Greyhound seats and fleet questions

Shop deals on ebay
Advertise with us
shop deals on amazon
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Greyhound is not a luxury bus operator. They are a line haul operator, generally defacto on many of their routes. Swadian, with due respect to you and other bus lovers, most people riding Greyhound are doing it because they don't really have other options. Driving is not an option for people who have trouble driving long distances, even if they have cars. Greyhound reputation for having the scum of society on it is perhaps graphic, but not conceptually wrong. The people who ride it are the people who can't afford anything else, usually. They are not the most respectable people in the world. I just don't subscribe that every poor and unreputable person is a bad one. But other people do.

Swad, you are a short guy, right? And I get the impression you are not particularly fat either, right? I'm not short, and I am fat. I weigh 375 lbs without shoes on (my 13 4E steel toed boots add a nice ten pounds to that). I wear a size 60 waist, a size 66 coat, and I am a 22/32 in dress shirts. Think about all these sizes, and how they differ from your own. I have been on buses where I can't slide my shoe into the space between seat bolsters. The only person I can sit next to on a 2-2 bus or train is my wife, who is 4'11" and 120 lbs. Partially because she sorta fits, and partially because we are intimate enough to do so- but avoid it if we don't need to.

What can we learn about this, except that I need a diet? Answer: a seat I'd find comfortable is quite possibly a totally different seat than one that you would. It needs to be very solidly built, or I find myself worried about sitting in it. It needs to be wide- 30" is about right, 28" barely tolerable. I have a fairly tall torso, and my neck is long enough that it doesn't seem that ill-proportioned at 22". I WANT an adjustable headrest because I have never seen a non adjustable one that I can actually lean back my head on. Because of the way my head is positioned relative to my back, I prefer headrests that are fairly far forward, or can adjust four ways. I am wide so heavy lateral support is generally uncomfortable. I have a bad back so I need substantial lumbar support. I mean there is a reason that I gave a try and building my own office chairs for a business once.
 
An Amaya dealer told me their most expensive seat is the Torino G right now, not the A2-TEN. Everything else is apparently Canada-only due to lack of containment. That includes all the Patriot versions, the Torino Standard, and the Torino VIP.

Right now A2-TEN is considered the "standard" seat while Torino G is considered the "luxury" seat.

Again, I find the Patriot PT to fit me perfectly while Amtrak's ASI seating is OK and Premier LS is a torture machine.

You find the Premier LS to be too firm, but I noticed at a rest stop that when I came back to my seat, the bottom had a huge dip in it. So, in the future, I will sit on a pillow. Seatmate Chris (Los Angeles-New York City) agrees that the back is not the problem, the bottom is the problem. I find the back to be similar to ASI seating which is OK to me.

Also, to me, seat width is useless above 17" and seat pitch is useless above 38". Again, I'm a small guy. Since I prefer to lean against the window instead of relaxing, that X3-45 window is a bit of a problem. Even when I'm passing between two high walls, I can still keep my eyes on the scenery, my regular travel buddy says I get almost hypnotized staring out.

Chris' next bus from Denver to NYC was finally a DL3, #6541 signed up for "SALINA, KS". I got no DL3's.

Now I just found out that Google Maps updated the Street View of Greyhound's Los Angeles Garage. Taken in June 2014. Check it out, you will find buttloads of D4505's, some retired or stored G4500's, some charter-only white DL3's, a few X3-45's, and a few rebuilt DL3's, no Blue G's.

Don't know where the rebuilt DL3's came from. Rare, rare, rare in the West.
 
I'm a big guy... but not in the same way as GML.

I'm 6'3", 215 lbs, my shoulders are about 19" wide and I have fairly long legs.

To be frank, I'm miserable in the standard 17" wide airplane seats. Usually I end up touching the shoulder of the person next to me (which I always feel bad about.) I also find seat pitch below 33" to be uncomfortable for me. 33" is just enough room for me to bend my legs slightly and put them under the seat ahead of me. At 31" I'm stuck with my knees bent at a 90 degree angle for the duration of the flight.

Standard motorcoach seats are 40" wide per pair (including armrest width). That's cozy for me but it's tolerable for a short ride. I also appreciate the 36" pitch on Greyhound.

But this is what I was trying to explain earlier... I don't see the benefit to a "premium seating" product that doesn't increase the seat width. Despite United Airlines reducing seat pitch to 31" in Economy... I won't pay to upgrade to Economy Plus because I'm still going to be uncomfortably close to the person next to me. Likewise, if BoltBus increased legroom, I wouldn't pay extra for those seats... but give me an extra 4" of seat width and I'd be on that in a second.

