totals included either Ireland or the London Underground – or both – thus giving a misleading figure when compared with National Rail now. Irish passenger totals (at peak) might have amounted to c.35m, and for London Underground (after c.1920) between 300m and 400m. Ireland, then, was not statistically significant, but the Underground was.
In spite of these hurdles, it is still possible to see a broad path of development in the tables, and an occasional change of practice which distorts the figures is sometimes quite obvious. The passenger figure for 1923 (1319m) has been taken from a publication produced by the main line companies and is likely to be reasonably comparable with National Rail now. But the following year of 1924 shows a total of 1746.9m, which appears to be a remarkable leap.
In reality, 1924 has been taken from another source (which is probably quoting the Board of Trade Railway Returns), and almost certainly includes London Underground. We do not currently have a separate figure for London Underground in 1924, but the 1922 total was 325.2m, which had risen to 415.9m by 1933. There was no great change in main line passenger volumes between 1923 and 1933, to judge by the companies’ own figures, and so the sharp change between 1923 and 1924 would appear to be a result of including Underground journeys in the latter total.
Other causes of distortion
There are also other reasons why certain figures may be distorted or exaggerated.
Railway methods have tended to distort passenger statistics for many years.
When manual ticket systems were in use, relying on preprinted tickets which were simply dated at the time of issue, there was a limit to the variety of journeys which could be booked on demand, particularly at smaller ticket offices.
Although blank tickets or paper forms could be completed for less common journeys, the booking clerk could not use these if the fare for a complicated through journey was unknown. If the booking clerk had time, it was possible to calculate the mileage and therefore the fare, but a busy booking clerk might simply issue a ticket for the first stage of the journey, with the passenger being asked to rebook en route. In the days of strict mileage-rate fares this would have made little difference to the total charged, but the rebooking process would have caused a second 'false' journey to be recorded from an intermediate station, inflating the statistics.
Inflation also occurs now, because the industry's 'Lennon' ticketing system records each train involved (or likely to be involved) in a journey, according to the Office of Rail and Road. It was estimated [1] in 2006 that this was exaggerating modern journey totals by 5 per cent, but this was understated. The actual gap, calculated by comparing Lennon figures with journey statistics within and between Government Office Regions (which are only counted once) suggests that the statistical inflation introduced by Lennon (and its predecessor Capri) was between 24.5% and 30.1% between 1995 and 2005. Since then, the average figure has been just over 18%, as a result of including estimated figures for journeys made on London Travelcards.
Other estimates are also included, such as the number of journeys made by season ticket holders. This number has been reduced over time to reflect the end of the former six-day week which was commonplace until the 1950s. In modern times further estimates are necessary for the journeys made by the holders of London Travelcards and their provincial equivalents, and also for rover tickets.
[1] Source: ORR National Rail Trends, 2005-2006, p10
| | | 
| |
