Agreed. I only suggested having the population numbers so that people don't interpret the route lengths at face value. Historically, the Gangetic plains UP and Bihar had the highest population density ( not relevant now probably), so these areas had a much higher track density than most areas in the rest of the country and as such, even during the British Raj itself, these areas had a much denser railway network than anywhere else in the country. So, even if subsequent developments have been tainted by bias from the government, these places already had a head start compared to the rest of the country. Biased government or not, they are bound to be at the top of the table. I wanted the population data to be included so that the reason behind the disparity is made clear.