But I guess you wouldn't see the value in that.
 
Because buses cannot get any wider, account legal restrictions based on roadway limitation, the only way to get a wider bus seat would be to eliminate one of the four rows. That would take away 25% of the seats. So fares would have to be increased accordingly to compensate. There are only a very small number of buslines that do that, and their fares are usuallly a lot more than standard bus fares. You might be willing to pay that, but most bus passenger's aren't, unfortunately.....

I was thinking that perhaps they could have a seating plan with a couple of rows of "premium, two and one seats" for an extra fare, but it would cause a problem for the driver, to prevent those with standard tickets from grabbing those seats ahead of those who paid extra for them....so it would only be practicle if the entire bus was two and one.....
 
Right. While I don't mind spending that extra money, I don't see Greyhound's base customers wanting to pay more for seats. It's definitely something that would only work on high-traffic corridors with trip times of under 4 hours. I imagine it would be a good extension of the BoltBus brand.

I think a layout with a few rows of 2-1 seating could work. Thanks to the iPhone scanners, BoltBus drivers already have a ticket manifest and passengers are already used to boarding in groups. You would just pre-board the premium passengers before the regular passengers.
 
We were discussing airline legroom and Premium Economy on another thread. The big problem with airlines seems to be legroom, not seat width. So, I don't know, but anyway.....

I took a look at Red Coach as an example. First thing I noticed is that they offer Business and First Class. Surprisingly, the Business Class has regular 2-2 seating, just with extra legroom. A sample fare from Miami to Orlando runs $36. The First Class had 2-1 seating, but runs $61. That isn't a small difference at all.

Now, why is that? I decided to take a look at the seating. Patriot PT (http://www.amaya-astron.com.mx/ES/productos/asientos_foraneos/patriot_pt/) is 861 cm long, 1027.5 cm wide. Leito VII (http://www.amaya-astron.com.mx/ES/productos/asientos_foraneos/leito_vii/), their most expensive 2-1 seat, is 1123 cm long, and 1323 cm wide.

So, as you can see, Patriot PT takes less space overall. One can't just widen the seat without increasing legroom, because the wider seats are also longer, meaning your legroom would go down unless you increased the seat pitch. This is why one doesn't simply charge 33.3% extra for a 2-1 over 2-2, it ends up being 80% extra, though presumably the Red Coach First Class also offers other perks over "Business". Though their Business is more like Premium Economy, and frankly, not really worth it over Greyhound.

Something that Red Arrow Motorcoach has is this: http://www.kevinsbusrail.com/pwt/ra_731int.jpg. They put regular seating into that 1997 H3-45, but left out a column for extra "width" even though the seat is not wider. This means there's no need to increased seat pitch to compensate for increased seat length.

One of the ASI seating problems is that their seat are a bit too long and thick while not curved at all, meaning that are not an efficient use of space and weight. Also, they have a metal bar along the bottom rear, so a ASI with 41" pitch feels like a Patriot PT with 38" pitch (but not 36").

Now I see why 2-1 seating is always placed in Prevosts instead of MCI's. All MCI's have a slightly-sloping aisle segment at the front. This aisle is centered, so 2-1 seating cannot be put at the front of a MCI. MCI's also have theater-tiered seating at the front for better viewing, but the tiers are set too small to accommodate a 2-1 seat. If one wanted a 2-1 section on MCI, that section would have to be at the back, again, not desirable. So all these 2-1 buses are Prevost's, being made with motorhomes in mind, they have fully-flat floors, no theater tiers, no sloping aisle.

However, I find MCI's sloping aisle to be more convenient when moving around, especially when getting off, as one often does not expect the aisle to suddenly drop off in a "L" step before the entry stairway.

Also interesting is this J4500 Sleeper: http://www.arrowstagelines.com/fleet/fleet-photo-gallery/attachment/1299/.
 
Some interesting facts I dug up:

MCI introduced multiplexed electronics in the E4500 in 2004. Then the D4505 in 2010 and the J4500 in 2012. So the 102DL3 never mad multiplex.

Yet another mechanic has complained about maintaining multiplex and IFS.

Drivers say the IFS makes handling good but is not easy to maintain.

MCI has introduced IFS in the 2015 model year J4500.

Derivers say the J and E offer poor line-of-sight compared to the D.

