Page Two articles are from our reader community.

NOTE: This post is copied in its entirety from an article I wrote, titled With Major Revisions, the SPIRE Plan Becomes Our Region’s Surest Best for Express Rail Service: A Mapped, Annotated Update. It is the latest entry of my blog, Transportation Matters, a Pacific Northwest-flavored blog that discusses railway planning, urban planning, and related politics.


For over a decade now, and principally advanced by the November 2016 election, the majority of voters within Sound Transit’s taxing district have committed themselves to the extension of the Link light rail line from Seattle to Puyallup Avenue in Tacoma. The resurrection-in-spirit of the old interurban line of the Puget Sound Electric Railway, which dutifully linked the two cities between 1902 and 1928, manifested itself through a number of factors: the anguish over limited mobility options between the two cities; increasing congestion and delay; the failure to prioritize bus transit on existing roadways; environmental concerns, and; the pro-transit pull of our region’s growing urban cores. By 2030, a passenger-friendly rail system should again bridge that divide in a manner that no system has since the termination of interurban services nearly 89 years ago. Whatever one may feel regarding ST3, compliments to Sound Transit for this rather extraordinary achievement.

In a high-tech, fast paced region like the Puget Sound, however, the ±70 minute travel times between the two cities will eventually prove unsatisfactory; indeed, the primitive interurban had precisely 70 minute trip times scheduled, too, including padding, for their express services in 1922 (a separate, undated timecard details 65 to 75 minute express services). Damningly, this was achieved on a notably longer pioneer alignment that began on Occidental Avenue in Pioneer Square and ended not on Puyallup Avenue in Tacoma, but near old city hall in the crowded central business district. Though our ST3 rail investment will spur growth and positively affect the geography of the region, we are paying an enormous sum of money to establish transit services that are roughly comparable to those conceived in the late 19th century, constructed in the early 20th, and dismantled a few decades thereafter.

The SPIRE rail modernization plan was initially a 2015 reaction to the numerous technical criticisms of the Link extension toward Tacoma. It was a proposal that conveyed a potent message: despite the price and the press, Sound Transit’s multi-billion dollar rail plan was neither the visionary nor intelligent plan needed. Unfortunately, the SPIRE’s best mechanism for financing died with the passage of ST3, considering the core of its alignment rests entirely within the taxing district, and the existing services utilizing its right-of-way for their operations are already wildly popular. In the future, with rail service between Commencement and Elliott bays underway and Sound Transit largely working to pay down huge debts, it seems unlikely that a majority of voters would agree to a major upgrade of rail services on the heavy rail mainlines parallel to the Link corridor.

Consequently, the future genesis of the SPIRE plan will likely have to come in the shape of rail investments in the Cascades corridor to Portland, Oregon, representing a multi-state and/or federal effort to deliver quality express services to the region. Such an effort will be mandatory, in fact, should we ever insist on regional trains that travel at speeds swifter than 90mph (145kmh). That figure is the strict BNSF speed cap for passenger trains, with or without positive train control (PTC). Now, with the following improvements rendering the plan even more rational and executable, the Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia core of any higher speed rail project would almost certainly be the SPIRE line proposed here. Alternative alignments would cost billions more and require a dismaying planning process, the entirety of it vulnerable to collapse due to local politics and eminent domain battles.


When originally proposed by this blog, the SPIRE plan was to feature routine operating speeds of 125mph (200kmh) on largely tangent track between Tacoma and Seattle, with antiquated curves widened to a minimum 6235ft (1900m) accordingly. However, multiple issues arose from this choice: grade crossings were required by law to be eliminated, raising costs dramatically; numerous homes, or even neighborhoods, were destroyed for some curve improvements; the speeds were unrealistically high for corridor commuter trains and had no real impact on lowering travel times, and; it failed to take advantage of higher equilibrium cants, in essence the sum of the tilt of the rails and the distance value of how fast a train can travel around curves before distress. The higher speed was a benefit to express travelers, though. Unfortunately, express trains were never meant to be the focus of the SPIRE plan.

