Far and away the most important thing here is that they fundamentally didn't lock down, and people who felt they needed to for mental health or practical reasons were still able to access the wider world.Although reduced capacity on trains wouldn't be a sensible precaution if the article referred to above saying that the epidemic was pretty much over in Sweden now is correct, I'd have thought.
How do you conclude an absence of differences between train companies from looking at the rules for one company?
Of course Sweden doesn't have the number of operators we have.
Also:
suggests that at some point they made the restrictions more strict, which is interesting.
I also find it interesting that apparently the principle in Sweden was to bring in restrictions that weren't too onerous so could be lived with long term.
And that seems to have included restricted capacity on long distance trains and telling everyone to drive instead of using local trains, buses and trams...
On public transport though, it seems like they had the same rule as we did post lockdown, but they had actually messaged the rule they had in place. There is nothing wrong with which telling people to cut down the crowds by considering walking or cycling, and they don't anywhere suggest driving. By contrast whatever our rules said, we had ministers daily telling us to use cars, trains with taped up seats, stations full of aggressive announcements, a complete suspension of affordable fares for anybody honest enough to pay, and an army of people in hi-vis questioning our motives and pushing us around crazy one-way systems.