Greyhound seats and fleet questions

[railiner]

Check Gray Coach Lines history here....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_Coach

Their main intercity routes were from Toronto to Buffalo, where they pooled with GL, and to North Bay and Sudbury were they pooled with GLC. Later on GLC went from Sudbury on to Toronto and Buffalo.

You're confusing the pooling between Toronto, Buffalo, and NYC......

Originally Gray Coach Lines and GLI, were the only carrier's on the route. When the big strike occurred, Gray Coach began pooling with Empire and Adirondack Trailways to reach NYC. When GLI's strike ended, Gray Coach continued pooling with Trailways. So GLI looked for a new way to get their passenger's to Toronto...They went to Trentway-Wager, which put together some of their existing routes to get from Buffalo to Toronto, and now Trentway and GLI offered competition to Gray Coach and Trailways on the Toronto-Buffalo-NYC route.

Later on, GLC acquired Gray Coach Lines, and they continued pooling with Trailways. And shortly after that, GLC and GLI were reunited under common (Laidlaw) ownership.

When that happened, GLC and GLI started pooling one trip together on the route, while the other trips continued the status quo, (GLI-Trentway, and GLC-Trailways).

So some GLI trips from NYC to Toronto went to GLC at Buffalo, and most others went to Trentway. And some GLC trips from Toronto to Buffalo went to GLI, but most to Trailways. Trailways and Trentway never pooled.

Later on, Trentway-Wager became part of the Coach Canada/Megabus operation when acquired by Stagecoach Holdings...

When that happened, they parted ways with GLI, and all GLI trips pooled with GLC, along with Trailways pooling with GLC. Trentway began pooling with Coach USA/Megabus to reach NYC. At about that time, GLI and Trailways began their pooling operation across NY State.....

Trailways and GLC no longer pool, but the GLI - Trailways pool continues....

 

[railiner]

It is very rare nowaday's to see a GLC bus in NYC except on a charter. Even on recent holiday weekends I didn't see any.

GLC did own Brewster for a number of years, When Laidlaw acquired GLC from the Dial Corporation, Brewster did not go with the sale, Dial's successor, Viad, own's Brewster

 

[Caesar La Rock]

I found out today that several MC-9s from the Greyhound Saudi operation were re-exported back to the US, then sold to Airocar Inc., who did business as Gray Line Tours of Broward in South Florida.

These same buses even operated around the Florida area, since Gray Line of Orlando was owned by Airocar Inc. (it was sold to Airocar in 1984). The MC-9s were built in August and September of 1981 and were numbered in the 4800 series.

They all used 8v71Ns with Allison HT-740 transmissions. A number of Saudi MC-5Cs were owned by American Sightseeing of Miami (who became American Bus Lines) and were retired in 1991.

They were all sold to Airocar Inc. the same year and operated for several years, before being retired under Coach USA, along with the Ex-Saudi MC-9s. American Bus Lines also owned some Ex-Greyhound Saudi MC-9s too.

Those MC-5Cs were 1979 models, which used 6v71Ns with Allison MT-644s. Some even had second doors, which must of been really unique to see on a motorcoach at that period of time.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Viad still owns Brewster? They must make a lot of money off all the attractions and hotels they own in the Canadian Rockies. Too bad they no longer interline with Greyhound.

Didn't Ontario Northern take over the Toronto-North Bay route?

So it seems like various bus lines were making alliances with other bus lines to defeat their competitors. In the end, it appears that the alliances have separated into a Greyhound faction and a Coach USA/Coach Canada faction. Northern Express Bus in Alberta has made the apparently foolish decision to stop interlining with GLC. They stand alone and charge very high fares to offset low ridership.

I assume the lack of GLC equipment visiting the US is due to their lack of wheelchair lifts. East of GLC's network, Canada seems to have a very complicated bus system, with many operators including Orleans, Intercar, Maheux, etc.. I'm not sure why Greyhound employees consider their company to be a sinking ship. I asked them what was going on, but they would not say more other than implicate John Teets.