Modifications, which are presented below, lower the maximum speed to 100mph (160kmh) on track with 10in (254mm) of equilibrium cant, or 110mph (175kmh) on 12in (304.8mm). To accommodate these speeds, curves are widened to a far more sympathetic 3935ft (1200m), sparing numerous homes, businesses and streets from condemnation and destruction. On the express track from Auburn to Tukwila, and on the new passenger-dedicated tracks from Tukwila to Georgetown, top speeds may remain at their original 125mph (200kmh) cap should investments be made to eliminate or avoid grade crossings on those stretches. As this blog has argued before, grade crossing elimination should be a safety priority for the region whether-or-not the SPIRE plan is realized, especially in the valley cities of Kent, Auburn, Sumner and Puyallup.

The speed update to the SPIRE plan allows for a piecemeal grade separation of the corridor—if at all—as the lower speeds no longer legally compel such a separation. While this does substantially lower the cost and complication of the project, it allows for the nuisance of approaching train horns to continue largely unabated.

This SPIRE update also includes a dramatically more precise measurement of rights-of-way based on technical standards from the California High Speed Rail Authority, BNSF, Deutsche Bahn, the Israeli Railways, LTD., amongst others. Elevation contours provided by the city of Seattle, and Pierce and King counties, also were useful in determining the location of critical civil works. This provides us further confidence in the strong technical feasibility of the SPIRE plan, for both the passenger and freight corridors. Roughly all prominent physical features along the railroad rights-of-way, with the exception of utilities, are now identified based on their likely impact.

Additional modifications concern new research and awareness into specific planning issues:

1) The Stampede Pass rail link to the freight corridor is now achieved via graded fill and bridges, rather than trenching. Geotechnical issues related to the water table precluded trenching, as did impacts to adjacent roadways and bridges (pg. 15).

2) A lengthy tunnel is no longer supported though Tacoma; instead, the current alignment is improved with widened curves, affecting some local streets while avoiding hundreds of millions of dollars on civil works under a busy urban zone (pg. 27).

3) Highway columns, especially on the new I-5 Puyallup River Bridge, were incorporated into the project and considered during the design. While some curves were altered to circumvent these columns, it is presumed on other, smaller bridges that steel would provide a means to relocate errant columns. On other bridges, still, a rebuild would likely be cogent due to end-of-life estimations (pg. 26).

4) A new alignment is proposed between Tacoma and Puyallup that roughly parallels the existing BNSF right-of-way. While the new alignment does include a modest tunnel, it avoids the evisceration of a neighborhood and spares numerous additional structures on tribal land. The alternative alignment remains in the SPIRE plan maps for consideration (pgs. 22, 25).

5) Near Olympia and Lacey, the Woodland Trail alignment was selected as the preferred option of accessing the center of Olympia, having proven incredibly amenable to express rail infrastructure using 1200m curves. It is now, by far, the best route to serve the people of the south Puget Sound (pgs. 37-41).

6) In Olympia, competitor siting options for the station were discarded for the location along Legion Way. It is far less disruptive than the alternatives, allows for UPRR to continue to access the Olympia port on their operational cargo line, and provides a fine location near both the city center and the capitol (pg. 47).

7) In the Nisqually Valley area, great pains were taken to avoid the destruction of hamlets and farms, all-the-while preserving 200kmh (125mph) speeds that support a high-speed link to Portland, Ore. The interchange from the SPIRE line to a central Washington high-speed line will probably be made in this rural area (pgs. 35-38).

8) Though the map represents a right-of-way capable of accommodating three tracks, the freight corridor is no longer presumed to be triple-track from the outset, but double. While the SPIRE plan will preserve enough space to allow for three mainline tracks on the entirety of the corridor, current daily freight train totals on the UPRR and BNSF do not warrant three active tracks. Only alongside the rail yards in Fife, Auburn and the Tukwila area can we presume that three main tracks will be useful at this time.

9) Now depicted on the maps are the recently constructed third main lines on the BNSF corridor between Auburn and Tukwila, with the intentional gap through Kent (the railroad has had difficulty acquiring property through the area, and it would further require destruction of Kent Station facilities to accommodate the third track). Should the Seattle to Portland passenger rail link be constructed, this section would need the third track to support express services. A third track would also be required south of Tacoma, though the location is undetermined and dependent on currently uncalculated timetable work. This work is underway and the maps will be updated accordingly.

10) A challenging stretch of right-of-way between Tukwila and SODO has been refined to avoid numerous structures, and now incorporates previously unaccounted-for civil works. Tweaks in the alignment have improved the line’s feasibility (pgs. 2-7).

