tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post5713477283965244650..comments2024-03-25T08:35:51.364-07:00Comments on Caltrain HSR Compatibility Blog: Peninsula (Northeast) CorridorClemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comBlogger96125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-84755217083282349942010-08-14T12:31:04.671-07:002010-08-14T12:31:04.671-07:00Thing is, Mike, MLY is correct 90% of the time and...<i>Thing is, Mike, MLY is correct 90% of the time and the insults are often well earned (not to mention very entertaining.) Thicker skins are good.</i><br /><br />90% of the time it's just repetitive and bizarre insults. You guys seem to think he's some sort of genius because he knows how to use CAD software.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-68011936911129207692010-08-07T17:00:15.651-07:002010-08-07T17:00:15.651-07:00No need to wait until 2070. It was not too long ag...<em>No need to wait until 2070. It was not too long ago that VTA was talking about paying for additional Caltrain runs, to turn around at Palo Alto.</em><br /><br />Just because San Mateo county runs nearly empty BART trains thither and yon doesn't mean Santa Clara has to run nearly empty trains thither and yon. Anyway once they build BART to San Jose they will be able to run nearly empty BART trains like San Mateo.Adirondacker12800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-57270454334518781262010-08-07T16:32:48.322-07:002010-08-07T16:32:48.322-07:00What if San Jose became do TOD-of-riffic (circa 20...<i>What if San Jose became do TOD-of-riffic (circa 2070) that the S-Bahn San Jose justified 7 minute headway local trains shuttling Sunnyvale-SJ-Blossom Hill?</i><br /><br />No need to wait until 2070. It was not too long ago that VTA was talking about paying for additional Caltrain runs, to turn around at Palo Alto.<br /><br />Something to keep in mind is that Caltrain is not monolithic entity -- it has no dedicated funding source for operations. Instead, it is up to whims of the individual member counties. <br /><br />It is not hard to imagine one county deciding to fund higher level of service than another. In such cases, they are going to want to turn trains around at arbitrary political boundaries.Drunk Engineerhttp://systemicfailure.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-29118581649033548662010-08-07T15:20:49.424-07:002010-08-07T15:20:49.424-07:00High platforms don't cost all that much. In Ge...High platforms don't cost all that much. In Germany they've built a station for <a href="http://zierke.com/shasta_route/pages/45rogue-local.html" rel="nofollow">$200,000</a>. I think the boarding height is 550 mm, but even with a factor-of-10 difference in cost between that and an HSR-compliant boarding height, we're talking about $4 million per station, i.e. less than $150 million systemwide. Now compare the cost of this with the cost of procuring low-floor HSR...Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-435701022709149572010-08-07T14:59:12.693-07:002010-08-07T14:59:12.693-07:00Regarding turnbacks, turnbacks at Mountain View wo...Regarding turnbacks, turnbacks at Mountain View would be difficult with SFFS. However, I expect San Jose to end up with a flyover/duckunder appearing as a side effect of the new bridge south of the station, regardless of how stupid the bridge design is; I don't see a way to do it without generating an obvious diveunder location for the outside tracks.neroden@gmailhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07475686367097445497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-91880590793833405202010-08-07T14:43:08.718-07:002010-08-07T14:43:08.718-07:00"Joey said...
