Signs for two-car Link trains return to Seattle

98 Replies to “Signs for two-car Link trains return to Seattle”

1. This is worse than I thought. I knew car capacity would be reduced but 2- cars?? This is going to an awful rider experience. Imagine during rush hour or a major event when the platform is packed from end to end… and a dinky 2-car train shows up. People at each end will be rushing to the middle to pack onto a clown train.

   ST needs to incorporate “2-car, 3-car” notations in the real-time info screens at stations. Additionally, it needs to install clearly visible markers to direct riders where to stand on the platform for whatever train configuration that shows up.

   1. I think they will juggle trains around based on the time of day and when there is an event. So after a game there will be four-car trains. In the middle of the day (or late at night) you might see two-car trains.

      1. The issue is not having enough cars peak hours. Why run 2-car trains off-peak?

      2. My guess is that ST operations thinks there’s a chance they’ll need to prioritize sending 3- and 4-car trains to Bellevue. Operators need a stopping marker for 2-car trains, and trains south of Downtown aren’t full.

         I think the Series 1 LRVs are also still incompatible with the Series 2 LRVs. They can dead-tow each other, but can’t run mixed operations. That might be putting a limit on how many 3-car trains ST can operate.

      3. Why run 2-car trains off-peak?

         Less wear-and-tear on the trains. More time to work on trains. In other words, maintenance.

         Of course it is also quite possible that this is only for the testing period (before East Link officially opens). The trains coming across the lake might be a mix of two and three car trains (three-car trains during peak, two-car trains the rest of the day). But then when East Link officially opens they go with three-car trains. This may explain the temporary nature of the “2” signs.

      4. ST takes some trains out of service after AM Peak and puts more trains in service before PM Peak. If a 2-car train is in service midday, it is also in service during both peaks.

         Exceptions include breakdowns and biohazards, but that is more likely to happen to the 4-car trains in service.

         Running all 2-car trains would mean capacity gets no increase on the north end and gets halved on the south end.

   2. Why not run 3-car trains on both the 1 and 2 line, so passengers don’t have to keep track of which is coming next to decide where to wait on the platform? Is 4-car capacity actually required south of downtown, and won’t 2-line volumes pick up once it crosses the lake? Is this decision related to operating base capacities on each side of the lake? I’d like to see the forecast volume map and analysis.

      1. Is 4-car capacity actually required south of downtown?

         Supposedly, yes.

         won’t 2-line volumes pick up once it crosses the lake?

         Yes, but the assumption is that 3-car trains can handle it. Ridership is expected to be more balanced (with lots of riders from Seattle commuting to Bellevue). This means that while ridership on the 2 Line may be similar to the 1 Line, the peak demand for service to the south will exceed that from the east. At least that is the thinking. Time will tell whether their assumptions are correct.

         I actually don’t think the mix is that bad. If it is consistent then it is a good indicator of where the train is going. If I board the train at the UW and I’m heading for Beacon Hill and a 3-car train arrives I might as well wait for the 4-car train (that one is going to Bellevue).

      2. generally yes, the 1 line south of chinatown is expected to have more riders than the 2 line

      3. I can see some utility in having 3-car trains on one line and 4-car trains on the other, so riders wanting to head south may congregate at the tail car position, and eastside riders avoid it.

   3. Redmond to Seattle line will see good rush hour ridership in both directions on weekdays. Folks working in Microsoft, Meta in Bellevue, and Amazon (Seattle and Bellevue) but living on the other side of the lake. ST will need to include the number of cars in each time-table entry, announcement, and OneBusAway notification.

2. It seems obvious to me that the sections of elevated “tail track” at Federal Way and Lynnwood, currently sitting empty all night, can easily hold twenty-four LRV’s, six per tail track.

   Now this would require some extra personnel to occupy the upper platform level of the stations and ideally some sort of temporary sliding gates across the “away” end of the platform and tracks in order to prevent vandalism of the otherwise unprotected trains.

   These trains could be the last out-bound runs in the evening and the first in-bound runs in the morning, reducing deadheading a little bit. They would have to be cleaned during the evening before being dispatched from OMF-Central late in the service day in order to take their overnight storage locations.

   But how would the system get the trains out onto the tail tracks without requiring their drivers to walk back from the ends of the tails in the evening and out to them in the morning? And how would the operators get to and from the terminal stations, Even more critically, how do the “extra” two cars comprising the next-to-last outbound train get out onto each tail?

