# Five-abreast bus interior



## Swadian Hardcore (Oct 4, 2014)

Just wanted to show you guys this packed high-density five-abreast bus interior: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/13430238413/sizes/l.

From the rear: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/13430381444/sizes/l.

Yes, that's a regular-width Van Hool, 102".


----------



## rickycourtney (Oct 4, 2014)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Just wanted to show you guys this packed high-density five-abreast bus interior: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/13430238413/sizes/l.
> 
> From the rear: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/13430381444/sizes/l.
> 
> Yes, that's a regular-width Van Hool, 102".


That looks just awful.Like a torture chamber on wheels.


----------



## railiner (Oct 4, 2014)

Who and where? And how wide are those seats and that aisle?


----------



## tp49 (Oct 4, 2014)

That aisle doesn't look wide enough for people so safely egress from.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Oct 5, 2014)

Apparently a UK-spec RHD Van Hool unknown model owned by Edward's Coaches.


----------



## richm49 (Oct 5, 2014)

Hope Amtrak is not using them to bus late pax with!


----------



## NW cannonball (Oct 5, 2014)

tp49 said:


> That aisle doesn't look wide enough for people so safely egress from.


If the passengers need to egress quickly, they can just jump out the windows -


----------



## richm49 (Oct 5, 2014)

I would rather hitchhike than ride in a 5 across seating arrangement on a bus. It's bad enough on a plane but now on buses too?


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Oct 5, 2014)

The windows appear to be sealed: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/13430126885/sizes/l.

No window escape bar or handle.

I'm so glad this is in the UK and not over here!

Ironically, the coach has three-point seat belts yet has a very narrow aisle and no window escape bar.


----------



## lo2e (Oct 5, 2014)

I'm guessing because of the "Caution! Children Crossing" sign in the back window of the bus that perhaps this is a school bus?

I believe I've seen school buses in Europe that look a lot like regular coaches.


----------



## xyzzy (Oct 5, 2014)

Reminds me of 5-abreast seating on some UK trainsets (thankfully used mainly, but not exclusively, on commuter runs) as well as Japan shinkansen. I'm surprised that Amtrak hasn't tried 5-abreast on the NEC.


----------



## tp49 (Oct 5, 2014)

Five abreast on a train is fine. I grew up riding the LIRR which has that. The aisles are plenty wide enough to get around. Now, if I saw a bus like this pull up were I to ride it, I would walk. It's too claustrophobic for me.


----------



## PerRock (Oct 5, 2014)

I can't speak about the UK coaches; but the Shinkansens are wider then regular trains. The track gauge is the same, just the bodies are wider.

peter


----------



## xyzzy (Oct 5, 2014)

JR East had a double-deck Shinkansen trainset with 3+3 in the upper level. Fortunately they are gone now. Photo at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E1_Series_Shinkansen#mediaviewer/File:E1_std_upper_non-reserved_Gala-Yuzawa_20020101.JPG.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Oct 5, 2014)

tp49 said:


> Five abreast on a train is fine. I grew up riding the LIRR which has that. The aisles are plenty wide enough to get around. Now, if I saw a bus like this pull up were I to ride it, I would walk. It's too claustrophobic for me.


Five abreast on a train is not fine. East Coasters seem to have been brain washed about this. Metra had better not try or there will be a revolt of the passengers.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Oct 5, 2014)

This is the exterior: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/13430510423/sizes/l.

Is that really a school bus? A school bus with sealed windows?

Go Black and Blue! Go DL3!


----------



## rickycourtney (Oct 5, 2014)

Look at the sign in the front window. It's definitely a school bus.

Not sure why you're convinced that the windows are sealed. I can't see any evidence of that.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Oct 5, 2014)

Yeah, it is a school bus, but if the windows aren't sealed, then how do you open them? No window escape bar or handle. You'd need to break them open with an axe, and if you need to break them open with an axe, that already means they are sealed.