The X3-45 side windows are actually GMC 1960s windshields turned on their sides. That was first done with the Prevost Prestige in 1968, the X3-45 still has the same high windows that curve into the roof. I still think the X3-45 need raised seats to match the windows better: https://www.flickr.com/photos/95851032@N07/14957462160/. That "up there" window segment is too high for most scenery, even Berthoud Pass.
 
Swadian Hardcore said:
Now I see why 2-1 seating is always placed in Prevosts instead of MCI's. All MCI's have a slightly-sloping aisle segment at the front. This aisle is centered, so 2-1 seating cannot be put at the front of a MCI. MCI's also have theater-tiered seating at the front for better viewing, but the tiers are set too small to accommodate a 2-1 seat. If one wanted a 2-1 section on MCI, that section would have to be at the back, again, not desirable. So all these 2-1 buses are Prevost's, being made with motorhomes in mind, they have fully-flat floors, no theater tiers, no sloping aisle.
Click to expand...
Not quite always....

The original fleet of LimoLiner were J4500's with 28 seats in a two-and-one configuration. I never saw the inside, to see how they accomplished that.
 
I thought they used E4500's. I think they are replacing the E4500's with H3-45's?

Maybe they ordered the E4500C conversion model which might have no theater seating at the back.
 
You may be correct....E4500 or 102EL-3's or whatever....I thought they were the same as the J's as far as the interior config....
 
Swadian Hardcore said:
Old Greyhound timetable from 1984:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/103688802@N02/14969816680/sizes/l

https://www.flickr.com/photos/103688802@N02/15153515621/sizes/h/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/103688802@N02/15153517141/sizes/h/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/103688802@N02/14969918648/sizes/l

https://www.flickr.com/photos/103688802@N02/14969765129/sizes/h/
Click to expand...
Great stuff....that was when the line was still part of the old Greyhound Corporation, headquartered in Phoenix. They knew how to make and distribute timetables back then

And they still had most of their extensive route system, although by that time, Golden Gate had taken over their Marin County, SamTrans had taken over their Peninsula, and AC Transit had taken over their Contra-Costa Commuter operations.....
 
I was happy to see that 1308 and 1314 ran back then much as it does today, except they now start from Reno and head east instead of from San Francisco. I wonder if those two were transcontinental back in the way, going all the way to New York, right after Interstate 80 had been completed.
 
Swadian Hardcore said:
I was happy to see that 1308 and 1314 ran back then much as it does today, except they now start from Reno and head east instead of from San Francisco. I wonder if those two were transcontinental back in the way, going all the way to New York, right after Interstate 80 had been completed.I
Click to expand...
When I moved from Denver back to NYC in 1989, I had to get rid of most of my Russell's Guides, except for a few older ones I saved. And I did not start collecting them again until 1994, so there is a large gap in what I have. Back in 1971, at the time of the completion of most of I-80, the trips that ran between Chicago and the west coast were in the 1100-1200, and later, 1300 series. The few that ran all the way from coast to coast were numbered in the 500 series. Not sure of when that changed....
 
Oh dang, then all those 1200's 1300's in Greyhound's System Timetable must be ex-Transcons. But 1682/1683 are the current New York City-Los Angeles Transcon returns. Those are the only ones currently running, there was another pair in the summer schedule which has just ended.

Currently the 1100's are no longer used for east-west schedules and the 1600's appear to be used for east-west skeds east of the Mississippi. The 1400's are used for the Los Angeles-Vancouver corridor which could use some extra capacity giving that it's always closing online bookings two hours before departure at high bucket.

Well, tomorrow's 1436 is already sold out. It's always that overnight getting packed to the last seat. Long story short, Greyhound is giving the short end of the stick to Seattle again, being that the summer-only SEA-VAN and SEA-PUT skeds are no longer running. So south of Portland has more frequencies than north of Portland, even though the White G's have been mostly ousted in favor of this: https://www.flickr.com/photos/busdudedotcom/15140356286/in/photostream/.

Can't understand the Bolt D4505 at the Greyhound Portland gate.
 
Swadian Hardcore said:
Can't understand the Bolt D4505 at the Greyhound Portland gate.
Click to expand...
Greyhound keeps the BoltBus units at the Portland station during layovers. I would think that they also get light servicing there too (garbage cans emptied, floors swept).
I spotted buses of all kinds at the Portland station during my last trip.

ImageUploadedByAmtrak Forum1410188395.768219.jpg

ImageUploadedByAmtrak Forum1410188426.667871.jpg

Totally off topic, but while out on a run on Friday, I spotted this in front of the Space Needle: ImageUploadedByAmtrak Forum1410188486.634544.jpg

That's a Prevost Le Mirage XL, so it's at *least* 20 years old (might be even older). Looked well maintained and the engine sounded great (no rattles or squeaks).
 