neroden: the cost of 48 in..."Joey said...<br /><br /> neroden: the cost of 48 inch platforms vs say 36 inch platforms is not going to be significant"<br /><br />It changes ramp lengths, which is significant. Anyway, we're talking the difference between 48" platforms and 21.6" platforms; the difference in required ramp lengths is substantial (the latter requires only one landing, the former requires three).<br /><br />It also changes the suitable train designs, particularly for bilevels, and so it affects the structure gauge height for the entire line. This is much more significant.<br /><br />It's not like it's a huge deal either way though. However, doing anything other than standardizing would be horrible.neroden@gmailhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07475686367097445497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-5104888657336744802010-08-07T07:44:29.043-07:002010-08-07T07:44:29.043-07:00That's 24 activations per hour, which means 12...That's 24 activations per hour, which means 12 minutes of gate downtime assuming a 30 second cycle. Probably not so good for a major street, but not disastrous for the likes of Churchill or Sunnyvale Avenue. It would be best, though, to ensure that pedestrians always have a grade-separated path to cross the tracks at stations.crzwdjkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06394805356595604336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-9148097818700428062010-08-06T22:41:44.248-07:002010-08-06T22:41:44.248-07:00@Caltrain First:
If you're running peak 12 TP...@Caltrain First:<br /><br />If you're running peak 12 TPH, <i>per direction</i> through the crossings (which is a conservative estimate compared to official numbers), they you'll be lucky if the crossing is open for a couple of minutes ever hour. There is functionally little difference between that and closing the crossing altogether during peak hours.Joeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16406340564037825796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-34681582892455703502010-08-06T21:32:35.946-07:002010-08-06T21:32:35.946-07:00There are two tracks between Attleboro and Readvil...There are two tracks between Attleboro and Readville. Likewise, for the most part, between Warwick, RI and New Haven (there's a couple of bits of third track around Groton and Guilford, CT). Both tracks have Amtrak trains, they have equal speed restrictions, and both sections include some areas of 125-150 mph running. There is freight service on both sections, so at least one track on each is shared between freight and 125 mph freight trains, and it doesn't seem to be hugely problematic. And what about the WCML and ECML in the UK, both of which have 125 mph running and heavy freight traffic. Or for that matter HS1 and Perpignan-Figueres, both of which are full on high speed lines with 300 km/h TGV service, and freight trains using the same tracks at night.crzwdjkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06394805356595604336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-47193669748732852442010-08-06T18:07:39.304-07:002010-08-06T18:07:39.304-07:00Hey, I did the nice thing for more than a decade.
...Hey, I did the nice thing for more than a decade.<br /><br />I've spend about $50k of my own money and many many thousands of hours on various advocacy projects.<br /><br />I cooked birthday dinners for board members. I schmoozed. I made political donations to people I hate. I said nice things in public on all occasions about people who were and are dumb as rocks.<br /><br />And what we get is the Transbay Terminal, BART to Millbrae, HSR to Los Banos, and the Peninsula Rail Program.<br /><br />The people controlling these processes are all of unprofessional, unethical, unintelligent, uninquisitive, xenophobic, lazy, insular and habitually mendacious. Good luck spending years and years maintaining the social fiction that isn't the case: I wish anybody who can make any inroads by being politic and agreeable nothing but the very best.<br /><br />I'm only creating a paper trail at this point for "I told you so" purposes; there's no hope of educating the uneducable before the disaster.<br /><br />At least this isn't about anything important, like catastrophic atmospheric CO2 concentrations, mass extinctions, or out of control human population.Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-35250783687876327352010-08-06T15:01:11.191-07:002010-08-06T15:01:11.191-07:00Who and where are all these "other people&quo...Who and where are all these "other people" who people say/worry are so turned off by Richard's entertaining rants that they cannot grasp the excellent and imminently sensible ideas contained therein?