From: ahk@chinet.com

Jishnu Mukerji  wrote:
>On 8/14/2014 10:00 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

>>They are FRA/FTA regulatory terms, not marketing or technical terms.

>>"Light rail" is for heavy non-FRA trains on a non-exclusive ROW, and
>>"heavy rail" is for light non-FRA trains on an exclusive ROW.

>Just to elaborate a bit... it should be noted that this categorization
>may apply only to territories where FRA has potential jurisdiction,
>namely the USA and its territories. The rest of the world really does
>not care much about that definition since they neither know nor care
>what FRA is or says. Well Canada and Mexico might care a little, but
>certainly no one in Eurasia or Australia cares.

But no one inside the United States cares either. If the categorization
was performed, it was performed by the author of a report. Another author
writing another report at a different time will use his own categorization
methodology. The author of a hypothetical report can include any rail route
or system he likes in his categorizing from anywhere in the world if he
feels it's applicable to his report.

Stephen claimed they're regulatory terms, disagreeing with the O.P. who
noted that they're marketing terms. (No marketer worth his salt would use
"heavy rail" as it's so stupid and off-putting, but I agreed with the
jist of what was said.) But Stephen cannot find any federal standard
for "light rail" or "heavy rail" that doesn't exist.

The distinction he made is lousy anyway as there are way too many exceptions.
See my other followup.

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