Infrastructure Weak

@infrastructureweak

Renter; bike and transit rider Construction project manager Posts about safe street design and transit projects Berkeley, CA

905 Siguiendo2527 Seguidores1767 Publicaciones

Bluesky

¿Es tu perfil?Reclámalo y infrastructureweak.dirty.social es tuyo.Reclamar perfil

Infrastructure Weak@infrastructureweak· 15d

10 cars let's goooooo

Photo of a digital train arrival screen, announcing a BART train as "SF/SFO AIRPORT/MILLBRAE, 10-CAR, RD LINE"

Infrastructure Weak@infrastructureweak· 20d

This leaves the question of the yard location for the Geary metro, which the initial study hoped to avoid by using BART trains (though that wouldn't actually work). A yard fits easily on one of San Francisco's 9 golf courses, which could even be restored on top of the yard after construction.

Satellite view of the Outer Richmond, with the Geary metro drawn east-west along Geary Blvd to 42nd Ave. A yard is drawn on the southwest half of the Lincoln Park Golf Course, 81,000 square meters or 20 acres.

Satellite view of the area of San Francisco around Daly City BART, with a Geary metro looping from 19th Ave in the north counterclockwise along Junipero Serra Blvd, through the center track of the Daly City BART station, and back to 19th via Worcester Ave and Brotherhood Way. A yard is drawn on the east half of the San Francisco Golf Club, 100,000 square meters or 24.75 acres. This is one of three golf courses visible in the satellite view.

Infrastructure Weak@infrastructureweak· 20d

The focus of the coming alternatives analysis should therefore be on a downtown alignment which provides convenient transfers. Among many options that should be studied, a shallow crossing of the Market Street subway is promising for its ease of station access.

Heavily marked-up map of a concept downtown alignment for the Geary metro, featuring a shallow crossing of the Market Street subway at Leavenworth/7th St. The speculative line runs east along Post, turns south along Leavenworth, crosses Market at mezzanine level (-1) for a convenient transfer to BART and Muni Metro, turns northeast at Howard, crosses above the Central Subway for a convenient transfer to it at Moscone Center, and terminates adjacent to Transbay station as depicted in the watercolor above.

Infrastructure Weak@infrastructureweak· 20d

The Geary metro should provide excellent connections to BART and Caltrain East Bay service. However, trains from the Geary metro should not run across the Bay themselves. The design and operation of the Geary metro and the transbay tunnel will be optimized by keeping these their own projects.

Watercolor rendering of a Geary metro terminal at Transbay station, where an island platform in a covered trench lets out directly onto the mezzanine for regional and high speed rail trains. The Geary station is built off-street, adjacent to the existing fancy white-clad park that is the Transbay Terminal and the small cable-stayed bus ramp that brings the terminal bus service.

The art is by Alfred Twu.

Infrastructure Weak@infrastructureweak· 21d

It's not nearly the worst thing in here, but would these board-premeetings, to do the real discussions behind closed doors, even be legal?

Board Briefings: Institute monthly, half-hour Board Briefings with the GM, board chair and vice chair prior to each meeting to discuss the set agenda - and not to add new topics. While the full board will be briefed the week before the meeting, the board should not have authority to add or remove items to the current agenda.

Infrastructure Weak@infrastructureweak· 22d

This Part 1 discusses how we should run trains as frequently as technically possible on the Geary metro, and size platforms accordingly, to reduce station size and cost. That will help enable us to build the many stations the Geary corridor deserves, to maximize access. medium.com/@infrastruct...

Digital graphic of two options for providing passenger capacity on a metro line, one on the top and one on the bottom of the graphic. The top option has longer trains running every five minutes. The bottom train has shorter trains running every two minutes, but still carrying the same number of passengers. This results in shorter platforms and smaller stations, so more stations can be built. The graphic is by Fern K Hahn.

Infrastructure Weak@infrastructureweak· 22d

The SFCTA has started plans for a Geary metro anew, completing a four-year preliminary study requested by Supervisor Melgar. We now need to motivate politicians to find $15 million for the next, more technical analysis. Getting this done now could pull the completion of the project forward by years.

Cover of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority's "Geary/19th Ave Subway and Regional Connections Study" "Strategic Case" "Final Report: June 2026," which features a cool digital art piece of a subway tunnel going through a tight s-curve.

