anonymous guy

Saw 6948 on the 128, a route usually reserved for 40ft coaches. Any particular reason, or is this just a tripper?

Due to the one-off nature of the Phantom trolleys, I believe the Illinois Railway Museum also got gifted a Phantom trolley from Metro as well.

Great shots from the trolley excursion. I find it interesting that they've decided to retain a Gillig Phantom trolley. In the past, MEHVA decided to retain a MAN SG220, but not keep a SG310 and MAN trolley due to fleet similarity. In this case, MEHVA has both a diesel Phantom and a trolley for their excursions.

Was looking up unrelated information about the renovation of the Eitel Building on 2nd and Pine and found this on Google Images: Anyone have any insight on the demo of a Swiss-made FBW/Hess articulated trolley coach in Seattle? These appear to be 70's era coaches.

Its interesting to see the shape of coaches relegated to wrecker training duty. They don't see daily revenue service, but they look like petrified shells of what they used to be.

With the incoming 8100s, I have heard that they are to supplant the outgoing 2300s - however some of the 2600s will be retired as well. Didn't the 2600s recently receive a battery replacement to extend the life of those coaches?

King County Metro featured coach 6999 in the Pride Parade yesterday. Cheeky little nod from Metro.

You could always "feel" the heft when a Breda dual mode bus went rumbling by. A Breda would buckle freshly laid asphalt within days.

Thanks for the explanation - in context, I believe the criticism of the 2800s being "sluggish" was in the acceleration of the 2800s from a dead stop, and how much energy it sounded like the C9 engine was exerting just to get the coach moving. I understood that the electric motor assisted the 2600s in climbing steep hills over the 2800s, but did not know how much it benefited acceleration.

I have heard criticisms of the 2800s running sluggishly and underperforming in comparison to the 2600s lately. Not knowing much about the inner workings of the coaches, I would have assumed that the 2800s would be similar, if not better, in terms of performance due to the lack of heavy battery. Is there a reason for the discrepancy between the two?

Coach 6864 spotted on route 128 - this route is typically serviced by 40 ft coaches/Orion VIIs.

One thing I noticed over the Memorial Day weekend is that many trolleys lowered their poles entering 3rd and Pike northbound, while trolleys would lower their poles around 3rd and Cedar coming in southbound. Does the 3rd and Virginia construction project have anything to do with this?

Found the video from the story: http://komonews.com/news/local/metro-sweeps In this instance, they do make comparison to the A pillar present in the old-style New Flyer front end - the story does portray the Orions as if they are a problem fleet.

KOMO ran a local news piece about accidents involving KC Metro vehicles. Unfortunately the video is not available on their website at the moment. One of the points made was the significantly thicker A pillar on the Orion vehicles, increasing the blind spot for operators when making left turns. The amusing part was the end of the story, when they reached out to Orion for commentary, they were informed the manufacturer had shut down four years ago.

Riding the 120 on 8076 this Saturday, 05/06. Any recent coach/route moves?

Noticed a few new pole catcher/retrieval pans going up in a few prominent trolley stops like 3rd and Union in front of Benaroya Hall. They look similar to the old pans still hanging around at Convention Place station except they're clear instead of white.

Outside of the LED signs, I still remember that coach for having slightly more "oomph" to its engine noise when taking off. Although that could be a reason why its grounded these days.

edit: misread the question. Perhaps the HybriDrive E can be tuned to operate like the standard HybriDrive system. Or there could be kinks in the system that prevents the coach from triggering the instant engine stop function.

