A problem with automated announcements is that they may not make sense in all circumstances - those setting them up may not have considered the circumstances under which they are to be used.

The same is true of announcements made by real people, of course, but the human element can often inject a little judgement.

The incident which sparked off this reflection was an announcement at West Hampstead Thameslink station, in the northern suburbs of London. It was to the effect that the next train - to Sutton - which was due to depart from the London-bound slow line platform had been cancelled, and the next train from that platform would depart in about 15 minutes and would go to Sevenoaks. End of message.

That sounds useful enough on the surface.

However, in practice it is unlikely that many people would be going all the way to either Sutton (in the south western suburbs) or Sevenoaks (in the south-eastern suburbs). Most of them would be going to central London destinations. And for them, a change to the fast line platform would have been better. But they weren't being told this!

This must happen reasonably often - often enough to need a cure!

The logo - and indeed the entire system - is distinctly reminiscent of Hong Kong's MTR.

Ticket machines are touch-screen, with wording in English and Mandarin.

The opening screen shows a system map: touch your destination station (which has the fare on it) and you will be told the fare and asked how many tickets you want. The default is one. Touch the 1 and start putting in money - 5 or 10 remnimbi notes or coins.

Any change and the ticket come out into a slot below the screen: they are held in a kind of cage which you have to tilt with your fingers to collect them.

The ticket is a green plastic coin (there are also smart cards like Hong Kong's Octopus) which you touch on a target on the barrier to open it. Generally the signage is in English and Mandarin.

One difference from Hong Kong is the number of staircases: there is less assistance with changes of level in Shenzhen.

On the platforms there are platform screen doors. Over these is a route map (with station names in English and Mandarin: those which trains from this platform serve are highlighted). There is also an arrow and the name of the destination of the line.

The train from Luo Hu at 17:30 wasn't very crowded - certainly less so than the Jubilee Line in London would have been at that time of day!

Trains are similar to those in Hong Kong, with seats under the windows.

On-train information is good, with next station in English and Mandarin on LED screens and announced. The LED screens also carry safety messages. There is a route map (of the entire planned route, not just the open part) above the doors. Stations the train has passed are in red: those it is going to call at are in green and as you approach one, it is illuminated in yellow. Periodically there is a green wave of lights along the line in the direction of travel. At interchange stations, the stations which are served by the interchange are also illuminated.

There is an illuminated 'Doors open this side' arrow. A television screen has advertising and the time.

There is advertising on the handles down the centre of the car which you use for strap-hanging.

At your destination, go up to the ticket barriers and put your ticket in a slot: the barriers open and you pass through.

There are staff in evidence by the barriers and on the platforms.

Impressive and user-friendly.

There are several pieces of research showing that the need to change trains is a significant disincentive to their use. This applies both when using them as a feeder to the air mode and when considering them as an alternative to flying.

If you need to change mode - or even just change train - on a journey to an airport, it is a potential source of unreliability. It is (I think!) twice as likely that you will encounter a delay on a trip involving two trains than if the trip just includes one. And, of course, there's the hassle of (potentially) having to change platforms and ensuring that you are on the right platform and the right train.

Again, the more modes or trains you have to catch, the greater is the probability that you will catch the wrong one!

The two factors are clearly a significant disincentive.

The need to change trains is also a disincentive to completely changing mode. Research in Austria some 10 years ago, where respondents were given the services of an individual trip adviser for guidance on rail options, showed that 57% of air travellers were only willing to use rail if certain conditions were met - and the top one was no interchange.

However, providing more through trains probably means providing fewer trains. It is not certain that passengers realise that trade-off! And I am working on a blog about travelling from Hong Kong Airport to Shenzhen where I had to catch a bus and then four separate trains - and my total wait time was very small indeed!

The Austrian research concerned journeys of less than 500 km. It was, of course, before the major security enhancements following 9/11. Would the results be the same today?

True, changing trains can still be a pain - especially in those countries where train operators are reluctant to say which platform a specific train is likely to arrive at or leave from.

But so can flying. Do security restrictions today pose as much of a barrier to air travel as changing trains does to rail travel?

Because if so, it means more and more 400 km journeys are likely to be made by road.

This needs to improve - ideas on how this can be done are welcome!

