(first posted 5/13/2017) Take a close look at this bus…doesn’t look especially unique, does it. Seems to be fairly representative of any intercity coach in the US and Canada in the decade of the 1990’s. But this model was actually quite revolutionary – with this coach MCI broke precedent with a fifty-year design element that was the hallmark of every intercity bus produced in North America, irrespective of manufacturer. This is an MCI 102 B3, and it was the first intercity coach since the late 1930’s to have a fully painted body, i.e., no fluted aluminum or stainless steel exterior.
Well, to be truthful, that last statement is only partially correct – the 102 B3 was initially offered only with fully painted sides and front. But this may have been a “little too much, too soon” for the typically conservative transportation industry, as operators weren’t sure how their passengers would react. They lobbied MCI to add back the option of stainless steel siding (which the company did). Consequently, you’ll see 102 B3 models both with fluted siding, and fully painted.
When I talk to fellow bus enthusiasts in Europe and Asia, I find myself somewhat consistently answering the question; why did all North American intercity buses up until the 2000’s look so “Industrial?” It’s a valid question, and I usually answer by offering a short history of the dominance and influence of General Motors, which set the template for the modern intercity coach with their PD 3701/3751 “Silversides” model in the late 1930’s (if you haven’t seen Paul’s informative Silversides article, it’s here).
Of course, GM was just imitating the groundbreaking Pioneer Zephyr of 1934, built by Budd, which introduced the stainless steel fluted cladding. And North American railroad coaches used the fluted cladding for about as long as the buses did. It just became deeply entrenched, and it was of course practical too.
Beck 1040 and GM PD 4501
GM set the standard when it came to buses, both urban transit and intercity, from the late 1930’s until 1980. A good example was highlighted in our recent PD 4104 Highway Traveler post. GM was the trendsetter, and every other manufacturer followed the company’s example – some to the extent that they were almost a direct copy (see CD Beck and Sons post here).
1950’s – ACF Brill IC 41 and Flxible High Level
1960’s – Eagle Model 05 and GM PD 4106
1970’s – GM PD 4107 and MCI Model 7
1980’s – MCI Model 9 and Prevost LeMirage
Fluted aluminum or stainless steel became the defacto exterior design theme for all intercity coaches, for over five decades.
But back to the subject – the 102 B3 was built from 1990-94, and had typical North American dimensions; 102 inches wide, 40 feet long. A two-axle version, the 102 B2, was also built. Most seated 47 passengers.
The DD 6V92TA seemed to be the preferred power train with either an Allison HT 740 4 speed automatic or a Fuller T-11605D 5 speed manual. Similar to the bodywork, there was also a transition in the engine bay – 102 B3 was the last MCI coach to use a version of GM/DD’s two-stroke diesel (71 and 92) that were being phased out due to their inability to meet ever-tightening emissions standards. Subsequent buses used the four-stroke 50 or 60 series.
The 102 B3 was superseded by the 102 D3 in 1994. Operators gradually became more comfortable that customers would accept the lack of fluting, but MCI would continue to offer it as an option on the 102 D3 and D4500 models until the turn of the century.
As an old guy, I tend to favor the older fluted designs, though I have to say the latest Greyhound scheme in dark blue is fairly attractive.
So, what’s your preference; fluted siding or fully painted?
Fully painted, all the way, and a surface as smooth as possible. The Greyhound bus in the last picture certainly looks attractive to me too.
The old ones look “industrial”, that’s the perfect word you came up with!
Either works for me, although I find it hilarious that any transit fleet operator would be concerned that the passengers would choose a different mode of travel if the sides of their bus didn’t have fluted metal. I don’t think the average rider would even notice.
I will say as a very gross generalization that back in the middle 20th century, the metal-paneled buses gave a sense of speed and strength as compared to many European designs, this has since faded and the European designs since at least the 1980’s now give a greater impression of speed, luxury, and style. I saw one of the current Greyhounds as in the last photo the other day and was amused at the side graphic that pictures gleaming chrome accents. It’s like they can’t decide to be modern or retro. Something for everyone I suppose.
I suspect the original visual intent of buses with the stainless steel/aluminum sides was to evoke the mystique and allure of aviation travel.