For CJ, here's a MC-5C interior shot: https://www.flickr.com/photos/thetransitcamera/14269354779.

And a MC-8 interior shot: https://www.flickr.com/photos/thetransitcamera/14432780156.

It appears that the GLC MC-8s had different interior colors from the GLI MC-8s, AFAIK. I prefer the MC-8 and 102A3 over the MC-9; they simply have a more classic look and feel.

 

[Caesar La Rock]

Those MC-5Cs were really interesting coaches, along with the Saudi MC-9s. They had double roofs basically, since specially built A/C units were fitted to these buses to handle the heat of the Middle East.

 

[rickycourtney]

So does anyone know if these new Van Hool coaches BoltBus just purchased are for fleet expansion or is Greyhound using them to replace the oldest coaches?

I ask because it could be a good thing if BoltBus is finally expanding again.

Up here in the Pacific Northwest BoltBus recently added 30 new trips a week and plans to add more in the fall when Albany & Eugene get daily runs. All that service can apparently be covered with the current fleet of coaches.

I still think a Seattle-Spokane route would be success. BoltBus GM David Hall says they continue to look at it, but they currently don’t have the fleet to do it.

If the fleet is expanding on the east coast, it bodes well for a potential expansion in the Pacific Northwest in the not too distant future.

 

[metrolinecoach111]

So does anyone know if these new Van Hool coaches BoltBus just purchased are for fleet expansion or is Greyhound using them to replace the oldest coaches?

I ask because it could be a good thing if BoltBus is finally expanding again.

Up here in the Pacific Northwest BoltBus recently added 30 new trips a week and plans to add more in the fall when Albany & Eugene get daily runs. All that service can apparently be covered with the current fleet of coaches.

I still think a Seattle-Spokane route would be success. BoltBus GM David Hall says they continue to look at it, but they currently don’t have the fleet to do it.

If the fleet is expanding on the east coast, it bodes well for a potential expansion in the Pacific Northwest in the not too distant future.

Ricky,

These buses are not for any upcoming expansions. The service levels there will remain the same at least through the end of the year. They are needed in the Northeast and will stay there.

Bolt was given 3 refurbished Prevost H3's for the Pacific Northwest for POR-SEA-VAC. They are doing extremely well in the region. And yes, SEA-SPO is being considered.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Bolt was given a trio of refurbished H3-45s? Do you have the numbers? I haven't heard anything about this. I thought GLI only had 5 H3-45s, #6666-6670, and that only #6670 had been refurbished, and was running in Greyhound's blue livery. I assume that 3 of the other 4 have been refurbished and put into Bolt's service, or are these other H3-45s?

Also, what's with GLC D4505 #1331 and this all-back livery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/gerarddonnelly/19866904683/?

 

[metrolinecoach111]

Bolt was given a trio of refurbished H3-45s? Do you have the numbers? I haven't heard anything about this. I thought GLI only had 5 H3-45s, #6666-6670, and that only #6670 had been refurbished, and was running in Greyhound's blue livery. I assume that 3 of the other 4 have been refurbished and put into Bolt's service, or are these other H3-45s?

Also, what's with GLC D4505 #1331 and this all-back livery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/gerarddonnelly/19866904683/?

If memory serves me correct, Bolt has 68-70 in that list. I saw 69 arriving in Seattle.

To add to Ricky's observation from the Seattle Transit blog, the additional 30 schedules running in the PNW are operated Thursday-Monday. Two additional round trips between POR-SEA and one additional between SEA-VAC.

It's crazy to think a corridor outside the Northeast, California or Florida (all regional and airport-based services aside) can have demand that justifies this level of intercity frequency (9x on Fr/Su each way between POR-SEA). But yet, that's exactly what's happening.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

I think you forgot the Midwest and Texas, sir. I guess some corridors within Canada also count. I think it's really the cheap fares and fast schedules that are doing the job, even though the seats are uncomfortable on the X3-45s and D4505s.