I was unimpressed by two aspects of a recent flight from London to Dubai on flight EK002, the flagship early-afternoon A380 flight from Heathrow.

The flight departed at 14:15 - and it was 16:30 before lunch arrived. Moreover, I'd virtually finished the main course before I was offered wine.

If I want wine with my meal, I want it with my meal not afterwards!

On a flight to Hong Kong next day - ironically a B777, flight number EK380 - they'd got this much better organised.

The other thing which I found unimpressive was the moving map, the airshow, usually the only part of the in-flight entertainment I use.

If I see somewhere underneath which looks interesting, I want to know where it is - and rely on the map to show me.

Sadly, because of the way the map cycles through so many views, it can easily be five minutes between adjacent showings of a reasonably close-up map. And 5 minutes at 500 miles/h is (I reckon) about 40 miles (70 km) - by which time I'm likely to have lost interest! Having two (or more) selectable language options would help: having less clutter would be better too.

I took the opportunty to walk the length of the plane. That made me realise just how long it is. No doubt it's not much longer than a 777 or 747, but it certainly seemed it. Because of the way the cabin is divided up, you don't see the whole plane - you just have to walk it to experience it!

'Rail fatalities rise 18.2% in six months' was the headline in a US-based railway magazine. For the first six months of 2010, fatalities increased to 370.

However, 228 of these were trespassers and 124 were fatalities at level crossings. The latter are virtually always the fault of the road user.

Fatalities in train accidents increased from 1 to 6 - a 600% increase! Isn't that more of a screaming headline? How did they miss it? Especially since it's arguably more relevant - more within the control of the railways.

Oh and by the way, reported accidents and incidents were down about half a percent, train accidents down about five and a half percent and derailments down two and a half percent - but which headline writer ever bothers about good news like that?

And for those who noticed that 228 + 124 + 6 isn't 370, I can tell you that 10 more were employees and two were unexplained.

I received a credit card statement this morning with two surprises in it.

The first one was a very pleasant one.

I was caught up in the volcanic ash cloud disruption in April - I'd planned to meet Aeroports de Montreal then go to a conference and exhibition in Washington DC, but flights were cancelled and I couldn't leave the UK.

American Airlines were pretty good about re-booking, but when it became obvious that the problem was going to last more than a day or two, I cancelled. They offered to re-book me, but only within a couple of weeks: I couldn't manage that because my diary was too full. I claimed on my travel insurance, but the company declined to pay up.

Later I read that, even if US airlines wouldn't refund non-refundable fares, they still were obliged to refund parts of the fare - in particular, the security fee. So I wrote to American Airlines to claim back my dues - with, I must admit, no particular expectations.

While I got no reply to my letter, I did get virtually the full fare credited back to my credit card account! Wow! The difference - about 30 pounds on a 700 pound fare - could have been through changes in exchange rates.

The second one was a real blast from the past.

I had booked a flight from Hong Kong to London on Cathay Pacific. The information on the credit card statement said that the flight was from Hong Kong Kai Tak to London Heathrow.

Kai Tak airport closed in July 1998: it was replaced by Chek Lap Kok!

Again, wow!

Railroad operation in the United States - and, to a degree, in Canada - is dominated by freight. Long heavy freight trains are the order of the day - often running enormous distances (Chicago - Los Angeles, for example).

At the moment there is little passenger operation - but this may change. For a range of reasons, higher-speed passenger service is being studied in a number of places.

Mixing trains with different speed characteristics eats capacity - it's much more efficient, in capacity terms, to have all trains running at a constant speed with a constant stopping pattern. So the proposed super-imposition of more passenger trains running faster has caused warning bells to sound among the freight railroads - who own almost all of the rail infrastructure. Understandably, they want to ensure that they keep their present level of capacity: equally, they do not want to be worse off financially or to have to bear any onerous insurance liabilities.

This has brought to light some differences in standards.

Norfolk Southern will only allow 79 miles/h (127 km/h) on existing freight tracks: higher speeds need a separate right-of-way. Union Pacific is prepared to allow 110 miles/h (177 km/h) on a case-by-case basis. BNSF will allow 90 miles/h (145 km/h) and wants higher speed trains to use a separate track: CSX says the same, but insists on a 30 foot (10 metre) separation between the tracks.

