One of the major features of the recent 1-Line maintenance was the replacement of the northbound track between University Street and Westlake stations. This segment boasts the sharpest curve in the system, and as a result, the most worn down rails. The resulting wear-and-tear meant a fairly bumpy ride in that section, even at slow speeds.
Long-time transit enthusiasts will remember that the rails in the tunnel are not that old. The original track from when the tunnel first opened was not compatible with Link’s modern specs and was stripped out during the 2005-2007 tunnel closure. Although it’s generally recognized that rails in segments with lower-radii curves have reduced lifespans, the northbound University Street-Westlake curve did not even make it to twenty years.
A month-long reduced service period every 15-20 years is not the worst disruption a system can face, but according to Sound Transit spokesperson John Gallagher, this came earlier than anticipated and should not be an example for the future:
The original rail was installed in 2005/2007 as part of the tunnel retrofit for light rail. While the tracks met specs, there were some issues at the time of the installation. For example, during pre-revenue grinding, the rail grinder derailed and gouged the rail. We welded it to repair it, but this was a problem section of track for a long time. The new section was installed without any problems, so we anticipate that it will have a normal life span of about 25 years.
For now, no other extended Link closures or disruptions are expected in the near-term. With any luck, the new tracks will make it to a quarter-century before the next major maintenance disruption.
The northbound trains are going slower through this segment than they did before the repair. Hopefully this speed reduction isn’t permanent.
They really need to work on the speeds through downtown the best they can. I get that stop spacing is close, but at times trains feel like they are moving at a snail’s pace. What’s the point of moving them through a tunnel if they are moving as slow if not slower than a surface street bus.
Given that there’s no stoplights in the tunnel, I think it’s still faster than surface streets.
I’ve only ridden Link once since the work was finished, but the turn didn’t seem slow to me, not enough to notice.
@Mike Orr,
They were only planning to go slow through that cute e while it was new. Out of an abundance of caution.
Once they get some experience with the new track they will (have?) raise the speed back up to where it was before.
Safety first.
Yeah, it’s just temporary because the new tracks are settling. Should be going back to normal speeds hopefully soon.
“We welded it to repair it, but this was a problem section of track for a long time.”
Well, that explains that. Another short-sighted move by ST to save a few bucks by not just replacing the damaged rail at the time.
I think it will be less than 15 years before another disruption. This is going to be a common problem with Link going forward.
First of all, disruptions happen for a variety of reasons. If someone gets injured or killed by a train, service needs to stop to investigate the situation, for example. Or maybe the tunnel may need other repairs like platform tiles or damages to tunnel roofs (both recent causes of service disruptions). .
Then there is the undeniable fact that we will soon see almost a doubling of trains daily on the DSTT tracks. Disruptions will be twice as problematic soon, and the doubling of trains means a doubling of wear and tear.
What’s I think is needed is crossover tracks. I get how those are very difficult to just build somewhere between stations. (The best location appears to be inside a station vault to me.) However, it’s just not viable to run only two trains per hour in each direction when a track has to be taken out of service.
Until I see a more proactive effort by ST to study and propose solving the situation, I do not believe that they think it’s a big problem.
And as far as DSTT2 as the “ultimate solution” goes, I point out that ST is not designing tracks in SODO to provide a seamless switching of in-service trains between the platforms and tracks. Plus, the shifting of the 2 Line transfer from CID to Pioneer Square will make it hard for anyone wanting to go to the Eastside on Link to transfer heading not only south but north as well during any disruption.
[Ed: Corrected first sentence.]
“ I think it will be 15 years before another disruption. ” should be “ I think it will be less than 15 years before another disruption.”
I suppose I should have added an /s tag. :P
Yes, this. It’s inevitable to have maintenance issues and/or track blockages in the downtown tunnel area from time to time. We can’t have half-hourly service on the region’s main transit spine anytime that happens. More frequent crossover tracks are the way to minimize the service degradation in these cases.
Agreed that inside the stations seems like the easiest place to locate these crossover tracks. Doing that isn’t ideal for maintaining service to that station. One thing they could maybe do is just announce “during this service disruption you must be in the front car to access [crossover track] Station.” The train would open the doors on just that car after crossing to the other side of the tracks, while the rest of the train is either on the crossover section or still on the opposite side. Heck, maybe they could even open the left side doors on the front car and the right side doors on the back car, while the middle two cars are in between sides.
Because it would only need to be used infrequently (planned or unplanned disruptions), ST could simply choose to close a station or platform when it’s needed. ST has no issue closing stations for a few hours during protests already.
If University Station was selected for crossover tracks and was fully closed, riders could be redirected to walk to Westlake to catch a Link train. The extra time required would be about 5 to 10 minutes max. That beats waiting up to 26 minutes on the platform and run the risk of the train being too crowded to board.
For a planned closure, I wonder if the crossover tracks could be at one end with the trains reduced to three-car operation. Or maybe a median siding track could be added like what is now in the ID-C station.
Us armchair observers can see potential solutions. I just don’t think ST thinks it rises to the point of being an operational improvement. ST is structured to be a PR/ dream-driven agency first, a builder second and an operator of buildings and tracks and vehicles third. i think a time is coming soon (before 2027) when the public will flip the priorities of these different roles.
There is a technology for this problem, called “rail oiling”. From the name it’s obvious that it has downsides in traction downstream from the point of application. However, the trains are moving slowly at the curve to enter Westlake Center station so they’re not going to be sliding.
It’s messy and ugly to have the trackway blackened for a distance. Westlake northbound platform begins just yards from the curve.
Personally, I think the downsides do not rival the benefit of having the track serve for a normal life. Oil the curve.
Would it not lead to traction issues on the climb to Capitol Hill?
The lubrication agent will not spread more than one or two hundred meters from the point of application, so very little would remain when the train reaches the grade. And it doesn’t have to be oil / grease either, modern solutions like FRIMOS (mixture of coke and graphite in small particles) or aqueous suspension of MoS2 solid provides much better adhesion at speed compared to grease / oil.
@Sherwin,
“The original track from when the tunnel first opened was not compatible with Link’s modern specs”
That is not a true statement.
What happened was that Metro was given an edict to make the tunnel compatible with future Light Rail, so Metro responded by embedding steel rails in the concrete floor. Of course they did this in the cheapest possible way, which basically meant they weren’t insulated.
But uninsulated rails are basically useless. Non-functional. Power them up and stray current would course through the entire tunnel and cause corrosion.
Metro never expected this region to actually build Light Rail, so they thought they were getting away with something.
