From: ahk@chinet.com

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:

>>>>>and incompatible with the rest of GO Transit which assumes low
>>>>>platforms.

>>>>That is not Nippon Sharyo's fault. Clearly the Union Pearson
>>>>Express folks thought that was their preference. :)

>>>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.  Such
>schedule philosophies can be applied to heavy rail, light rail or indeed
>buses.  Terms "heavy rail" and "light rail" are not particularly
>meaningful anyway as they are marketing, not technical terms.  The same
>vehciles, eg Stadler GTW, operate on both "heavy rail" and "light rail"
>in different locations.

In my town, a typical commuter rail schedule offers hourly midday service
and hourly evening service, and a mix of hourly and bi-hourly service
on weekends. In the case of CSS&SB, there's more service to South Bend
on weekends than weekdays.

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