<br /><br />I've noticed that it's always some theoretical "other people" people talking about Richard are concerned about. Nobody has yet fessed up to being one of those people who is so "turned off" that they cannot grasp or appreciate the arguments he makes on their merits.<br /><br />I love his passion and insights ... and his cynical and passionately expressive style just makes them all the more interesting to read.Reality Checknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-40950779591379835192010-08-06T14:54:38.768-07:002010-08-06T14:54:38.768-07:00I agree that Richard is correct on many points and...I agree that Richard is correct on many points and is right to point out the piss-poor engineering, lack of professional ethics, and strategic misrepresentation involved in this project, but Richard doesn't always get it right. For instance, ROW width is a genuine strategic concern, and the land required beyond the formal station footprint for any displaced tracks is a flaw with FSSF. More importantly, infill stations are distinct future possibilities on a corridor where stations are currently about two miles apart. Think of all the infill stations BART should be building but can't politically due to the inability of BART service to run expresses. The Caltrain corridor can be designed to accommodate expresses, and that makes future infill stations both possible and desirable with corridor development. <br /><br />It would help Richard get his otherwise important messages across if he didn't behave like a tempestuous child that doesn't get exactly his way.Caltrain Firstnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-39338588564312291162010-08-06T14:31:09.238-07:002010-08-06T14:31:09.238-07:00@anon409
Thing is, Mike, MLY is correct 90% of th...@anon409<br /><br /><i>Thing is, Mike, MLY is correct 90% of the time and the insults are often well earned (not to mention very entertaining.) Thicker skins are good.</i><br /><br />I agree he's correct 90% of the time, but if you engage in that kind of hyperbole you really need to be correct 100% of the time (which he's clearly not).<br /><br />Regarding thick skins: I personally could not care less what Richard calls me or anyone else here. I too find his rants entertaining. But I also care about his own effectiveness at communicating his message, and that is clearly compromised. A lot of people understandably take the attitude of, "Oh boy, there goes crazy Richard again," and so the content of what he's saying doesn't get across. Which is too bad, because he often has good ideas.<br /><br /><i> BS, for the most part. Side platforms consume more total ROW width than a single central platform, plus add an extra elevator(s), ramp(s), lights, seating, square feet of concrete, etc. </i><br /><br />Come on. Even Clem, a strong advocate of FSSF, doesn't claim that it takes less space.<br /><br /><i> Dual platforms disperse people so that late at night a person may not feel as safe on the lighter used platform, especially with the fence between tracks. </i> <br /><br />Of course, but it's not relevant to my points.mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-54391239888869298202010-08-06T14:22:17.472-07:002010-08-06T14:22:17.472-07:00What's really missing from all this "let&...What's really missing from all this "let's turn trains at Mtn View" debate are any serious metrics. Consider <a href="http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2010/07/metrics-that-matter.html" rel="nofollow">Clem's preferred metric.</a> He showed that with FFSS, it took 67% more resources (measured by tph) to provide 1% better service than either SFFS or FSSF. Switching to SFFS was a huge win vs FFSS.<br /><br />Now consider modifying Clem's timetable to turn 2 of the 6 tph at Mtn View. For those two trains, this would cut total run times from 100 mins (including 10 min dwell at terminus) to 83 mins. Total resource savings: 6 percent (i.e., 17 percent * 0.33). <br /><br />I don't have Clem's raw input spreadsheet, so I can't do the analysis, but it looks like the turnarounds would not drop the service metric by more than 1-2 percent max. So turnarounds would be a clear win by that metric, but nowhere near the order of magnitude of the gain accrued from going to SFFS from FFSS.mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-90685439123673240152010-08-06T12:57:14.098-07:002010-08-06T12:57:14.098-07:00Thing is, Mike, MLY is correct 90% of the time and...Thing is, Mike, MLY is correct 90% of the time and the insults are often well earned (not to mention very entertaining.) Thicker skins are good. There is much to criticize in Bay Area transportation planning and execution. For which those of us in states competing with CA for limited federal funds are quite grateful.