But the bus tunnel never lived up to its promise in bus only mode, and those rails were still there for all to see. And to remind people of the future potential of Light Rail.
And so the conversation switched to building LR almost as soon as the old bus tunnel opened. And the rest is history.
ST had to cut Metro’s fake rails out of the floor and reinstall them, but that turned out to have a silver lining. ST took that as an opportunity to lower the station floor slightly to improve level boarding, and that is a good thing.
No need to interpret my comments about “modern specs” too literally. Irrespective of the gauge or specs of the actual rail, the main point was that Link could not have used the original infrastructure as-was.
When was Sound Transit created? And when was the tunnel built?
Amazing what you can find when you type “when was Sound Transit created” and “when was downtown Seattle transit tunnel built” in google. Apparently it was 1993 for the creation of ST and 1990 for the opening of the DSTT.
I’m assuming Brent’s question was rhetorical. Sound Transit didn’t exist when the tunnel decisions were made in the 80s. There were no plans for a multi-county transit authority, because “the region” was a subset of King County (out to Bothell-Redmond-Kent), or possibly up to Lynnwood. The rest was mostly separate job markets (Auburn, Everett, Tacoma) or had few people (Issaquah, Covington). The exception was Boeing workers, who drove from everywhere to all the plants, because the plants were large and isolated and people got transferred between them willy-nilly.
It wasn’t just Metro who had no idea when or what rail might someday be implemented. Nobody knew. Forward Thrust had failed, and the bus tunnel was because there were no definite rail plans, and people were pessimistic that rail could pass when it had failed twice.
It’s ludicrous to say the tunnelbnevervlived up to its potential in bus only mode. It actually worked very well. Far better than link has ever worked
Metro was never able to run the number of buses through the tunnel that they claimed they would before construction. And the buses that did run in the tunnel still had reliability issues.
Some those reliability issues were because of things that occurred outside the actual tunnel, but some of the same old culprits occurred inside the tunnel too. Slow boarding through the front door, mechanical issues related to ADA compliance, etc.
And Metro basically gave up on their platooning system almost as soon as the tunnel opened. I don’t think that they ever seriously tried to activate it.
Things are working much smoother now with the tunnel being 100% Light Rail. Transit times are shorter, and reliability is up. Dwell time is down.
And hopefully next year the full ELE opens and the tunnel will be interlined with double the number of trains per hour. It’s going to be a thing of beauty. And it only took ~35 years!
Frequency is much worse though.
I do remember using the busses in the tunnel it was more convenient for intra trips when it was busses since they came more often
Albeit the 3rd avenue transitway does take over most of that
1) I do hope ST will do or has done a deep dive into PM peak-of-peak vs all-day ridership data, station by station, and data-informed projections, before blowing the whole available fleet on 4-car trains running the whole length of the line, with 10-minute headway all the way through peak. If 3-car trains suffice off-peak, that should free up roughly enough LRVs to run a peak loop of short runs between SODO and Lynnwood. 30 LRVs per hour going north will make a huge difference vs 24 LRVs per hour, and could save having to deploy lots of unnecessary alternative bus service, as in over 48 bus runs.
2) I hope the testing trains (which would be in service on the eastside) for the 2-Line crossing really do go into revenue service on the westside within a few months of Lynnwood opening, which would allow the return to 4-car all-day trains the whole length of the 1 Line.
3) When Link first opened, it was the only transit charging fare in the tunnel. So some people without monthly passes just trying to get to the other end of downtown had an incentive to fill up the slower-loading buses.
With the euthanization of the Ride Free Area and Pay-as-you-exit, Metro deployed a bunch of ORCA boarding assistants in the tunnel, and kicked out a few more bus routes, IIRC.
Of course it is more complex than that. As Lazarus states, the initial rails were political and not practical. But in addition to solving the insulation, changing the platform height was good for transit flow.
The RTA/ST was a new government that won its second vote in 1996 and at a large stream of revenue and political momentum aimed at the DSTT.
The DSTT opened in fall 1990 under the old Metro Council. The merger into King County was not until about 1995.
Metro could have used the DSTT to capacity with bus but chose not to due to the coming rail agency. The Breda buses were lemons. Metro management and politics did not structure DSTT service well at first, but it was improved over time. The Bredas were heavy, slow, noisy, and performed poorly on the freeways. Metro could have run more electric trolleybuses in the DSTT; there were plans not used for Route 7 to use the DSTT via a slip ramp between South Dearborn Street and the D-2 roadway; there were plans to connect routes 43 and 70 at CPS. The Breda routes could have been restructured to be shorter and more frequent. But there were only a few years between the DSTT opening and the Sound Move affirmative vote. LRT was coming. Service subsidy was always scarce; the I-695 fallout was in 1999-2000; service reductions were made; DSTT hours were reduced.
There is a large overlap between the policymakers of Metro and ST.
@eddiew,
Good recap.
I was always a little surprised that the region pivoted so quickly from the concept of the bus tunnel to a completely new agency and a completely different tech.
But Metro sort of stumbled out of the gate with the bus tunnel, and the region was chocking on regional traffic. And those faux rails embedded in the bus tunnel floor just kept reminding people of a potentially better future with Light Rail.
But here we are. And soon to double the number of trains in the tunnel. Things are looking up.
“I do remember using the busses in the tunnel it was more convenient for intra trips when it was busses since they came more often”
But it was worse taking a tunnel route beyond the ends of the tunnel because the buses then had to contend with stoplights and traffic to get from Convention Place to I-5 if the express lanes weren’t going their direction. Link’s infrequency is simply because Line 2 is four years late.
“those faux rails embedded in the bus tunnel floor just kept reminding people of a potentially better future with Light Rail. ”
People at the time knew the rails were shoddy and wouldn’t support real trains. That was a criticism when they were installed. But it didn’t matter because people thought rail was decades away if ever, and the rails would be replaced if rail ever happens. Not “light rail”, because there was no indication yet that it would be light rail. The term light rail had only emerged in the 1970s to distinguish modern tram lines (like MLK) from legacy streetcars (like Toronto in mixed traffic, or like the First Hill Streetcar).
@WL,
“Frequency is much worse though”
Correct, the old bus system did deliver better frequency in the tunnel. But it was largely frequency without a purpose.
The bus tunnel is only 1.3 miles long, with stations spaced roughly every 0.3 miles. With stations that close together it’s actually better to just walk along Third.
Think of it. If I’m at Westlake, am I going to go down into the tunnel, past the mezzanine level, onto the platform, and then pay to board a bus just to go to USS 0.3 miles away and climb back out of the tunnel?
Na. If you are traveling intra-downtown, then it is quicker and cheaper to just walk in most situations.