I'll have to ask Jason Futch about the H3-45s. He's a Portland-based Greyhound driver and was featured on Greyhound's website, as well as running his own blog. Speaking of which, I highly recommended reading these:
http://bloggreyhound.com/driver-destinations-portland/
http://busdriveradventures.weebly.com/about.html.

 

[rickycourtney]

Seattle-Portland and Seattle-Vancouver are really goldilocks routes for bus travel. They're routes that take 3h 15m/4h to go downtown-to-downtown by bus, making it competitive with both Amtrak and Alaska's air shuttle routes. All 3 cities have public transportation to most parts of their respective regions within walking distance of the BoltBus stop. There's a large number of people traveling between the cities for both business and leisure. But perhaps most importantly, all 3 are "young" cities full of millennials who are open to taking a low-cost intercity bus.

I was wondering how BoltBus was going to add so many runs with the current fleet and I was wondering why some of the H3-45 coaches hadn't been repainted into the blue neoclassical livery. Now I have answers to both questions!

I really think a Seattle-Spokane route could be popular. On the negative side Spokane isn't as "young" of a city as Seattle and the trip is pushing the edges of comfort at 5 hours. But on the positive side, a lot of people in Seattle travel to Spokane for business or to see family, Spokane does have Gonzaga University, Amtrak service is unreliable and the Alaska air shuttle is expensive.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

I don't know about BoltBus, but I don't see many young people on Greyhound and I definitely see no college students. OTOH, I don't think 5 hours is on the edge of my comfort zone, as long as the bus doesn't have Painful Premiers. Greyhound does fine on Reno-San Francisco. It is only a short hop.

While the business strategy of BoltBus has been proven to be successful, I think bus lines are not aggressive enough and shy away from taking risks to try out other business models that could expand their profits. Every bus line is trying to fill the same few niches.

 

[jebr]

I can definitely do a bus ride for more than 5 hours, but unless it's an overnight ride (and the seats are comfortable enough to get a good night's sleep in,) there has to be a compelling reason to do so (cost, comfort, exceptional scenery, etc.) Even MSP - CHI is a tough bus market for business travelers if Spirit or other airlines are aggressively pricing. While the airlines are usually not as comfortable as a bus, I only have to be in the seat for a bit over an hour (and about 4 hours total time downtown-downtown,) where a bus requires eight hours in-seat.

I do think some markets (MSP - CHI, BOS - WAS, and other eight hour or so long journeys) could do well with a sleeper bus service, but even the average Greyhound isn't the best to sleep in. My significant other won't do a bus overnight unless it's at the end of the trip (or there is plenty of rest time after the bus portion of the trip.) However, a roomette is fine for her. A sleeper berth on a bus may hold appeal to people like that.

However, I would be very surprised if a trip longer than 10 hours or so would be done by someone who is able and can afford to fly to the destination, unless the air market between two points is very poor (however, that may be too small of a market for bus service to take hold as well) or they really want to take a bus for some other reason than simply to get to point B from point A (scenery, "busfanning", intensely against air travel, etc.)

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

As far as bus rides longer than 5 hours is concerned, I think, first and foremost, the bus needs to be comfortable and the seats needs to be comfortable. The bus shouldn't have flushing toilets, because those are prone to clogging, unless it's a Prevost (Prevost toilets have a flap). A smelly toilet will get its odor distributed throughout the bus. The wheelbase should be at least as long as a J4500. The seats should be comfortable; no American Seating and preferably no vinyl seating. I find cloth velour the most comfortable for longer rides.

Some more legroom wouldn't hurt either. Taking out two rows rather than one could bring bus legroom up to "Premium Economy" standards, at minimal increase to CASM. Overnight buses should make minimal stops. The reason people wake up with a headache on buses is generally because of either painful seating or poor scheduling. Human sleep comes in 90-minute "blocks", so overnight schedules should conform to that. Failure to do so will result in headaches in the morning. Obviously, a painful seat will also result in all kinds of pain.

