Is this timetable wrongly laid out?

[TheManOnThe172]

Is there a clear set of rules on the order in which trains are shown in a timetable?

The special 27 July timetable for EMR Nottingham-Derby-Matlock shows trains Nottingham-Derby and Derby-Matlock, ordered by their start time from their origin. But that results in "negative connections" at Derby - eg arriving at 1541 in one column, with the next column showing a departure for Matlock at 1533. My instinct is that I would expect to see connections between two services dictating the order in which trains are listed. I've just checked the PDF of a (now-expired) Table 56 and that indeed is the convention used for that.

Have EMR got this wrong, or is it up to the compiler to choose their own orthodoxy?

 

[Mike99]

deleted

 

[30907]

Yes - the outward direction is shown conventionally.

Whoever produced it obviously didn't notice that there were two Matlock departures before the first Nottingham arrival at Derby. Aesthetically it is of course fine

It will not be the first time a pdf/paper timetable has been produced incorrectly - the pre-2021 NRT carried them over from year to year

Fortunately, not many people are likely to travel the whole route, given the 53-min connection, and it would only have a major impact on someone who missed the last Matlock as a result.

 

[Ralph Ayres]

Conversely the timetable might tempt extra travellers given what appears at a glance to be a 50 minute journey time from Nottingham to Matlock; it's very easy to overlook the negative connection time. Time for a (not so) swift half down the road in the Brunswick as consolation once you reach Derby and find out.

 

[AlterEgo]

I honestly can't tell the difference between the two but I can read both of them fine!

 

[AlbertBeale]

Is there a clear set of rules on the order in which trains are shown in a timetable?

The special 27 July timetable for EMR Nottingham-Derby-Matlock shows trains Nottingham-Derby and Derby-Matlock, ordered by their start time from their origin. But that results in "negative connections" at Derby - eg arriving at 1541 in one column, with the next column showing a departure for Matlock at 1533. My instinct is that I would expect to see connections between two services dictating the order in which trains are listed. I've just checked the PDF of a (now-expired) Table 56 and that indeed is the convention used for that.

Have EMR got this wrong, or is it up to the compiler to choose their own orthodoxy?

Yes - of course it's wrongly laid out - trains need to be in chronological order at any given station they both serve!

Someone must have thought it looked prettier with columns for the two services alternating. All the Derby-Matlocks after the first one should be shifted a column to the left; and all the Nottingham-Derbys, apart from the last one, should be shifted a column to the right. Obviously!

The alternative would be to show the two services as separate timetables - though that would be less useful than [a correctly laid-out version of] the combinatin as here.

 

[306024]

Agree it’s wrong, but as said in other threads spare a thought for those having to produce all these strike timetables under great pressure.

Then once you’ve got your breath back, there’s the day job to return to, which you are now having to do under more pressure to meet other timescales which won’t have changed while you are working on strike timetables.

Planning offices aren’t resourced for this volume of work and as seen on here everyone wants the information yesterday. Presumably this is just one of many timetables EMR are having to do.