Passengers board and alight a northbound S Line train at Tukwila station.

On Monday, the newest Sounder cars made their debut on an S Line trip from Seattle to Lakewood. These new trains, three passenger cab cars and eight coach cars, were built by Alstom and delivered to Sound Transit in 2022. The new trains feature a new bike rack design, more power outlets and USB ports, and improved wayfinding with a screen displaying the next stops.

The new Alstom trains feature two safety improvements over the current fleet. Crash Energy Management is a new design feature that improves how the train absorbs the impact of a crash. Additionally, the cab cars have a full-width windshield so the operator can see more from their seat.

Upper level of a new coach car.
Bike secured using the new bike rack.
Screen showing the next stops for a S Line train from King Street.
Power outlets are available at most, but not all, seats.

For the next few years, the Alstom trains will be filling in while older Sounder coach cars are refurbished. The original Sounder fleet was delivered between 1999 and 2003. The oldest vehicles are now 27 years old, well past the halfway mark of the Federal Transit Authority’s useful life benchmark (39 years). Each updated train car will feature doors powered by an electric motor (instead of pneumatic), revamped restrooms, lighting, floors, and paint. In addition, USB power outlets will be added. The wheelsets and couplers will also be replaced, ensuring these cars remain reliable for the rest of their service life.

On average, five older cars will be out of service for refurbishment at a time. Rather than reduce service, the Alstom trains will operate in place of the vehicles in the shop. Longer term, the additional trains will be used for increased Sounder service.

Sounder’s Future

These upgrades come at a pivotal point for Sounder service. In Sound Transit 3, the agency’s current expansion program. In the initial plan, Sound Transit planned to build an S Line extension to DuPont, add additional trips, and increase S Line capacity by building longer platforms. During the process to align ST3 projects with the available funding, construction on the DuPont extension has been deferred, along with the plan to extend station platforms and add more trips. The agency may sunset the N Line between Seattle and Everett in 2033.

50 Replies to “Sound Transit Rolls Out New Sounder Trains”

  1. I also noticed the new next stop boards when I rode an N Line game train on a Sunday. They did this on Link first, now on Sounder. The Sounder next stop boards used to be text (like the Kinkisharyo trains), even Community Transit is doing this!

    Wow.

    “The agency may sunset the N Line between Seattle and Everett in 2033.”

    Like forever? Or until they can identify resources? It should be illegal to end a permanent transit line… Or at least pay Amtrak to operate those trips and have Amtrak stop in Mukilteo.

    1. The N-Line is long overdue for the axe. It has always underperformed versus the old 510/512 series and now Link. The Sounder is essentially a limo service for people who live within a 10 minute drive of the water. It would be more useful if it were extended to Marysville and Mt Vernon but that is pie-in-the-sky thinking.

      1. The N line easements are permanent, so while ST could trade them for more S line time slots, it’s not an apples-to-apples trade because of how different the freight travel patterns are.

        Instead, a good outcome would be to sell/transfer those easements to WSDOT and use that to add more Cascades trips using time slots that match the N line service, or transfer to Community Transit and CT could make the capital investments in Marysville/Arlington (outside the ST territory). The express service from Edmonds & Mukilteo is a luxury now that Link is extended into SW Snohomish county, but north of Everett that express service could be more compelling .

        2. I’m sure Snohomish County would love to have WSDOT fund the additional Cascades runs instead of having to pay for commuter rail out of its subarea revenues.

      1. “What does “It should be illegal to end a permanent transit line” mean?”

        You just said it. Well that’s kind of an exaggeration, I just dislike eliminating a permanent transit line (which is Sounder North). It’s not a bus route, it’s a train line so we shouldn’t end it, but we should instead expand it.

        How about we do nothing with it for now? I’d rather cut the 2 Line at Northgate than this happening since Stride S2 is going to go to Bellevue from Lynnwood anyways. We could maybe restructure ST express buses to save money.

        1. The cost per platform hour for the N line is much higher than bus hours.

          Copilot estimates that the N line costs ~$1MM/month. ST Express cost per platform hour is $140–$170/hour, so cancelling the Sounder N Line would free up funding for ~6,000 bus service hours/month, which Copilot helpfully translates into 8–10 all-day frequent bus routes.