Infrastructure Weak@infrastructureweak· 22d

A Geary metro is among the highest-ridership projects available to build in the US. Rapid transit on this route has been planned for 95 years but has never been built, as plans have repeatedly failed to secure funding.

Red ink old concept line drawing on a yellowed background map of San Francisco, showing a Geary BART line from 25th Ave to Market Street, with a possible future branch to Marin.

The planners of the original BART system recognized Geary as an important corridor to serve, and continued to plan for it even after the BART Marin County line was dropped. Sources: Flikr user Erika Fischer scan from “October 1961 Supplement to the June 1961 Engineering Report to the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District — Four County System”

Infrastructure Weak@infrastructureweak· Jul 3

Re: emergency braking for service headways: Trains don't use emergency braking for regular stops (hence the name), but the reason they can run as close together as they can is that, should it be needed, emergency braking is available at any time.

Infrastructure Weak@infrastructureweak· Jul 3

Yeah it's an unfortunate coincidence. No connection. "Network state" is a great term for what they're describing, but I wonder if we could come up with something as descriptive that isn't linguistically poisoned. dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-...

FROM TIME HORIZONS TO
NETWORK STATES
The Rail Plan will shift away from traditional
time-horizon planning (near-term, mid-term,
long-term) and instead adopt a Network
State framework. In this approach, each
Network State corresponds to a clearly
defined service goal, key service outcomes,
and progress toward that goal is driven by
the completion of the projects and activities
required to operate that level of service,
including, but not limited to, delivering
capital projects, securing operating and
maintenance funding, and finalizing relevant
agreements. Network States link service
expansion directly to actual project delivery.
This approach creates a flexible structure
that ties project delivery to service outcomes
instead of a specific planning horizon. This is
not meant as a retreat from accountability,
rather a realistic approach to advancing
projects and focusing on outcomes. As
each project advances through project
development and delivery, there will still be
specific timelines for completion for effective
project management.
Once the required projects and activities
for a given service goal are completed,
that Network State is considered achieved,
unlocking the ability to implement the
associated service and advance to the
next state. This transition provides an
implementation-oriented approach that
drives service outcomes resulting in a network
that will evolve to reflect what is needed to
enable each step of growth.
RAIL INVESTMENT STRATEGY
California’s rail capital program is funded
through multiple sources managed by
multiple stakeholders. The Rail Plan provides
a framework for determining priorities within
corridors and across the state to better align
with funding sources. Caltrans worked with
local and regional partners to align funding
strategies to support service-led strategic
planning in the 2018 and 2024 State Rail
Plans, but there are opportunities to refi…

Infrastructure Weak@infrastructureweak· Jul 3

- BART should just say "we don't like this idea," not cite nebulous "operational impacts." Would it be worth building platforms and adding 2 minutes to BART's runtime for three ACE trains a day? Absolutely not. Would it be worth it for 2-3 ACEs an hour? I think so!

Footnote from the report linked in the second post of this thread.

"Shinn Junction was initially identified as a logical location for an East Bay Hub since both BART and ACE cross at
this point; therefore, this site was a high priority for the study based on discussions with regional stakeholders.
However, during initial analysis of the Shinn Junction site, significant issues were identified, most notably in
relation to cost and operational impacts to the BART system. Based on this, it was concluded by the Study partners
that additional concepts for an East Bay Hub were needed. The total number of East Bay Hub concepts were
finalized at seven, including Shinn, which are evaluated in Phase 1 of the SoCo Rail Study."

The Shinn Junction hub concept, however, would involve a new infill station on the BART system, at a
location not previously considered for an infill station by BART. A new regional transit hub at Shinn Junction would therefore require substantive re-evaluation and changes to BART’s operating
parameters. BART is planning an infill station at Irvington, between the Fremont and Warm Springs
Stations and an additional station at Shinn Junction, just 4,000 feet north of Fremont Street, would likely
have substantial impact on BART operations.

Infrastructure Weak@infrastructureweak· Jul 3

- ACE trains at the hub would continue to San Jose. Chop 10 transfer minutes off these figures, and likely 5-10 more from nonstop service. - With a Shinn hub, twice as many ACE trains would connect to BART and twice as many ACE trains would continue to San Jose. That's nowhere in the analysis.