<br /><br />As to:<br /><br /><i>The "infill" discussion misses the point. It's about having any flexibility at all with your stations. Want to add a new station? Can't do it. Want to consolidate two low ridership stations into one intermediate station? Can't do it.</i><br /><br />BS, for the most part. Side platforms consume more total ROW width than a single central platform, plus add an extra elevator(s), ramp(s), lights, seating, square feet of concrete, etc. Dual platforms disperse people so that late at night a person may not feel as safe on the lighter used platform, especially with the fence between tracks. Perception can lead to reduced use. A lot of the above are arguments on the margins, but then so are many of the claims against Fat Slob Slob Fat. <br /><br />In the simplest version, keep a minimum ROW width of at least 80' and you can add a station almost anywhere. In theory just have the middle tracks on 50' separation and no track relocation is necessary, just plop in a platform. Even that isn't required, stations won't be added that often and when they are you can incur a bit of cost to relocate track and catenary system over a few feet. If you must have a new station in a constrained ROW there is always easements and land acquisition options.anon 409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-16971693705068966232010-08-06T12:21:10.109-07:002010-08-06T12:21:10.109-07:00Richard says: It's amazing how hard people -- ...Richard says: <i>It's amazing how hard people -- people who have a chance of having a clue and aren't US transportation consultants -- work to misunderstand!</i><br /><br />Richard, for the hundredth time, you have many good ideas, but your insults and hyperbole only serve to alienate many of us who would otherwise agree with you on a lot of points. I would say it's equally amazing how anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint is automatically branded as incompetent, willfully ignorant, or corrupt, if not all three.<br /><br />More surprisingly, your solutions are all upside and zero downside, even though almost every other choice in the world involves some type of trade off. FSSF has "zero disadvantages"? You cannot be serious. I can name two disadvantages vis a vis SFFS right off the top of my head: inflexible station placement and greater ROW requirements. <br /><br />Station placement:<br /><br />The "infill" discussion misses the point. It's about having any flexibility at all with your stations. Want to add a new station? Can't do it. Want to consolidate two low ridership stations into one intermediate station? Can't do it. Want to extend the platforms to accommodate longer single level trains instead of shorter bilevel trains? Can't do it.<br /><br />Even if you get all the stations exactly right in 2018, this infrastructure will be around for 100 years. Population and travel patterns will likely change a lot during that time.<br /><br />ROW requirements:<br /><br />Using <a href="http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2010/01/football-island.html" rel="nofollow">Clem's figures,</a> you only need 10 acres of extra ROW for FSSF (0.5 acres times ~20 local stations). But Clem has <a href="http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2009/03/why-they-chose-caltrain-corridor.html" rel="nofollow">also calculated</a> that total ROW takings for the entire Peninsula need not exceed 4 acres! So you might still easily double the necessary takings by choosing FSSF.<br /><br />Overall, I think FSSF could still be worth doing. But to claim that FSSF has "zero disadvantages" is inexplicable, especially coming from someone as informed as you are.mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-70864302630971552052010-08-06T12:15:39.206-07:002010-08-06T12:15:39.206-07:00Dan Krause wrote: "the Authority's main c...Dan Krause wrote: "<i>the Authority's main concern - the width of the ROW - is not sufficiently acknowledged</i>"<br /><br />Just a thought: what if it turned out that they were engaging in <i>strategic misrepresentation</i>? Perhaps stacking the decks the teensiest bit? Not doing <i>any analysis at all</i> as part of an Alternatives Analysis document? Never trading costs against benefits? Lying through their teeth? Being economical with the truth? Exaggerating? Withholding contrary evidence?<br /><br />Hard to believe, but rumour has it that this sort of thing has happened in the past.<br /><br />Let's all fully "sufficiently acknowledge" that this wasn't touted as THE driving and uncontestable factor determining corridor-wide train operations forever, until yesterday.Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-65036899468076876602010-08-06T12:08:10.134-07:002010-08-06T12:08:10.134-07:00anon 409: Spain (including the Zargonza cercanias)...anon 409: Spain (including the Zargonza cercanias) has an extensive <br />"installed based" around which to work, as well as European interoperability standards with which to comply on the high speed side.<br /><br />The present state of train-platform interface isn't perfect; it's transitional, and a technical compromise.<br /><br />What you seem to be deliberately failing to understand is that <b>there is no installed base</b> at Caltrain -- a merely handful of obsolete trains, all of which are due for replacement in the next few years! -- and <b>there is no installed base</b> of HSR.<br /><br />We can choose -- and any even marginally intellectually functioning engineer with even the slightest skill would choose -- any train-platform interface we like, with no compromises on level boarding.<br /><br />(I happen to believe that ~600mm "low level" level boarding is the optimal solution for both double deck HS trains and for double and single deck regional trains; others here are stuck around the 950+mm of historical precedent.)<br /><br />We're starting from scratch, here. Why <b>deliberately fuck up</b>, casting absolutely wretched designs in concrete for 50 years?<br /><br />If the morons at Caltrain build new stations at an incompatible height and procure an entire new fleet at an incompatible height, it is game over <b>for decades</b>.<br /><br />If you want a local example, look at what the similar morons did in San Francisco, buying high floor streetcars at a time of complete fleet replacement when the installed base on high floor stations was small and manageable and when the entire world was going low floor. Same class of idiot, same wretched public outcome, same doom cast in concrete for 20, 30 or more years.<br /><br />What's with the Stockholm Syndrome? Why do people want the wrong thing to happen when better is not just possible but much easier and cheaper? Why does anybody believe a word that the repeatedly proven liars on the agency staff utter?<br /><br />Why not even consider the possibility of doing the right thing just for once?Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-82884190274575851542010-08-06T10:57:18.757-07:002010-08-06T10:57:18.757-07:00BTW, freight trains and cars were not nearly as lo...BTW, freight trains and cars were not nearly as long and heavy when the NEC was designed. They also had gobs of workers to tinker with the jointed rail of the era. Amtrak does try to restrict NEC freight to outside tracks that in places have lower passenger speed limits. The maintenance costs for shared track do rise significantly with speed, and above 110 mph becomes difficult to justify the costs. 125 mph standard track can see damage after just a single freight train traverses it. Someone might find an outlier example for this or that, but cost effectiveness matters. I can show you mainline switchback operation in N. America, but it would be foolish to adapt such a technique in most situations. <br /><br />Hence I suspect that ultimately the local tracks that freight use in this corridor won't exceed 110 mph. And with the local stopping patterns higher speeds aren't needed.anon 409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-71701352366017676742010-08-06T10:47:15.796-07:002010-08-06T10:47:15.796-07:00First off, I agree that the best solution is a sin...First off, I agree that the best solution is a single uniform platform and car height with level-boarding for all passenger services, so that HSR and commuter rail can share all platforms and tracks as needed. Plop in gauntlet tracks for the freight tracks, a couple of extra feet of width is no big deal.<br /><br />That said, 8" platforms aren't the end of the world. The major equipment manufacturers are attempting to develop 15" commuter trains. The proposed Dallas dmu's (FRA compliant) are an example, though at this point it doesn't mean 15" is assured of becoming standard (I'm going to ignore the 15" giant Amtrak Cal car design as too heavy for widespread adoption compared to better options.)<br /><br />The gap between 15" car floors and 8" platforms is a single step, and I hardly think using a ramp with a 7" rise is a return to Jim Crow. Sheesh. <br /><br />7" is less than the difference between the dual Euro standards of 550 and 760 mm. Do we thus crucify the Euro's? Have those barbarians no regard for basic human decency? So I guess we have only the Japanese to learn from now?<br /><br />Is Zaragoza a failure?<br /><br />http://www.gozazaragoza.com/pix/200705/cercanias-deli-0531171642-zoom.jpg<br /><br />http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Zaragoza-Delicias_%28Cercan%C3%ADas_destino_Miraflores%29.jpg<br /><br />http://www.flickr.com/photos/7455207@N05/3188086240/#/photos/7455207@N05/3188086240/lightbox/<br /><br />http://lh6.ggpht.com/_zakIRZjpe70/SBOYWmKAdvI/AAAAAAAABVQ/R2ItXRdlWsM/s1024/CIMG0255.JPGanon 409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-586184223826251792010-08-06T09:27:50.464-07:002010-08-06T09:27:50.464-07:00@anon 409 at 05 August, 2010 21:15