   Well, the obvious answer is to add simple low-apeed automation to the next three dozen or so LRV’s ordered from Siemans and put a “walk along” control panel such as railroads use for switching drones to a little booth at Federal Way and Lynnwood City Center stations. Dispatch the trains which are to overnight at the termini around ten o’clock and schedule them to be the next-fourth-, third-, and second-to-last outbound trains on Line 1, and have their drivers use the walk-along panels to move their trains onto the tails, including splitting the next-to-last train in two.. They would then ride the last inbound train back to OMF-Central.

   In the morning the reverse pattern would be followed with the first in-bound trains on both ends of Line 1 carrying the operators for the second-, third-, and fourth-inbound trains to the terminal stations from OMF-C.

   The same thing could be done with crew transfers on I-5 if operators objected to the fairly long rides to and from OMF-C on an all-stops train.

   1. That’s probably why they capped the order at 10 LRVs. The contract has an option for 6 more Series 2 LRVs but my guess is that ST won’t order them unless they need to replace some Series 1 LRVs.

      1. Are you saying that ST is deferring delivery of the last six LRV’s in order to ease the parking problem? If so, that seems wise. Reducing the “deep reserve” a bit is s reasonable strategy, especially since the ready reserve has been so greatly expanded. “Spend a little more money keeping the fleet healthy, ST.” sounds like a good plan to me, too.

         That would reduce the ovrr-capacity, but only by six LRV’s, anfvthst’s really not enough to bridge the “parking gap”.

         It dows make using the tsil-tracks easier, because ST wouldn’t need to break and re-assemble one train at each end point. That would make the use of the tails less fiddly, a good thing indeed.

3. There’s a vacant lot owned by Alco that stores cars adjacent to OMF Central. King County has it appraised for $9.1M, and it could store (by my very rough guesstimate) 50 more trains, accounting for some extra space for track connections. Seems like a no brainer to use eminent domain to acquire that property to essentially solve this problem.

   Any 2 car trains running anywhere near peak hours in Seattle will be packed to the point of being unusable. This is a big issue for the actual riders, and is something that ST just has to solve. It feels like no one at the agency imagined that overcrowding and equipment shortages would be an issue, but it’s going to be a painful ten years plus of sardine can trains at this rate. And that’s before you account for any ridership growth.

   1. This solution would require a complete exemption from NEPA and SEPA for the EIS process and fast-tracked planning, design, and construction. It would be an operationally cumbersome expansion and still take years to implement.

      OMF-South is procuring a “progressive design builder” and expects construction to finish in 2031. Perhaps if ST announced track capacity issues to be an “emergency” such that it could build a yard expansion in less than 5 years, but we’d have to wait and see.

      1. I’ll take operationally cumbersome over intense overcrowding. And I’m sure ST is capable of fast tracking a relatively minor project like this. The SEPA impacts of a train maintenance facility being expanded into a car lot in an industrial area are pretty small. It’s one lot in SODO, not a five mile extension to Ballard.

         I would call overcrowding and insufficient fleet to meet demand for 10 years an emergency. But maybe ST is too addled by ridiculously long time lines to imagine 10 years of overcrowding to be a problem in need of a solution before Link is extended to Tacoma and Lynnwood

      2. If OMF-South stays on schedule, it won’t be 10 years of overcrowding. 10 years from now is 2036; OMF-S is supposed to open by 2031. ST is expecting to order Series 3 LRVs in time to get first deliveries as soon as OMF-S opens.

         The EIS timelines aren’t really controlled by the scale of the project, but by regulatory review timelines.

      3. Great, only a minimum of five years of overcrowding. That’s still something which needs to be addressed in a more substantial way.

         And navigating planning regulations is vastly simpler for small projects than large ones. There just aren’t likely to be any major concerns or challenges with a minor expansion to a maintenance facility. That significantly alters the timeline, and it’s entirely possible that there would be no environmental impacts which further simplifies the process.

         EIS timelines are absolutely in relation to the size of projects. It takes way more staff time and outreach to do a major capital project than it does to do a small one, especially one like this which is literally a single lot. You can review Ecology’s report to the legislature on SEPA review timelines and see 9 months from scoping to final draft for small projects and 75 months for complex ones.