Schedules should run as fast as possible. Making excessive stops, long stops, excessive smoke breaks, excessive refueling stops, and unnecessary detours are all bad ideas. Most stupid of all is making refueling stops in the middle of the night, forcing all passengers to get off. Again, ultra-long routes can actually work well; even though most passengers probably won't ride the whole distance, it eliminates connections along an entire corridor. There could be a few of these runs on every corridor, supplemented by shorter routes where needed.

Sleeper buses with sleeping berths would only be viable in high-density markets. Otherwise, I believe Premium Economy will be more successful. It would also have much higher fleet utilization because Premium Economy buses can run in the daytime. Good lumbar support and legroom can make up for the seat width.

 

[rickycourtney]

I think 5 hours on a bus is pushing it for many passengers for not only comfort concerns (it's a long time in a small, narrow seat), but you're also approaching a time point where it really isn't competitive with air travel. The SEA-GEG flight is 55 minutes, add in 30 minutes of travel to/from the airport on each end and an hour for security/pad time and you still arrive an hour sooner.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Buses don't have to beat planes on time. Overnight buses beat planes on time anyway. But that's not my point. Buses don't have to go head-to-head with planes. Creating bus customers is more important than grabbing plane customers. The focus should not be getting people out of the planes, but getting people into the buses.

The reason people hate Greyhound isn't because planes are better, but because Greyhound is worse.

Which brings me to some H3-45 interiors that I found online:
https://www.prevostcar.com/sites/default/files/file/1436554274_2015-05-05%2009.34.15.jpg
https://www.prevostcar.com/sites/default/files/file/1432145144_dscf0020.jpg
https://www.prevostcar.com/sites/default/files/file/1430216137_dsc00477.jpg
https://www.prevostcar.com/sites/default/files/file/1432143800_dscf0030.jpg
https://www.prevostcar.com/sites/default/files/file/1429192729_img_0311.jpg
https://www.prevostcar.com/sites/default/files/file/1423256179_image3.jpeg

All of these are vastly superior to Greyhound's X3-45 and D4505 interiors, as well as Megabus' TD925 interior. Yet their CASM isn't necessarily higher. Which interior is your favorite?

 

[rickycourtney]

Buses don't have to beat planes on time. Overnight buses beat planes on time anyway. But that's not my point. Buses don't have to go head-to-head with planes. Creating bus customers is more important than grabbing plane customers. The focus should not be getting people out of the planes, but getting people into the buses.

Swad, respectfully, I totally disagree.

There's no way I would ever take a bus between Seattle and Los Angeles. Heck, I probably wouldn't take a bus between Los Angeles and San Francisco, unless it was my only option and I had to get there.

I just can't conceive a reason why I would want to sit on the bus for over 24 hours when a plane can have me there in just a few hours.

I might consider an overnight route between San Francisco and Los Angeles if I felt it was extremely safe (I wouldn't want to fall asleep on a bus full of sketchy passengers) and didn't involve a ridiculously late departure or ridiculously early/late arrival. That being said I don't think any company is seriously considering an overnight bus service in this country. The problem is you have a lot of specialized buses sitting idle for the other 16 hours a day.

On the other hand, if I'm taking a trip between Seattle and Portland or Seattle and Vancouver, a bus is a very viable option. In fact it's my second choice behind taking a train and I often go with the bus it since it's usually much cheaper.

The difference between the trip types is that on the shorter trips, total door-to-door travel times are comparable. The biggest competition in those markets is the private automobile. That's why it's vitally important that the bus stop in a central area that has excellent connections to local transit.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

I'm not asking you to take a bus between Seattle and Los Angeles. All I'm saying is that "the planes killed Greyhound" is an overly simplified explanation for what happened to Greyhound in the 1980s. It does provide a good excuse for the failures of Greyhound management. Like I've said before, I doubt Greyhound's long-distance routes ever carried many passengers that rode end-to-end. I doubt the Los Angeles-Vancouver, in 1964 (Greyhound's 50th Anniversary), would have carried much passengers that went all the way. Before about 1960, it was trains that carried most of those passengers. Then the planes took over.

