Greyhound seats and fleet questions

[Swadian Hardcore]

Got some pics of Greyhound's J4500 #6992 off GTE. Courtesy [email protected]. Greyhound refurbished all the J4500s and the single 102EL3 they got second-hand, apparently from Coach America for dirt-cheap after that company's bankruptcy. Greyhound removed the lids from the parcel racks, which in this case, is probably a good idea because of how they open inward. With the lids, the J4500 racks can't accommodate more hard size than the D4505, but with no lids, the improvement should be noticeable.

Don't that headsign say "CHICAGO"? I wonder where Greyhound uses these. #6665 is their 102EL3, a 1998. The rest are 2003 and 2005 J4500s, #6987-6994.

 

[rickycourtney]

Again... it's all about branding, branding, branding...


Great example here in Seattle where we have a multi-colored bus fleet. King County Metro's "primary" fleet is composed of buses of all shapes and sizes painted dark blue, dark green or teal. The colors mean nothing and they are used interchangeably.

King County Metro also runs a smaller fleet of special buses painted in red for RapidRide routes.

But when a spare bus is needed it's usually pulled from the "primary" fleet putting a blue/green/teal bus on a route where the passengers are expecting a red bus.

The headsigns are exactly the same (down to the special "box design" for RapidRide route letters), but without fail passengers won't get on because they are looking for a red bus.

People have no problem getting on any color bus (blue/green/teal) when they expect to, they also don't have a problem telling the between the different lines (C, D and E). But when people expect to ride RapidRide, they look for a RapidRide bus, not a normal King County Metro bus.

When people expect to ride Greyhound, they look for a Greyhound bus, not an Americanos bus. That's the power of branding.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

They ought to repaint the Americanos units, then. I'm not sure to which extent those plain-white units would confused passengers.

What about that J4500?

 

[rickycourtney]

They have been repainting the Americanos buses with that strange livery that looks like Greyhound's neoclassic livery but with Americanos logos.

The seats on that J4500 look really comfortable... but other than that... I'm not impressed. I've saw the exterior shots long ago on Wikipedia and I think the neoclassic livery looks very awkward on the J4500 (like it has a big blue forehead). On top of that the design of the J4500 looks very dated at this point, in my opinion.

Personally I think the H3-45 wears the neoclassic livery a lot better and looks less dated (despite being older):





By the way... feel free to share those pictures with the folks over on GTE. I don't feel like signing up for an account but I'm sure they would get a kick out of seeing a blue H3-45.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

I agree, the old J4500 looks really ugly in that blue livery. It should have a black forehead instead of the blue forehead. I also don't like those headlights and really dislike the big straight bar of clearance lights above the windshield but below the top of the forehead.

This is probably the best-looking J4500 livery: http://www.kevinsbusrail.com/brewster/brewster_297-3.jpg.

To be honest with you, I think the old J4500 looks ugly in any livery and is only somewhat better with a black forehead to try and "hide" the hideous forehead. I don't know what MCI was thinking with that design, they should have done this from the start: https://www.flickr.com/photos/73821857@N03/8246644128/sizes/l.

That H3-45 looks awesome in the blue livery as does the G4500. I'm not sure how the performance of these models stacks up to each other, especially with the introduction of the new Restyled J4500 that is reportedly a big step above the old J4500. I also don't understand why the J4500 has been bestseller for 10 years and running despite not have clear advantages over its impressive competitors.

 

[rickycourtney]

The design of the J4500 was largely copied from the 102EL3/E4500.

The E series was designed in partnership with DesignworksUSA (a BMW company) and when it first hit the market in 1996/1997 I'm sure the design looked great.

When the J series was launched in 2001 the mission was to create a coach that was as attractive as the E series but less complex and less expensive. So MCI basically copied the design of the E series, which lowered the development costs of the J series and gave them a bus that was already regarded as good looking.

But there was also an unintended side effect of copying the design of the E series... the J series cannibalized its sales. Most coach operators switched to buying the J series since they could get a coach that looked just like the E, for a lot less money.

I think the lower profit margins also has a lot to do with it took so long to redesign the J series. Bus designs seem to last around 10 years (not 4/5 like cars), but since the design on the J series was already 5 years old when it first hit the streets it was 15 years old by the time it was redesigned.

