I have heard the opposite.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If the N/S Metrolink is not feasible they need to at least look at a BRT or streetcar line as an alternative. It's crazy that they would sell the public on a N/S line and collect tax money on something that has no chance of happening, but hey that's STL for ya.
- 1,291
I saw on a different thread (can't remember which) a rendering which included one of the new trains that I assume MetroLink is looking at buying to replace their aging Siemens trains. It looked fantastic; I was wondering what the deal with those are, i.e. are they part of line expansion or will they be purchased independently of line expansion or what exactly the 'scoop' is with regard to new trains? Estimated arrival?
Grand, Jefferson, Kingshighway, Vandeventer, Chippewa, Arsenal and Chouteau would be a good start if going for SC lines.
Would smaller lines like this be any cheaper than building the entire N/S alignment? I realize that BRT can largely do the same thing, I just think that the former would be more modernized and aesthetically pleasing of a ride. Or at least have more of a chance to be.
Would smaller lines like this be any cheaper than building the entire N/S alignment? I realize that BRT can largely do the same thing, I just think that the former would be more modernized and aesthetically pleasing of a ride. Or at least have more of a chance to be.
Honestly if the county will not play ball to build the complete N/S line, I think the city should scrap N/S Metrolink and build a streetcar from Cherokee to Natural Bridge and Kingshighway. With a BRT overlay into the county. Let metro operated the streetcar line and let the county build Westport. That would probably be the best solution of region can't get it's act together, because I do think rail transit is needed in the city outside of the central corridor.
- 53
Hello! MetroLink is considering an upgrade to its light rail vehicle (LRV) fleet, pending funding availability. If (and when) Metro upgrades the LRV fleet, the train cars Metro would purchase would be different. I'm not sure what rendering you are referring to. The proposed Northside-Southside MetroLink proposal, a proposal managed and lead by the city of St. Louis and not Metro transit, would be at grade. This would require a entire new fleet of rail vehicle to be procured. At this time, Metro does not have an estimated timeline as to when its current fleet would be replaced.
Trololzilla wrote: ↑Dec 20, 2017I saw on a different thread (can't remember which) a rendering which included one of the new trains that I assume MetroLink is looking at buying to replace their aging Siemens trains. It looked fantastic; I was wondering what the deal with those are, i.e. are they part of line expansion or will they be purchased independently of line expansion or what exactly the 'scoop' is with regard to new trains? Estimated arrival?
- 1,291
I swear I saw a rendering on this forum of it; IIRC it was looking down a fairly wide street (from slightly above and at an angle) with a light rail line down the middle. The Metro rolling stock occupying the tracks was not one of the current ones: it was a sleek, modern train with an updated livery (a lot more blue and red).
I just cannot seem to find it though. Maybe I'm just going crazy...
- 1,864
^This was my guess as well. Nothing more than a concept rendering to paint a nice picture for marketing purposes.
- 1,291
Yep, that's it. Hopefully the replacement trains (whenever they do get them) look a lot like that; it really does look good and I think would help give the whole system a better outside impression to have sleek, modern rolling stock (in some small way, though the crime aspect still needs to be addressed first).
Thanks, all.
Thanks, all.
In all likelihood any replacement Metrolink trains would be the Siemens S200, which is similar, but slightly less bubbly and rounded than the photo above (which looks like the Siemens S70).
I think any vehicle upgrade would do a lot for the image/perception of the system in general.
The S200 looks nice - I'll be happy with anything that has non-upholstered seats.
The S200 looks nice - I'll be happy with anything that has non-upholstered seats.
^ why?
On another note - didn't Metro sell its LRVs and lease them back a decade ago? If it acquired new vehicles, would it just turn around and sell them again?
Unless they're truly falling apart, and it doesn't seem to be the case, the current vehicles are perfectly functional.
I really like the MetroLink rolling stock and wouldn't mind seeing it stick around as long as possible.