Travel Time Analysis Summary table from the report linked above, showing travel times in minutes from Pleasanton ACE and destinations in the inner Bay via the seven candidate hub locations. I've circled the travel time from Shinn Junction to San Jose, to indicate that the travel time appears to be based on an assumption all passengers get off of ACE and take BART to San Jose, instead of staying on ACE for a faster trip.

Infrastructure Weak@infrastructureweak· Jul 3

I do have nitpicks about the study itself, though. - Zoning is mutable. - Something industrial was always going to go here per zoning, with attendant construction impacts. - Rent increase from amenity effects does not belong in an amenity planning document; it belongs in a rent control policy.

Paragraph from the study linked above, discussing development opportunity at this site. I have highlighted this line: "Also, the City of Fremont currently is not planning to change the land uses around the Shinn Junction site."

Full excerpt:

"SHINN JUNCTION
• Rating: Low to Medium
• PDA: Not applicable

Opportunities for transit-supportive development within a 0.5-mile radius of the proposed Shinn Junction hub are limited, as much of the land is dedicated to recreation/open space uses (e.g., Alameda Creek, Quarry Lakes Regional Recreation Area), with much of the remaining land occupied by light
industrial and low-density suburban residential uses. Also, the City of Fremont currently is not planning to change the land uses around the Shinn Junction site. Farther out, however, the Shinn Junction hub would be within biking distance or extended walking distance of the Civic Center area of Fremont, which is home to a cluster of commercial/retail and institutional uses, including government offices and major medical centers. The station is also located less than 1 mile from the historic Niles District, but access is difficult due to the lack of options to get through the Quarry Lakes and Alameda Creek."

Another paragraph from the study, discussing benefits and burdens for existing immediate neighbors. I have highlighted two phrases: "construction of the necessary infrastructure improvements would impact the community," and "a new station at this location has the potential to result in displacement of rental properties or further increased rent with potential improved property values."

Full excerpt:

"SHINN JUNCTION
• Rating: Low

The potential Shinn Junction Station is located at the intersection of the existing UP Niles
Subdivision/Centerville Line and existing BART tracks north of Peralta Boulevard. At this location, the BART tracks cross above the at-grade UP tracks, but there is no connection. Based on the demographic of the area, additional transit connectivity and modal options would benefit the local communities,
including the 70.5% people of color. However, community burdens would be more substantial. New passenger rail service at this location would be inconsistent with current land uses and construction of the necessary infrastructure improvements would impact the community, including the rental
households. With 19.5% of the rental households considered rent-burdened, a new station at this location has the potential to result in displacement of rental properties or further increased rent with potential improved property values."

Infrastructure Weak@infrastructureweak· Jul 3

The small Niles Canyon capacity increase project fell through, so the Union City hub is on hold anyway. A future, comprehensive program for the corridor could bring the Shinn Hub back, but this development will make the available space smaller.

Map of candidate ACE rail transfer hub sites and rail lines in Fremont, California. Capitol Corridor runs northwest to southeast nearest the Bay, with candidate hub sites at Ardenwood, Newark Junction, and South of Newark Junction. BART runs parallel, but further to the northeast, and has candidate hub sites at Union City (marked as the highest-performing hub concept), Shinn (the one I'm complaining got passed over), and Warm Springs. ACE runs northeast to southwest, intersecting BART at the location of the Shinn hub, then turns southeast to join Capitol Corridor. One additional hub location was considered at Fremont-Centerville, along ACE but between BART and Caltrain, which would have served highway 84 buses. According to the map, those buses could also serve the Ardenwood, Shinn, or Union City hub.

Excerpt from the conclusion of the study linked above. I have highlighted the last line: "For the Long-Term Horizon, more studies would be needed to determine the performance of a Shinn Junction connection."

Full excerpt:

"The comparison analysis of the three BART Station hub concepts studied for the Mid-Term Horizon, including Shinn Junction, reveals that Union City performs the highest given its location at an existing BART Station (unlike Shinn Junction), its convenient access to northern destinations (unlike Warm
Springs), and potential to connect with future Dumbarton rail service (unlike Warm Springs). Therefore, the Union City BART East Bay Hub concept is determined to be the highest performing East Bay Hub location overall for the Mid-Term Horizon and is recommended for detailed planning and initial project development as part of Phase 2 of the SoCo Rail Study. For the Long-Term Horizon, more studies would be needed to determine the performance of a Shinn Junction connection."