In this case, I'm throwing time and distance out the window. Talking about time and distance will invariably lead to the excuse that planes killed Greyhound. Let's just compare Greyhound in 1964 to Greyhound in 1990. In 1964, Greyhound was proudly celebrating its 50th Anniversary and touting "A MILLION MILES A DAY" in a brochure. By 1990, Greyhound was bankrupt and calling itself "the bargain basement of transportation". Greyhound went from being arguably the biggest and best bus line in the world to a bargain basement POS. Planes certainly could have taken away Greyhound's longest-distance customers. Yet there wasn't many of them in the first place.

What happened? Well, IMHO, Greyhound lost its pride and diligence. Its buses got less and less comfortable, a trend that continues today with the D4505s and Painful Premiers, a far cry from the Scenicruisers. Its management worried more about their own interests than the interests of the company. The employees got increasingly disgruntled and demoralized. Service got bad fast. Maintenance got deferred. Management, following their "bargain basement" principle, allowed suspicious passengers and loiterers to move in. Respect was lost. A friendly driver told me he gets in fights with unfriendly drivers, who says he's too nice to his passengers. Greyhound's reputation went into the sewers.

My point is that as long as we're talking about planes, we're making excuses for Greyhound. I don't want to be an apologist. Now that Greyhound is bargain basement, it's very difficult to climb back up. Lots of people hate Greyhound. But, since I dug up some interiors, I'd like to discuss them and see what we passengers like and don't like in the buses themselves. After all, we both agree that Shiny Blue Dungeons really suck.

 

[rickycourtney]

My point is that if you want to "create bus passengers," you need to focus on serving short corridors really well. That's where the growth potential is.

While having long distance routes from Los Angeles to Vancouver is neat and improves the experience of the passengers who are traveling long distances, they kill reliability on short segments. All it takes is one delay in say, Redding to mess up a trip for a Portland to Seattle passenger who is boarding several hours later. This is in my opinion one of the biggest problems Amtrak is faced with.

If you insist on changing the conversation... I like the 3rd interior design the most. Personally I don't understand why motorcoach builders use such busy fabric patterns. The 1st and 5th look like the carpet of a Vegas casino. It's nauseating.

While I don't like Greyhound's choice of seats, I do like their interior design. The combination of the black leather seats, the grey solid ceiling/walls, the dark vinyl floors and the dark color rear bulkhead is a sharp look.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Well, Greyhound isn't going to serve anything well when they have smelly buses, painful seats, suspicious passengers, disgruntled employees, and hoards of loiterers. The biggest problem for me is the smelly interior and painful seats. I can ignore the other passengers. I can deal with a grumpy driver. I can evade loiterers, even though they ruin Greyhound's image. But when I have to sit in a D4505, reeking of urine, for the entire length of my trip (no matter what the time or distance), while suffering terrible pain from the Painful Premier, there's not much I can do. Even padding out the seat with pillows won't solve the problem since I wouldn't be able to use the armrest (those are too low).

That's why I am always looking for more comfortable bus interiors.

As far as distance goes, I think Greyhound can run both long-distance and short-distance routes.

But anyway, it's ironic that you say the 1st and 5th interiors are like Vegas casinos, because the 3rd interior is actually from LuxBus America. Anyway, my favorites are the 3rd and 6th interiors. I respectfully disagree about Greyhound's interior colors, because I think a white or blue headliner is better than a grey one, and I really don't like the black fabric walls or vinyl seat covers. I really don't like the use of black in a bus. My favorite is the blue & white combo used by GLC: http://www.kevinsbusrail.com/greyhound/d/gry_1119int.jpg.

