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)