Oh and by the way, MCI teamed up with DesignworksUSA again for this latest redesign of the J series.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

But you know how we don't like the J4500's big forehead? The E4500 didn't have that forehead. I think the E looks better than the J because it doesn't have that forehead. See: https://www.flickr.com/photos/58636818@N04/10503398214/sizes/l.

In terms of technology, many operators reportedly found the E to be a money hole because of its electronic suspension. The E also had electronic driver shades, disc brakes, and a power-steering tag axle. The J originally only had manual driver shades, drum brakes, and a fixed tag axle, though of course, a trailing tag like the DL3 was offered as an option. Now the E is out of production and the J is available with those electronic shades and disc brakes, plus IFS which was never offered before.

What I see is a weird situation where the E created the market, but got nudged out by the J that then evolved to be more or less like the E.

I also heard a rumor that the reason the J has a forehead is because the band of glass above the windshield on the E kept dislodging.

Can't really understand why the J4500 is bestseller and has been for such a long time.

 

[rickycourtney]

Can't really understand why the J4500 is bestseller and has been for such a long time.

Again, coach operators liked the J series since it looks nice (just like the old E), it was relatively inexpensive (compared to Prevost or Setra), built decently (unlike Van Hool's) and since its so popular, it's easy to find someone to repair it.
That being said if I was going to buy a coach I'd go with a Prevost or maybe a Setra.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

I haven't ridden more than one or two H3-45s, so since you've ridden both the H3-45 and J4500, how do you think they compare to the J4500? I know you love the X3-45s, but how do you think they fit in against the H3-45 and J4500, from a passenger standpoint?

I guess it's pointless to throw a DL3 into the debate because it's out of production and its successor, the D4505, is just not that great.

Also, according to this article: http://www.metro-magazine.com/bus/news/292983/prevost-begins-production-of-n-y-mta-buses-in-plattsburgh, 300 X3-45s (with Buy America) cost $164,000,000, which would be $546,666 per unit, about the same as the H3-45 that Indian Trails ordered, which were $3,800,000 for 7 units, $542,857 per unit (without Buy America). On GTE, I heard that Buy America compliance will increase the cost of a motorcoach approximately $50,000.

In the case of the NYCT order, Prevost outbid MCI. Unfortunately, I was unable to find price figures for NYC Transit's latest D4500CT order. Anybody got some?

 

[rickycourtney]

For what purpose? Intercity travel or charter/tour service?

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

I mean, which one is more comfortable?

 

[rickycourtney]

Well all the H3-45's and J4500's I've been on have been the older versions. I thought both models were pretty comfortable, but the H3-45 was a bit more comfortable than the J4500.

But here's the thing... your perception of comfort has a lot to do with the seats. Amtrak California owns a fleet of D4505's and I always found them to be very comfortable, I would actually rank them between the H3-45 and J4500. On the other hand I found Greyhound's D4505 to be a torture chamber on wheels.

I'd like to try riding an X3-45 with better seats... because I always found them to ride very comfortably even with Greyhound's awful seats.

 

[railiner]

The E series was designed in partnership with DesignworksUSA (a BMW company) and when it first hit the market in 1996/1997 I'm sure the design looked great.

Oh and by the way, MCI teamed up with DesignworksUSA again for this latest redesign of the J series.

Perhaps MCI should "fire" DesignworksUSA, and seek out the services of Raymond Loewy Associates (of Scenicruiser and PRR GG-1 fame)....

Edit: Never mind....I just searched the web, and apparently, they sadly no longer exist.....

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

DesignWorksUSA also designed the D4505, no wonder it looks so much like the J4500.

I agree, the D4505 is a torture chamber on wheels, but only the bad ones. The good ones are alright, but the good ones are few and bar between.

How about H3-45 compared to X3-45? For passengers? Have you ever ridden an E? I rode one in Hawaii and thought it was great.

Edit: I think the E depends a lot of maintenance because of that expensive electronic suspension.

 

[railiner]

I prefer the X-3. Best riding coach on the road, since the demise of the Eagle.....best for driver's, as well, IMHO.....

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

I heard the E, if maintained properly, can ride better than the X, because of the electronic suspension. But only if it is maintained properly, and as I know, it's usually not.

Unfortunately, the X weighs as much as the H but carries less cargo/luggage, so most operators would likely buy the H instead. After all, a smooth ride doesn't make money. The X is selling about the same as the H only because of major orders from Greyhound and NYC Transit for use in the northeast, where the big tall H is probably unsuitable.