The bus tunnel was designed to get people into and out of downtown. It wasn’t really designed for intra-downtown travel. And that is OK.
But hey. Lots of service expansions on the near future. Things are looking up.
The tunnel is going to get busy! Finally!
@Mike Orr,
“People at the time knew the rails were shoddy and wouldn’t support real trains. That didn’t matter because people thought rail was decades away if ever.”
It always matters when governments spend taxpayer dollars doing shoddy work with no functional purpose.
And people took matters into their own hands. They demanded LR sooner than “decades away if ever”.
Score one for the people.
“With stations that close together it’s actually better to just walk along Third…. to USS”
But it does make sense going from Westlake to Intl Dist. It’s a tossup between Westlake and Pioneer Square. And the SODO busway effectively extended the “tunnel” to SODO.
Westlake-University Street is what always happens when stations are close together. But that’s not the primary market. The primary market is going two or more stations.
“It always matters when governments spend taxpayer dollars doing shoddy work with no functional purpose.”
The rails and installation probably cost hardly anything. Your ire should be directed at the 1980s politicians, who are long gone.
Correct, the old bus system did deliver better frequency in the tunnel. But it was largely frequency without a purpose.
The bus tunnel is only 1.3 miles long, with stations spaced roughly every 0.3 miles. With stations that close together it’s actually better to just walk along Third.
Think of it. If I’m at Westlake, am I going to go down into the tunnel, past the mezzanine level, onto the platform, and then pay to board a bus just to go to USS 0.3 miles away and climb back out of the tunnel?
A lot of people did though. In fact, a lot of people used to take the train for that trip. You can see that with the old numbers*. My guess is they simply took the first vehicle that arrived, and it happened to be a train. The funny thing is, once they kicked the buses out, fewer people did that. The train was so infrequent that it wasn’t worth going down into the tunnel.
The buses were also just as fast as the train. They had a “ride free zone” which meant that people just got on and off the bus like they do the train. It wasn’t as common for trips in the middle, but for something like CID to Convention Place Station (both of which had relatively shallow stations) it would be worth it.
I get that you like the train but it is important not to spread misinformation about the bus tunnel. It was highly effective, and carried huge numbers of riders (and had capacity for many more).
It worked especially well with buses coming from the north (Northgate and the U-District) when the express lanes were in its favor. But it was that strength that made it appropriate for conversion to rail. Any rational rail plan would go north to the UW (replacing those bus trips with the train). It took a while, but ST finally implemented the most cost effective part of their system (warts and all) and with it, the buses to those areas (which benefited immensely from the tunnel) became obsolete.
It would have been different it had been built with an entrance at Belltown (for buses from Ballard, Magnolia, Queen Anne and the Aurora corridor). In that case I could see it remaining a bus tunnel, while we built a new (rail only) tunnel similar to the one that exists. The bus tunnel would serve the south end buses well (something that Link really doesn’t do well). Unlike the north end, buses from the south have never been truncated or eliminated in great number, simply because the connection is awkward. Places like Renton, West Seattle, and even more distant places like Federal Way and Tacoma would benefit from a bus tunnel. This would complement the core of our system (downtown to the UW).
That being said, I’m not sure I would have done anything different when building the tunnel. I would say it is by far the best thing we have ever built. It worked really well as a bus tunnel, and is one of the few places on Link that has traditional (European style) stop spacing.
* Sound Transit has never released trip data, but they have released stop data with directions. So you can tell how many people get on the train at a particular station heading a particular direction. Before Link was extended to the UW, someone taking the train northbound from CID must have been headed to some other downtown location. You can see this data on the last page of this document: https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/SIP2016_FinalDraft.pdf. Notice that for a northbound train about 1,700 riders boarded at CID, Pioneer Square or University. That means 1,700 riders (or roughly 10% of the total ridership of Link at the time) was riding in the tunnel.
The voters spoke when they passed an initiative to create the monorail authority. The Legislature undermined the funding mechanism.
The Legislature created the Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority. Voters then passed the ST1 package put forth by that body in 1998, which thankfully only required a simple majority vote. Attempts by the Legislature to roll back funding authority have pretty much all failed, and ended numerous political careers.
I don’t know whether the state fully funded youth fare freedom on Sound Transit services (either the lost fare revenue or the increased service costs).
> And hopefully next year the full ELE opens and the tunnel will be interlined with double the number of trains per hour. It’s going to be a thing of beauty. And it only took ~35 years!
You’re imagining if Metro had went straight for building ‘light rail’ we’d have link 40 years earlier — if the tunnel was built straight for “light rail” back then what we would have ended up being a two-car streetcar system similar to SF Muni T line instead. Metro didn’t have that much money back then to build an entire system like Link now. Even sound transit itself for Central link initial segment avoided building any mined station except beacon hill due to high costs — and that was to avoid running at-grade along dearborn since that would force 2-cars instead of 4-cars.
“Original alignment was to utilize the D-2 Roadway, exit the Roadway along Dearborn Avenue and pass under the I-90 overpass at Rainier Avenue.”
There were older transit measures to run at-grade through university district as well
https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/FinalRecords/2001/Reso%20R2001-01.pdf#page=18
The Beacon Hill tunnel was because Paul Allen wanted a station to bring more business to his stadium and the city wanted a station for SODO workers. Why would Dearborn Street not be able to handle 4-car trains when MLK can? Link was always going to go to the airport and later Federal Way and Tacoma. How could 2-car trains possibly handle that?
Before March 2019, the combination of Link and bus provided very short waits for CBD circulation trips in downtown. Surface streets were slow and remain so. Consider that SDOT has taken lanes from 2nd, 4th, and 5th avenues. In March 2019, only Link remained in the DSTT; it has six-minute headway in the peaks. Ridership fell as the circulation trips went elsewhere.
After Covid, ST has not restored Link headway. Peak period headway is now eight minutes. Off-peak headway is 10 minutes.
Longer waits make the network less attractive.
Bus routes were taken from the DSTT due to the county sale of CPS to the WSCC. Link headway is still long enough that bus routes could remain. Several routes from/to the south could be using the DSTT if the WSCC had expanded on a different block.
With the 2 Line, ST may finally have short Link headway. We hope.
When ST had 6-minute peaks between 2012 and 2016(?), I recall it saying they were temporary for the gap between eliminating the ride-free area and getting the full number of U-Link or Northgate Link railcars into operation; it chose frequency over longer trains this one time (whereas it usually chooses the opposite), and it wouldn’t be permanent or in ST2.
