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