Edit: Here's the Greyhound boneyard near Langley, BC: https://www.flickr.com/photos/translinkfan/16280918486/sizes/k/.

There's a White G4500 and a White D4505.

 

[railiner]

I don't really know too much about "electronic suspension", but I believe all buses with air suspension have some form or other of it....

It involves sensors that automatically keep the height of each suspended part of the coach at a preset level. It may also have manual controls for doing things like 'kneeling', lowering the coach to get under overhead tight clearances, raise the front or rear or both to clear an obstacle, or transfer weight from the tag axle to the drive axle when there is loss of traction accelerating from a stop, or climbing a hill. In modern coaches the ECU's tie them in with traction control, and skid control for optimum traction.

There may be more to it, but I don't have that knowledge.....

The main difference between the E and the original J, was the J did not have the steerable tag axle, and certain electronic functions (not sure of which)....there were minor differences in the dashboards, and exterior styling details.....

I don't think they rode any differently....

 

[rickycourtney]

Unfortunately, the X weighs as much as the H but carries less cargo/luggage, so most operators would likely buy the H instead. After all, a smooth ride doesn't make money. The X is selling about the same as the H only because of major orders from Greyhound and NYC Transit for use in the northeast, where the big tall H is probably unsuitable.

The X is a purpose built intercity coach. Outside of Greyhound and transit agencies, most US operators don't want or need that. For most US operators their "bread and butter" is tours and charters, a business for which the H is better suited.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

OTOH, what is preventing the X from being used in charters? Curb appeal? It doesn't look much different from the H to the "untrained eye" and probably looks better than the J. The opposite is: why can't the H3-45 be used for line-haul as well as the X3-45?

If the X3-45 was a purpose-built intercity coach, I wonder what Obama and Justin Bieber is doing in their X3-45 (or other X-series) motorhomes. Of course it's a good intercity coach, but it's also a good motorhome for all I know (and I don't really know).

As for curb appeal, every time I show someone (non-bus fans) the pre-Restyle J4500, they say it's UGLY, UGLY, REALLY UGLY, and UGLY. Not even exaggerating.

 

[metrolinecoach111]

Unfortunately, the X weighs as much as the H but carries less cargo/luggage, so most operators would likely buy the H instead. After all, a smooth ride doesn't make money. The X is selling about the same as the H only because of major orders from Greyhound and NYC Transit for use in the northeast, where the big tall H is probably unsuitable.

The X is a purpose built intercity coach. Outside of Greyhound and transit agencies, most US operators don't want or need that. For most US operators their "bread and butter" is tours and charters, a business for which the H is better suited.

Ricky is correct, but I will add one other detail....as Swadian refers to above, the vehicle also serves a dual-purpose for conversion/entertainer buses. The reason this model bus is better for both intercity and the entertainer/conversion type service is because it rides lower to the ground - it provides the best "ride" for passengers.

This information was provided to me by a Prevost rep at ABA last week.

 

[metrolinecoach111]

Unfortunately, the X weighs as much as the H but carries less cargo/luggage, so most operators would likely buy the H instead. After all, a smooth ride doesn't make money. The X is selling about the same as the H only because of major orders from Greyhound and NYC Transit for use in the northeast, where the big tall H is probably unsuitable.

The X is a purpose built intercity coach. Outside of Greyhound and transit agencies, most US operators don't want or need that. For most US operators their "bread and butter" is tours and charters, a business for which the H is better suited.

Ricky is correct, but I will add one other detail....as Swadian refers to above, the vehicle also serves a dual-purpose for conversion/entertainer buses. The reason this model bus is better for both intercity and the entertainer/conversion type service is because it rides lower to the ground - it provides the best "ride" for passengers and among the easiest handling for drivers (as Railiner alluded to above).

This information was provided to me by a Prevost rep at ABA last week.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

That's where I'm confused. I thought the H3-45 was supposed to be "high-end", but if it doesn't ride as well, why is it so popular? And if the X3-45 handles so well, why don't charter companies use it more often? You could argue the H3-45 has more luggage capacity for the same weight, but I thought luggage capacity would be more useful for intercity than charters. After all, charters don't carry Package Express.

Seems like the X3-45 should be preferred in densely-populated areas and the H3-45 in loosely-populated areas? Because there's a lot of H3-45s running remote intercity routes in Canada and a lot of X3-45s running in the packed Northeast USA.