What’s the real reason now that ST won’t have 6-minute peaks, or 6-minute all day? Is it just an adversion to falling below a train-fullness threshold? Does it really not have enough trains or drivers now? (Since Link requires only a tiny fraction of the drivers Metro does.) Is it because it’s using more trains than expected to maintain current service and reliability? Or is it just institutional inertia and subbornness?
Don’t forget the ride free area. All tunnel stops were considered part of the area so nobody had to pay yo go one stop making it much faster than walking I think. TRhe frequencies were terrific. you really didn’t have to wait more than a few minutes for a bus to come along. Miraculous compared to links minimum 8 minutes.p
> Why would Dearborn Street not be able to handle 4-car trains when MLK can? Link was always going to go to the airport and later Federal Way and Tacoma.
I read about it somewhere that after the cuts, they added the beacon hill tunnel in to at least allow for 4-car trains. Unfortunately I can’t find which article or pdf where I got this information from.
> How could 2-car trains possibly handle that?
I mean it was kind of a mess back then with planning. The original document said maybe 6-car trains and then tacoma started out with 2-car trains. Nothing was set in stone yet.
> > Why would Dearborn Street not be able to handle 4-car trains when MLK can? Link was always going to go to the airport and later Federal Way and Tacoma.
Sorry realized I didn’t explain it.
IIRC there were two problems.
The first was the property takings at dearborn and rainier avenue for the right turn as described in that pdf I described (though this was a more minor problem)
The second problem it seemed to imply that short blocks in chinatown and then on rainier the east-west streets just south of the i-90 that were harder to ‘close’. I’m not sure if it meant the off/on ramps to Massachusetts or like say holgate/state too close?
@eddiew,
“ With the 2 Line, ST may finally have short Link headway.”
Yes, when the 2-Link opens in late 2025 this region will have multiple lines at 8-min headways and will have 4-min headways from DT Seattle all the way to Lynnwood.
It’s going to be absolutely revolutionary for Seattle. We have never before seen such a combination of speed, capacity, frequency, and reliability.
The next 2 years are going to be transformational.
“ The next 2 years are going to be transformational.”
…. As long as there isn’t another surprise two-year delay like Hilltop and East Link across Lake Washington.
@Al S,
We have 3 major service expansions happening in the next 2 years — ELSL, LLE, and the full ELE.
It’s easy to make snide remarks about the importance of ELSL, as I’m sure some of the ST haters on this blog will be quick to do, but it is also hard to imagine that anything will happen to fully delay LLE. And that will be transformational in its own right.
In reality we will probably get all three in the next two years. In addition to RLE, and maybe even a one-stop FWLE starter line.
In two years regional transit will be completely transformed. Can’t wait.
@Mike Orr,
“ The Beacon Hill tunnel was because Paul Allen wanted a station to bring more business to his stadium”
I assume this statement is a joke.
Don’t forget the ride free area.
I mentioned it. It made a big difference. I also noticed that during the late stages of having buses in the tunnel — well after the “ride free zone” was eliminated, they had Metro workers with hand held ORCA readers at several stops. This allowed people to board in the back. Dwell times were fairly tiny, even during the peak of rush hour. The express buses worked really well for getting to and from downtown.
What the region lacked was a connection *between* places. Capitol Hill to Roosevelt. Northgate to U-District. This is really the value added for Link, or any proper subway. If everyone is just headed downtown than express buses can do a good job (because we have freeways). But if you are trying to connect everyone in between those places then you need lots of right-of-way (i. e. tunnels).
Yes, when the 2-Link opens in late 2025 this region will have multiple lines at 8-min headways and will have 4-min headways from DT Seattle all the way to Lynnwood.
It’s going to be absolutely revolutionary for Seattle. We have never before seen such a combination of speed, capacity, frequency, and reliability.
I get your point, but isn’t the only reason it will be “absolutely revolutionary” because we are running the trains so infrequently right now? Come to think of it, I seem to remember you arguing that running every 10 minutes in the middle of the day was good enough. If I got that wrong, my apologies. But it seems to me that if running trains every 4 minutes — for even just a tiny bit of the day — will be absolutely revolutionary, shouldn’t we be running the trains more often now?
> But it seems to me that if running trains every 4 minutes — for even just a tiny bit of the day — will be absolutely revolutionary, shouldn’t we be running the trains more often now?
Sound Transit focuses more on suburban capacity than about frequency. Thankfully we don’t have 6-car train platforms or it might have considered running trains every 15 minutes for a longer span of time.
I guess to be a bit fair I did check the initial east link operation plan (2011) which listed:
* Peak periods (6:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.): three-car trains every 8 minutes.
* Midday (8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.) and early evening (6:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.): three-car trains every 12 minutes.
* Early morning (5:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.) and late evening (10:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m.): three-car trains with 15-minute headway.
https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/projects/eastlink/eis_2011/13_appe_energyoperplan.pdf; versus the current east link plan has a wide span of time running at “base midday frequency” and at 10 minutes rather than 12 minutes.
@WL,
“shouldn’t we be running the trains more often now”
The 4-min headways comes from interlining. With only one line in operation the base frequency is set by the street grid in the RV. Practically that sets the minimum headway at about 8 mins.
But we will get there next year when the full ELE opens, and it will change transit in the urban core.
We have a lot to look forward to over the next 2 years.
> The 4-min headways comes from interlining. With only one line in operation the base frequency is set by the street grid in the RV. Practically that sets the minimum headway at about 8 mins.
The minimum headway in RV is 6 minutes, its not just about the street grid. It’s due to larger trains sound transit decided to run less trains. Aka even if rainier valley was built elevated we’d have the same frequency trains right now.
I’d like to clarify a bit, I’m not saying link in the tunnel is worse, it’s just a trade off that the bus tunnel had it’s own positives as well. No reason to forget about it’s positives. It was really really frequent and honestly quite useful for shorter/medium trips.
> Some those reliability issues were because of things that occurred outside the actual tunnel, but some of the same old culprits occurred inside the tunnel too. Slow boarding through the front door, mechanical issues related to ADA compliance, etc.
Slightly off topic but it is a bit amusing to me that we’re (not just king county but other transit agencies) now getting all these battery/electric busses. Would have been quite useful for the tunnel bus operations back then.
“ The Beacon Hill tunnel was because Paul Allen wanted a station to bring more business to his stadium”
“I assume this statement is a joke.”
