(first posted 4/2/2016) You don’t have to be a professional gambler to know the phrase “a sure bet” – a clear winner, no doubt, guaranteed. As public transportation was evolving in the late 1960’s to mid-70’s, there was no more ”sure bet” than GM hitting another home run in the transit bus market. Just look at the history; its “Old Look” coach had captured 84% of the market in the mid-50’s, and the “New Look” coach was almost as dominate with close to 70% of the market in the 60’s/70’s.
Both those coaches were legendary for their class-leading, pioneering technology and robust, quality construction. So when the first RTS II coach rolled off the GM Truck and Coach Division line at Pontiac Michigan in August 1977, expectations were high. But those hopes quickly faded when the coach proved to have more in common with other products GM was turning out in the 1970’s…
Let’s first look back on the somewhat twisted path that led to this third, and ultimately final, GM transit coach. In the 1960’s, GM was truly at its peak – its various automobile divisions were producing a series of innovative, ground-breaking vehicles; Corvair, Tempest, Stingray, Riviera, GTO, Toronado…this same spirit of innovation was also hard at work over in its Truck and Bus division. By the late 1960’s, the company was already planning a follow-on coach to its still-popular New Look.
And innovative it was – this is the Rapid Transit Experimental (RTX) – a demonstrator model developed by GM and introduced in 1968. Three axles, plastic vs aluminum exterior panels, ultra-modern interior, but perhaps most shocking, it was powered by a GM GT 309 gas turbine engine. This engine was part of GM’s automotive turbine development program similar to Chrysler’s more well-known effort – and was seen in the Turbo Titan III truck and other applications.
Three years later, in 1971, the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) launched its “Transbus” project — an initiative by the Federal Government to develop a new revolutionary advanced bus design built solely to rigid federal specifications. The three then-current U.S. bus manufacturers each submitted an entry – GM’s was a slightly modified RTX, re-named the “RTS-3T” (Rapid Transit Series, 3 axle, Turbine).
However, by 1974, the Transbus effort was succumbing to government “red tape” and a realization that it was perhaps an over-reach; the buses were prohibitively expensive and some of the cutting-edge technologies (such as the turbine engine) were not ready for commercial, day-to-day use. GM saw the writing on the wall and began developing an interim bus, less radical than the Transbus but still a major leap forward in comparison to the New Look – this bus was called the RTS II (II in this case denoting 2 axles).
Besides modern, streamlined styling, RTS II’s incorporated several other innovations; they were the first coach to use modular construction – buses were built in 5 ft stainless steel modules that were then welded together. They used impact resistant acrylic windows, came with automatic temperature control, and had a kneeling feature to assist access by the elderly and physically challenged. In a sign of the times, the seats were made of hard vandal-resistant fiberglass, and the exterior panels were impervious to graffiti.
GM began limited production of the RTS II in August 1977 and in October, the first RTS II Series 01 coach was delivered to Long Beach Public Transportation Co. These Series 01 coaches can be identified by their less protruding front bumper with no recess for a front license plate.
In 1978, production would switch to the Series 03 with the larger front bumper. Here is one of the first models coming down the line at the Pontiac Assembly Plant for the Southeastern Michigan Transit Authority (Detroit).
Series 01/03 “Slant Back” New Look exterior A/C unit
These early Series 01/03 models were unfortunately plagued with a series of problems – most related to the location of the air conditioning unit. Note the “slant back” of these models – in an effort to give the bus a smoother, integrated look, GM reduced the size of the exterior A/C unit and placed it in the lower engine compartment, near the radiator, rather than the “hang-on” method above the rear window on the New Look. This caused several problems; the smaller unit wasn’t sufficient to cool the bus and would routinely fail, and since it was over-stressed, it ran constantly causing engine overheating and electrical issues.
Most 01/03 models were retrofitted with a GM designed cap that housed a larger A/C unit, and this addressed most the overheating problems. But there were others; a poorly designed rear door that would routinely “hang up”, requiring drivers to leave the seat to close it. The transmissions, Allison V730s, would only go 30K miles until requiring a re-build, in comparison to 200K miles for New Looks. The RTS also lacked the New Look’s high-quality construction – in 1981 Washington Metro found 42 discrepancies in an early model they tested prior to delivery of their order. As problems from operators flooded in, GM fixed some, and blamed poor maintenance practices and driver error for others. The bus developed an extremely poor reputation.
Starting with the Series 04 model in 1981, the larger A/C unit was more effectively integrated and these were known as “Square Backs” – the 04 model was widely produced.
The next major revision came with the Series 06 in 1986 which changed from independent to solid beam front axle. In the early 2000’s, GM offered the 50 Series 4 cylinder diesel engine, resulting in a minor modification to the rear of the bus. The 06 Series was produced by all three RTS manufacturers; GM, Transportation Manufacturing Corporation (TMC) and Novabus.