Anyone know how often they service the bathrooms on Bolt? I ask because last week I took Bolt from Vancouver to Seattle and the bathroom looked like the tank hadn't been emptied in a couple of days. I'm glad I was sitting closer to the front than the back because the odor was noticeable several rows before you got to the lav.
 
I know Greyhound SD buses get lavatory tanks emptied every day and Greyhound LD buses get tanks emptied every 10-14 hours, at every major stop along the route.

Looking at Ricky's photo from two months ago, it seems the end of the summer schedule means less DL3's and Blue G's at Portland, more D4505's. That's obviously not a good thing since the D4505's have terrible, horrible, miserable, and painful seating.

The extra Blue G's probably ran from Seattle, but the off-season suspension of SEA-PUT schedules means that everything is a through run from Los Angeles, a garage teeming with D4505's. The DL3's probably ran from DEN, but most PUT-DEN runs I saw in DEN were D4505's along with a single Blue G, #7199. That Greyhound Prevost could have come from DEN or LAD, they repainted some of the Americanos X3-45's with Greyhound's livery, so it's hard to see a difference now. Many Americanos units in LAD probably, DL3's, D4505's and X3-45's

According to Google Street View taken June 2014, Americanos' Viaggio fleet is parked in a long line at the Los Angeles Garage getting parted out, joined by some White G4500's. If you the thought G4500's were bad, well the Viaggio is probably worse!
 
That could be a LeMirage, not a LeMirage XL. The XL was the 102-inch version of the LeMirage. Then the XL-45 was the 45-foot 102-inch version which is pretty much the same as the current X3-45 except with a shorter wheelbase.

I think XL-II is a XL-45 with frameless windows and the X3-45 is a XL-II with IFS and a longer wheelbase.
 
I believe the LeMirage is a 40 footer. The LeMirage XL (as in extra length), is a 45 footer. Not sure if the original LeMirage was offered as both a 96" and a 102", or not...

The XL II (which is in our fleet), is simply a modernized LeMirage XL...besides the frameless windows, a new front and rear design, as well as interior and dash. The XL II does have IFS, which partially accounts for its excellent ride and handling. The X3-45 looks very much like the XL II, except for the newer light's, extended wheelbase, and relocation

of the battery and other componentry to make it possible to 'slide back' the rear axle's.

*

Agree on the Marcopolo Viaggio, built by DINA.....those had a huge front overhang. We would see some of them come into The Port on holiday's, when they were chartered to supplement Greyhound and Peter Pan's fleet. More than one of their driver's hit the barrier at the gate, because the front wheels did not reach the curb or wheel stop before the bumper hit the barrier....
 
MCI says their J4500 can get 10.27 mpg on the flat at 50 mph: http://www.metro-magazine.com/news/story/2014/02/mci-unveils-vehicle-enhancements-at-uma.aspx.

That would mean an unprecedented 554.58 P-MPG.

Their own "Go Green, Go Coach, Go MCI" website says averages are about 6.5 mpg highway, which would be 351 P-MPG.

The J4500 is currently available with Detroit 13 while the D's are not, and the Cummins ISX12 has been tested to be a fuel guzzler, so right now a D4000 probably gets the same MPG as the J4500, but at lower P-MPG due to less seating capacity.

The H3-45 has curb weight 1,000 pounds more than the J4500 and carries two more passengers, but the gross weight in 1,000 pounds less. No wonder people are ordering the J4500 so much. Meanwhile, the X3-45 weighs the same as the H3-45 and more than the J4500 at less gross weight. But the X3-45 gets a great average of 6.85 MPG with the Volvo D13.

Right now it's no wonder the J4500 is the bestseller, if they cost the same as the D or X, considering the J has high gross weight compared to curb weight (meaning high payload) and gets good MPG, plus offering high luggage capacity and large parcel racks that are unhindered by the rear-mounted wheelchair lift, something not offered in the D, X, or even the expensive H.

The J has the same parcel racks as the E which is 150 cubic feet compared to 107 in the H3-45 or 109 in the D4505. We're talking a near-50% increase in overhead storage: http://www.mcicoach.com/luxury-coaches/j4500/data1/images/d_mci_j4500_parcel_racks.jpg.

They have the same racks as the E4500 and similar to the G4500: http://tourwestamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/MCI1.jpg.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top