That was the press coverage at the time. ST was going around Beacon Hill per the original Link vision to be like other light rails (MAX, San Jose, San Diego, Sacramento, Hudson/Bergen) and keep capital costs down. Paul Allen pushed for a stadium station to increase the stadiums’ popularity, the same way he did with the SLU streetcar. Seattle then wanted a SODO station for industrial workers (perhaps especially the Starbucks headquarters). That all got ST to route Link through SODO, which necessitated the Beacon Hill tunnel. At first there was no Beacon Hill Station, but later a station shell was added for a deferred station, and finally it got into the initial segment.
“Dwell times were fairly tiny, even during the peak of rush hour. The express buses worked really well for getting to and from downtown.”
Dwell times were tiny but the buses were severely off-schedule, and stacked up at Convention Place waiting for space in the tunnel. I reverse-commuted on the 71/72/73X and got stuck in that every day. Sometimes it took 20 minutes to get through the Convention Place driveway to the platform where I could get off. The tunnel was basically overwhelmed with off-schedule bus bunching, because of congestion on I-5, Eastlake Ave, the Stewart-Denny freeway exit, Stewart Street, the Convention Place driveway, bus-train merge timings in the tunnel (buses were blocked to allow a train to go through), and also wheelchair lift raisings in the tunnel.
“With only one line in operation the base frequency is set by the street grid in the RV. Practically that sets the minimum headway at about 8 mins.”
6 minutes! It was 6 minutes between 2012 to around 2016, so ST can certainly do it. And now some Ballard scenarios say SDOT might be willing to go down to 5 minutes.
ST could have 6-minute all-day frequency now. That’s what an agency who wants to maximize ridership, maximize the usefulness of the network, and maximize the value of the capital investment would do. Cities like Vancouver, Toronto, New York, London — and Martin could probably name others. But ST has never been focused on transit best practices; it focuses on getting the extensions opened the quickest rather than on maximizing frequency now, and doesn’t even seem to think high frequency is important. (Look at how quick it is to reduce frequency during maintenance rather than trying to mitigate the disruptions.)
Two-line frequency will absolutely be transformative for North Seattle and Capitol Hill, and to a lesser extent Shoreline and Lynnwood. Finally we’ll have real subway frequency somewhere, and people will be able to show up anytime and start moving within 4-5 minutes. We’ve never had transit like that! That’s what makes people ditch their cars because transit is so competitive.
@Mike Orr,
“That was the press coverage at the time.”
I was here at the time, and I never heard that. And I was actually at the press event for the launch of the Emerald Mole (signed my name on the pressure shield with a sharpie). And I was at one of the breakout events with the press, and I still never heard that.
And it’s not like Beacon Hill station is going to do that much for the Stadium. It’s a pittance as far as total attendance goes. Paul Allen could care less.
Probably had more to do with the decision to put the OMF so far south.
I’m glad to hear the nb ride is smoother but it’s a bummer they have to slow it down. I was also hoping rhis 3rd set of rails would last longer than what we had before but it sounds like maye/probably not…
I rode it NB a few days ago and the train still feels like it is grinding on the curve.
I don’t know whether ST has considered or will consider installing a rail greaser at the curve but the amount of noise/vibration I felt suggests it won’t be long before the rail is worn away again.
I wish we could nix DSTT2, upgrade to automated trains that are shorter, and use the reduced platform space to fit in crossover tracks at all the stations. That would be much more useful in the long run.
I suppose Rainier Valley, and possibly East Link and a few sections in SODO would need to be upgraded to handle automated trains. Would need to estimate the cost of those improvements, but I’d guess they would be less than or equal to the cost savings from not building DSTT2. The big advantage would be that system could operate with lower headways during maintenance periods, improved all around frequency, and the many benefits to ST3.
As has been previously suggested, Ballard link could terminate at Westlake with a non-revenue track connecting to the existing DSTT. Alternatively or in addition, a separate OMF could be buit in Interbay. Lays the foundation for a future extension south that connects to First Hill as has also been previously suggested.
Watching the war unfold between automated trains and automated cars on MLK could be quite fascinating.
“ I suppose Rainier Valley, and possibly East Link and a few sections in SODO would need to be upgraded to handle automated trains. Would need to estimate the cost of those improvements, but I’d guess they would be less than or equal to the cost savings from not building DSTT2.”
What is needed is a thorough analysis of an automated scenario by ST. I think us automation fans (not everyone posting is an automation fan) have made a great case about its advantages, and listed many ways to make it happen. Yet ST never looks at its eventuality. It’s left to being too utopian to consider, or too minor to plan for.
Given that most new urban rail lines are automated including new ones in Honolulu and Montreal in these past several months, ST looks like a stubborn old person not embracing change.
I agree. If nothing else they should consider it for the line to Ballard. Rainier Valley (and the East Side) would be more challenging. But building Ballard Link as an independent line with smaller, automated trains would be the sort of thing *most* agencies would do.
Yes. Short automated lines already exist (Vancouver, Copenhagen, Dubai), so building Ballard Link (with or without WS) as an automated, fully grade-separated rail line can be done using decades old technology. Automating Rainier Blvd and Bel-Red segments is possible but requires some cutting edge tech.
Would automating the Rainier Valley and Bel-Red segments really require more than train gates and upgraded signals, which are hardly “cutting edge” technologies?
I’m not sure I would call it “cutting edge” but I think it is unusual to automate a train that is not grade-separated. It seems like it could be done — I’m just not sure anyone has done it. In contrast, if we made the Ballard line a separate (grade-separated) line then it would be standard practice to automate it.
@AJ,
The technology to have self operating rail vehicles operate in mixed environments like the RV and Bel-Red areas is under development today. Several of the rail vehicle manufacturers have tech demonstrations underway now for non-grade separated rail vehicles.
I’m always a bit cautious about time frames, but if you believe the press it is maybe 10 years out from general adoption.
“ I’m always a bit cautious about time frames, but if you believe the press it is maybe 10 years out from general adoption.”
The opening day for Link in SLU and Ballard (with through trains to the Rainier Valley) is at least 15 years away as a minimum.
Right: “under development” and “tech demonstrations” all means “cutting edge.” IMO running automated trains in RV and Bel-Red is very doable and does not require any new grade separation, but the tech on the vehicles is new so there is some risk in implementation.
To build a new fully grade separated line, OTOH, as an automated line is ‘standard practice,’ as Ross puts it: not only is it low risk to implement, the incompetent move would be to build a greenfield standalone line without full automation.
@AJ,
“ IMO running automated trains in RV and Bel-Red is very doable and does not require any new grade separation,”
Exactly. Automation will come to Link, but it will come more in the form of self operating vehicles and not in the form of the fully grade separated automation of the past like what Ross is suggesting.