11) Fort Lewis Station has since become Dupont / Fort Lewis Station, having been moved away from the Fort Lewis main gate and toward a more sensible location near Dupont and the fort’s Clark Road gate (pg. 34).

12) The north arrow is now facing up, mercifully.

These improvements, as well as the precision updates to track geometry, will allow us to better understand the impacts of the intelligent SPIRE proposal on our region. Furthermore, simple budgets and timetable string graphs are now able to be completed, providing us a much clearer picture of how transformational these rail services would be on our mobility and urban geography.

From here, I’ll let my plan speak for itself. I welcome scrutiny and constructive criticism.

*   *   *   *   *   *

27 Replies to “The SPIRE Plan Becomes Our Region’s Surest Bet for Express Rail Service: A Mapped, Annotated Update.”

    1. While I do think the SPIRE plan is the embodiment of smarter transit, I am not affiliated with the organization Smarter Transit.

      And when I was briefly associated with the organization, it was because we had mutual criticisms of the spine to Tacoma and Everett. Beyond that and a few key other areas, we had disagreements on how to move forward, and so I ended my association.

      1. You apparently chose your allies (and opponents) poorly.

        Since you are acting alone now, what is your plan to make SPIRE a reality?

      2. I don’t understand your first comment, and with regards to your question, I don’t really have a plan beyond publicizing it here first.

        I wanted to make sure the technical components of it were rocksolid before I did any further work to expose it in a more formal manner.

      3. The two comments are related.

        A service plan is nice and all, but isn’t really that useful, especially at this level of detail. If this were ever to move forward multiple rounds of planning and public process will go into determining the details. At this point any further digging down into the weeds is for your personal gratification.

        Much more important is an implementation plan. How do you get from the idea to policy? And here you have screwed up royally. By joining up with the anti-transit Smarter Transit to attack ST3 you made enemies of those who would be your allies and made allies of those who would be your enemies. Notice how Smarter Transit has shown zero desire to fund any kind of transit at any time? If this plan were ever to get to a funding stage, they would be against it as well.

        But it will likely never get there, at least not in this form, because you have no constituency to push for it and no organizations to help build that constituency.

        If it is to happen you’re going to need to spend a lot less time hashing out the radii of turns and a lot more time organizing folks in South King, Pierce and Thurston to push their electeds for this.

      4. First, there is a very real anti-rail bias at Smarter Transit and a particularly frugal member make-up; however, your impression that they are anti-transit is inaccurate. What they are, in fact, is very pro-BRT, and in our region there is a tremendous amount of merit for such systems. Unfortunately, despite our progressive aspirations, we simply refuse to dedicate road lanes for such systems, which is upsetting. Smarter Transit is composed of real people who have real concerns regarding transit; they are not the bogeyman or the enemy, and it is silly to treat them as such.

        I also respectfully disagree, and strongly so, that the technical components of this plan should come after its exposure, or that time is wasted by working out the kinks. Not at all. Actually, here is a plan that we know to be technically feasible—we know its physical impacts—and because of these facts can actually put out to the public the pros and cons necessary for making an informed choice.

        If I had put out a faulty product full of bad assumptions, the scheme would fail of its own incompetence and through embarrassing scrutiny. Instead, SPIRE is now far more pre-engineered than likely all the projects contained within ST3, and that is a powerful starting point from which to launch a campaign in support of it.

        Finally, this is indeed my pet-project and I intend to dive into the nitty gritty of it, specifically timetables and budgets. I enjoy it. Whether people take these ideas and run with them, or not, is up to them.

  1. Troy,

    Thank you for listening to the feedback you received. This is much more practical and likely to happen than the original. I still don’t see the need for 100 mph speeds for “regional trains”, and costs to achieve that is probably a deal-killer. A reliable system running at ninety on tangent track when contrasted with equally reliable I-5 congestion is plenty fast enough to attract ridership.

    I will say that you will never convince Lacey to allow you to run passenger trains down Pacific Avenue again. It simply will not happen except as a subway, and very likely not even that because of the construction disruptions. You were wise to include the south approach using the UP as well.

    Still, with Fort Lewis truncating all growth to the south if I-5 for seven miles, the need for this remains slight.

