Anonymous wrote:I prefer the carpet on rainy days to wet, slippery floors. They're gross, sure, but beats slipping.

Agreed!

I prefer the carpet on rainy days to wet, slippery floors. They're gross, sure, but beats slipping.

Anonymous wrote:It was the 70s, everything had carpet on it.

We're lucky it's not shag.

to reduce noise

It was the 70s, everything had carpet on it.

“When it opened in 1976, more than 50,000 people lined up to ride the new Red Line, and it was love at first sight. Comfortable cars, bright carpeting, and clean, architecturally stunning stations made Metro seem welcoming.”
https://www.washingtonian.com/2015/12/09/why-does-metro-suck-dangerous-accidents-escalator-outages/

Wow, they actually replaced it four years ago. I’ve reached my WBJ limit but some of you should be able to read this.
https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/blog/2015/02/carpet-to-remain-in-hundreds-of-metro-railcars-for.html

Probably for noise-dampening.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/the-story-behind-the-carpeting-in-metros-railcars-it-stinks/2018/02/08/33d24974-0b92-11e8-95a5-c396801049ef_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.341e0f55644f

"An investigation by the agency’s Office of Inspector General found Metro had “exceedingly stringent” requirements for its rail-car carpet, stretching back decades, that were probably written to favor one supplier.

In fact, the “100 percent pure virgin wool” carpet was made to specifications no longer in use in the industry, the inspector general said, resulting in the “appearance of favoritism” toward the contractor.

The recently concluded investigation found that Metro’s standards for its carpeting were unchanged for two decades and that no other vendor could plausibly compete for the contract.

Moreover, the carpet lacked a required coating to prevent fungus and mildew, Metro Inspector General Geoffrey Cherrington said — although it did meet standards for being fire-resistant and mothproof.


Further investigation found the carpet’s compliance testing was not being performed by an independent facility, as Metro requires, but by a laboratory with ties to the carpet manufacturer.

“The director of the lab used by the vendor is married to the Chief Financial Officer of the company that provided the vendor a line of credit” for the carpet order, according to a synopsis of the investigation included in a report to the Metro board."

Anonymous wrote:I have never been on a train in the US. They have carpets? Hm!

These are no longer carpets. They are biohazards.

Anonymous wrote:I have never been on a train in the US. They have carpets? Hm!

No, they don't. That's why it's SO WEIRD that these old metro trains have them. I feel like I should wear shower caps over my shoes.

I have never been on a train in the US. They have carpets? Hm!

Ugh, the mildew cars. I hate those.

I'd like someon to swab the carpet and do a sample for me. If I ride in one of those cars I need allergy meds

I use metro 2-3 times a week to mix it up, and I always hope for the 6000 or 7000 series trains for one reason alone: they don't have the stupid, nasty, dirty, sh** and vomit stained carpet.

Whose grand idea was to put carpets down on the earlier trains? Did they NOT think they were going to get very nasty very very quickly?