Since these standards are different, are they all correct? Are they all sound? It does sound rather as if someone has put a wet finger in the air, rather than applying science and logic! Maybe someone - perhaps the AAR (American Association of Railroads) with the help of the UIC (International Railway Association) ought to do some kind of risk assessment to see what the parameters are - what are the risks, how can they be managed, and what kind of safeguards are reasonable.

Waht are the risks of mixing high speed passenger and heavy freight? What are the optimal clearances - so that, for example, double-stack container trains can safely work on an electrified railway? What are the insurance needs?

There is plenty of experience around the world of operating freight and high-speed passenger trains on the same infrastructure: let's draw on that to ensure that all possible lessons are learned before we move on to sub-optimal solutions. Those cost money!

Some time ago I posted a blog about the announcements at Farringdon station, served by both London Underground trains and Thameslink trains between Gatwick and Luton airports.

The issue then was that Blackfriars underground station was closed for major reconstruction work and the London Underground station announcers were advising people to use the Circle Line underground stations on either side. However, Thameslink trains run direct to Blackfriars, and would be a much quicker way of getting to where people wanted to go.

Shortly after posting that blog, the announcements changed. Coincidence?

Then, much more recently, I posted a blog about lazy announcements for First Capital Connect's Thameslink services operated by class 377 units. The recorded announcement was to the effect that First Class facilities were at the front and back of the train - ignoring the fact that, if it was an 8-coach train, they were also available in the middle. I made the point that some people might prefer the middle of the train.

Coming home yesterday from St. Pancras, I noticed that the overhead station departure notices took account of this - they said 'First class front, middle and rear'.

Coincidence? Or does someone from First Capital Connect actually read this blog and take notice?

If they do, they can have another challenge.

Some of the seats in the standard class accommodation have armrests which can be raised or lowered. Some of the seats are in groups of 4, so there are two sets of seats back-to-back in places - convenient, because there is luggage space between the seats. However, the armrests can be a nuisance here if they are raised - if passengers are standing (and they do, because these trains have fewer seats than those they are replacing), it is very uncomfortable leaning against two raised arm-rests!

The UK's Rail Safety & Standards Board - RSSB - published its annual safety performance report for 2009/2010. I read the "Key facts and figures" bit - and fascinating it was too.

There were no passenger or workforce fatalities in train accidents in Great Britain during the year.

There were five passenger fatalities (two on platform edges hit by trains, two falling off platforms and one falling on an escalator): this is equal to the lowest annual figure on record. There were three workforce fatalities, and 298 public fatalities - suicides, trespassers or people misusing level crossings.

Most of the risk of fatalities on the railway is through the behaviour of members of the public.

The annual average number of workforce fatalities has dropped by 98% since 1949: passenger fatalities are also significantly down. Public fatalities have shown no significant change.

In the last three years, and in five of the last 10 years, there have been no fatalities to passengers in train accidents. The moving average number of train accidents resulting in passenger or workforce fatalities has fallen by 75% since 1950, and is currently less than one a year.

These are excellent figures, superb figures, and it is just a shame that, because they are good news, they hit no headlines. Because the rail system in Great Britain carries around 24,000 trains a day with trailing loads of up to 1000 tonnes: they travel at speeds of up to 200 km/h and are powered by either high-voltage electricity or flammable diesel fuel.

They are driven, controlled and signalled by fallible human beings. Several stations see more passengers than Heathrow Airport.

And yet no passenger has been killed in a train accident for three years: there were no such fatalities in half of the last 10 years.

Not only is that good news, it is a high tribute to the excellence of our rail system - all of it. Managers, workforce, maintainers, everyone involved.

The report can be found on RSSB's web-site, www.rssb.co.uk.

I have always known that the acronym for an official Notice to Airmen is NOTAM.

I've just come across the acronym for notices specifically about snow on airfields - the Snow Notice to Airmen. It's a SNOWTAM.

No, I don't mean exponentials - as a mere economist, I can just about manage them!

It just that, in writing a report, they will typically write 'The system needs 28 no. point ends' when it actually needs 28 point ends.

There was an example in a magazine I was reading today - a building was being protected from earthquakes by 'using 292 nos. pendulum seismic isolators'.

This seems odd. Can some engineer - or some teacher of engineers - tell me what the rationale is, please?