So no need to change the RV, or Bel-Red, or even to build differently in the future. What ST has now is perfectly suited to future automation, and ST can continue to build in the same manner. No change required.
It should also be noted that ST uses (mainly) Siemens rolling stock, and Siemens is already demonstrating self driving tech in mixed environments like the RV. There will be some lessons learned from these demonstrations, and they will undoubtably make some adjustments, but so far it seems to be working reasonably well.
So automation will come to Link. But it will come in the new form and not in the old form of decades past. We should look forward. Not backwards.
Automation will come to Link, but it will come more in the form of self operating vehicles and not in the form of the fully grade separated automation of the past like what Ross is suggesting.
It is probably best if you try and avoid summarizing my statements as you often get it wrong. My statements are not that complicated:
1) Eventually we will automate trains on the existing line but it may take a while since no one is currently doing that (although they are working on it).
2) It would behoove us to build the Ballard line as completely grade-separated so that it can be easily automated.
@Ross,
I stand by everything I wrote.
I think we are all saying the same thing?
“So no need to change the RV, or Bel-Red,”
There are reasons to grade-separate Rainier Valley besides automated trains: avoiding collisions and speeding up trains. The same thing applies in principle to Bel-Red, but I don’t have a feel for how many pedestrians or cars will be at the crossings anyway. The ST rep said car volumes would be minimal because they’re minor streets, and pedestrians may be few because “nobody walks in LA”. It will certainly be fewer than Rainier Valley but I don’t know how much.
As for standard railroad bells and flashing lights and swing arms like in SODO: there’s a reason they weren’t installed in Rainier Valley originally: the neighbors didn’t want that noise in a residential area. Even Link’s regular bells and announcements are quieted down and minimized in Rainier Valley, at least some hours. If ST proposes adding standard railroad warnings now, that opposition would reemerge. ST could do it anyway, and the opposition may be weaker this time, but it’s still a factor.
“or even to build differently in the future.”
ST is already building differently. No part of ST2 or ST3 has level crossings except the Bel-Red exception that Bellevue cajoled ST into doing to save money for its city hall tunnel. I don’t recall any ST3 alternative that has level crossings. The calls for a surface alignment downtown are coming from a few STB commentators. The old Alternative D (a tunnel under Queen Anne to Fremont, and possibly surface on Leary Way) was rejected years ago, maybe partly for this reason.
“Siemens is already demonstrating self driving tech in mixed environments”
So Siemens will give ST marketing materials on that in future line and train orders. Maybe that will help sway ST.
@Mike Orr,
“ Maybe that will help sway ST”
It is not that ST is somehow reluctant to implement tech, it’s that the tech doesn’t exist yet. I don’t know why that is such a mystery to everyone.
ST is fundamentally not a research agency. It is not their task to develop the tech and then implement it as they see fit. That is not how the system works, and to anyone who has actually been involved in Research and Development this is second nature and doesn’t even need to be stated.
The various manufacturers and government agencies will work through the development process. And they will do the necessary tech demonstrations. And only after that, and only after the regulatory agencies buy off on it, will it become available for implementation. And even then only when the financial and liability side also makes sense.
I personally think ST is well positioned to participate in some sort of pilot program on automation. We have a good mix of grade separated and at grade operations in mixed environments. And maybe it would start with yard operations only. And with a babysitter in the chair. Plus on a pilot program ST wouldn’t be responsible for the liability side.
So it might happen. In maybe around 10 years. But this is not the same as wholesale conversion to automatic operation.
“I suppose Rainier Valley, and possibly East Link and a few sections in SODO would need to be upgraded to handle automated trains.”
ST should study this and the rest of automation and come up with technologies and cost estimates. Then the politicians/public can have a real debate about whether it’s worth it. Instead ST just says, “No, we won’t study it”, leaving everybody in a vacuum on what the cost difference and impacts would be.
All surface segments should have at least a theoretical estimate of what it would take to eliminate level crossings. The presence of level crossings causes slowness and collisions.
@Mike Orr,
ST is not a technology development organization, and nor should they be. That is not how the process works.
The various manufactures will develop the technology and gain the requisite approvals from the various regulatory agencies. Only then, and probably only after some operational demonstrations in appropriate operating environments, will the technology be made available to transit service providers.
At that point ST should be able to buy the equipment and phase it into their operations as available and proven technology.
However, in all likelihood significant changes to the RV won’t be required. The new automation tech will be less like the old heavy rail automation and more like the automation used for self operating cars. Basically the automation will go on the vehicle and not on the street or track.
Think of it as future automation tech allowing the vehicle to operate in the existing built environment, instead of requiring the built environment to change to match the vehicle.
I feel the same way, Mike. A study with cost estimates is needed.
Again, ST seems to think that it is either too utopian or too trivial to plan in advance for.
I am convinced that the issue is about how fast a train can go more than if it’s viable at all. As technology moves forward, the safe max speed will increase.
And in a worst case scenario, drivers may need to sit in cabs or maybe control things remotely while trains are on MLK. That would seemingly reduce the need to assign about 25-30 drivers (150-180 minute round trip divided by 6 minute frequency) to no more than 6-8 drivers.
And in a worst case scenario, drivers may need to sit in cabs or maybe control things remotely while trains are on MLK. That would seemingly reduce the need to assign about 25-30 drivers (150-180 minute round trip divided by 6 minute frequency) to no more than 6-8 drivers.
Good point. It seems like remote would be ideal, but I could see a driver riding the train for only the segment where they are needed. The problem is that is actually quite a ways. The train runs on the surface south of CID and south of the Rainier Beach Station. Thus if you wanted someone to be in the cab the entire time there is a potential collision, you would need them to ride from CID to Tukwila, which is a long ways.
I feel like that when Graham Station scoping begins in earnest that ST should explore a longer grade separated segment (cut and cover tunnel or aerial structures) between north of Orcas and south of Renton Ave on MLK Way. The separation would free up the need to have such a wide crossing at MLK and Othello.
That would then leave only Henderson and Alaska as the major cross streets to then plan for. There are other streets and crosswalks that cross MLK but their use seems relatively infrequent so a long red light won’t causse too much backup..
In Henderson’s case, few cars actually cross through the intersection east-west so a diverter segment for a side street approach to create two “T” intersections would help lots.
Alaska is a more complicated situation because cars move in every direction there — but some sort of through movement overcrossing could be the key (like one for Alaska east-west traffic with a SPUI underneath with gates operating when trains cross to prevent left turns across the tracks ).
“ Thus if you wanted someone to be in the cab the entire time there is a potential collision, you would need them to ride from CID to Tukwila, which is a long ways.”