30 ft 35 ft
40 ft 6V92TA
RTS coaches came in 30, 35 and 40 ft lengths; 96 or 102 inch wide. Engines were 6/8V71 and 6V92, along with Cummins and Caterpillar options, with the GM 50 series in-line engine in most later models.
As mentioned above, the RTS had three different manufacturers – in 1987, during the “Roger Smith” era, GM decided to sell off its bus operations, and the RTS design and manufacturing rights were purchased by Transportation Manufacturing Corporation (TMC), a subsidiary of Motor Coach Industries (MCI). TMC moved RTS production tooling from Michigan to an MCI factory in Roswell New Mexico. They built a number of buses until 1994 when they sold the RTS to Novabus. Novabus kept the factory going until 2002, when it sold the rights to Millennium Transit Services, which declared bankruptcy 2009, but re-emerged in 2011. It is unclear if MTS still operates the Roswell factory (primarily for parts) today – they have a website but it hasn’t been updated since 2012.
So now we get to the question – Deadly Sin or just a “General” failure? This was a tough call for for me. The RTS remained in large-scale production for over 25 years, through three different manufacturers. But from a historical perspective, it did not dominate the market like its two predecessors (production totals: 38,000 Old Looks, 44,000 New Looks, approx 20,000 RTS), and its numerous problems contributed towards GM “throwing in the towel” and selling off its bus operations in 1987.
Just from the fact that it was a major contributor to one of the most storied bus manufacturers in US history exiting the motor coach market seems sufficient to me to deem it a Deadly Sin. Though in all fairness, it was just one of many GM products produced in the 1970s by a corporation that became over-confident, prone to “cutting corners”, and failed to adhere to the high engineering standards it had built its reputation on.
I always remember dad, who worked for GM at the Chevrolet plant in Parma, Ohio (never CPC to me) referring to this division as “Truck and trolley.”
Fond memories of riding New Look buses to school. Later in life not being as happy to ride an RTS bus, guess I wasn’t alone since my transit company did keep as many as long in the fleet.
Very good article about a much-maligned transit vehicle. THANKS!
I can’t say that I’ve ever seen one of these units.
So, did the original slantbacks have a back window? Clearly there was no window if the A/C retrofit was done to hang that on the back of the bus.
No back window, even if the black sloped panel might have looked like one. The back of the interior ended well before the end of the bus, with a vertical back wall. The RTS was not as space efficient as the older buses for this reason, giving up what I assume must have been a couple of feet back there.
The lack of a back window, and the dark tinted windows along with the hard seats made the RTS a much less pleasant place to be compared to the New Look buses.
Also, the RTS initially came only with all non-opening windows. But because of the frequent A/C failures and such, many were converted to some opening side windows, and I assume they later came that way from the factory, if so desired. Being stuck in an early RTS with a broken A/C on a hot day was pure hell. A GM Deadly sin, in other words.
My transit company (Cleveland RTA) uses MCI 44 foot coaches for park-n-ride service so they spend much of their route on the freeway. Anyway also with non-opening windows. What a miserable commute on a hot humid day when the coach’s A/C has failed and the coach is full to people standing all the way up the very narrow aisle. Ugh.
I’m SO glad that I don’t have to rely on RTA to get to work 🙂 .
Yep. Ocean City, Mur-Land lol, had a ragged fleet of 78’s from Baltimore from 1990 to 1999. No Air, some had open exhaust, missing panels and graffiti.
But those old 8v71’s were still good to hear roaring down the strip.
I bet the biggest customers for the GM RTS bus was the Southern California RTD of Los Angeles (later the Los Angeles County MTA) along the New York City transit (now MTA New York City bus). They ordered more than a thousand RTS-4 and RTS-6 buses during the 80s and early 90s. Another customer for RTS buses include SunTran of Tucson AZ. They even had some CNG powered RTS-6 buses from around 2000.
The NFTA purchased 110 of the RTS 04s in 1983.
I remember first spotting one of these buses on the road after seeing nothing but New Looks for my whole life and I couldn’t wait to ride on one. It looked so modern and futuristic! But I was quite disappointed once I did. Inside, it didn’t look or ride much different than any other bus I’d been on – and nothing like the prototype interior shown above. The RTSs didn’t seem to last more than a few years here in DC before being taken over by other new bus designs
The interior looks like what seems to come out for each new airliner that is created, while in reality they all come fitted with standard rows of seats.
The same could be said for the Oldsmobile Aurora when it came out. It was modern and contemporary for 1995, but a huge disappointment inside and for ride.
I highly doubt that Millennium Transit Services is still in business today in 2016 as we speak since no Transit private or public had ordered any of their RTS Legend and Low Floor Buses today. If they were still in business, perhaps MTA New York City Transit and its new subsidiary MTA Bus Company would have considered them as the third qualifying manufacturer ever since Daimler Bus discontinued the Transit Bus Manufacturing of Orion Bus Industries back in 2013. Right now, the MTA NYCT & Bus Co. only have New Flyer and Nova Bus for local transit bus manufacturers and MCI (now owned by New Flyer Industries) and Prevost (owned by Volvo which also owns Nova Bus) for express commuter coach manufacturers.