    1. I should have said “the need to go all the way to Olympia remains slight”. Dupont with a red bus lane and maybe a new eastbound bus bridge just to the south of the I-5 bridge will provide completely adequate service to Thurston County for decades.

      1. Olympia would simply be a high quality offshoot of the line to Portland. The distance from it to Seattle makes it perfect for swift commuter trains.

        I have zero doubt that if such a line was ever built, it would be successful and also affect the way people travel along the interstate corridor.

    2. I think all of what you have written is generally true, however I do think it is important to stress that this right-of-way could be responsible for express and commuter trains, so it must fulfill the responsibilities of this dual purpose and be host to high-speed trains. That is where 100/110 comes in. Furthermore, by having higher speed runs into the Puget Sound area, we can save money on high-speed infrastructure elsewhere.

      Now, of course the speeds are debatable, even though I’m pretty certain 100/110 is our sweet spot, but the point of this is more to detail how feasible it is to construct this infrastructure, and do so only by amending existing railroads. Maybe 80 mph speeds could be acceptable, though there is a financial penalty that is square to delay that we have to factor in here, and 100 mph speeds are perfectly standard urban speeds across the world. But why would you pass on routine 100 mile an hour speeds when the corrections to make it happen are at your fingertips in the planning, financial, and engineering sense?

      I am all for value engineering, and I think my updates have expressed that commitment to being a better manager of taxpayer funds for a project like this, but ultimately you have to make a choice about what is thankful to a project of the scale, and when you cut too many corners, why do it at all?

      ST3 is emblematic of our regional commitment to grade separated, fast trains. I think this plan could ultimately be sold, too, especially in a piecemeal manner.

      Finally, I completely agree about the Lacey alignment to Olympia. There would likely be a very real political battle there, even though the alignment can gorgeously host fast trains.

      1. Correction:

        “…but ultimately you have to make a choice about what is meaningful to a project of this scale, and when you cut too many corners, why do it at all?”

  2. Can you add a lower resolution picture of the alignment to this post? Following the link to the mapbook guide (from your original blog) is very difficult to do on a phone, and the map loads very slowly even on my laptop.

  3. “… it seems unlikely that a majority of voters would agree to a major upgrade of rail services on the heavy rail mainlines parallel to the Link corridor.”

    I disagree. I don’t see why SPIRE can’t be a part of a ST4 plan, if ST4 “goes big” like ST3. Seattle has unlimited demand for projects, and it’s easy to imagine major Link extensions in Tacoma and Everett. Similar to how East King got Issaquah Link because Seattle & Snohomish had such large demands, South King/East Pierce could get much of what you propose in a future package simply because the other sub-areas have large, pressing transit needs.

    That said, I’m agnostic if it’s funded by ST, WSDOT, Federal grants, or some combo. Seems like a good investment to me.

  4. “In a high-tech, fast paced region like the Puget Sound, however, the ±70 minute travel times between the two cities will eventually prove unsatisfactory;”

    I think the key word there is “prove” … I don’t think there will be broad support for SPIRE until Link actually goes all the way to Tacoma. 70 minute rail travel between the cities is a massive upgrade over no rail service. I don’t think people will see a need for a SPIRE-level investment until you get people actually riding Link all the way between Seattle and Tacoma and calling their politicians saying, “Gee, this is great, but can it go faster?” Also having ST594 getting completely stuck in I5 gridlock will help.

    Because what you are really proposing is a replacement for ST594, because both Link & Sounder are local services, not express. (Link is comparable to 1900s rail service because you are comparing to historical express service to modern local service)

    The question, then, is in which corridor do we want to invest in for express service?

    1) Fix ST594. I5 bus-only lanes! Politically impossible…?
    2) Invest in Link … triple track sections to bypass stations? A Dwamish bypass? Lots of options to explore
    3) Invest in Sounder … the SPIRE plan you proposed.

    So if you presuppose that South Sounder is the best corridor for investment, then this SPIRE plan is probably a great idea (and you’ve certainly done great analysis!). But a broader discussion would need to include alternatives to heavy rail along the sounder corridor.

    1. These are all very fine points, and thank you for the compliments, however I do want to state that Link light rail infrastructure will never be able to accommodate high or higher speed trains from Portland. If you ever want trains to travel to that city faster than 90 miles an hour, it will have to be on separate and upgraded trackage. SPIRE might as well be a component of that system, along with the numerous benefits the freight upgrade would bring to our society.

