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)