Greyhound seats and fleet questions

[Swadian Hardcore]

It appears that the Setra S 407 has the type with the red handle on one side of the window, midway up.

I've seen both that type and the type that is a bar that swings up from the bottom of the window.

Sorry to correct you John but I think that Van Hool has also (at some point) used the bar type as well. I will say that the bar type seems to be more prone to tampering (I've sat on a bus where the window "whistled" because the emergency latch wasn't fully seated.)

I really don't know if one type is necessarily better than the other and I really don't see the point of getting into a pissing match about who makes the better bus (especially in a topic involving fatalities.) Both types of emergency exit windows must have been cleared by the US regulators as being sufficient.

Bottom line... no matter which system is in use the passengers need to know how to use it.

.....

That whistling was probably due to the long opening along the bottom with the bar type. The long opening just makes it easier to open in the case of an emergency. Do you really think a red handle a foot above your head with a sticker besides it is better than a bar right by your armrest with intructions etched onto it?

Also, it's impossible to ignore the escape instructions when you're sitting in the window seat on a bus with the bar. It's right there besides you, everybody who's ridden a MCI or Prevost window seat would know how to open it. You can't miss big capitial letter right by your armrest. You can much more easily miss the intructions sticker a foot above your head.

Even more, in an emergency, passengers may be too panicked to look up and reach up and read the intructions sticker. They need to know it throughout the trip and they need to instantly reach the window escape win an emergency. That cannot be done without a window bar.

Hey, Swadian! I loved those shots of that ol' Flxiliner in the montage......

I used to ride them on the old Continental Air Transport between O'Hare and The Loop in the late '60's......

I didn't even get to notice those buses, but I think you will find these interesting: https://www.flickr.com/search/?w=17759614@N04&q=Continental%20Air%20Transport.

 

[railiner]

Thanks for that link!

Continental Air Transport evolved from the old Frank Parmalee Transfer Company, that began operations way back in 1853! They started out shuttling passengers between the various railroad terminals in Chicago in their horse carriages. They had an exclusive franchise from the city to provide that service until the mid '50's, when the service was taken over by another Chicago institution--Keeshin, dba 'Railroad Transfer Service. Passengers booking thru tickets were provided a coupon for the transfer between stations.

Parmalee reinvented itself at that time into C.A.T., running Flxibles between O'Hare and Midway to major Loop hotels, such as the Palmer House. They were loyal to Flxible until Flxible no longer built highway coaches, at which time C.A.T. went to the MC-5B. The company now is branded as Go Airport Express, part of a nationwide franchise, utilizing mainly van's, similar to Super Shuttle....

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Railiner, what do you think about the huge efficiency drop from the 102DL3 to the D4505? Why does a newer bus use much more fuel to carry the same load?

 

[rickycourtney]

Railiner, what do you think about the huge efficiency drop from the 102DL3 to the D4505? Why does a newer bus use much more fuel to carry the same load?

Go back and look at the tests again. I think the FTA made Altoona change the way the tests were done in 2010... so you may be comparing apples to oranges.

 

[rickycourtney]

That whistling was probably due to the long opening along the bottom with the bar type. The long opening just makes it easier to open in the case of an emergency. Do you really think a red handle a foot above your head with a sticker besides it is better than a bar right by your armrest with intructions etched onto it?

Also, it's impossible to ignore the escape instructions when you're sitting in the window seat on a bus with the bar. It's right there besides you, everybody who's ridden a MCI or Prevost window seat would know how to open it. You can't miss big capitial letter right by your armrest. You can much more easily miss the intructions sticker a foot above your head.

Even more, in an emergency, passengers may be too panicked to look up and reach up and read the intructions sticker. They need to know it throughout the trip and they need to instantly reach the window escape win an emergency. That cannot be done without a window bar.

Again, both types of emergency exit windows must have been cleared by the US regulators as being sufficient... if the red handle type is truly as deficient as you say it is... why would they allow it?

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Railiner, what do you think about the huge efficiency drop from the 102DL3 to the D4505? Why does a newer bus use much more fuel to carry the same load?

Go back and look at the tests again. I think the FTA made Altoona change the way the tests were done in 2010... so you may be comparing apples to oranges.