      Also, it is a pity that express services are not currently planned for Link. That is a huge, missed opportunity.

      1. That’s fair, I was thinking more of Tacoma-Seattle in isolation, not in the context of a larger route.

        I don’t see a need for exceed 90 mphs within the urban area – as long as there are no stops between Tacoma and Seattle, that seems plenty fast. Link is slow because of frequent stops (and a bit of a meandering path), not because of the rail technology. Heavy rail from Portland should aim to have high speeds in rural areas, particularly between Vancouver and Olympia, but I don’t think it’s necessary between Tacoma and Seattle.

        Lack of express service is a political decision. To borrow a phrase, it’s a feature, not a bug. Building in express functionality would require identifying which stations to bypass, and I don’t think ST Board is interested in sacrificing frequency at intermediate stops to achieve higher end-to-end speeds. ST3 is adding in-fill stations along the spine, which goes in the opposite direction of enhancing express service.

        This, in turn, suggests that an “express Sounder” is a preferable solution vs an express Link – and it’s probably true. My general point was that a similar analysis of the investment needed for an “express Link” should be done to compare to SPIRE before the region makes a final decision on how to improve intercity transit.

      2. 90mph is a quality speed, yes, but even that would require the widening of curves that support this proposal’s 100/110.

        And that 90mph time delay relative to 100/110 begins to add up by the time you reach Dupont and central Olympia.

        Debates on speed are worthwhile, but for the distances covered here, for the frugality ($$$) of our cities, and for the population of our cities, I have really pegged 100/110 on 1200m curves as the high-speed sweet spot. Even the commuter trains would hit it on stretches of their run, which is precisely why it makes sense.

        If we are to invest in high-quality passenger railroads, let us make it worth our while.

      3. I’ll trust you since you’ve done the math :)

        I’m just generally a bit hesitant when I see pro-HCT arguments that seem to throw massive amounts of money to obtain speeds that are really only achieved on small segments of the line., especially in urban areas where the limits are much more political/regulatory than engineering.

      4. Troy, this plan is indeed way better than the first revision (which was already pretty good) and I’m going to review it some more soon.

        It’s worth emphasizing segmentability of construction (as I’ve said before) so that whichever segment can get the most political traction can be built first.

        I made a number of comments over on your main blog.

  5. Too Complicated to ‘hook’ many people to follow the text and a myriad of maps. I nearly gave up looking after searching in vain for the big ‘single page’ plan. So that’s said, now for some constructive thoughts.
    You have gone to great lengths to come up with a plan in highly detail and make some compelling arguments for the technical side of things. Bravo for your countless hours of effort.
    I too made the mistake of trying to articulate a bullet proof plan to any group that would listen for both HSR and a regional Light Rail system after the vote for rail in 1988. My trap, and yours too, I suspect, is not building a grass roots organization with the simple concept first. The Monorail folks nearly succeeded by starting with their ‘Rise Above It All’ campaign.
    You’ve correctly concluded the need to put all freight (except local switchers) onto one ROW, and PAX Rail on the other, using the BNSF and UP ROW between Seattle and Tacoma. Unfortunately, ST selected the wrong one. The UP is the better alignment for going fast and is shorter, while the BNSF is a pain to deal with, and has cost ST Billions more than was needed to have both CR and HSR heading to Olympia and beyond. A lot of the decisions made over the decades puts building anything into horribly compromised positions before the first tie is laid.
    Good luck to you in promoting your idea, but don’t be too disappointed when you get old like me and sigh, “oh, if only …’.

    1. Where would the station locations be for the UP alignment? The current Kent, Puyallup, and Sumner stations are right in their historic town centers – would the UP alignment achieve the same?

      1. No, the UPRR alignment would be totally inferior for the movement of people, unless we only cared about express trains to Tacoma or Seattle—which we do not. Furthermore, the curve near Sumner, and the curves near Kent, are not kind to high-speed operation.

      2. By the way, I should add that Sound Transit initially sought to avoid service to city centers, instead placing intermediate stations along the line that were to be surrounded by park-and-ride facilities.

        Brighter ideas prevailed.