----------



## railiner (Oct 5, 2014)

Five abreast seating, (except for a back seat), would never be certified for a US carrier. The aisle would not be wide enough for safety. And the seats would be too narrow for adult comfort. A bus is 102 inches maximum width. A train is 126" max, in the US.. (Amfleet and Horizon), so the train's have sufficient width for five across and an aisle....

That link re: the JNR train indicates its width as 135" wide, with the six across seating....pretty tight.....

Just for comparison purposes....6 abreast narrow body aircraft...Boeing at 148", and Airbus at 156"

5 abreast narrow body aircraft...Boeing (Douglas) at 130"


----------



## fairviewroad (Oct 9, 2014)

Not sure what the big deal is. I grew up riding a standard yellow school bus in the US and we were routinely packed

in 6 abreast on bench seats. And the windows--while not sealed--did not open wide enough to serve as an exit except

perhaps for a wee little kindergartener. You learn to exit the bus through the rear door in an emergency. It's not clear

to me whether this bus has a rear/side exit (the photos are far from comprehensive) but the 5-across seating looks

luxurious compared to what I rode in as a kid.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Oct 9, 2014)

We initially thought that was an intercity motorcoach being that the 5-abreast seating was placed in a Van Hool over-the-road bus.


----------



## Metra Electric Guest (Oct 10, 2014)

It's probably a school excursion/field trip coach. Generally in Europe kids are bused on city/local buses or walk to school. I lived in Northern Europe for a while and the city (just under 30k) bus system was to get kids to school. When not in session there were no, or very few, buses, outside of commuter routes, i.e. one a day out and back. Those were often coach style on the longer routes (40 min ride to villages, etc).


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Oct 10, 2014)

Yeah, I heard Europe had some commuter body-on-chassis OTRBs with sedan doors. Very rare over here. The commuter motorcoaches all get transit doors.


----------



## jis (Oct 10, 2014)

It is interesting that people suddenly complain about 17" wide seats on airliners. Those have been around since the day the 707 with economy class was introduced back in the late '50s! I guess people must have just gotten fatter since then! 

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Oct 10, 2014)

Well, look at the trend: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/USObesityRate1960-2004.svg/1264px-USObesityRate1960-2004.svg.png. 

Oh yeah, some people charge that Greyhound motorcoaches of the 1960s were more comfortable than today even though they have gotten wider and longer! 

People need to stop asking for Scenicruisers.


----------



## railiner (Oct 11, 2014)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Well, look at the trend: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/USObesityRate1960-2004.svg/1264px-USObesityRate1960-2004.svg.png.
> 
> Oh yeah, some people charge that Greyhound motorcoaches of the 1960s were more comfortable than today even though they have gotten wider and longer!
> 
> People need to stop asking for Scenicruisers.


Why? The Scenicruiser's had only 43 seats initially, compared to 47 in the PD-4903. In addition, the seats themselves were fairly wide, as the walls of the coach were designed in a way that allowed the seats to go between vertical HVAC ducts, and the aisles were only 14". And the seats reclined much further than anything today....


----------



## rickycourtney (Oct 11, 2014)

I put the Scenicruiser right up there with the Vista Domes in terms of being icons of American transportation. They both appeal to a top passenger request... an unimpeded view of the journey ahead. None of Greyhound's buses since have been anywhere near that iconic.

Despite their questionable build quality... the modern day equivalent of the Scenicruiser is the Van Hool double deckers used by Megabus. Up in that top deck (especially the front row) you get a commanding view of the road ahead. Also, unlike this torture chamber on wheels... you can pack 81 people onto those double deckers somewhat comfortably.


----------



## railiner (Oct 11, 2014)

Raymond Loewy, perhaps the most noted industrial designer of all time, (PRR GG-1, 1938 Broadway Limited, Studebaker Starlight, among his many famous designs--Google his bio), was on a long retainer from both the PRR and Greyhound, and had a big hand in the styling of the Scenicruiser. It is very obvious, the finished 1954 design was inspired by the 1948 Vista-Dome. When seated in the forward upper deck of the Scenicruiser, the view is uncannily similar to that of a Vista-Dome, looking down on the roof of the forward level and beyond. Even the stairs down from the aisle give a similar feel, although in opposite direction. And just like a Vista-Dome, you have to remember to step down to reach that aisle.....