Am I remotely correct or completely wrong if I think that the X3-45 is better for short-distance, dense-population, high-frequency and the H3-45 is better for long-distance, loose-population, low-frequency?

Edit: I also heard that MCI was touting its J4500's excellent unmatched fuel economy at ABA. Do you think this is complete BS or actually makes sense?

 

[metrolinecoach111]

That's where I'm confused. I thought the H3-45 was supposed to be "high-end", but if it doesn't ride as well, why is it so popular? And if the X3-45 handles so well, why don't charter companies use it more often? You could argue the H3-45 has more luggage capacity for the same weight, but I thought luggage capacity would be more useful for intercity than charters. After all, charters don't carry Package Express.

Seems like the X3-45 should be preferred in densely-populated areas and the H3-45 in loosely-populated areas? Because there's a lot of H3-45s running remote intercity routes in Canada and a lot of X3-45s running in the packed Northeast USA.

Am I remotely correct or completely wrong if I think that the X3-45 is better for short-distance, dense-population, high-frequency and the H3-45 is better for long-distance, loose-population, low-frequency?

Edit: I also heard that MCI was touting its J4500's excellent unmatched fuel economy at ABA. Do you think this is complete BS or actually makes sense?

Here's the thing - they both ride well, it's just that the X rides just a bit better because it's lower to the ground and reduces wear and tear because of it (to a degree). The H is great for charters, particularly overnights because of the better sightlines (you're riding higher off the ground), and the luggage capacity. You also have to remember that it also depends on the carrier and their maintenance team and price tolerance (the H costs more upfront).

As for the J - yes, I saw the brochure that mentions this and spoke with a dealer on the floor. The unit on display was the brand new J for Trans-Bridge in PA. Like all things, it's all about how the carrier takes care of its equipment and the manufacturer's servicing to maintain such standards.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

That's why I was thinking that the H would be more for longer distance and lower frequencies through area with lower population. Over long distances, the bigger windows and higher deck of the H could make passengers more comfortable. The extra luggage capacity could haul more package express; after all, Greyhound's New York City-Los Angeles is reportedly a daily Blue G because of package express backlogs. And longer-distance passengers seem to carry more baggage anyways.

The X3-45 can probably take more wear and tear so it would be better for intense short-distance turn-and-burns and the handling would make it useful in highly-populated areas. The slightly better ride quality is probably for useful over short distances whereas the better sightlines of the H would be better over long distances.

Just my theory. Is there anywhere in the West where I can ride a H3-45 in scheduled service? Last time I rode one was on my last trip to Los Angeles before the December 2014 trip. That would have been in 2002 IIRC. Wouldn't mind riding an E4500, either.

I heard on GTE that the "fuel efficiency" MCI is advertising for the J4500 is unnoticeable and that anybody thinking otherwise would be thinking too good to be true, which is basically the nice way of saying MCI is spewing BS about J4500 fuel efficiency. I understand how the fuel efficiency depends on the carrier and maintenance, among other things, but I think what MCI is talking about is that if the same company were to run the J4500 alongside a competing model on the same services with the same standards of maintenance, MCI claims the J4500 would beat its competitors on fuel efficiency.

As they say here: http://www.mcicoach.com/media-center/2015-01-14-e-rating.htm.

And, in response to this, some people are basically saying it's BS.

 

[railiner]

Both the X-3 and the H-3 can be used for any purpose. I don't think either one has an inherent reliability advantage for a specific use. The main difference is the ride height.

Being taller, the H-3 will naturally 'roll' more, and passenger's sitting higher off the ground will feel it more. To control the roll of the H-3 to a manageable level, its suspension may have to be "stiffened" somewhat. That is even more true in a double-deck coach, which tend to have a hard ride. On the railroad, cars have to fit within a "cant deficiency" parameter for a particular track profile, to [revent the tilted top of the car from fouling the adjacent track, when negotiating a curve. The lower height will also mean less buffeting from strong crosswinds....

The superior cargo space of the H-3 is useful for line runs, and many charters--especially airport transfer's, or multiday charter's whose passenger's will average more baggage than a typical line run, except during college breaks or returns.

And for certain types of charter's....the X-3 is better, especially for senior citizens on day trips, that have no baggage, but do have a difficult time climbing stairs.

And they are also better for conference shuttle charter's, (which is Greyhound's main source of charter business), as less steps mean quicker loading/unloading.

The lower height of the X-3 will get them into many places that the H-3 won't.