Both layouts fo...@anon 409 at 05 August, 2010 21:15<br />Both layouts for Millbrae (STA-16A and STA-16B) seem to be missing one of the BART tracks as well. <br /><br />Pity there isn't enough room for SpBBpFFpS at Millbrae (with the first 'S' taking over the easternmost BART track).thatbrucenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-75287528509085852672010-08-06T09:18:38.820-07:002010-08-06T09:18:38.820-07:00This is an interesting conversation. My 2c is that...This is an interesting conversation. My 2c is that while the merits of FSSF are argued pursuasively here, the Authority's main concern - the width of the ROW - is not sufficiently acknowledged. Given that Caltrain has so many stations and HSR trains will want to be on straight track as much as possible, it seems that FSSF will simply require a wider ROW in much of the corridor. The only way to narrow the ROW between Caltrain stations is to weave all tracks towards the center of the ROW. This is likely not to be feasible for HSR trains. The Authority is designing in a corridor urbanized corridor with many ROW constraints and in a difficult political environment. Their intention to narrow the ROW between stations is born out of necessity in getting the project done. Reducing takings is going to be critical in getting this project completed. Further, consider the impact on cost in trench sections. Maintaining a wider corridor to accomodate SFFS will most certainly increase the costs of trench very significantly.Daniel Krausenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-55225117966234431102010-08-06T09:16:38.947-07:002010-08-06T09:16:38.947-07:00STA-4A is probably my favorite from Appendix C of ...STA-4A is probably my favorite from Appendix C of the Supplemental Alternatives Analysis Report, which I'll note as pS|PF|FP|Sp. An outside low platform for Caltrain, the slow track, a fence, a high HSR platform, then the HSR track, another fence, then repeat in reverse for the other direction. No cross-platform transfers here (or drainage for the HSR platforms).thatbrucenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-64591204033368968562010-08-06T09:00:21.114-07:002010-08-06T09:00:21.114-07:00There's no compromise necessary or needed on l...There's no compromise necessary or needed on level boarding, even if that were legal, which it isn't.<br /><br />Even if it weren't a matter of human decency, it's an engineering operational necessity for an optimally functioning train system -- keeping trains moving, not waiting, and avoiding boarding injuries and incidents.<br /><br />Moreover, there's no compromise necessary or needed on level boarding for all train types on the corridor all serving the same platforms.<br /><br />Anybody who even proposes such a thing should be crucified. And certainly under no circumstance should such a manifestly unqualified, unprofessional, uncreative, unthinking, fiscal fraud perpetuating individual ever be allowed to show his or her face in public ever again.<br /><br />This is all very very simple.<br /><br />Unfortunately we have America's Finest Transportation Professionals involved, where maximizing cost and screwing the public are always the only criteria.Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-7762439631259266392010-08-06T03:27:02.821-07:002010-08-06T03:27:02.821-07:00Freight on high speed track is not impractical. Af...Freight on high speed track is not impractical. After all, freights run on the NEC, including the sections in RI and MA with speeds of 125-150 mph. True, it's not a whole lot of freight, but it's probably about the same amount as on the SF-SJ line overall. And, assuming away FRA regulations for a moment, FSSF would work great for freight: after 9 pm or so, all passenger trains run on the "slow" tracks and freights are free to serve the sidings that are connected to the express tracks. By the way, if you look at the original design concept of the NEC (at least the NYC-Philly part), it's not so much Slow-Fast-Fast-Slow as Passenger-Freight-Freight-Passenger, as evidenced by the layout at the Lane and Morrisville junctions, where freight-only lines branch from the inner pair of tracks.crzwdjkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06394805356595604336noreply@blogger.com