Not exactly sure what was changed, what did you find?

That whistling was probably due to the long opening along the bottom with the bar type. The long opening just makes it easier to open in the case of an emergency. Do you really think a red handle a foot above your head with a sticker besides it is better than a bar right by your armrest with intructions etched onto it?

Also, it's impossible to ignore the escape instructions when you're sitting in the window seat on a bus with the bar. It's right there besides you, everybody who's ridden a MCI or Prevost window seat would know how to open it. You can't miss big capitial letter right by your armrest. You can much more easily miss the intructions sticker a foot above your head.

Even more, in an emergency, passengers may be too panicked to look up and reach up and read the intructions sticker. They need to know it throughout the trip and they need to instantly reach the window escape win an emergency. That cannot be done without a window bar.

Again, both types of emergency exit windows must have been cleared by the US regulators as being sufficient... if the red handle type is truly as deficient as you say it is... why would they allow it?

It's not deficient, it just requires more attention. Just like how a Van Hool or Setra is fine if you are not putting in too many miles. But they need more attention, otherwise you get the cracks that shut down all those minor Van Hool operators.

 

[rickycourtney]

The D4505 test has a disclaimer:

"Effective January 1, 2010 the Federal Transit Administration determined that the total number of simulated passengers used for loading all test vehicles will be based on the full complement of seats and free-floor space available for standing passengers (150 lbs per passenger)."

Not sure if this new rule applies to fuel economy testing too.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

The D4505 test has a disclaimer:

"Effective January 1, 2010 the Federal Transit Administration determined that the total number of simulated passengers used for loading all test vehicles will be based on the full complement of seats and free-floor space available for standing passengers (150 lbs per passenger)."

Not sure if this new rule applies to fuel economy testing too.

So you mean the D4500 was tested empty?

 

[rickycourtney]

The D4505 test has a disclaimer:

"Effective January 1, 2010 the Federal Transit Administration determined that the total number of simulated passengers used for loading all test vehicles will be based on the full complement of seats and free-floor space available for standing passengers (150 lbs per passenger)."

Not sure if this new rule applies to fuel economy testing too.

So you mean the D4500 was tested empty?

No. The older buses were tested with the equivalent weight of a 150 person in each seat including the driver.Newer buses are tested with the equivalent weight of a 150 person in each seat including the driver *plus* 150 pound people standing in all free floor space. (In the case of the D4505 a driver, 55 seated passengers and 28 standing passengers.)

But upon further inspection I'm not sure that having standing passengers is a requirement for the fuel economy tests.

 

[railiner]

Railiner, what do you think about the huge efficiency drop from the 102DL3 to the D4505? Why does a newer bus use much more fuel to carry the same load?

I took another look at that site, and could not find a test for a 102DL-3.....only 102D-3's....a CNG and a diesel version....

anyhow....If you are comparing that to the later model, I don't know the answer...

As I've mentioned, two buses that are otherwise identical, can sometimes perform differently.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

The D4505 test has a disclaimer:

"Effective January 1, 2010 the Federal Transit Administration determined that the total number of simulated passengers used for loading all test vehicles will be based on the full complement of seats and free-floor space available for standing passengers (150 lbs per passenger)."

Not sure if this new rule applies to fuel economy testing too.

So you mean the D4500 was tested empty?

No. The older buses were tested with the equivalent weight of a 150 person in each seat including the driver.Newer buses are tested with the equivalent weight of a 150 person in each seat including the driver *plus* 150 pound people standing in all free floor space. (In the case of the D4505 a driver, 55 seated passengers and 28 standing passengers.)

But upon further inspection I'm not sure that having standing passengers is a requirement for the fuel economy tests.

That's what I mean, I've never seen a D or any other intercity bus with 28 standees in them!

Railiner, what do you think about the huge efficiency drop from the 102DL3 to the D4505? Why does a newer bus use much more fuel to carry the same load?

I took another look at that site, and could not find a test for a 102DL-3.....only 102D-3's....a CNG and a diesel version....

anyhow....If you are comparing that to the later model, I don't know the answer...

As I've mentioned, two buses that are otherwise identical, can sometimes perform differently.