         Maybe this is all a moot point – I don’t expect ST to actually treat crippling capacity issues as a problem. But they should, and they should have been pursuing more remedies to address this as soon as they were aware of it. Providing 20% less service for 5 years shouldn’t ever be a consideration.

   2. There is the 515, and ST could reinstate a 41-like route to take some pressure off Link crowding. Metro could help too with extra service on the 43, 49, and 70.

   3. I would rather see ST focus on the cumbersome process of opening the South Federal Way O&MF, and use early opening of South Federal Way Station to smooth the path.

      1. That’s fair. They really need to do more than just sit on their hands for 5 more years, especially since this issue was known in 2023. Overcrowding is already a substantial issue during normal commute hours, reduced capacity (especially with long-term Ship Canal bridge work) is going to be painful for commuters. I’ve been left behind on the platform at Westlake multiple times heading north around 4:30, and while the East Link connection should help some with that, there’s significant demand between the Eastside and places served by Link north of downtown too.

         I’m quite disappointed in how little has been done since identifying 20% lower capacity than anticipated. It seems like that should be a bigger issue for folks to solve.

   4. It’d probably be cheaper to just add elevated storage tracks above the existing tracks at Central OMF. They’ve already got an elevated connection to the main line anyway.

4. LOL at “do not lean” and the road cone boot. I can confirm that these signs look as flimsy and ticky-tacky in real life as they do in that photo. World cup visitors from real cities will be suitably impressed.

   1. Yeah the safety cone boot is funny. Makes me wonder if that was a last-minute design addition after folks posted about the hazard and made jokes about getting skewered on the threaded rods protruding from the base.

   2. If these are only for the testing period (as Thomas suggests below) they will be long gone by the time the World Cup gets here. By then we will only be running 3 and 4 car trains (and won’t need the “2” signs).

   3. If you have to write “do not lean” you’ve failed already.

      1. I would install temporary signs rather than monuments until they are tested and verified to be in the correct location. I’d also do this on the portion south of where you expect two car trains so that you know you have the right spot should they be necessary in the future. But that’s just me.

5. So this sounds like we can’t have 4-car 8-minute service all day on both lines any time soon. Either the trains need to be shorter or the headways need to be longer.

   Since, if I’m understanding this correctly, the primary constraint is maintenance, it seems to me that this can be solved by running shorter trains during times and places of reduced demand. A car that is used less requires less maintenance. As I recall, the CTA in Chicago is very aggressive about running shorter trains during off times, which helps them save a lot of money compared to, for example, the MTA in New York, which tends to run long trains even when they’re relatively empty (e.g. at 3 AM).

   1. The MTA doesn’t have enough space to store all their trains, and runs 24/7 service at least partially because of this. The issue we face is similar – not enough space for the trains, not necessarily maintenance staff or costs

   2. A couple items;

      The KI’s are still undergoing refits. Only 2 have been done but not in service/still in testing with Woojin leading that project. Woojin is only going the new passenger information system, destination signs and lighting. They are still trying to find a vendor for the traction power side of things.

      The KI’s already have had ATP on all of the trains. The only change was making DSTT from IDS to Westlake ATP capable to support the integration of the 1/2 Lines.

      The 2-Line will remain at 2 cars with some 3-car peak service only. There aren’t enough vehicles with the KI refits going on.

      ST is still handling issues with the warranty and failure rates with the Siemens vehicles as reported by ST. They keep about 50ish available as spares and/or broken down trains, again, as reported by ST.

      There won’t be any 4-car trains on the 2-Line. A good chuck of the stations don’t have 4-car spots.

      Just because there are 214 cars available doesn’t mean all 214 are available for service. There are 3 KI’s with little dolly carts under them when I walked by East base that have moss growing on them. Walk by Central or East and you’ll see the various vehicles out of service, panels missing, etc..

      1. All 18 or so trains that I’ve seen cross Lake Washington while doing Peregrine Falcon monitoring since January 23rd have been 4-car trains. So, hearing that most east stations are only able to handle 3-car trains is confusing.

      2. Yeah, that doesn’t seem correct. Pretty sure they built ’em all for 4-car trains, at least.

      3. They are built for 4-car trains and the burn in/TPSS testing was done with 4-car trains as seen in pictures and videos the last couple of weeks. Mercer and Judkins have 4-car spots but South Bellevue Station Eastward doesn’t have 4 car berthing markers except for Downtown Redmond.