Metro ready to expand late-night bus service after King County Council approval March 27, 2017 Summary Bus passengers traveling after 1 a.m. will have expanded late-night service under legislation approved Monday by the King County Council. It is the first major expansion of “Night Owl” bus service in 40 years. Story King County Metro, in partnership with the Seattle Department of Transportation, will expand late-night bus service this fall to meet growing demand from late-night and early-morning workers, as well as those enjoying nightlife and traveling off-hours to the airport. The plan, unanimously approved as part of the 2017 service package legislation submitted by Executive Dow Constantine, will take effect on September 23 with Metro’s semi-annual service change. Executive Constantine and Seattle Mayor Ed Murray announced the plan in February. It invests about 11,000 annual service hours, 8,800 of which are funded by the City of Seattle, and replaces current Night Owl routes 82, 83, and 84 by adding late-night trips to existing all-day routes The City's investment includes: Two additional late-night round trips on each of the following routes: 3, 5, 11, and 70, serving neighborhoods such as Capitol Hill, Central Area, Eastlake, Fremont, Green Lake, Phinney Ridge, Queen Anne, and University District. Other routes already provide late-night service to areas such as South Seattle and West Seattle. Additional late-night service on routes 65 and 67 serving Northeast Seattle areas such as Lake City, Seattle Children's Hospital, and Northgate for the first time. Cross-town (non-downtown) connections through added service on routes 44 and 48, creating a grid pattern that expands late-night bus travel options without having to go through downtown and diversifying travel options to, from, and through the University District. Metro’s investment includes: Additional late-night service at about 2 a.m. on Route 120 serving Delridge, White Center and Burien. Hourly all-night service on the RapidRide C, D, and E Lines, which currently operate all night but with less than hourly frequencies. Extend Route 124 from Tukwila to Sea-Tac Airport after 1 a.m., increasing transit options for travelers and workers. Added time to allow bus drivers adequate restroom breaks. Late-night Metro ridership increased 20 percent in the last five years. This proposal more than doubles the City of Seattle's investment in late-night bus service, through the City's voter-approved Seattle Transportation Benefit District. Metro and SDOT sponsored a public outreach process last year that drew more than 4,500 responses and identified better late-night transit options for: Workers in jobs with late-night or early-morning work shifts such as health care and many segments of the service industry. Travelers and workers heading between downtown to Sea-Tac Airport after 1 a.m. People enjoying Seattle's nightlife, including music and arts venues. Low-income and vulnerable populations. Metro and SDOT will conduct additional outreach prior to the service change to inform riders of the changes. Metro and its partners invest about $7.7 million for all bus routes system-wide between midnight and 5 a.m. This proposal increases that total by $730,000, with $500,000 from the City of Seattle. http://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/transportation/news/2017/20170327 Night_owl_approved.aspx

I had read the lack of insulated rail was a cost cutting measure - but the need to tear up the platform floors to accommodate the modern light cars makes the point moot (unless they actually did intend on creating that system to Snohomish County using 90s-era cars at some point). It probably would have been a nightmare trying to cram the trolley and LRV catenary anyways. On another unrelated question, do the Seattle Streetcars and Central Link share the same rail gauges? Would there be any interoperability with Tacoma Link in the future?

Before the DSTT shut down to accommodate Central Link, one of the things I always read was that they couldn't use the rail tracks installed during the late 80's/90's because of the lack of insulated rails. I was doing a bit of searching and could find information about insulated rail joints but nothing specific about rails themselves. What made the original tracks unsuitable for the use of light rail?

It's interesting to think about how quickly Metro wants to phase out the D60LFs. I remember how they purchased 30 to use as a platform to compare mileage against the brand new 2600s, and reading initial grumblings in PDF reports on how inefficient the mileage was with the hybrids at first blush.

I always assumed they had to be some sort of feature for trolley maintenance. I recall seeing bars mounted above the rear doors on the Bredas and MAN trolley coaches as well. I also thought Metro would have scavenged the trolley poles and destination signs for parts.

RapidRide H line can't come soon enough. I've had quite a few instances of afternoon/evening commute hour 120s reporting on time for arrival, inching up later in time - then disappearing from the tracker in favor of "estimated time" only to never arrive leaving large groups of passengers to pack the next coach due for arrival. Meanwhile you can spot steady streams of RapidRide Cs moving on by.

Makes perfect sense. These days they appear to rotate with D60s and XDE60s rather than shouldering the burden. Some of the ridership on the 120 and 48 couldn't have helped much either.