When the stainless steel/aluminum side treatment is attractive and well maintained, it does elevate the experience when boarding. 🙂
+1
I prefer the bare metal, fluted cladding, but then I’m also a train guy, and that style remains today on the newest intercity passenger cars, the (YEARS-late) Amtrak Viewliner II.
Smooth, painted sides had their day, too. Union Pacific’s famous Streamliner car fleet was all a smooth, painted yellow. Even the fluted-side cars built for them by the Budd Company had the stainless steel cladding painted yellow.
Interesting question I hadn’t really considered before. Now that I think about it, I’d have to choose the old-style metal. The sleeker buses seem a little too clinical and cold; give me the Art Deco, classic look instead. But I can see the appeal of both. What really grinds my gears are the wraparound ads stuck all over some buses these days, even on the windows. Bah!
I would think the greater maintenance implied in a painted bus would have been what turned operators off. I would think the’d want stainless/aluminum for never having to paint the outside of the bus.
Either is good with me our locally bodied buses were mostly painted flat side panels so I guess I like the difference doesnt matter much when you ride on the inside.
As a student, I recall too many buses with stainless steel/aluminum sides that were heavily coated in tarnish, grime or plentiful dings. So much so, that it made the finish highly unsightly. Fully defeating its purpose.
I think for most paying customers, a bus that is clean and well maintained both inside and out, matters more than stainless steel/aluminum side or a fully painted exterior. It reflects more than anything, one’s impressions of the operator.
Numerous charter companies go to the added expense and maintenance of using chrome wheels. When combined with clean and polished fluting, it speaks volumes about the care and pride they take in their fleet, and the service they provide. And looks sharp.
Here’s an example of an attractive, and cared for appearance, you don’t see often enough with the larger regular service operators…
It probably takes more effort to keep the metal looking nice than it does for paint.
I would agree. If they are going to apply it for the beauty and elegance it can bring, they have to maintain it, for full effect. 🙂
Nice hat-tip to the NYC MTA, which does a very good job maintaining their fleet, despite heavy-duty service in true 4-season weather. Wonderfully simple color scheme, too.
Plus, they have taken care in choosing a signage design that works well for visibility from a distance.
WHERE DID YOU GET THAT IMAGE!?
That photo from 2017 doesn’t even look like an original photo but it looks more like a photoshopped photo done by NYC Transit Forums.
I recognize the location of the first photo in this article. It looks like the Greyhound / Voyageur Terminal on Catherine Street in Ottawa. It was built in 1971, replacing the former Voyageur Colonial terminal located on Albert Street.
Plus there’s an uncommon Renault 16 front and centre in your picture – it never seemed to be popular in North America
As a child, I recall there used to be quite an eclectic mix of European cars visible in Canadian cities, well into the 70s/80s. It wouldn’t be considered out of the ordinary to see a Renault 16, or regular Mini sightings. While there were also Lada and Skoda dealerships.
Rural areas, featured more domestic autos. As foreign dealerships were usually limited to metropolitan areas.
No question the paintable sides of the MCI 102’s represented a revolution in bus transportation, but I always thought the real significance of the 102 was that it was one of the last intercity coaches to offer the Detroit 2 stroke diesels. Later versions of the 102 featured the 4 stroke Detroit 50 and 60 series diesels along with a variety of Caterpillar and Cummins engines as well. Fluted siding and 2 stroke green diesels represented bus transportation for 50 years!
Great point Bob – I missed that – thanks for the reminder. I’ll add that in to the post. Jim.
My pleasure. I really enjoy your bus articles.
I do not, like some of the posters above, think one could say the older style was “industrial”; “aeronautic” or “futuristic” in the GM Motorama way would be far more accurate. Whereas European coaches and buses of the same period had their own unique style, there is no question the US (most certainly from the late 1930s up to the 1960s) led the world in bus design as well as engineering. Sometime between, say, 1969 and 2000 this stopped being the case and, for some reason, there was a move into graceless box-like devices which looks-wise could have been made in the USSR. Only of late there has been a move back into proper styling but clearly in this US bus manufacturers are influenced by the Europeans (to wit, MCI’s J4500)
This is purely anecdotal, but I think the relative proximity of cities in Europe made bus travel a viable and competitive choice for travel for many. It was worth the investment in making the bus riding experience attractive to riders of various economic means. As well as tourists with deep pockets. Making the bus riding experience luxurious made sense as an investment.