Well, I mean the 2002 D4500, which is a rename of the 102DL3 and basically the exact same thing. It has the same VIN series except for the serial number. Since Greyhound mostly operates 102DL3's, I was just thinking that Greyhound might be doing worse with the D4505 than the 102DL3, thus suggesting that Greyhound order more D4500's instead of D4505's.

But that huge efficiency drop seems weird regardless of maintainenece, etc, especially since both were nearly new when tested, on the same track.

 

[rickycourtney]

That's what I mean, I've never seen a D or any other intercity bus with 28 standees in them!

That's because the motorcoaches you ride on are in intercity service.Remember, these tests are done primarily to benefit transit agencies. They may allow standing passengers to ride on a commuter express service... therefore it makes since to do the tests with standing passengers.

That being said... I think that most agencies would discourage standing passengers on a D4500 because you often operate them on routes for very long stretches with high speeds and no stops.

I've stood on Sound Transit's 550 from Seattle to Mercer Island at 60 mph on I-90... you get tossed around pretty good at those speeds even on a brand new bus. It's not a pleasant 7 minute trip... I couldn't imagine standing for 45 minutes on a trip between Seattle and Olympia.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

That's what I mean, I've never seen a D or any other intercity bus with 28 standees in them!

That's because the motorcoaches you ride on are in intercity service.Remember, these tests are done primarily to benefit transit agencies. They may allow standing passengers to ride on a commuter express service... therefore it makes since to do the tests with standing passengers.

That being said... I think that most agencies would discourage standing passengers on a D4500 because you often operate them on routes for very long stretches with high speeds and no stops.

I've stood on Sound Transit's 550 from Seattle to Mercer Island at 60 mph on I-90... you get tossed around pretty good at those speeds even on a brand new bus. It's not a pleasant 7 minute trip... I couldn't imagine standing for 45 minutes on a trip between Seattle and Olympia.

But OTOH, even Sound Transit 550 doesn't use a D4500, it uses New Flyer LF Suburbans, which are significantly less stable than a D4500. Stabilty is not a problem at all for a D4500, especially at 75 mph, the D4500 feels stable the faster it goes.

The problem is, D4500's don't have transit handholds. Some of them have handles on the aisle seats, but it's nowhere near what can be put on a New Flyer Suburban. Which again backs the point that I have never seen a D4500 with standees. Even the Express Buses in New York often don't break 40 pax.

 

[railiner]

Saw a rare visitor yesterday.....Greyhound Canada 1079, an MCI 102-EL3 "Renaissance" was parked at Academy's lot in Hoboken, NJ.

I don't know if it was laying over on a GLC charter, or happenned to 'sneak in' mistakenly on a line run....

Here's a link to a photo of it at another time....http://cptdb.ca/wiki/index.php?title=File:Greyhound_Canada_1079-a.jpg

 

[rickycourtney]

But OTOH, even Sound Transit 550 doesn't use a D4500, it uses New Flyer LF Suburbans, which are significantly less stable than a D4500. Stabilty is not a problem at all for a D4500, especially at 75 mph, the D4500 feels stable the faster it goes.

The problem is, D4500's don't have transit handholds. Some of them have handles on the aisle seats, but it's nowhere near what can be put on a New Flyer Suburban. Which again backs the point that I have never seen a D4500 with standees. Even the Express Buses in New York often don't break 40 pax.

Sound Transit has most of the metal grab bars on the New Flyer DE60LF buses removed and replaced with overhead luggage racks... Which you can hold on to... They just aren't as easy as a grab bar.
MCI also has handholds built into the luggage racks so people traveling to the rear of the coach to use the lav can stabilize themselves... Those could be used by an unlucky standing passenger.

I would say the DE60LF doesn't feel *that* much more unstable at speed than a D4505. But no bus is totally stable at those speeds. My best example is if you've tried to stand and use the lav while at speed on a D4505. The bus has a nice ride... but it moves around. That's not fun on your legs if you need to stand for anything more than a few minutes.

But in terms of stability... the long wheelbase on the X3-45 really made for a nice ride.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Saw a rare visitor yesterday.....Greyhound Canada 1079, an MCI 102-EL3 "Renaissance" was parked at Academy's lot in Hoboken, NJ.

I don't know if it was laying over on a GLC charter, or happenned to 'sneak in' mistakenly on a line run....