ST is already preferring over crossings at Lander and Holgate, leaving Royal Brougham as the only possible conflict. If trains cross at a low speed there, automation should work fine.
If BAR Station ever gets built, the long ride to TIBS would not be needed.
“ST is not a technology development organization, and nor should they be. That is not how the process works.”
Automated trains and platform screen doors have been in production for so long that they’re now standard for new lines in several cities, such as Honolulu, Lima, and Paris.
For MLK and SODO I’ve long suggested eliminating the level crossings with underpasses, another old technology. Then we wouldn’t have to wait for train guidance with crossings. ST could have studied this all the way back in the mid 2000s when it built the initial segment, so that we could have an option ready for future implementation.
“ ST is not a technology development organization, and nor should they be. That is not how the process works.”
The choice to build in the median of MLK with signal priority was a choice to go with pretty new technology. While it’s technically easy to have trains override signals, the nuances of designing for the MLK intersections with lots of phases — and not merely dropping signal phases — was something that had only been around about 20 years when Link opened.
Meanwhile, automated trains have been running at SeaTac for 50 years (1973), and Vancouver’s Skytrain opened 38 years ago 1988).
So automated trains are obviously not an unproven technology! They exist across the world and that’s what most new rail systems are choosing these days.
There is no need to wait for some sort “technology development”. It’s here, it’s widespread and it’s proven! That logic is total BS, Lazarus.
> For MLK and SODO I’ve long suggested eliminating the level crossings with underpasses, another old technology. Then we wouldn’t have to wait for train guidance with crossings. ST could have studied this all the way back in the mid 2000s when it built the initial segment, so that we could have an option ready for future implementation.
Those aren’t about technology but construction disruption to build underpasses.
Even same with West Seattle and Ballard. If they were more willing for more disruptive construction methods but cheaper it would be financially fine to build them as well.
WL, which direction would underpass, the trains or the cross-streets? I ask, because at three of the cross-streets the west side is higher than King Boulevard, so just going aloft at the proper distance would serve, at least for that side. On Orcas both side of the Boulevard go up.
If you’re thinking about trenching the tracks, you have a pretty serious set of problems to overcome:
1) Even though, yes, decking works for keeping the old line in operation, albeit sometimes at a reduced speed, how do you make the transition to the lower story? You’d need to take a lane of King Boulevard in each direction at the north and south ends of the trenched section;
2) What about utilities? When the city rebuilt the Boulevard did they move the sewer and water mains to one side or the other? If they’re under the tracks, uh-oh.
3) What do you do about pedestrians? Would you have underground passages underneat the car lanes? And if you did, would you keep the at-grade pedestrian crossings of the trackway for passengers to get to or from the “opposite” platform?
It’s not easy to lower the trackway a couple of stories.
I see trenching under MLK generally like this:
1. Close half of MLK. Put one lane of traffic in each direction on the other side. With half of the street closed, the side street signals could get less green time because the extra three lanes that pedestrians cross today would be closed.
2. Trench under the closed lanes. Then put a lid on top and restore the traffic segment by segment. A wider trench would be needed at station locations.
3. Once the tracks are laid and ready to be put into operation, connect it one direction at a time from with the outside track first. During the connection construction only one Link track would be open, but good phasing could keep that period to a minimum.
4. The track no longer in use could be removed and That could provide room for adding that would be where the second platform would go underneath.
5. One the second direction track is complete with station platforms added, then return link to single tracking to finish the rail connections ASAP..
6. Once the tracks are operating underneath, then narrow MLK to have five lanes only in total. . The outer lanes could then become a PBL or a multi-use trail. The distance to cross MLK would be reduced for pedestrians. Maybe there would be room for a grass median instead of a middle two-way left turn lane.
Sure it would be disruptive. Temporary street and driveway closures would be needed. It would not be cheap. The digging would need to be done carefully to not undermine the existing track stability. However it seems that it could be done.
*****
In a deep bored tunnel scenario, the station vaults would not have to be at MLK. The could be placed closer to Rainier Ave as appropriate. Similar to the idea above, the phasing could be to open one direction at a time using single tracking while connections are build from the closed track.
*****
Of course, these things would cost billions while only providing a little bit faster version of the existing system. Building the often- discussed conceptual “bypass” would be a similar cost and could easily be cheaper and less disruptive — as well as provide a new transit line that could be easily automated all the way to Tacoma Dome! With a bypass in place, light rail on MLK could then be repurposed to operate more like a streetcar with slower (safer) speeds, shorter trains and even added stations in places — extendable to Renton or Burien or somewhere else nearby.
*****
It’s just regrettable that ST isn’t in a position to carefully study any of these things. Instead we would probably get a rushed episode where the debate would be emotionally charged and not thought through strategically.
I’m with Tom – over-passing the cross streets, which have less lanes and don’t need to carry a light rail vehicles, seem like a much cheaper and less disruptive approach that raising or lowering the tracks. I would expect improving grade separation on Rainier to look more like the Lander street project, except the bridge would be smaller.
It is also good to keep the stations themselves remain at-grade, as that is best for station access. For example, I would keep the Othello and Myrtle intersections as is (or perhaps even bias the light cycle more to help pedestrians), as they keeps the station platform access simple & level, and a new station at Graham should be similar.
The opportunity for improvement is that with an overcrossing, left turns (across the Link tracks) can then be closed off. For example, a 2-lane overpass at Orcas can be paired with roundabouts at Orcas & 37th and Orcas and 32rd (or 33rd), such that drivers on Orcas/MLK can still turn right, and if they want to turn left they make a right, U-turn using the roundabout and go over the overpass. The intersection at MLK & Dawson can then be closed off – no more left turns, and then a car on Dawson looking to cross MLK needs to dogleg down to Orcas using the roundabout & overpass. A pedestrian crossing could still be retained at Dawson using a setup like at Genesee.
I would use the same approach at Holly, with a simple 2-lane overpass and paired roundabouts.
“Those aren’t about technology but construction disruption to build underpasses.”
ST hasn’t said that. It hasn’t even studied how long or severe the disruption would be. Without that, everybody including ST and the public is left guessing, and the guesses may vary widely from reality.
Remember that overpasses would mean pedestrians would also have to go up and down. Including to get to the platform on the other side, or half their trips. Sinking the tracks would allow the streets and sidewalks to remain at the current level.
We haven’t suggested a Rainier Valley tunnel because of the cost. But Al S makes a good point: a tunnel wouldn’t have to remain in the wide MLK right of way: the stations could veer east to Rainier where they should have been in the first place. Although remember that now there are apartments and businesses on MLK that were predicated on being steps from the station. So maybe the station could be towards Rainier but not all the way? But then you don’t want stations in a residential middle away from both Rainier and MLK;l that might be worse than having them on MLK.