    2. Hey, mic, thank you for this. I appreciate your compliments and criticisms.

      First, the SPIRE plan has been a two year project that features rolling updates. Two blog entries ago, an entry also featured on the STB, I created a post about the phasing of key components of the project between Seattle and Tacoma. It included a flip-book map of the phasing, as well as a “before-and-after” map detailing the improvements. The before-and-after map was included in this entry for that simple breakdown you sought. As far as 70 mile long, multi-billion dollar rail plans go, I cannot make it much simpler than those two basic maps.

      The acronym SPIRE was developed specifically to collapse all the components of the plan into one concept, and it has seemingly caught on. There is a lot of railroad reorganization involved with SPIRE, and that is not so easy to express geo-spatially. I am apologetic that you did not find what you were looking for, and I want to change that. If you had issues, certainly others will too. I am open to ideas!

      Finally, I am not trying to be an activist here. Think of the SPIRE as my transportation dissertation. The project is a technical examination of our current railroad network and how it can be reorganized and upgraded to better serve both freight and people. The constraints imposed on the project were financial and environmental in nature to better sell the SPIRE plan to a constituency skeptical of government projects: I designed specific investments that are responsible to taxpayers while minimizing physical impacts, and which exploit existing resources at every opportunity.

      Do I think the SPIRE plan has extraordinary merit? Yes, I unequivocally do. Do I think the SPIRE plan is far better than anything offered to the suburbs in ST3? Yes, I certainly do. Would I be willing to advocate for SPIRE before a curious formal audience or intrigued officials of key agencies? Yes, I would, and have indeed done so already.

      However, I will not be attempting to build a coalition or to foment a pro-SPIRE transit revolution, and it never was my intent. I have a full time job and bills to pay, and a social circle to tend to.

      Transportation is a passion of mine and I love arguing in favor of financially sensible, operationally effective projects, whether of my own creation or not. But that is about it for now.

      Besides, I think the time for SPIRE has likely passed. The public has doubled-down on an irrational light rail spine on an immediately parallel corridor; high(er) speed rail is not on the agenda or even on the horizon; the Cascades long-range plan was killed by WSDOT in a death the press never covered, and; I think Sound Transit would rather spend dozens of billions of dollars and build a new railroad, rather than reorient the railroad lines that mercifully already exist.

      Organization before electronics before concrete is not a concept that comes easily to the Puget Sound, it would seem.

  6. Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Troy.
    I agree with many of your points proposing a plan with better outcomes, with more merit. I also agree that turning the clocks back to 1996, when negotiations with both the BNSF and UP were ongoing. Paul Price did the best he could with a bad hand, and now the region is paying dearly for each additional time slot for just CR. Imagine what they want for this plan with express trains and HSR thrown in.
    Both ROW’s are 100′ wide (UP, BNSF), and the UP has little traffic, and must get in line at Tacoma anyway.
    AJ asks where the stations would be, which is exactly why I choose the UP. In Kent there was an existing P&R on the UP, and is closer to the I-5 corridor to draw a different market to the express trains and HSR going south. The penalty of not having the Historic downtown is the downside, but one worth evaluation for best customer shed for the entire region, not just bus transfers from Easthill.
    You ask about the curves in Kent. What curves. The trains are slowing down for the station.
    This also applies to a joint station for Sumner/Puyallup slowing down through the 1,000′ radius curve. A joint station at the end of Hwy 410 in open space, caters to both cities (not peds, sorry), but draws bus and vehicle traffic from many points, including the ones being served now. It’s only a mile west of Sumner and 1.5 miles NE of Puyallup with better access when 167 gets extended to Fife. Eliminating one stop is worth it when your trying to shave minutes off a route.
    UP in Auburn is just a short distance from downtown, and misses the BNSF yards and Stampede Pass cutoff. I stand by my statement: ” The UP is the better alignment for going fast and is shorter, while the BNSF is a pain to deal with, and has cost ST Billions more than was needed to have both CR and HSR heading to Olympia and beyond.”
    Getting to Olympia in reasonably fast times was a priority for me, to utilize the Tacoma Eastern ROW (abandoned), from Olympia to Centralia, along I-5. It’s currently a storage track for old container cars.
    Anyway, I again applaud you for the detailed work you have done, and wish you well. Wishing the BNSF didn’t have all that traffic, and lot’s of lawyers to make great deals with ST isn’t going to change in our lifetimes, so solder on, knowing you are doing good works.

Comments are closed.