Agreed. I’ve noticed a few cars that could use a wash and fresh paint but if I had to list reasons why people may not be taking MetroLink, the interior or exterior of the cars wouldn’t make the top 10.wabash wrote:I really like the MetroLink rolling stock and wouldn't mind seeing it stick around as long as possible.
Also comparatively, the MetroLink cars are cleaner than most light rail systems I’ve seen. I can not say the same thing for the platforms. (cough... Forest Park)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 6,123
I'll add my vote to that. I like the cars. They were the height of modernity when we bought them. They'll be classics one of these days. They reminded me a great deal of systems I'd seen in Stuttgart and Zurich in the early 90s. Which . . . makes sense, really. I think we have enough room for some new and some old. Some retro, some classic, and (given the incredible need for expansion) some very much up to date.addxb2 wrote: ↑Dec 22, 2017Agreed. I’ve noticed a few cars that could use a wash and fresh paint but if I had to list reasons why people may not be taking MetroLink, the interior or exterior of the cars wouldn’t make the top 10.wabash wrote:I really like the MetroLink rolling stock and wouldn't mind seeing it stick around as long as possible.
Also comparatively, the MetroLink cars are cleaner than most light rail systems I’ve seen. I can not say the same thing for the platforms. (cough... Forest Park)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I like the Metro trains too, but why aren’t there any side-facing seats? I kind of hate that.
A thin layer of microfiber being well known for its absorbent properties. Seriously, I personally don't think it's an issue given the [marginal] increase in comfort afforded by a little padding. Now the big thick cushions that were on some of the 99 series buses...those might have actually had the capacity to retain a little fluid. But man were they comfortable.
- 1,864
I have to disagree here... after riding on busses and trains across the country, cushioned fabric upholstered seats are definitely more disgusting. I'll take textured vinyl please (much easier to keep clean).
A little off topic but this is a great read and makes me think of why we really need more public transit here too.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/maga ... ality.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/maga ... ality.html
I cannot think of one good reason for why Metro chose to go with the horizontal seating over longitudinal. I could see the point argued that you might be able to fit in a few more seats when they are in that horizontal configuration. I think these "extra" seats are worthless, however, since I very rarely see both seats being occupied per row.
The longitudinal configuration would absolutely provide more space through the aisles for passing and also standing room. I hope Metro goes with that sort of configuration for all future trains and buses.
Isn't that how most trains are set up though? I think every one I have ever been on is how the metro is set up. Chicago, SF, New York, Atlanta, etc. I figure there has to be a reason pretty much all trains are like that.STL526 wrote: ↑Jan 16, 2018I cannot think of one good reason for why Metro chose to go with the horizontal seating over longitudinal. I could see the point argued that you might be able to fit in a few more seats when they are in that horizontal configuration. I think these "extra" seats are worthless, however, since I very rarely see both seats being occupied per row.
The longitudinal configuration would absolutely provide more space through the aisles for passing and also standing room. I hope Metro goes with that sort of configuration for all future trains and buses.
No, you're right. It seems like that is the standard for most rapid transit/subway systems, though I can't imagine why. Although last time I was in NYC, I could have sworn all the trains that I took had longitudinal seats... Maybe I'm just mixing up my NYC Subway experiences with the Tube.jshank83 wrote: ↑Jan 17, 2018Isn't that how most trains are set up though? I think every one I have ever been on is how the metro is set up. Chicago, SF, New York, Atlanta, etc. I figure there has to be a reason pretty much all trains are like that.STL526 wrote: ↑Jan 16, 2018I cannot think of one good reason for why Metro chose to go with the horizontal seating over longitudinal. I could see the point argued that you might be able to fit in a few more seats when they are in that horizontal configuration. I think these "extra" seats are worthless, however, since I very rarely see both seats being occupied per row.
The longitudinal configuration would absolutely provide more space through the aisles for passing and also standing room. I hope Metro goes with that sort of configuration for all future trains and buses.