Exeter Summer Timetables 1980/1985

Please see the notes on each of the timetables as some movements will require special measures.

I agree. "Timetable Manual/Notes on Wiki" is not on your list so I'll take that as support of my proposal.

I'll wait a little while longer and if no one else comes up with a better suggestion I'll go ahead as planned.

As it's some months since these TTs were released, an alternative is for the TT developer to post any special notes about them in this thread.

Scrolling down it quickly, I missed the reference to Tiverton Junction, but it's now obvious to me that this is the same file that is repeated in the Description window of the TT List > General tab. This window is significantly wider and deeper than the one seen when selecting a TT, which is as it should be. A description should be nothing more than a brief summary. If the developer wants to append a full set of notes, well and good, but please prefix it with a heading "Notes:" so we can all see there's more to read.

As Tiverton Parkway was not then open,you will need to tick the "Tiverton Junction" box on the scenario set up.

Notes:-

As a matter of fact, I did skip by that tiny, cramped little window you are referring to, as it seemed to offer nothing more than a general description of the timetable without going into too much detail. Somehow my poor literal brain interpreted "Description" as simply that - a description, not a set of notes

To Danny252: As a matter of fact, I did skip by that tiny, cramped little window you are referring to, as it seemed to offer nothing more than a general description of the timetable without going into too much detail. Somehow my poor literal brain interpreted "Description" as simply that - a description, not a set of notes.

Scrolling down it quickly, I missed the reference to Tiverton Junction, but it's now obvious to me that this is the same file that is repeated in the Description window of the TT List > General tab. This window is significantly wider and deeper than the one seen when selecting a TT, which is as it should be. A description should be nothing more than a brief summary. If the developer wants to append a full set of notes, well and good, but please prefix it with a heading "Notes:" so we can all see there's more to read.

Although I can appreciate the value of incorporating notes on a TT into the Description file to make them available even in play without needing to open a separate Readme.txt file, IMO simply doing this without bundling the same information in a text file included in the original zip strikes me as being a little too clever for the average user's good. It's not intuitively obvious to the average user that the text can be copied (albeit Ctrl+A doesn't work here) and pasted into a text file, making it easier to read. Why make him do that? It still doesn't entirely solve the catch-22 problem that the user has to install the TT before he can read the notes.

You seem to think I find bugs and oversights amazing and exciting. Well, I don't. We all make mistakes, but if you track them back you will find one or more points of confusion leading to error. What is amazing is how quickly minor points of confusion can build up into one big thundercloud of discouragement.

A description should be nothing more than a brief summary. If the developer wants to append a full set of notes, well and good, but please prefix it with a heading "Notes:" so we can all see there's more to read.

Although I can appreciate the value of incorporating notes on a TT into the Description file to make them available even in play without needing to open a separate Readme.txt file, IMO simply doing this without bundling the same information in a text file included in the original zip strikes me as being a little too clever for the average user's good. It's not intuitively obvious to the average user that the text can be copied (albeit Ctrl+A doesn't work here) and pasted into a text file, making it easier to read.

I'm not going to recommend how detailed a description for a particular TT should be, though I feel it should be detailed enough to mention peculiarities such as getting trains into and out of sidings that are not used by the default TT bundled with the sim, for example.

A more important issue is whether a TT's description should be open to amendment by being duplicated in the Wiki; I don't think it should, but maybe the file included in the download should be date-stamped so that users can compare it with an earlier version if needed.

How much detail is too much? From my point of view, anyone experienced enough with SimSig to write a TT must find it hard to come down from these atmospheric heights to novice level, as a result of which notes regarded as adequate by the developer may seem maddeningly cryptic to others. I'm all in favour of more step by step "walk-throughs", complete with screen shots, just as on other websites devoted to commercial games. IMO these are best written not by the developer but by a relative novice who has just played through it once so is better able to identify where clarification is needed.

I also think it important that a TT developer should clearly state exactly where notes for his TT are found, to avoid hunting around for them as I did. Something like: "For further details see readme.txt file included with download", or "For further details, load timetable into SimSig and read Description on startup".

One more point. It's difficult enough to learn how to play SimSig, let alone understand TT syntax. It's a big ask to expect all but experienced players to edit someone else's TT just for the game to run smoothly. Therefore developers should be quick to update TTs frequently as bugs emerge, and admins should be quick to accept them and delete earlier buggy versions.

Just found a small discrepancy in the 1985 Saturday TT. 5C30 enters Goodrington at 05.55 for Paignton P2. The TT shows its arrival time at Paignton as 15.57! I suspect this is a typo, and should be 05.57. :)

EDIT: It just arrived at Paignton 600 minutes early. :blink:

The onward working, 2C30, has the correct timings.

Therefore developers should be quick to update TTs frequently as bugs emerge, and admins should be quick to accept them and delete earlier buggy versions.

As an aside there are now 7 timetables awaiting authorisation - none of which adhere to the required naming rules and very few have any download description annotation.

" said:

As an aside there are now 7 timetables awaiting authorisation - none of which adhere to the required naming rules and very few have any download description annotation.

I meant to ask you about this when it was six TTs awaiting authorisation. Do you contact the person who submitted it, to tell them it needs amending, or does it just sit in a queue, waiting for the TT writer to notice it hasn't been accepted?