On Thursday, 14 August 2014 16:00:18 UTC+2, Stephen Sprunk  wrote:
> On 14-Aug-14 03:37, rcp27g@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 13 August 2014 19:54:50 UTC+2, Stephen Sprunk  wrote:
> >> On 12-Aug-14 21:40, John Levine wrote:
> 
> >>> That's not totally foolish.  The new trains will run 4 tph, more 
> >>> like transit, while the existing trains run on a typical
> >>> commuter schedule.
> >> 
> >> Nit: commuter rail is a subset of transit.  Perhaps you meant
> >> light and/or heavy rail?
> > 
> > The OP's statement was "a typical comuter schedule", that is a
> > schedule that is entirely, or predominantly tidal in nature (in in
> > the morning, out in the evening), as opposed to a transit-like
> > schedule, one that is high frequency, stop at all stations, in both
> > directions all day.
> 
> I'm not aware of any transit system that doesn't have significantly
> heavier service during peak hours; that's what peak hours means!
> 
> Some commuter rail systems don't have much/any service outside of peak
> hours due to lack of demand and/or funding, but many do.

Where the term "commuter rail" is used, I generally interpret that to mean
off-peak services are essentially non-existent, and when services are
operating, they are essentially uni-directional.  This matches the operating
profile of GO, the topic of this 
thread.

> > Terms "heavy rail" and "light rail" are not particularly meaningful
> > anyway as they are marketing, not technical terms.
> 
> They are FRA/FTA regulatory terms, not marketing or technical terms.

And not applicable to railways in Canada.

Robin

--- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
 * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)