Here's a link to a photo of it at another time....http://cptdb.ca/wiki/index.php?title=File:Greyhound_Canada_1079-a.jpg

Doesn't have a wheelchair lift. Must be a charter. Not sureprised since it's a 102EL3. Greyhound Canada sources say they are retiring soon, along with the H3-45's and heavily-damaged D3's and DL3's. Some GLC DL3's are so damaged that a rebuild is hopeless.

But OTOH, even Sound Transit 550 doesn't use a D4500, it uses New Flyer LF Suburbans, which are significantly less stable than a D4500. Stabilty is not a problem at all for a D4500, especially at 75 mph, the D4500 feels stable the faster it goes.

The problem is, D4500's don't have transit handholds. Some of them have handles on the aisle seats, but it's nowhere near what can be put on a New Flyer Suburban. Which again backs the point that I have never seen a D4500 with standees. Even the Express Buses in New York often don't break 40 pax.

Sound Transit has most of the metal grab bars on the New Flyer DE60LF buses removed and replaced with overhead luggage racks... Which you can hold on to... They just aren't as easy as a grab bar.
MCI also has handholds built into the luggage racks so people traveling to the rear of the coach to use the lav can stabilize themselves... Those could be used by an unlucky standing passenger.

I would say the DE60LF doesn't feel *that* much more unstable at speed than a D4505. But no bus is totally stable at those speeds. My best example is if you've tried to stand and use the lav while at speed on a D4505. The bus has a nice ride... but it moves around. That's not fun on your legs if you need to stand for anything more than a few minutes.

But in terms of stability... the long wheelbase on the X3-45 really made for a nice ride.

Of course the D4505 isn't very stable, it tilts a lot more than the 102DL3 because it has modified air bellows. The DL3 is very smooth. The New Flyer DE60LF? No match. The D4505 is just not that great of a bus, but the Greyhound D4505 is a bit better because Greyhound has different specs that the Amtrak contracted D4505's. Pretty much no Ambus can match a Greyhound, with the exception of the G4500.

The DL3 has to move fast to remain stable, I believe it has to do with the air bellows and the trusses. They must drive fast to "glide" over bumps.

 

[rickycourtney]

Of course the D4505 isn't very stable, it tilts a lot more than the 102DL3 because it has modified air bellows. The DL3 is very smooth. The New Flyer DE60LF? No match. The D4505 is just not that great of a bus, but the Greyhound D4505 is a bit better because Greyhound has different specs that the Amtrak contracted D4505's. Pretty much no Ambus can match a Greyhound, with the exception of the G4500.

The DL3 has to move fast to remain stable, I believe it has to do with the air bellows and the trusses. They must drive fast to "glide" over bumps.

I hate to break it to you... but I highly doubt that Greyhound is getting some super special version of the D4505. It's probably very similar to the off-the-shelf D4505 units that are purchased by Amtrak California's contractors. If you have proof to the contrary... I'd love to see it.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Of course the D4505 isn't very stable, it tilts a lot more than the 102DL3 because it has modified air bellows. The DL3 is very smooth. The New Flyer DE60LF? No match. The D4505 is just not that great of a bus, but the Greyhound D4505 is a bit better because Greyhound has different specs that the Amtrak contracted D4505's. Pretty much no Ambus can match a Greyhound, with the exception of the G4500.

The DL3 has to move fast to remain stable, I believe it has to do with the air bellows and the trusses. They must drive fast to "glide" over bumps.

I hate to break it to you... but I highly doubt that Greyhound is getting some super special version of the D4505. It's probably very similar to the off-the-shelf D4505 units that are purchased by Amtrak California's contractors. If you have proof to the contrary... I'd love to see it.

It's special, but not super-special. It just has some different specs. See this: http://www.metro-magazine.com/news/story/2010/04/mci-wins-70-d4505-greyhound-order.aspx.

As you can see, they have extra driver features, and they also have different transmission programming I believe. Pretty much every Greyhound bus has special transmission programming, the transmission is electronically controlled, so different programming means different performance at various speeds.

I'm sure you can also modify stability by changing the PSI in the tires and the air bellows.

But the truth is, the D4505 is pretty much worse than the 102DL3.