 

[railiner]

I like the third the best, also....mostly for the winged type headrests, but also for the color scheme. I dislike a carpeted ceiling, as it does not reflect enough indirect lighting, as a white ceiling does. I also dislike the trendy fake wood floors...much prefer a dark 'marble' look.

There are psychological advantages of the 'cool colors', as opposed to 'warm colors'....they supposedly 'calm' people rather than 'excite' them....

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Admittedly, I just stumbled onto those pictures and felt the need to post them before I forgot. But, of course, the issues of bus interiors have constantly been on my head after getting tortured on Greyhound's D4505s for a total of 40 hours during the Texas trip.

Agreed about the headliner. I think blue is OK if you want a carpeted headliner, but I see how it would make the interior feel darker. Could be OK at night, though. Red headliners are too "hot" and gray headliners darken the interior. That's why I don't like the use of black or grey in an interior.

Though, I guess grey is OK when used in conjunction with green, as in Peter Pan's DL3s:
http://www.ttmg.org/photos/tlogan/Peterpan_MCI_DL3-Interior.jpg
http://www.ttmg.org/photos/tlogan/Peterpan_MCI_DL3-Interiorc.jpg
https://scontent.cdninstagram.com/hphotos-xpf1/t51.2885-15/e15/10852727_684861658301388_931215971_n.jpg.

Don't like the vinyl, though. I now find it less comfortable than cloth velour.

Too bad LuxBus America is selling that H3-45. Their current H3-45s do not have "VIP" seats anymore. I think their newest H3-45s have the same interior as Adirondack's 2014 H3-45s. They also have some with winged A2-TENs.

 

[Caesar La Rock]

Greyhound did some contracted bus service for some transit systems before the strike and bankruptcy. I know Samtrans in California, Greyhound operated Flyer D901s, AM General Metropolitans, Neoplan AN460s, New Flyer D60s, and a number of 1984 Gillig Phantoms prior to 1990.

In Miami, MDT leased 40 of it's 1980 GMC RTS buses to Greyhound, who contracted out some routes in 1989. It was a competition sort of to see who could operate the service better.

Greyhound was also given three 1979 35ft. GMC RTS with 8v71s. Needless to say, the service lasted only a year and when Miami got the buses back, they were trashed. The buses from Miami and Samtrans were operated by Greyhound drivers.

 

[railiner]

Greyhound did some contracted bus service for some transit systems before the strike and bankruptcy. I know Samtrans in California, Greyhound operated Flyer D901s, AM General Metropolitans, Neoplan AN460s, New Flyer D60s, and a number of 1984 Gillig Phantoms prior to 1990.

In Miami, MDT leased 40 of it's 1980 GMC RTS buses to Greyhound, who contracted out some routes in 1989. It was a competition sort of to see who could operate the service better.

Greyhound was also given three 1979 35ft. GMC RTS with 8v71s. Needless to say, the service lasted only a year and when Miami got the buses back, they were trashed. The buses from Miami and Samtrans were operated by Greyhound drivers.

Besides SamTrans on the Peninsula routes, Greyhound also operated Golden Gate Transit to Marin County for a while. Both of those were former Greyhound operations before the government authorities took over their operation...Greyhound had a third commuter division as well....from the Transbay Terminal to Contra Costa County. Those routes went to AC Transit. After unloading all of the commuter divisions, Greyhound mainline division still served those areas on long distance routes. There are still a few traces today in GL's route system.....

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

I remember reading that Trautman had to fight with the government to get permission to drop those SF commuter services. They apparently were big money losers due to poor fleet utilization.

Greyhound still goes to Hayward, San Rafael, and Santa Rosa, but everything else is gone. The San Francisco Maintenance Center is also gone.

It's still D4505 Domination here in Reno, but at least Greyhound is offering $3.50 to San Francisco.

BTW, railiner, I sent you a PM.