"Phil" wrote in message
...
Paul Scott wrote:
For anyone coming late to this discussion, the NR timetables have been
reissued this morning, and the faults we were discussing appear to have
been overcome. In particular the columns appear to be sorted correctly
left to right so that trains through NXG appear in their correct time
order.

Is there a prize for spotting the first error? Can I go with the second
line on the first page which says

Sunday 23 May 2009 to Saturday 11 December 2010

More attention to detail required, I think.

--
Phil
Liverpool, UK

Somewhere around the mid 1970s it was decreed on Southern that every station
should have "commuter cards" showing Monday to Friday train services for
that station or small group of stations. This was subsequently extended to
cover weekends as well.

Compilation of these very fiddly documents was naturally not expected to
need more staff, we just fitted it in along with everything else. And they
were a nightma had to be typed or hand written first to go to the
printer, draft returned for checking and correcting, returned to printer,
sent back with old errors corrected (usually) and new errors introduced and
so on. Finally published just as more timetable changes would be announced
etc.

This was all done by hand, hot metal and sweat. The current lot with
computers and handy office printers and us lot providing free beta testing
don't know what real life is like. They really need to pull their socks up
PDQ.

MaxB

In article ,
() wrote:

In article ,
(Paul Scott) wrote:

For anyone coming late to this discussion, the NR timetables have
been reissued this morning, and the faults we were discussing
appear to have been overcome. In particular the columns appear to
be sorted correctly left to right so that trains through NXG
appear in their correct time order.

They seem to have fixed Table 25 at least. Thanks for the heads-up.

Table 49 still has some stupid typos in, though. You just can't get the
staff nowadays!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 18 May, 18:27, "Paul Scott" wrote:
"MIG" wrote in message

...

On 18 May, 17:27, "Paul Scott" wrote:
There have been a few previous posts highlighting that table 178 is
borked
(in terms of sorting left to right on departure timings) but I don't
think
your findings have been mentioned before...

Is it an error, or an attempt at something fairly impossible?

Peckham Rye is before both Queens Road and Denmark Hill depending on
whether the train is heading for London Bridge or Blackfriars, and
that seems to be what they've tried to show.

Don't think so. Comparing it with both directions in the current table 178
and the fact that the UP section of the new table 178 is correctly ordered,
suggests it is just another basic cockup - * accidentally ordered
alphabetically maybe?

Paul S

The SET tables are now causing me some fun.

In 199 the peak Orpington to Charing Cross trains seem to have been
shifted forwards (or is that back?) by twenty minutes relative to all
the other trains. (They are in the slot where the one twenty minutes
earlier should go.)

A bit more worrying is that the morning peak times seem to be the same
as they were in the previous timetable, but on the ground this week,
some of them seem to have been rejigged, eg a Bexleyheath line train
to Charing Cross is two minutes earlier than it was, and in a
different order through the junction at Lewisham I think, but in the
timetable book it's unchanged in both 199 and 200.

On May 25, 9:15*pm, MIG wrote:
[snip]
The SET tables are now causing me some fun.

In 199 the peak Orpington to Charing Cross trains seem to have been
shifted forwards (or is that back?) by twenty minutes relative to all
the other trains. *(They are in the slot where the one twenty minutes
earlier should go.)

A bit more worrying is that the morning peak times seem to be the same
as they were in the previous timetable, but on the ground this week,
some of them seem to have been rejigged, eg a Bexleyheath line train
to Charing Cross is two minutes earlier than it was, and in a
different order through the junction at Lewisham I think, but in the
timetable book it's unchanged in both 199 and 200.

What about in the Southeastern timetable booklets?
See:
http://www.southeasternrailway.co.uk...ey/timetables/

On 25 May, 22:13, Mizter T wrote:
On May 25, 9:15*pm, MIG wrote:

[snip]
The SET tables are now causing me some fun.

In 199 the peak Orpington to Charing Cross trains seem to have been
shifted forwards (or is that back?) by twenty minutes relative to all
the other trains. *(They are in the slot where the one twenty minutes
earlier should go.)

A bit more worrying is that the morning peak times seem to be the same
as they were in the previous timetable, but on the ground this week,
some of them seem to have been rejigged, eg a Bexleyheath line train
to Charing Cross is two minutes earlier than it was, and in a
different order through the junction at Lewisham I think, but in the
timetable book it's unchanged in both 199 and 200.

What about in the Southeastern timetable booklets?
See:http://www.southeasternrailway.co.uk...ey/timetables/

Yes, I thought of that just after posting, and their PDF is the same
as in the timetable book, but not the same as what was happening on
the platforms. I'll bang off an enquiry.