Remember that overpasses would mean pedestrians would also have to go up and down. Including to get to the platform on the other side, or half their trips.
I remember watching a video explaining how they do this in the Netherlands (and maybe in other parts of Europe). The lanes for cars and trucks go way down, to allow enough clearance for trucks. But the lane for pedestrians and bikes doesn’t go down that far. There is only maybe ten feet of clearance. This makes biking (and walking) much easier. It is always good to ask a country that is really good at something (e. g. bike infrastructure) how they do it (“Hallo, is dit Nederland?”).
As for cut and cover, I would move the tracks to Rainier. This is really what they should have started with. You can add several good stations along there. That would leave an orphan track on MLK. Someone from the Urbanist (I forget who) suggested a streetcar. I could see that, but I think it makes more sense as just a nice BRT line (for the 106). If you do it right than you don’t need additional transit on Rainier Avenue south of Mount Baker Station (Link does all the work). That would mean you can add bike lanes without worrying about the usual bike/bus space conflict.
But Al has the right idea. Cut and cover does not necessarily mean a huge amount of disruption. You dig, cover (temporarily) and move on to the next spot. It can be done at night if you really want to minimize disruption. In general such projects are like the old “cheap, fast and good” adage (you can only have two). In this case thought it is “cheap, fast and disruptive”. There is no reason why they can’t minimize costs, minimize disruption, and just take their time building what they wish they would have built in the first place.
Although remember that now there are apartments and businesses on MLK that were predicated on being steps from the station.
Not that many though. Most of the development has occurred on Rainier. Besides, it isn’t like they would completely abandon the street. At a minimum they would have the 106 (running down the middle of the street, as BRT for that small section) or maybe a streetcar (if we really had enough growth to justify it). If you bought a condo there expecting Link to downtown you would certainly be disappointed, but you wouldn’t be abandoned as far as public transportation goes.
“Remember that overpasses would mean pedestrians would also have to go up and down. Including to get to the platform on the other side, or half their trips” – No. There can still be a light that stops MLK traffic to allow for pedestrians to cross the street & access the station. The point is to eliminate left turns (from both MLK & the cross street) but retain the at-grade station access for pedestrians. If pedestrians are crossing MLK to access the center platform station, then they can use the same crosswalk to simply cross the street. For MLK drivers, the light cycle will be shorter (b/c no left turn cycle), but there would still be a regular red light for pedestrians.
Ross, The 7 is a great route, but it’s not like it’s overcrowded and crying out for an upgrade in capacity, right? South of Mt Baker, Midrise density along Rainier is generally only 1 block on each side of the street, even at Columbia City, which is a linear distribution of density is ideal for a frequent bus line with 1/4 mile stop spacing, not a rail line with 1/2 mile spacing.
Seems much cheaper to me to keep Link where it is (trenched or not) and change the zoning so that the neighborhoods moves west. It’s ridiculous that midrise development rarely extends more than 2 block beyond Link stations. The Columbia City station feels like it is in the ‘wrong’ place because of the 1~2 blocks of SF zoning between the station area and the Rainier oriented business district. If everything along Alaska and Edmunds was redeveloped to 5~8 stories buildings with ground floor retail, with midrise residential development extending a block or two further north & south, then the Link station would clearly be within a “Columbia City business district” that is 8~10 blocks wide, rather than the current 2 block width.
The 7 is a great route, but it’s not like it’s overcrowded and crying out for an upgrade in capacity, right?
No, and I would not suggest that we transition the 7 to a streetcar (not yet anyway). But I’m saying if we are going to spend the money on burying the train tracks, it makes sense to maximize the investment (and try to get as many riders as you can). You would get way more riders along that corridor than you would the existing one. Other than Franklin High School (which would be served either way) there is nothing on MLK — everything is on Rainier. More places to live, eat, shop, get medical care, you name it. It would go through the center of the Columbia City, Hillman City and Rainier Beach neighborhoods. It would go by Rainier Beach High. These are where the people are.
“There can still be a light that stops MLK traffic to allow for pedestrians to cross the street & access the station. The point is to eliminate left turns (from both MLK & the cross street) but retain the at-grade station access for pedestrians.”
Then you haven’t solved the collisions or low speed limit. You eliminate car-train collisions but there’s still ped-train collisions. There will still be people running across to catch the train or not paying attention.
Is the tunnel curve tighter than this one? This YouTuber took a video of train coming out of the OMF East a couple of months ago, rounding a corner to head east, and at about the 20 second mark, listen to the screeching and grinding of the train taking the corner slowly. Is that normal?
https://youtu.be/nZKfXEY-qlc
Tight curves do that. This can be reduced quite a bit using flange lubricators, but even those aren’t miracle workers. They can also make a mess of things, depending on the type.
https://www.snyderequip.com/flange-lubrication
Transiting the stub tunnel north of Westlake still feels rather slow. Is there an explanation for that?
Some sections of track will need rail replacement more often, and curves are one of those places. BNSF has a few spots where the rail last only a matter of months due to train weight, frequency and curvature. The Powder River coal line is especially prone to frequent curve wear.
Some stuff that helps:
• flange lubrication (see several posts above)
• wider track gauge on tight curves
• not having the rails encased in concrete so they may be replaced faster and cheaper. TriMet has removed the concrete encasement in sections where it no longer made sense. Eg: short parts of the east end of the Steel Bridge now have traditional wood ties.
I haven’t seen the repaired section. Are the replaced rails still encased in concrete? It would seem to no longer be required in the tunnel with it being rail only.
I noticed the wooden ties on the east end of the Steel Bridge in Portland a few weeks ago.
Thanks for confirming this is a recent development – they stood out to me when I saw them.
Got on a train at uws southbound that 1345. train was labeled “2. DT Redmond” no announcement at all for chs. Leaving chs we got “next stop roosevelt”! Great operation we got for our billlions..
Anecdotally, the trains are still screeching very badly south of wesrlake in both directions
1) On Tuesday afternoon, northbound Link between University Street and Westlake was still going at a walking pace through the entire curve, and making a gritty grinding noise compared to the smooth travel elsewhere. How long does it take for track to wear in?
2) If rails encased in concrete makes replacement more difficult, why did they re-encase the track in concrete, vs. fastening the track down in an easier-to-service way? Did they want to keep the tunnel drive-able for emergency vehicles?
It may not have been feasible for them to replace the encased section just because of the way the tunnel was built.