Just imagine how much money and time the MTA/Amtrak could have saved if, instead of rebuilding HAROLD interlocking into this overly flexible...thing, they had come up with a simplified operating plan that allowed them to build simpler infra around a few paired through routes.

Organization => electronics => concrete isn't the correct order of operations just because you should try cheaper/simpler things before spending money. It's also the correct order because getting the first part(s) right makes your later projects cheaper.

(Also, I drew this map from this Amtrak presentation showing post-ESA HAROLD. If anyone sees mistakes/has a more recent iteration of the plan they can share, do pass along!
https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/fra_net/4126/Amraks_Perspective_Galloway_Amtrak.pdf#page=19)

Circling back to this now that it’s not 2 AM, one practice that makes simplification particularly difficult here is LIRR’s tendency to run the middle two tracks of the main as reversibles — ie they run 3 tracks in the peak direction and 1 in the reverse peak.

This makes sense rel their highly peaked svc profile and varied stopping patterns, and the practice affords them more flexibility to clear up issues as trains approach Jamaica/HAROLD. However, it requires overlapping infrastructure and produces somewhat complex through routing

You’d first have to resignal the main and redesign stopping patterns such that two main tracks could do the work of 3, but in some future world of through run LIRR service, doing away with this practice could ^ cap and save $$$ and time via simpler dispatching/track arrangements.

(h/t to @c3pohara for making me clarify here re: this being most important for through running)