      4. The latest system expansion report (covering Nov. 2025) discusses the work on the Series 1 trains under “Series 2 LRV Fleet Expansion” (page 44, https://seattletransitblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/system-expansion-monthly-status-report-nov2025.pdf):
         A total of 60 Series 1 LRVs were ATP retrofitted. The last 2 Series 1 LRVs ATP were retrofitted by Siemens at OMF East.

         I took this to mean ATP was retrofitted onto to Series 1 trains where it didn’t exist before. If the Series 1 LRVs already ATP, then this would indicate it was substantially replaced.

      5. I’m pretty sure all the 2 Line stations have four-car train stopping markers. South Bellevue Station didn’t have them outbound/northbound when it opened in 2024, but it seems they’ve been added since.

      6. The KI ATP was updated to a newer version, sorry I should’ve clarified that.

         Waiting for a train at South Bellevue currently and both directions on both sides doesn’t have 4-car berthing markers

6. Since the signs are flimsy, could this only be for simulated service?

   1. That does seem likely.

   2. If that’s the case, then that means that riders will be able to board 2 Line trains within Seattle soon! We’ve been told that this will happen but it’s not been posted in ST’s web site schedules yet.

   3. That was my first thought, but it doesn’t explain why ST is installing the signs at 1 Line stations south of CID.

   4. Maybe ST is just running 2-car trains or 1-car consists to test headway control before welcoming riders on to longer trains.

7. We shouldn’t be ok with guessing why these signs started appearing. ST should be announcing these things.

8. Seeing how much of Lynnwood Link ridership is concentrated at commute hours, I would not be surprised if 2 Line service ends at Northgate off-peak or 2 Line off-peak trains may just have two cars.

   I am also wondering if the two-car operation may be needed because of some concern with weight on the Lake Washington floating bridge. The real-time testing of four-car trains at max speed has only been happening for these past several weeks — and I haven’t seen ST report in how that’s going.

   Anyway, it is not necessarily a sign of a train car shortage. Other systems like BART often cut back on train lengths at off-peak times and they have plenty of cars. It can reduce needed train car maintenance over time. The two-car operation may just be expected at certain times of day or week. And frankly it is kind of creepy to be on a train car with almost no one else anyway.

   1. I would hope that there is absolutely no doubt in their minds about the amount of weight the bridge can support. This is such a critical safety issue, they should not have any “concerns” at this point in time. ST has confidently said it will support 4-car trains in both directions simultaneously. It just can’t support additional trains in the same direction.

      1. Yeah, concern-mongering about train weights and bridge carrying capacity at this point is completely unjustified.

      2. You’ve convinced me that this isn’t a concern and has nothing to do with two-car trains.

         I’m thinking it’s probably just that ST is realizing that running mostly empty trains at non-peak hours adds wear and tear on train cars, and that it ultimately affects the number of spare train cars that can be put into service.

      3. There should be no scenario where you have two trains on the same track between Judkins Park and Mercer Island. The light should stay red at Judkins Park east bound until the previous train enters Mercer Island station.

      4. How long will it take trains to travel between Judkins and Mercer Island Station?

      5. ID-Judkins Park: 5 minutes
         Judkins Park-Mercer Island: 4 minutes
         Mercer Island-South Bellevue: 3 minutes

         This is from an upcoming article on ST2 travel times. It’s finished but this week is full with time-critical articles so it will probably land next week.

         A commentator posted a slightly different list, 1 minute less to Judkins Park and 1 minute more to Mercer Island, or vice-versa. I’m assuming it’s an insignificant rounding difference whether the minute is this side or that side of Judkins Park station.

   2. Can’t turn at Northgate as the GAP/Protect train sits there. All trains will go to Lynnwood for operator breaks and turning the train with the hostlers.

      1. So, ST will be using a second operator to reverse trains at Lynnwood City Center? I can see that the tail tracks are a “nice-to-have” for storing extra c trains, but by eliminating the platform-selector scissors on the inbound side, they’ve created long-term problem for themselves.

         I would point out that once the extension north of LCC occurs, the tails will no longer be tails and it will be impossible to reverse trains there, with or without hostlers.

         Penny “wise” pound foolish.