Infrastructure Weak@infrastructureweak· Jun 30

Incredible

Pencil rendering from 1930 of the present-day J and Z platforms at Fulton St station on the Nassau-Broadway subway.

To accommodate platforms despite the narrow street width, the tracks and platforms are split vertically. The southbound track, just below street level, serves a side platform. The northbound track is on the level below, under the platform above and offset from the track above. The northbound platform is below the southbound track. A series of stairs and mezzanines provides street access on both sides, and allows passengers to change between platforms under the northbound tracks, on a third level down from the street.

The rendering depicts a busy, dense street life with supply stores and wall-to-wall buildings.

Sources:
https://www.nytimes.com/1930/05/25/archives/station-of-3-levels-for-nassau-st-tube-transit-board-reveals-plans.html

https://www.reddit.com/r/nycrail/comments/1iqdmin/i_decided_to_walk_around_fulton_st_to_see_if_it/

Infrastructure Weak@infrastructureweak· Jun 30

This is a very clean and clear report, and although the numbers are focused on NYC, the principles are relevant to all cities.

Snazzy cover of a report called "The Hidden Cost of Trash - Building-Level Costs of Handling NYC's Waste," by the Center for Building in North America and the Center for Zero Waste Design. It features an isometric drawing of a 4-story walk-up apartment building, where a resident has descended the stairs and is carrying out trash to a set of large recycling, compost, and trash containers kept in the parking lane.

Infrastructure Weak@infrastructureweak· Jun 30

It's so odd. I've boarded and alighted at West Glacier, and it's just a hand up to the baggage car like at staffed stations. If all that's needed is to check whether there's a walking pad at a reasonable height below the baggage car door, that should be straightforward to check.

"Why is Trainside Checked bicycle service only available to and from staffed stations with checked baggage service?

Many unstaffed stations without baggage service have short and/or very low platforms where providing access to the baggage car would require the train to make a double stop or for the passenger to lift their bicycle to a crew member an unreasonably high distance.

As we expand bicycle service to more routes and stations, we are continuously auditing unstaffed stations where we can safely and efficiently offer trainside checked bike service. To date, we have expanded this offering the following unstaffed stations:

Prince, WV, on the Cardinal
Fraser-Winter Park, CO, on the California Zephyr
Stanwood, WA, Tukwila, WA, and Oregon City, OR on the Amtrak Cascades
Winona, MN, and West Glacier, MT, on the Empire Builder
High Point, NC, on the Crescent
All stations between Charlotte and Raleigh on the Carolinian
All stations on the Pere Marquette"

Source: https://www.amtrak.com/bike-faqs

Infrastructure Weak@infrastructureweak· Jun 29

Canada seems to be doing alright at this. dailyhive.com/vancouver/gn... dailyhive.com/vancouver/br...

Image of South Granville Station entrance from the linked article. It is built into the base of a large tower, with a coffee shop next to it.

Infrastructure Weak@infrastructureweak· Jun 29

I procrastinate public records requesting the 2009 Kiewit-Bombardier proposal, because I won't be able to handle it if it turns out it was cost-competitive and requested reasonable clarifications

Two slides from the 2009 Oakland Airport Connector bid presentation to the BART board, in which the cable car design was selected.

"Part One
Proposal Review

- Four proposals received September 22nd
- All four proposers signed the Contract Proposal forms indicating acceptance of
all Contract terms and conditions.

However the Kiewit Proposal:

1. Included a letter, with twenty (20) significant “clarifications” (deviations) from the District's terms
2. Omitted or modified required elements of the Price Proposal

Selection Committee determined Kiewit proposal was non-responsive:
- Failed to provide a required element of the Price Proposal
- Clarifications had significant and material adverse impact on cost & operability
of the project
- Proposal was incomplete and indeterminate
- Procurement process did not allow for BAFO process

Part One

Summary of Responsive Proposals

Proposer

Estimated
Design-Build Price $416,000,000
Annual O&M Pymt $4,900,000
Annual CARP Pymt $900,000
Total Price $480,000,000 (TARGET)

Shimmick Skanska Herzog JV
Vehicle Provider Leitner-Poma
Technology Cable
Design-Build Price $421,200,000
Annual O&M Pymt $6,450,306
Annual CARP Pymt $400,000
Total Price $517,104,284
Best Value Rating Acceptable-
Proposal Ranking 3