 

[rickycourtney]

So Greyhound has opted for some of MCI's added cost options that are available to all? Most of the changes are to the drivers seat and interior wiring. That doesn't exactly count as "different specs."

Most electronic transmission computers are programmable... and are programmed on the type of vehicle and type of service they'll be used for. They can also have special modes like "power" and "eco" ... hell Seattle's hybrid buses have a "hush" mode that allows them to run in an all-electric mode. It's all controlled by the transmission computer.

 

[railiner]

I have to agree with rickycourtney on the ride of the long-wheelbase X-3's.....probably the best riding coach on the road today. As for a ride getting better at higher speeds.....well that one puzzles me, Swadian....hitting road deformities at higher speeds surely makes for a more severe jolt than easing over them. The only thing that speed might improve, would be on a highly banked curve, where going too slow would cause passenger's to feel the 'lean'. It may be possible that a bus could feel a 'harmonic' motion at a certain speed, that would be eliminated by either slowing down or speeding up, in some cases, however...

I have to agree with Swadian, that the D4505's are a disappointment....we have three state-financed ones in our fleet, that are very trouble-prone. Bad enough to discourage our owner from buying anything from MCI for now.....

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

I guess I'll have to admit the D4505 is worse than the X3-45 and much worse than the 102DL3. This has been further backed up by a GTE message saying "The current MCI D's are nowhere near as good as they were 15 years ago."

On another note, Melvin has photographed G4500's out in force at Chicago. One of them included the terrible #7104, which reeked of burning plastic. Hopefully the new electrical system in the rebuild has fixed this problem. If you were an Average Joe on the street and saw this coming at you: https://www.flickr.com/photos/mbernero/14002611540/sizes/l/in/photostream/, you'd think it was a brand new bus.

 

[railiner]

It is my opinion, that MCI, is not the company that it used to be. Back in its glory years, when its "Challenger's" 'knocked-out' the former champion, General Motors from the intercity bus manufacturing business (although the US government had a hand in that, too.....a long story); when they had most of the market, they started to decline when the former Greyhound Corporation divested the bus line. And then it really started to skid a short time later, when it too was sold to a series of different owners.

I believe that when Greyhound Lines parent corporation, owned MCI, the engineers at the bus line insisted on a good product, that did in fact improve with each new model.

But when they were separated, the new owner's of MCI, instead of investing in improving the product, their emphasis may have shifted into finding improved ways of building them with the view of reducing production costs, and consequently improving profitability. That was okay for a while, but then rival companies started building more competitive products, and MCI's dominance started to wain. They did go thru a bankruptcy, and perhaps realized the error of their ways, and seem to be trying to turn things around, but again IMHO, they have a long way to go. I wish them well, and do hope they eventually come back with better products....

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

I know the problems with MCI management these days, but my biggest question is: What problems are exactly causing the "trouble" experience by D4505 operators? Unreliability? Slow speed? Fuel guzzling? Too much tilt on turns?

I think the 102DL3 was pretty much the last good design MCI made (which improved over the 102C3) before the E4500 came out and everything got messed up. Or you could say the 102D3, since that came two years after the 102DL3, but it's basically just a shortened version.

 

[railiner]

I recently perused this interesting site, showing an expanded history of Greyhound, which is celebrating their centennial this year...

http://greyhoundhistory.com/

Only problem was the top of the screen was blocked by a banner telling me (erroneously), that my browser needed to be updated to view the site...

I could still see the majority of it....

 

[rickycourtney]

Just for fun I've been tracking the Greyhound buses I've seen around Seattle for the last few weeks... here are my notes:

6666 White H3-45, only a Greyhound logo on the nose, nothing on the sides

6668 White H3-45, only a Greyhound logo on the nose, nothing on the sides

7028 Blue G4500

7146 Blue G4500

7151 Blue G4500 (spotted this bus 3 times)

7193 Blue G4500

7203 Blue G4500

7246 White G4500, faded decals (spotted this bus 2 times)

7256 White G4500, very faded decals, luggage door was replaced with a plain white door (saw a picture of this bus on GTE in Chicago)

7262 White G4500, faded decals

7263 White G4500, faded decals

7265 Blue G4500

7273 Blue G4500