The classic, fluid, iconic, outside lines, are simply gorgeous, making any modern bus look like a cracker-box in comparison.

As for the DD Van Hool....IMHO, a torture chamber, indeed, where you have to duck your head to walk thru on either level, and woefully inadequate baggage space for so many seats. I would not put those two coaches in even the same sentence.


----------



## rickycourtney (Oct 11, 2014)

Agreed that the DD Van Hool pales in comparison to the scenicruiser.

What I meant was that just as the scenicruiser was an icon for Greyhound, the blue double-deckers have become an iconic part of the megabus brand. Also despite the lack of headroom (at 6'3" that matters to me), the view is unbeatable on that upper deck. No matter how high you put passengers and how low you put the driver, you'll never the same view on a single level bus.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Oct 11, 2014)

railiner said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > Well, look at the trend: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/USObesityRate1960-2004.svg/1264px-USObesityRate1960-2004.svg.png.
> ...


Can't they just make the seats recline more again? 43 seats in a 40' seems like the equivalent of 51 seats in a 45'. The seats themselves may have been wide, but the coach was narrower, and if the aisle was only 14", that's the same as the modern coaches. So, the modern seats would still have been wider, but not by much, or at least the same width. As I see it, the problem is seat recline and the Vista-Dome view. However, that part seems like would have also increased drag and been dangerous in an accident. You and others have said the PD-4106 was better to drive. I also doubt the rear seats of the Scenicruiser got that good of a view.



railiner said:


> Raymond Loewy, perhaps the most noted industrial designer of all time, (PRR GG-1, 1938 Broadway Limited, Studebaker Starlight, among his many famous designs--Google his bio), was on a long retainer from both the PRR and Greyhound, and had a big hand in the styling of the Scenicruiser. It is very obvious, the finished 1954 design was inspired by the 1948 Vista-Dome. When seated in the forward upper deck of the Scenicruiser, the view is uncannily similar to that of a Vista-Dome, looking down on the roof of the forward level and beyond. Even the stairs down from the aisle give a similar feel, although in opposite direction. And just like a Vista-Dome, you have to remember to step down to reach that aisle.....
> 
> The classic, fluid, iconic, outside lines, are simply gorgeous, making any modern bus look like a cracker-box in comparison.
> 
> As for the DD Van Hool....IMHO, a torture chamber, indeed, where you have to duck your head to walk thru on either level, and woefully inadequate baggage space for so many seats. I would not put those two coaches in even the same sentence.


I guess it was the Scenicruiser's design that set it apart, something that is hard to express on paper, especially considering it was a narrowbody coach. But if you made the Scenicruiser as wide and long as a modern coach, it would be even better than was it was. I guess that's my point. Generally, buses have gone forward, not backward. Especially if you disregard the Van Hools.

People tried to credit the H3-45 as the final delayed MC-6, even though that would more properly be the 102A3.

Agreed! This is definitely a torture chamber: https://www.flickr.com/photos/strannik45/3179814833/sizes/l.



rickycourtney said:


> Agreed that the DD Van Hool pales in comparison to the scenicruiser.
> 
> What I meant was that just as the scenicruiser was an icon for Greyhound, the blue double-deckers have become an iconic part of the megabus brand. Also despite the lack of headroom (at 6'3" that matters to me), the view is unbeatable on that upper deck. No matter how high you put passengers and how low you put the driver, you'll never the same view on a single level bus.


Now Van Hool advertises their TD925 as the new Scenicruiser. That hurts the Scenicruiser's reputation more than it boosts Megabus' reputation. You can get pretty close to that view in a H3-45 I guess.


----------



## railiner (Oct 12, 2014)

Yes....a modern incarnation of a Scenicruiser would be nice....45.5 feet long, 12'6" high, and 102" wide, I suppose. With 51 spacious seats. It would be awesome!

True, you could make the seats recline further...

Yes, the PD-4106 was like driving a sports car compared to the PD-4501....it was 5 feet shorter, a foot lower, had the same Detroit Diesel 8v-71 engine, but weighed five tons less!