Walsh Construction Co.
Vehicle Provider Mitsubishi
Technology Self Propelled
Design-Build Price $404,315,174
Annual O&M Pymt $7,173,848
Annual CARP Pymt $1,056,929
Total Price $519,546,052
Best Value Rating Acceptable+
Proposal Ranking 2

Flatiron/Parsons JV
Vehicle Provider Doppelmayr
Technology Cable
Design-Build Price $361,0221,150
Annual O&M Pymt $4,906,865
Annual CARP Pymt $768,397
Total Price $440,475,810
Best Value Rating Good
Proposal Ranking 1

Best Value Proposal = Flatiron/Parsons JV"

Source: https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/Microsoft_PowerPoint_-_OAC_December_10_Award_-_Final.pdf

Infrastructure Weak@infrastructureweak· Jun 27

Good elevated rail morning

Sunny photo of Fruitvale BART station across a cafe patio that fronts it. The station is "modern"-style: angled concrete; tinted glassy walls; standing seam siding around a freestanding elevator; visible angles surrounding the escalators. The patio has engineered wood ring benches around shrubbery planters, wireform tables and chairs, and some medium street trees.

Infrastructure Weak@infrastructureweak· Jun 27

Happy Pride from car-free Market Street

Nighttime photo down a main street, where a laser installation is casting a rainbow-colored set of horizontal beams up and over the street. People are stopped in the middle of the street looking up and taking photos, just as the photographer is. The street has embedded streetcar tracks and overhead bus & streetcar wires. There are tall office buildings down at the other end of the street in the background of the photo, some behind the laser beams. The location is 5th and Market, with the BART station entrance canopies visible.

Infrastructure Weak@infrastructureweak· Jun 25

Left NIMBY, it would appear, prefers a structural loss for our future taxation power over strategic compromise on transfer tax rates sfstandard.com/2026/06/25/b...

Paragraph from the linked article.

"Another activist, Scott Feeney, added that the bill would "destroy" a DSA-backed measure to dedicate transfer tax revenue to affordable housing, though it remains unclear exactly how the two laws would interact if both pass. (The DSA-backed measure, it's worth noting, exempts new multifamily construction.)"

Infrastructure Weak@infrastructureweak· Jun 18

Thank you, here's the text of the key slide:

Text transcript of slide 32, "Comparison: Main Differences"

"Vehicle / Project
Comparison: Main Differences
Vehicle:
Current US Rail standards may exclude state-of-the-art design (and thus needs to be waived, e.g. torsional resistance for couplers)
Operation:
Conductor focused, no automated processes (doors, wheelchair lift)
Usage of the horn (25% = severe air consumption)
General:
Strong involvement of public, bike lobby, ADA
Very demanding and formal customer
All expertise is outsourced
No simultaneous manufacturing / engineering
Unknown Quality Assurance expectations
Strong supervising, no delegation of tasks to manufacturer
Journalistenreise| Martin Ritter| October 2017"

Infrastructure Weak@infrastructureweak· Jun 15

Everyone with a hand in replacing the bad all-in-one sink at the Powell BART restrooms with this nice commercial setup should be proud

Photo of a stainless steel wall-mounted sink, with Xlerator jet hand dryer on the right and wall-mounted soap dispenser on the left. They are all mounted in a shallow niche, with walls patterned in white hexagonal tiles. A round metal garbage can with open top is off to the right.

Infrastructure Weak@infrastructureweak· Jun 14

I hope that the 13 new HAWK signals in Berkeley's bike plan update start to train drivers to comply with them. My pedestrian and bike experience with our two existing ones has been nervewracking, and I wish we could just hang three-color signals. They're at least better than RRFBs, on a bike.

Page 101 out of 223 from Berkeley's bike plan update by consultant Alta, showing a map of "RECOMMENDED LOW-STRESS BIKEWAY INTERSECTION CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS." The base map is the City of Berkeley, with a grid of bike routes on about every fifth or sixth east-west and north-south street. Most of these are to be bike boulevards on small streets; a few are to be major "complete streets corridor studies" on arterials.

This map is focused on changes at major intersections, including installing protected intersections, connecting bikeways along streets that meet roads at an offset, installing rapid rectangular flashing beacons (the yellow blinking lights), installing medians, raised intersections, and pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHBs/HAWKs).