It is over 900 miles between Toronto and Winnipeg, Canada. Taking the bus would not be a competitive choice for many. A dreaded choice in fact. Inter city bus service in North America is most popular with students and seniors. There is a large swath of the population that would never use inter city buses due to its limitations. Primarily, taking forever to get anywhere.
There is no glamour to riding a bus between Toronto and one of the western Canadian provinces over 1,000 miles away. It would be considered punishment.
A bus that is rugged, simple to repair, cheaper to operate, and offers the most competitive price, would be the most important factors. Does the market demand anything more? Whereas in Europe, it made plenty of sense to invest in the luxury and pleasure of the bus riding experience.
What changes to the bus lines in Canada since your original post Daniel. Greyhound is gone, and I’m not sure you can get a single ticket to go say from Vancouver to Toronto, let alone any other places off of the Trans Canada. Here on Vancouver Island bus service is now very spotty, and mostly seasonal. Good luck going from Victoria to Port Hardy by bus.
So true. Before the pandemic, Canadians using cars to traverse the country, was already compromising the profitability of the intercity carriers. Car rental agencies, seeing a significant increase in business.
Here in Ontario, there is now a variety of companies competing for service between Ottawa, Kingston, Toronto, and farther south, including Flixbus, Megabus, Red Arrow, and Rider Express. Where Voyageur, and later Greyhound, controlled these major, very profitable, routes. Northern Ontario, still has Ontario Northlands, but across the country it appears to be mostly small, local carriers taking up the slack.
Fully painted, no doubt.
And I still don’t know why Europeans passed the USA in bus design (late 80’s).
If you travel by bus in Europe, this is what you’ll probably ride in. Produced since 2001 with minimal styling changes, was a revolution when it came out. The Irizar PB.
And this was the bus that put Irizar in the world map, back in 1990. It was called the Century, and was a revolution in its own way. It was produced all the way until until recently, when it had a totally revamped interior and the front end rear ends had been modified in 2004 to resemble the PB.
Having toured MCI in Winnipeg and Pembina plants one comes away with an appreciation of the beurocracy behind auto manufacture. The head office is in Winnipeg, but final assembly is completed in Pembina North Dacota. Most Are driven from Winnipeg to Pembina but often times one sees just the body shells being trucked. This increases American content which allows US cities to receive federal “made in America” funding for these buses.
I worked in the Minneapolis MN Greyhound maintenance facility from 1974 to 1977. Generally there was always a bus being repainted. The fleet was being converted to the red/white/blue paint scheme. Bus would be chemically stripped of the old paint, dents or dings taken care of, self etching primer and then on goes the paint followed by new decals. Day shift did most of the body work, one guy on second shift would help with the repaints. No body work done on 3rd shift.
The main advantage of the lower stainless steel and aluminum panels was the minor dings and gashes didn’t look as bad vs a painted panel and if you kept the bus clean it still looked decent. This was the area of the bus that took the vast majority of damage. Short of side swiping a building or hitting a truck it was rare to see damage above the belt line. Faded gouged, dented and peeling paint doesn’t look good.
Greyhound maintenance was a 24/7/365 operation with all kinds of weird shifts. Day shift had what few jobs were left that had weekends off and holidays off. Pay was not up to local standards so a lot of young guys didn’t stick around long. That was the one plus of the crappy shifts, easy to go interview for a new job when you shift is 4.30pm to 1.00am with Tuesday/Wednesday as your days off.
I’d always thought it was the 1977 GM RTS bus that killed the fluted-aluminum look – it was the first bus that really looked new to me – the early ones especially looked more to me like the Disney World Monorail than the no-longer-new look buses that preceded it. It doesn’t really count though, as the RTS was an inter-city transit bus, not an intercity coach. Why didn’t GM make an intercity version of the RTS?
Haven’t lived up there in 42 years, but the adirondack bus reminded me of the trips we used to make from burlington to montreal via vermont transit. It was the closest big city as Boston was 4 hours away as well as new york city.
I was trying to finish my last undergraduate year and didn’t have time to go, but sure some like these helped transport people to Lake Placid for the 1980 winter olympics…not much hotel space nearby, though burlington isn’t too large, they at least had some capacity to help out and sure some people wouldn’t want to drive in winter.