      2. It is foolish, Tom. I’ve opined this for years.

         The “we should have only have one corridor in Snohomish” concept that requires train reversals in half the time is riddled with unnecessary operational challenges. It’s why there are branches to urban rail lines around the world.

         And if that isn’t bad enough, having one line reverse in the middle of another is a recipe for a very messy setup as ST3 proposes. A third track as a siding can ease the problem but it’s not as operationally efficient as just having two end stations, one for each branch.

         Outside of having two branches in Snohomish or full automation to reverse driverless trains, the problem will be a huge on-going problem for Link operations for decades to come.

         All in the name of “community cohesion and accessibility”, decided by a group of leaders who generally don’t understand or get taught about the basics of what good rail operations planning is.

9. Am I reading the September 2023 report correctly in that after the cross lake connection, each line will only run every 10 minutes at peak?

   I thought we were on track for every 8 mins with shorter trains?

   1. Yes, that’s what ST staff said in 2023. They apparently figured out how to run combined 4-minute service with shorter trains in the meantime, since that’s what they’ve been touting with the crosslake connection.

10. Whoops, 4-car spot is on the Westbound direction but NOT the eastbound direction. No holes drilled for it either.

    1. Very strange!

11. I wonder if the temporary markers are for Wednesday’s Super Bowl Parade.

    As any of us who were here for the last Super Bowl Parade know, that would not make any sense. But maybe someone in charge at operations was not around for the last Super Bowl Parade, when the trains, buses, and ferries going downtown were all overwhelmed.

    1. Well, they installed them prior to the game and while the Seahawks were heavily favored, it seems unlikely ST would install posts for two-car trains just in case.

12. I’m questioning the statement that 60/62 of the series 1 trains have completed refurbishment. I’ve been on a few 4-car Kinkisharyo trains this year and have not noticed the new PIMS or door lights that are being installed with the retrofit. The signage at the front of the train is also very different too and it’d be impossible to not notice if you were on a retrofitted car. Even just the new TTS announcements on S700 cars have caused a stir on social media over the weekend but there hasn’t been anything about the refurbished cars other than testing so I don’t think there’s a single one in revenue service yet.

    You can see the changes in this Reddit post from someone who caught one of the refurbished cars out testing two months ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/soundtransit/comments/1pocdzp

    A Link operator on Reddit is also saying that there are only two cars that have finished retrofit and are still undergoing testing. https://www.reddit.com/r/soundtransit/comments/1qbp2om. AFAIK they haven’t provided evidence of being an operator but they are very active in the ST subreddit and their statements for 2 Line progress have been very accurate so far.

    1. Should’ve included this in my original comment but the whole point of my comment is that if the vast majority of Kinkisharyo cars need to be refurbished, that’s going to limit the total rolling stock that Sound Transit has available until that’s completed as trains are taken offline to be retrofitted. Unfortunate timing for the retrofits to get into full swing just as the 2 Line is about to open but hopefully that means that 2-car trains will only last as long as that process takes.

       1. Why would Series 1 Siemens trains be limited to 2 cars? They were mostly running as 3-car trains after U-Link opened.

          It was the demising wall north of Westlake that was limiting train length to 2 cars.

       2. Brent,

          Series 1 Siemens vehicles do not exist; all Series 1 = Kinkisharyo and Series 2 = Siemens. I’m saying that Series 1 cars will have limited availability, so ST may need to shorten trains that are currently 4 Series 1 cars to 3 or even 2 cars instead. There may be some spillover effects to Series 2 trains where they can’t run a Series 1 train at all and need to split a Series 2 train to cover the gap, although I find that unlikely.

       3. It’s true that the monthly progress reports only mention the ATP retrofit, but what happened to Woojin completing the full retrofits end of 2026? I can’t find any official/public updates on the Series 1 refits.

       4. Ah, I did not realize that there were two independent retrofit efforts going on, this makes a lot more sense now, thanks.

          The link in the article for the retrofits specifies Q3 2026 for the delivery of the final retrofit which seems very unrealistic at this point. It also stated Q4 2024 for the delivery of the first vehicle but I’m not sure if that timeline was maintained. The first I was aware of it was when it was the first train to cross the floating bridge, but ST must have already done a decent amount testing with it beforehand to be confident enough in it to use it for that test rather than a standard car.

          Definitely agreed that more transparency from ST around this would be appreciated here, especially since it’s a good reason for why they’d have limited rolling stock and are forced to run shorter trains while they send trains in to complete their refurbishments.