The view from the rear 'lounge' (5-across) of the Scenicruiser wasn't so bad....you had tinted glass on both sides of you, behind you, and even a skylight above you, albeit, a bit forward....and you could look down the aisle for somewhat of a forward view....

Also, because the seats were on an elevated platform, with a step-up from the aisle, the actual seat height above the ground was pretty close to that of the 12" taller H3-45


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Oct 12, 2014)

I guess one inherent problem with that would be the side windows. The Scenicruiser's side windows were divided by thick bars that could have greatly restricted the view of the passengers there, I don't know myself. Another difficulty would be the lower front segment. Headroom with that could potentially be a problem. If you made it higher, the "dome view" would be reduced.

I guess a modern Scenicruiser would end up looking more like the Supercruiser MC-6, which had a legendarily-powerful 12V71, according to one old driver.

Speaking of that, the New Routemaster has apparently been successful in reviving the Routemaster's image on a modern platform: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/00424/130754132__424574b.jpg.

I wish the MC-6 had worked out.


----------



## railiner (Oct 12, 2014)

The lower level of the Scenicruiser did have ample stand-up room....just like on the upper level, you had to step up to the seating platform from the aisle. The restroom, at the driver's side rear of the lower level was at aisle level, so it too had sufficient stand-up room.

The MC-6 "Supercruiser" , IMHO, was an 'abortion', style-wise....especially the hideous 'wrap-around' rear window area. The 'tri-level' roof was just a styling gimmick....the seats only rose up about halfway back, not twice, as one might think by the roof design. And just like the small MC-5 "Challenger", it had a huge blind spot around the middle row of seats....you know....Amfleet-style. The MC-6 kind of looked like the one-of-kind Mack MV-620-D, that Greyhound first commissioned as a Scenicruiser replacement. http://www.classicbusdepot.com/bus-photos/7_0_1_0_C/ That beast now resides in the Museum of Bus Transportation at Hershey, Pa. I am thankful that the MC-7 was the more mainstream replacement for the Scenicruiser.

The 12v-71 did indeed produce prodigious power....You had an indicator on the dashboard to remind you of which gear you were in, in case you forgot, since you could easily start off in second...

My imaginary 'new' Scenicruiser would be a 'blown-up-to-scale' copy of the original....the front would be about 10', 6" high, and the rise would be up to 12', 6", to get the same dome-like effect....

Edit: Here's an image of the MC-6... http://s1057.photobucket.com/user/MC-6-Supercruiser/media/MC6Supercruiser.jpg.html#/user/MC-6-Supercruiser/media/MCI-MC-6jpg_zps189041d5.jpg.html?&_suid=14131345131700015949238164766455


----------



## xyzzy (Oct 12, 2014)

jis said:


> It is interesting that people suddenly complain about 17" wide seats on airliners. Those have been around since the day the 707 with economy class was introduced back in the late '50s! I guess people must have just gotten fatter since then!


Yes, they have. The story goes that 17" was based on the hips of the average USAF pilot. But 17" didn't last long. Airlines pressured Boeing to make the interior cabin walls thinner in the 727 and 737, which allowed 18".

Few 707s flew longer than 9 hours in the air, and many 707s flew domestic routes of 4 hours or less. 12+ hours is common for the 777.


----------



## railiner (Oct 13, 2014)

xyzzy said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > It is interesting that people suddenly complain about 17" wide seats on airliners. Those have been around since the day the 707 with economy class was introduced back in the late '50s! I guess people must have just gotten fatter since then!
> ...


And people have gotten taller on average as well since that time....but you wouldn't think so, the way they try to reduce seat pitch, unless of course, you are willing to pay more for 'extra' space....


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (Oct 13, 2014)

My school bus from 1st grade all the way to the bus ride to my high school graduation had 5 abreast seating. I believe that the bus rode a couple years ago from the Wilmington train station to the Bear, DE shops was also set up as 5 abreast.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Oct 13, 2014)

Was that a school bus? Not a motorcoach, right?


----------

