At the end of last year, commuting through West Hampstead Thameslink was even more problematic than usual. There is limited capacity on the overbridge which everyone has to use: it gets very congested, especially since while hundreds wish to get off trains in the morning peak, tens wish to get on - and of course they want to go down the stairs to the platform while everyone else is going up! Add to this the driver shortage before Christmas which led to a significant reduction in train services and you had a recipe for very unhappy passengers.

One morning as I approached the foot of the stairs, I was behind someone who was behind two big Africans. He made some loud comment critical of their speed of movement, obviously being impatient to get to work. It could easily have developed into a racial argument - but instead, the two in front, clearly baffled by the expression of impatience, just said, "Better let this one go first", and stood aside to let Mr. Impatient get past them. They then followed him up the stairs.

I was left reflecting on what a little patience and tolerance can do!

The UK train company Southern recently asked their passengers what they wanted in the way of multi-modal announcements - what they wanted to hear on trains and in stations about connectional opportunities to buses, trams, the London Underground and such-like.

I reckon that there are probably four types of information one can be given when travelling - the completely unnecessary, the irritating, the useful and the absolutely invaluable.

The completely unnecessary.
If you catch a non-stop train from London's Waterloo station to Woking, as the train approaches Woking you are told that you can change there for the bus link to Heathrow Airport.

So you can - but if you were going there, you wouldn't have started from here! There are three or four different ways of getting from Waterloo to Heathrow, all of which are easier, cheaper and quicker than travelling straight past it on a non-stop train to Woking and then changing to go back by bus on London's notoriously congested M25 orbital motorway.

The irritating.
As you leave London's St. Pancras station on a non-stop train to St. Albans, the recorded announcement on the new 377/5 trains tells you that, "You are now approaching St. Albans". So you are, and in around 15 minutes, all being well, you'll be there.

So tell me in 12 minutes time, not now!

This is a serious point. I first heard this on a very crowded train - it was full and standing. Had I not known where I was and how far from St. Albans I actually was, I might have left my seat (which would have made me popular), pushed through the crush to the door (which wouldn't) and then stood there for 10 minutes waiting for the train to reach its first station. What would my state of mind have been as I stood there?

The useful
Interchange information - to any other form of transport - is worthwhile if people want it. If reasonable numbers of people change between train and underground at Balham, for example, fine, announce it. Otherwise it's not worth bothering. It is irritating to get information which no-one wants.

Bus interchange information is tricky. It needs to be provided if it's useful, if there is an easy connection (a bus stop outside the station) and a good connection (less than 20 minutes to wait). If there's a 58 minute wait for the next bus or it stops more than 5 minutes walk away, forget it.

And again, only announce the useful information. To tell people on a train from London that buses run from St. Albans station to Hatfield, Watford and Welwyn Garden City is a waste of time - if they were going there, they'd go on a direct train.

The absolutely invaluable.
Commuting into St. Pancras one morning, I was told (by the driver or possibly the signalman) that the Victoria Line of the London Underground was closed. That information was solid gold - it meant that I could re-plan my journey, knowing what I know about the London Underground and the alternatives available. That was excellent service on the part of the train operator: that kind of cooperation is wonderful.

What do you think?

One problem with the lack of air and rail accidents is the shortage of detail, the shortage of trend evidence, of precursor events. Each accident tends to be a bit of a one-off: yes, you can learn from them, but investigators and safety experts always want a bit more evidence to help!

One solution is near-miss reporting. This is a way in which employees can report near-accidents - events which, but for a happy chance, could have resulted in tragedy. An example is a member of the train crew opening doors on the wrong side of the train, but where no-one gets out. Researching these helps with the risk analysis process, and helps prevent or minimise future accidents.

Confidentiality and anonymity are almost essential, so the system is usually run by an organisation separate from the train companies. In the UK it is the free-standing CIRAS - Confidential Incident Reporting & Analysis System: in the US it is the Close Call system, run by the Federal Railroad Administration.

I understand that most, if not all, railways companies in Great Britain participate. They receive the regular CIRAS newsletter, in which details of important cases are reported and important trends highlighted.

In the US, things aren't quite that good. New Jersey Transit has recently joined Canadian Pacific and Union Pacific in the Close Call system. And sadly, the only two comments in one press report on NJT's joining were to the effect that whistle-blowers always get sacked! Er - that's why it's anonymous, guys! But where are all the other US railroads and transit systems?

OK, some of the reports will be frivolous. Some near misses won't get reported. Some whistle-blowers will, despite precautions, get identified and penalised. That, sadly, is life.

But some precursors, some dangerous practices will get picked up, will get nipped in the bud. Some accidents, some tragedies, will be prevented as a result. And that, too, is life.

Vancouver's transit system has been carrying record numbers of passengers during the Winter Olympics - way in excess of forecasts.

A recent article in the "Globe and Mail" notes that, on the first Sunday, over 1.5m people used the system (light rail, bus and seabus). Forecasts before the Games were that daily ridership would increase by just 20%, from 700,000 to 960,000.

A Vancouver official is quoted as saying, "If we provide a high quality service, people will use it."

If you want to read the article, have a look at the article on the Canada Press website.

In October 2000, there was a high speed derailment just south of Hatfield, some 27 km north of London. It happened around 12:30. Tragically, four people were killed.

I heard about this within half an hour of it happening - in my hotel in Washington DC.

By 12:30 that day, four people had died on Britain's roads. I can only say only this because, on average, 10 people die each day and statistically more do so after noon than before.

The train crash led to major chaos on Britain's railways. It led to the collapse of Railtrack. It also resulted - as all railway accidents do - in two major enquiries and a published report with many recommendations based on lessons learnt. At all stages it led to near world-wide near saturation coverage in all media.

The fatalities on the roads, by contrast, just led to an inquest. One or two may have hit the local papers. No enquiries, no published report, no lessons learnt - even though, because railway accidents have been painstakingly investigated since the 1840s and all low-hanging fruit has long gone, it would be easier to learn from road accidents.

I deplore this bias.

One thing it does do is give people an unbalanced view of the world. It is quite possible that, as a result of media coverage, people conclude that it's unsafe to ride trains and go by car instead - witha significantly higher risk of accident.

I also deplore the practice - especially in North America - of reporting something under the headline, "Train crash" when actually it's an idiot in a car thinking he can outpace a train approaching a level crossing.

How about some balance in reporting?

Sadly, unlikely. Railway accidents are news because they rarely happen: car crashes aren't because they happen much, much too often.

In 1990 there was an analysis of front-page reporting in the New York Times. This showed that there were 1.7 murder stories for every 1000 homicides, 2.3 AIDS stories for every AIDS death, 0.02 cancer stories for every 1000 cancer deaths and 138.2 plane crash stories for every 1000 aircraft deaths.

Balance in reporting?