          Which points to simple mitigation, rather than have only 4 peak round trips, Edmonds and Mukilteo can have frequent, all day direct bus service to a Link station. The loss of an express service is more than offset by all day service.

        2. CT 117 and 909 are those limited-stop (not really express) all day services between the ferry docks and light rail.

        3. “CT 117 and 909 are those limited-stop (not really express) all day services between the ferry docks and light rail.”

          Not even limited stop, they’re really just local routes with the 900 number as an alternative way of saying “this bus route connects to light rail and is supposed to replace former commuter routes”.

        4. Correct. The “express” series CT buses are not limited stop. They just have a different schedule than most buses. Most CT buses run on the weekend. They run throughout the day. They run on a clock-face schedule (i. e. every 15 minutes, half hour, hour, etc.). But the “express buses” don’t do that. Most don’t run on weekends. Most only run during rush hour. The 909 is different than any other bus in that it runs on weekends but does not have a clock-face schedule. Instead it is timed with the ferry. It is an oddball and thus a judgement call, but CT decided to put it in the “express” category because it doesn’t have a normal schedule.

          CT has limited stop buses but they don’t emphasize that. For example the 201 and 202 are definitely limited stop, but they are given the same designation as buses like the 119 or 130, which stops a lot more often. Swift buses are limited stop, but that is sort of their thing (along with off-board payment and different colored buses).

        5. Which points to simple mitigation, rather than have only 4 peak round trips, Edmonds and Mukilteo can have frequent, all day direct bus service to a Link station. The loss of an express service is more than offset by all day service.

          Exactly. Mukilteo actually has that — or at least it is close. Very few people actually live close to downtown Mukilteo. The bus is timed with the ferry, so the 117 is adequate. Maybe you run a limited-stop express during rush hour but that is more than enough (given the low ridership there). But Edmonds should have all-day frequent service to North Shoreline for the reasons mentioned earlier.

        6. I guess you can call 909 express based on the road it takes to reach Edmonds compared to other local routes.
          550 also doesn’t skip any stop along its way.

        7. “Not even limited stop, they’re really just local routes with the 900 number…”

          Many high volume urban bus route buses stop at every stop. It can take a long time just to go a mile or two. Limited stop or express transit has great value!

          But suburban bus route buses often pass by lots of stops without any activity (no need to stop). It may pass by 15 stops but will likely only need to stop at 5 or 6 of them if not fewer at off hours.

          I suspect that a common reason for suburban bus route delays is more often waiting at the giant multi-phase intersections with lots of movements and long walk cycles to get across wide streets. It’s reducing those delays that seem to me to be how to substitute a Link bus connection for a cancelled train that runs four times a day per direction.

        8. SDATGK (even your acronym is too long!) not only is Sounder North an incredibly bad value, but (1) the right of way doesn’t go away if it is discontinued, as the ROW is owned by BNSF, and (2) do you have any idea how many train ROWs around here have been turned into bike/jogging/walking paths so that old farts like me can ride to no where in particular on nice days like today? The BG, Interurban, Centennial, East Lake Sammamish, to name just a few more notable cases. The riding-to-no-where-in-particular crowd has so much political pull here that there is ZERO chance of any of them ever being converted back to transit. That’s the thing you should be complaining about.

        10. I guess you can call 909 express based on the road it takes to reach Edmonds compared to other local routes.

          That seems like a stretch. That is like calling the 75 an express (because it faster than the 65). Like those buses, the 130 and 909 have a combination of unique coverage and shared sections. You can take either bus for some trips but for others you have to take the one.

          It is worth noting that the 103 and 117 do the same sort of thing. If you are taking it from parts of Mukilteo to Lynnwood then either bus will do, but the 117 is a lot faster. Yet the 117 is not considered express. The big thing that sets apart the express buses is not the routing or stop spacing but the schedule.

    4. There are three different service delivery issues. The first is whether the service in its current form (schedule, stations) has merit. The second is whether it can be expanded (schedule, stations). The third is whether the service should be transferred to Amtrak/ Cascades for branding and planning and subsidies (noting that ST never has actually employed the staff to operate the service).

