The Overland Patronage – 2026 Update

It’s been 3 years since I compiled 50 years of Overland Patronage, and in the absence of any public patronage updates since then, I contacted Journey Beyond directly to request the recent figures. Much to my surprise and gratitude, their data analytics team responded within hours with an extremely detailed response, providing not just the annual figures for FY24, 25 and 26, but *daily*, disaggregated by journey sector (ie, Adelaide-Horsham, Nhill to Melbourne, etc). This lets us add another couple of interesting dimensions to our patronage analysis – seasonal and sector demand – which so far as I know have never been published before for The Overland.

Annual Patronage

Firstly, we can update the annual patronage chart dating back to 1968 with the most recent three years of data. The annual totals for each financial year are:

• FY24: 26,380
• FY25: 27,767
• FY26: 25,187

This is an encouraging result – the post-COVID recovery has consolidated nicely above 25,000 passengers per year, compared to the late-2010s nadir of 17,000. While this is still low by historical standards, it’s back to the highest levels seen since concession fares were eliminated in 2016. That’s strong growth whichever way you look at it – a 5.5% CAGR from 2019-2026, over the most disruptive period of modern economic history. The 2025 peak was 60% higher than the pre-COVID trend; by comparison, airline patronage is still yet to recover to pre-COVID levels (and before that, showed a long-term annual growth of 3.5%). That the Overland’s recovery has come *without* reintroduction of interstate concession fares underscores the strength of the recovery (in fact, the economy fare has increased at a 6.5% CAGR since 2013, well above CPI).

How much higher could it go from here? There’s actually surprising headroom for more patronage without changing the current frequency or equipment. If we assume a typical consist of 7-cars (3 standard cars, 2 premium cars, a cafe car and a luggage van), that gives 52,416 seats per year – so the current patronage implies a capacity factor of around 50%. Even assuming a maximum practical capacity factor of 60-70% (typical for long-distance rail), that still suggests a patronage ceiling somewhere in the mid 30,000s, allowing for the usual seasonal fluctuations.

While not a novel insight to the most recent data, it’s worthwhile reiterating the clear causal link between the early 2000s frequency reductions, and the catastrophic collapse of patronage. Airline deregulation in 1991 was a big one-time hit, but subsequent patronage showed stable growth in the low 100,000 range. Frequency reduction was what did the real damage – the train was simply no longer an option for most travellers, even those who would otherwise have preferred it.

Seasonal Variation

The Overland ran 626 individual services between July 1 2023 and June 30 2026, having an average patronage of 127 people per train, a maximum of 266, and a minimum of 17. While noisy, the data shows a pretty clear seasonal trend, consistent across multiple years:

• July-August: mild school holidays peak dropping to winter lull
• September to mid-January: sustained high demand with spikes for footy finals and Christmas / New Year)
• February: lull
• March-April: most pronounced peak (“Mad March” + Easter)
• May-June: lull

Interestingly, there were 6 services of over 250 passengers, and 37 over 200. Depending on the split of premium vs standard carriages, this suggests consists regularly reaching 8 carriages or more. By comparison, the notably large “Crowverland” of footy fans on their way to Melbourne (29 September 2017) comprised 10 cars and carried 272 passengers. That consists of similar size are now being regularly run without fanfare is a very positive signal.

Sector Demand

Probably the most interesting visualisation is the breakdown of passenger load by location (averaged over FY24-26 data). Together with passenger movements per station (note that each trip gives two movements – an “on” and an “off”), and station movements per capita, this gives us several significant insights into how people actually use the Overland:

1. Demand is overwhelmingly intercapital. Of the Overland’s 26,445 passengers per year, 19,952 (75.5%) were between Adelaide Parklands Terminal (APT) and Melbourne Southern Cross (SSS). This is of course largely a result of Adelaide and Melbourne’s overwhelming demographic weight compared to their regions, however it does somewhat challenge the narrative of The Overland as a “regional” transport service. It still absolutely competes directly with intercapital airline, coach and self-driving, albeit as a niche player.
2. Regional demand is predominantly South Australian. Adelaide-Regional trips totalled 4,337 pasengers per year – over 2.5 times higher than Melbourne-Regional trips (1,679). Furthermore, of the Melbourne-Regional trips, 1,378 of them (82%!) were to either Murray Bridge or Bordertown. Including intra-regional Vic-Vic demand, that makes just 361 annual trips entirely within Victoria.
   • This effectively debunks an argument occasionally seen against the significance of recent patronage growth, namely, that it was driven by The Overland’s inclusion in the $9.60 V/Line regional fare cap. Far from being decisive, such fares are a rounding error in total demand.
3. Regional-Regional demand is minor. Intra-regional trips totalled only 476 per year (<2% of the total). The vast majority of these are interstate (mostly Geelong/Ararat/Horsham to Borderdown/Murray Bridge); intra-regional patronage within Victoria averaged just 60. And in South Australia, only 8 trips were taken between the only two regional stations of Murray Bridge and Bordertown over the three years of data – 3 eastbound and 5 westbound – for an average of 2.7 per year!
   • This is, at least, a very decent step up from the late 2010s. The SA government’s decision to cancel its subsidy in 2018 was justified in part by the low patronage at Murray Bridge and Bordertown, then just 300 per year for both stations. It is now almost 2,000.
4. Westbound services are slightly better patronised. 13,573 passengers per year used westbound services, compared to 12,872 eastbound (5.5% more westbound). The difference is less pronounced in the intercapital journeys (10,142 westbound vs. 9,810 eastbound, a 3.4% difference).
   • Adelaide-Regional demand shows a strong eastbound bias – 2,672 vs 1,665 per year (60% more eastbound)
   • I’m guessing this is an artefact of the differential scheduling throughout the week (eastbound on Sundays and Thursdays, westbound on Mondays and Fridays) but haven’t had a look at the station pairs in detail.
5. Regional use is low in absolute terms, but high per-capita. Ons and offs in some regional stations reach a respectable percentage of population (7.0% for Murray Bridge, 6.7% for Bordertown, and 11.5% for Ararat). This is the counterpoint to the earlier focus on absolute patronage; while overall numbers may be low, The Overland *does* retain a meaningful share of the regional transport market.
   • The capitals, despite dominating overall numbers, have the lowest usage per capita – 1.8% for Adelaide and 0.4% for Melbourne.
   • The Ararat peak is notably higher than any other station; the most likely explanation for this is passenger transfer from the Ballarat line (anecdotally a reasonably common pattern) – it’s probably the only regional station to draw meaningful demand from outside its own township.

Discussion

There are three primary takeaways from all this:

First, the recovery is real. The Overland has now sustained patronage above 25,000 for three years. That has occurred despite higher fares, reduced frequency compared with its historical operation, an ageing fleet, and competitive airfares. Whatever the causes, the post-pandemic recovery appears genuine rather than a temporary bounce.

Second, The Overland remains primarily an Adelaide-Melbourne service. Regional travel remains important, but accounts for a much smaller share of demand than public discussion often implies. That has implications for how the train is funded and governed, but also suggests comparisons with aviation and long-distance coach services are more appropriate than with purely regional rail.

Finally, there is capacity to grow. Average load factors remain well below the practical limit, even before adding more carriages. Combined with observed demand growth, and historical demand elasticity to service frequency, this suggests there is scope for further patronage without fundamental changes to the operating model.

Whether all of the above ultimately justifies investment in frequency, rolling stock or journey times is a separate question. However this data does not show a service in terminal decline; it shows a genuinely resilient demand base that could rapidly return to or surpass historical levels if upgraded to the standards expected by modern travellers.