Depending on a timetable

Source A: an original contemporary non-fiction-style account.

The bus app showed three minutes until arrival, then two, then five. I watched the number change with more attention than I gave the road. When the bus finally appeared, the screen still promised another minute. The journey was only slightly delayed, but the confident countdown had made the waiting feel like a series of broken agreements.

I prefer live information to none, especially when a service is cancelled and I can choose another route. What I want is a distinction between a measured position and a hopeful estimate. A timetable is useful because it lets people arrange the rest of their day; an update should help revise that arrangement, not merely keep them staring at a number. I would rather read 'about ten minutes, uncertain' than watch three exact minutes expand indefinitely. Precision in appearance is not the same as honesty about what is known.

Source B: an original letter in a nineteenth-century voice. This is a period-voice simulation, not an archival document.

Sir, the revised coach timetable leaves insufficient time for passengers arriving by the afternoon train. On paper, the connection is possible. In practice, collecting a bag and crossing from the station consumes most of the interval even when the train is punctual. Those unable to hurry are being offered an arrangement that exists chiefly in the printer's confidence.

I do not demand that every service wait without limit for another. I ask that the published times allow for the ordinary actions required between them. A timetable is not simply a description of vehicles moving; it is a set of expectations upon which people spend money and make plans. If a connection is unreliable, say so plainly or alter it. The elegance of a closely fitted schedule is of little comfort to a traveller watching the coach leave while still carrying luggage across the yard.

Refer to the whole of both sources. Compare the writers’ perspectives on reliable transport information and how they convey those perspectives. Support your comparison with evidence from both sources.