      Regardless, ST has to negotiate with BNSF no matter what the outcome is well before 2033. News releases are as much about negotiation spin as they are facts. The awkward irony is that the more promises that ST makes to the public about the future service, the better the bargaining favors BNSF.

      I certainly conclude that the current service is so niche (4 trips per direction and serving a narrow coastal geography) that it’s not worth continuing in its current form. Changes should be considered. Adding upstream stations adds a complexity of district boundaries. Adding infill stations requires capital projects/ expenses and signals and other things which means years of planning and capital programming.

      I think that best thing for ST can do is to gradually subordinate themselves to WSDOT (Cascades) regional rail planning for Sounder’s future in general. With TDLE and ELE completion expected in 12-13 years, the service as now operated will become a more of a supplementary express service rather than a core service. Having a single negotiator for the public seems to me as the best way to strike the best deal.

    6. The N line is used substantially less than the S line and when Link goes to Everett, Sounder will be redundant.

    7. The cost per rider is a waste of taxpayers’s money that could be put to good use elsewhere. I say this as a rider of the service. I recognize it’s waste and how it cannot be made affordable under BNSF. Short of a change in ownership or federal government action, the line is a rip-off of taxpayers. Sounder south might just be borderline feasible but until Rainier Valley gets fixed, it is the only reasonable service as Link remains crippled by too many stops with low operating speeds in RV….

  2. If the N line gets sunset but most of the new+old trains are meant to be kept in the service does that mean we could see service hours transfered to S line? Would be nice if it actually ran like 1x an hour each direction

    1. “If the N line gets sunset but most of the new+old trains are meant to be kept in the service does that mean we could see service hours transfered to S line?”

      I think that’s the point.

      “Would be nice if it actually ran like 1x an hour each direction”

      I wish that too, though I’m 50-50 on that.

      1. Honestly doubting BNSF would be willing to allow that many passenger trains + increase in Amtrak service on that corridor.
        What would it take for WSDOT/ST to buy the tracks? Guessing it’s never going to happen though

        1. A good point of comparison could be the LOSSAN corridor in Southern California, though San Diego is a less important port and industrial center than Seattle. Whenever that was purchased by the joint powers authority, it severed San Diego entirely from the BNSF network – not too crazy different than what buying the line from Seattle to Tacoma would entail. Not a 1:1 comparison, but the LOSSAN corridor has hourly Amtrak service and lots of commuter service centered on both SD and LA. It still has significant freight operations, but I don’t really know how much it cost the JPA/Caltrans to buy it whenever they did.

        2. The tracks are not for sale, and they can’t be “condemned for a public purpose”, because rail lines are already “a public purpose”.

          The right thing to do is for WashDOT to pay for two-main-tracking and grade separating the UP right-of-way and pay for BNSF through freights that don’t call at Auburn to run using rights on the UP. UP already runs between North Portland and downtown Tacoma on BNSF so the dispatchers in Omaha will give BNSF freights proper priority based on class so that UP’s on the much longer stretch south of Tacoma continue to receive proper priority based on class, too.

          A two-main-track line with switching conflicts only at two locations can handle nearly as much traffic as a triple-track directional line with lots of switching conflicts. Both railroads would benefit from such an improvement.

        3. Blumdrew, there’s one freight per evening in each direction south of Atwood to San Diego. I’ve stayed at the WaveCrest in DelMar several times and watched the trains pass right behind the pool at the resort. It’s 60% Coaster, 35% Pacific Surfliner and those two freights per day.

          That’s WORLDS different that the constant freight traffic on the BNSF between Seattle and Tacoma. There is a lot of switching activity as well.

        4. The LOSSAN corridor is 351 miles long and runs from San Diego to San Luis Obispo via Los Angeles. The tracks are owned by a mix of 5 public transit agencies and UP/BNSF. Amtrak handles the dispatching of trains on the corridor.

          The Cascades corridor is 467 miles long and the tracks are mostly owned by BNSF and UP with Sound Transit owning the Freighthouse Square to Dupont sector. I’m pretty sure BNSF and UP dispatch the Cascades trains.

        5. Guy, yes, BNSF dispatches the entire Cascades corridor north of Tacoma Union Station. UP takes over south of there.

          However, if some “through” BNSF freight were diverted to an expanded UP between Black River Junction and Tacoma Junction, UP would dispatch there. They do now, and BNSF would be a “tenant”.