       5. Perhaps stalling the service change that ends routes 515, 550, 554, and 586 until September is related to having so many Series 1 trains out of service. The World Cup might just have provided cover.

       6. That’s a very good observation, Brent. I was wondering why they were keeping those routes for so long after the World Cup and thought that it may be due to strictly following ST and Metro’s standard semi-annual service change schedule but I would definitely believe your line of reasoning as well.

13. With the 2 Line getting 3 car trains, I would also like to see the 1 Line operating on 3 car trains so it can be fair. That way we could have six cars in eight minutes (which seems good). Currently it’s four cars in eight minutes, but adding two more would avoid the current peak crush loads.

14. And I thought this was for simulated service because it needs to start by Saturday for the 6 weeks needed. However, still no announcement by Sound Transit seems concerning to me. Riders really need to know about it ahead of time.

15. For a very short period of time last year right before Redmond Link Extension opened, 2 Line partially operated in 4-car capacity.

    1. Yes, but that was for a short period. The 2 Line however will always now run on 4 cars, but since they opened the Federal Way extension, they gave the 4 cars to that extension rather than East Link >:(

       Maybe the 550 or some other I-90 route can continue to operate at extra capacity until we have 4 car trains? (possibly by the late 2020s)

       But I get what you’re saying

       1. A Google Gemini question about Rte 550 gets a sad answer: ST plans to axe this route summer 2026 :(

       2. Isn’t it going to get axed in Fall 2026?

       3. “Gemini can make mistakes, so double-check it.”

          Trillions of dollars to invent a machine with the reliability of a mediocre undergraduate intern.

       4. Haha yeah. Who knows how current/real Gemini’s information is. Just look up the real info.

       5. If they are thinking of running anything as a supplement due to capacity constraint which I don’t think there will be in short term, I’d vote for keeping 212 rather than partially retaining 550. Among all the cross-lake trips, I think Eastgate-Seattle benefit least from 2 Line replacing 550/554.

          Unclear what’s the contingency for ST’s fleet operation (how many trains they regularly keep in the shop), it is hard for outsider to tell how often people would run into 3-car 2 Line train.
          When ST mentioned they would run a mix of 3/4-car, it didn’t clarify what’s the split between 3-car and 4-car trips during a typical day. I think in a lot of people’s mind, that’s 50/50, which is unlikely the case. It all it takes is to tun 4-car all-day long is to order 10 more cars, I think there will be only limited number or 3-car train running unless Series 1’s condition gets unexpectedly worse in the next few years.

16. Even if they can’t carry passengers across the lake yet, they need to start simulated 2 line service on Wednesday to help with the parade crowds.

    1. They’re going to start it on Valentine’s Day.

       1. Has Sound Transit confirmed February 14th? Or are both of us just doing basic math? I keep waiting and searching for the ST confirmation.

       2. Sound Transit has not formally announced the start of simulated service. There are a few apparent insiders saying operators are scheduled for simulated service starting on 2/14. We will see!

    2. Metro’s front news page lists a bunch of complicated measures Metro is taking. But all that has been announced for the 1 Line is that it will run every 6 minutes all day.

       I hope they have a shuttle plan for South Bellevue and plans for various pass-up scenarios at stations, such as short runs between Northgate and Stadium, though that would require 3-minute headway between the lines.

    3. Also, simulated service would have all 2-Lane trains wasting time deadheading between South Bellevue and CID. Those trains and their operators are needed on in-service trains.

17. As Link opens extensions primarily in suburbs with big parking garages attached to stations, the difference between peak train demand and base train demand will be more noticeable.

    ST won’t need more than two-car trains after 8 pm unless there is some big event. And the 1+2 Line frequency will still run at 5 minute spacing until well past 10:30 pm through North Seattle.

    So I applaud ST for apparently taking operations budgets and long-term maintenance effects a bit more seriously. The notion of always running longer trains until after midnight is somewhat wasteful. The ST Board has been rather cavalier about spending taxpayer money to continue running other relatively unproductive transit for quite awhile (cough North Sounder) so I’m hoping this is a change in perspective towards system productivity.

    1. ST does not send trains into service after PM Peak, except as replacements. Running shorter trains in the evening means running shorter trains during PM Peak.