There are two existing locations with HAWKs: Hillegass at Ashby and Virginia at San Pablo.

The thirteen planned new HAWK locations, from north to south, are:
- Carmelia at San Pablo
- Virginia at MLK and at Shattuck
- Addison at Sacramento
- Channing at San Pablo and at Sacramento
- Derby at Sacramento and at Shattuck
- Russell at Sacramento and at Shattuck
- California at Ashby
- Woolsey at MLK
- Harmon at Sacramento

Source: https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2026-06/2026-06-16%20Item%2029%202026%20Bicycle%20Plan%20Update.pdf

Infrastructure Weak@infrastructureweak· Jun 13

There is a common white scaffold wrap product that is referred to as "shrink wrap." It comes off the roll pretty thin.

Photo of a shrink-wrapped scaffold hanging over a European canal or wharf. It's about 20 feet tall. You can see the scaffolding members pressing through from the inside of the wrapping. There are small 3- and 4-story masonry wall-to-wall buildings behind it.

Source: https://shop.leachs.com/products/industrial-flame-retardant-shrink-wrap-7m-x-15m

Infrastructure Weak@infrastructureweak· Jun 11

They have indeed broken ground. Here's a shot through the fence from last month. (Company personality-wise I could believe that the cost claim is exaggeration)

Poorly-framed photo from the street of the grade-level concrete mat foundation for a square-shaped infill building preparing to be placed. Yellow vapor barrier and partially-completed reinforcing bar are visible. A red tower crane mast sticks up from a concrete footing near the center of the site. A well-used fiberglass ladder spray painted "OWO" leans against an old fashion-styled city streetlight pole. A new high-rise (also mass timber by OWO) with flat, multicolored yellow, white, and orange facade paneling stands behind this site. The neighboring buildings to either side come up to the property line, and their walls are tagged with spray paint.

Photo from the same location, panned a bit to the right. Five people in construction vests and hard hats, from rebar workers to management, are seen in conversation and at work near the street side of the site.

Infrastructure Weak@infrastructureweak· Jun 4

It's good that the Transbay Joint Powers Authority is deleting the DTX HSR platforms at 4th. The only reason for this stop was turning capacity at Transbay, which is moot with 2tph HSR in 2040 and future Link21 through-running. TJPA expects it will save $190M.

Slide from a February 2024 TJPA board presentation.

"IDEAS CONSIDERED IN THIS EXERCISE:

1. Eliminating both HSR platforms
• Doesn't eliminate encroachment into yard due to need for egress and ventilation
• Operational impacts need to be confirmed by operational analysis

2. Eliminating north (outbound) HSR platform
• Consistent with 2018 direction (single platform face)
• Similar platforms to Phasing Study Station Concept A, but reduced # tracks; therefore operational analysis needed"

There are graphics of the station cross section: an underground cut and cover station with two electrified tracks. A mezzanine is over top of the platform level. A low island platform serves Caltrain. High side platforms would serve HSR, except that one or both is marked up in red to be eliminated.

Source:
https://transbaycenter.app.box.com/s/lc3yir7vzuxrkjup2nh7lheqh3n6tite/file/2109883890316

Text of a value engineering proposal, from an FTA monthly monitoring report.

"4. Delete HSR side platforms at 4th and Townsend St. Station - $190M
➢ Deletion of side platforms significantly reduces the footprint of the underground station and supports better utility relocation outcomes along Townsend Street with regard to scope, schedule and cost.
➢ There is TJPA and CHSRA executive level concurrence with this proposed change as well as agreement from Caltrain."

Source:
https://www.tjpa.org/media/40351/download?inline

Infrastructure Weak@infrastructureweak· Jun 3

Looks like it, yes. Discussed in this other piece: www.railengineer.co.uk/next-steps-f...

Excerpt from the linked article.

"Power changeover

Ensuring that the pantograph is lowered before the end of a catenary section is generally automated, but if all else fails, the final control is in the hands of the driver. Therefore, power changeover must not occur at locations where the driver already has a high workload, for example, when approaching signals. As an example, ideally the train would change from OLE to battery before leaving the main line onto a branch line, whereas the detailed study might conclude that it is better to change over after the train has passed over the junction."

Infrastructure Weak@infrastructureweak· Jun 2

Did y'all leave some junk test data in? Should be taken down promptly, to avoid influencing votes