    2. Per satellite view, a good chunk of the S line is triple tracked so I would expect we could do higher frequencies without much of a problem. FrontRunner in northern Utah runs at least hourly (half-hourly peak) and even shares some single track sections with freight

      1. My understanding is the Tacoma-Seattle segment essentially needs to be quadruple tracked to allow for both all-day S line (both directions) and all-day freight activity.

        1. I live by the tracks, they are underutilized. They could definitely add a train every hour.

        2. I don’t think it is really about capacity. It is simply because they can object.
          They would dismiss any requests such as running passenger train on their right of way, electrifying their main line, or simply building pedestrian overpass above or under their right of way because they can.
          They would do so because it is not their interest and doing those things might make their freight operation 0.0001% more complicated.
          Even for freight operation, they are never interested in operating their track at full capacity. They are private companies, so they will run just enough train to optimize profit.

          Unless counties or cities have leverage on them, we will never see break through in Sounder’s frequency bump.

    3. That would be ruinously expensive. Each additional daily schedule slot has to be purchased from BNSF, and it’s asking price is in the multiple tens of millions per departure slot.

      1. The crazy part is the light rail costs in the billions, my estimation it would cost $120-$150 million to get all day and weekend sounder. This would dramatically improve mobility through the sound.

        1. Dude, the four Sounder North slots cost $258 million twenty years ago. You want to add at least six and more likely ten to a MUCH more congested line for “$120-150 million?

          May we call you “Harry”, Mr. Houdini?

  3. Despite living in the Puget Sound for 17 years and being a big fan of transit I’ve never ridden the S line, so I don’t know this first hand… but based on that photo does it not have level boarding? How can we be procuring new vehicles that are inaccessible to people in wheelchairs?

    1. I’ve only ridden the S line a couple times but ride the Amtraks more often. I think it’s more a problem with the station platform heights than the rolling stock.

    2. There are raised sections of platforms for level boarding with wheelchairs at least at the Sounder platform at King Street Station and Tacoma Dome (can’t recall other ones I’ve used off hand). So there’s usually one car designated for wheelchair users.

    3. Confirming that each station on the S Line has a level boarding platform for a designated coach near the middle of the train set. Some of the new coaches also have electric lifts.

  4. Here is a basic question:

    Do the new vehicles create faster (or maybe slower) acceleration and deceleration?

    This affects so many other things — from scheduling to demand to service expansion or reduction / cancellation options (stations or runs). It’s a long-term investment so it’s a more fixed assumption that will govern the operation likely for at least 20-30 years.

    A dramatic case study is how the new Caltrain vehicles (albeit now electric so it’s profoundly better) created such radical improvements to overall train travel times that it’s nothing like it was four years ago. Surging demand is one result.

    1. These are new cars, not new locomotives. I doubt the new cars are significantly lighter than the previous cars, so it’s unlikely the train acceleration/deceleration is significantly improved, if it’s changed at all.

      1. I am reading that the new cars work with trains up to 110 mph. I’m not sure about the old cars.

        Would the new cars possibly could accommodate future locomotives that have faster capabilities (acceleration, deceleration or max speed) that the old ones could not? Would that affect the service?

        A related issue is whether stops can have a shorter period of time when doors are open. It may not save much time but it could have a cumulative benefit.

        1. The tracks have a max speed limit of 79mph, so the higher speed capabilities are not immediately useful.

    2. I don’t use Sounder very often, but I did ride an older train from Seattle to Tukwila then rode the newer train back to Seattle. Acceleration/deceleration felt identical, because the locomotives were the same (as Nathan noted). The main differences were in the features mentioned in the post and a lack of wear and tear. I don’t think most passengers noticed a difference, except for the person who used the new bike rack.

    3. I believe the improvement of acceleration of Caltrain was mostly made possible by electrification.

  5. Does anyone know whether Rail Plus will ever be expanded to include Sounder South?

    The last thing I heard was a rumor that Sound Transit was waiting for the new Airo trainsets before adding Sounder South to the Rail Plus program. That seemed like a strange explanation to me, so I’m not sure how much truth there is to it.

    Has anyone heard anything more recent or know whether Sound Transit has provided an update?

Comments are closed.