    2. It’s not trivial to change a train from 4 cars to 2 cars, and this would involve changing operations significantly. It’s also not clear that would have much benefit. Trains often last 40 years in metro service. Sure, there are maintenance costs associated with running a train, but the savings are minor, and ST doesn’t have a revenue shortfall issue. I’d rather have better service that has minorly more capacity than needed (and thus very marginally higher maintenance costs) than trying to perfectly match capacity to demand in off peak hours. But it’s still be useful to understand an order of magnitude estimate of how much the marginal cost of running a single train-mile is.

       Ultimately, fleet operations and peak demand are the drivers of how many trains are in active service. In Portland, which has similar OMF facility locations (located at either end of the Blue line) the only line that routinely sees 1 car trains is the Green, which has the lowest peak hour demand. Even though off peak demand on the Orange line is low, it’s too difficult to take a train on that line out of service to decouple, and ending service in the middle of a run outside the very end of service is bad for riders.

       1. It really isn’t that difficult to turn 4 car trains into 2 car trains. TriMet used to turn rush hour 2 car trains into 1 car mid-day trains, and back again in the afternoon, at Ruby Junction regularly. This would happen over the course of a 30 second station stop. The couplers make all the complicated connections automatically.

          It is true they eventually decided the little bit of extra energy cost really wasn’t worth the uncoupling labor (you do have to have someone available to drive the removed car into the shop, and that bit of labor definitely adds up).

          However, TriMet has a surplus of light rail cars now. SoundTransit does not. In ST’s case, it might make sense to have a bit of extra labor cost to distribute the cars better.

       2. It really isn’t that difficult to turn 4 car trains into 2 car trains. TriMet used to turn rush hour 2 car trains into 1 car mid-day trains, and back again

          Glenn, you forget that Seattle is “special”. There’s countless things transit agencies big and small “can do” while ST and Metro hold fast to the mantra “it can’t be done”.

    3. what will actually happen is small trains during peak hours. And it already gets really crowded so this will be a disaster

       1. After years of construction for empty tracks and then more years of watching trains with never more than 1/2 a dozen people on them I’m really looking forward to this “really crowded… disaster”. Of course really crowded on the eastside means someone you don’t know has the gall to sit in the seat next to you ;-)

       2. it already gets really crowded so this will be a disaster

          Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!

18. It would be a wonderful thing if 2 car trains are overcrowded on Eastlink. I just don’t see that sort of ridership suddenly materializing. Especially since ST is going to continue running virtually all of the ST Express routes. Remember that rush hour capacity on Eastlink is pretty much limited by P&R capacity. At least until there are significant bus route restructures that involved a lot more money. As I’ve posted before, I’ll let ya’ll know when I can’t find a free parking spot at the 130th P&R at 7AM. That said, ST will have to start booting the construction workers that are just parking there and not using transit.

    1. 2 car trains may not be a significant issue at launch, but I expect it would be a real problem in the fall when all of the I90 bus routes are truncated at Mercer Island or South Bellevue.

19. This has been known for years and they did nothing. Not surprised at all. Great job Sound Transit. Proving no job is too small to make a mess off.

20. In a message to the ST board,I once again urged the ST board to consider leasing some of TriMet’s surplus cars. TriMet needs the revenue while the state funding mess goes on, and ST needs more cars.

    Yes, I’m well aware the nominal voltage of the overhead line is different. It’s not clear what this implies. Many DC-DC converters have a 4:1 highest voltage to lowest voltage ratio, so if the minimum is 400 volts the maximum is 1,600 volts. Adjusting the cars for the higher voltage may just be a matter of changing a couple of jumpers on the power converter. Neither is a rare voltage configuration.

21. ST has confirmed simulated service will begin on February 14. Expect a short article tomorrow.

22. My assumption for adding two car train markers at South 1 line stops is just for consistency sake. It’s better to have consistent signage across the entire system than just part of it. Then, in their off chance that a two car train does make it past stadium, then the platforms are already set up to support it.

    I definitely agree that the next train signs need to have an indicator listing the number of cars.

    1. Some ST insiders have shared that the two-car train markers on the south half of the 1 Line are just for potential emergency situations where they might have to send 2 Line trains south down the 1 Line for some reason. They shared that it’s unclear how it would work operationally.

23. Temporary looking signage 2 days before a giant vent downtown with extra service that might actually use more trainsets….. Weird.

Comments are closed.