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.