Their website is still operational but they haven’t updated it since 2012. I assumed they were still in business doing very limited production but you may be correct. Jim.
I think they might just be in the parts business now. Millennium never got a low floor version of the RTS II in series production, and that took them out of the public transit game.
Since I had made these comments six years ago, MTA New York City Transit and MTA Bus Company (former NYCDOT Private Bus Lines) and now a subsidiary of MTA NYCT had retired their RTS on May 2019. Its high floor competitor companion Daimler Bus NA Orion V also ran and owned by the same transit agencies were retired three years earlier in July 2016 just about three months after I made those comments. To put it simply, both bus models were able to ran on NYC streets for a long amount of time that the Grumman Flxible 870s failed in many fronts whether they were both for political and/or safety reasons. Also after this article was written about a year and a half later, MTA NYCT also ran a few Proterra buses for at least four years which ended on 2021 and no further words if they would be ordering these buses again.
Also a follow up from my comments in 2016, since the MTA NYCT stopped the practice of purchasing transit buses with express seating, these are the current express commuter coaches that they are currently using.
Here are the photos of the Prevost X3-45 and the MCI D4500 that they are currently using. It didn’t post on my comments above this one.
And busses have been ugly ever since.
I kind of like the look of the RTS-3T though, the round headlights and chrome bezels at least make it look more like an earth bound vehicle rather than a dingy shuttle from a dystopian 70s space movie the production model always did . I wonder what parts bin they came from.
1970 Pontiac Catalina
When I drove a bus, our fleet was mostly aging New Looks, their cousins from Flxible, and some newer Orions and Gilligs. Though I was partial to the New Looks, they all had their good and bad points. But there was nothing worse than showing up to relieve another driver and seeing one of these pull up at the curb. I spent hundreds, if not thousands of hours in an RTS, and I can’t think of a single good thing to say about them. To this day, nearly 20 years later, I would willingly pay for the opportunity to hit one with a sledgehammer. We certainly had other buses I didn’t like, but they all seemed to have been school bus designs that were merely trying to pass themselves off as city buses (e.g., Bluebird, Thomas). That the RTS was designed from the ground up for urban mass transit and came out so terrible is inexcusable, especially considering how good the New Looks were.
I’ve generally had a quite negative impression about the RTS too, and would have called it a GM Deadly Sin, had I written it up. But I never had a chance to drive one, as they came out after my bus driving career ended early. Could you elaborate some, on the specific issues that caused so much grief?
Thinking back on it, they were relatively smooth in accelerating and braking, or at least as decent in that regard as the later New Looks with 3-speed autos, so I do have one good thing to say. In comparison, the brakes on the Flxibles were much more difficult to feather and the Orions lurched violently at every shift. But in every other respect, the RTSs were awful. As others have pointed out, the turning radius was too large, and they were heavy and bottomed out much too easily. The combination of a low front stairwell and saggy suspensions made trying to overhang curbs a risky proposition, which only amplified the turning radius issue.
Driving at night brought additional problems: I’m not sure why, but glare from the interior lights seemed unusually bad on these, and there was a bank of toggle switches mounted in a perpetually dark recess below the driver’s right thigh.
The tiny driver’s window, as shown in the photos, was completely inadequate, especially in comparison to the multiple fresh air sources the New Looks offered. Our RTSs had operable windows for the passengers, which was fortunate for them, because the a/c failed regularly. But driving an RTS without working a/c and only that tiny driver’s window to provide ventilation was a truly miserable experience.
Reliability was a problem in general; trying to use the kneel function was asking for trouble.
Ours also had the exhaust exiting below the bumper, which meant that while unplugging the engine block heater on winter mornings and winding up the cord, I effectively smoked a pack of cigarettes dipped in diesel fuel.
I also recall our RTSs having a limited range, much less than the (300+ miles?) our New Looks could go between refuelings.
Others here have suggested RTSs didn’t rattle as mush as other buses. In a sense, that’s true. The metallic New Looks rattled more, especially from the passenger windows, and after a few years of use, the more modern Gilligs seemed to have no panels still securely fastened anywhere. But the most prominent RTS “rattle” I remember wasn’t so much a rattle as a great, creaking, cracking, flexing groan when in motion. As if one were out in a rough ocean on a small boat made of the same hard plastic panels that encased the unfortunate RTS driver.
YES.
Pretty cool that a PATransit RTS is shown given the brief career RTS had in Pittsburgh. When “PAT” introduced them, they were expected to be the standard “PAT” bus. At the time there were still a handful of “Old Looks” around, making the RTS look futuristic indeed, People did call them “plastic busses” and most hated the fact they had those “strip” type “stop request” signals. Now in 2016, We still have the traditional “yellow rope” type. Ah,Progress!
I miss the simple red and white livery – oddly enough, the NYC MTA uses pretty much the same design now, in blue and white.
And I do remember those @#%! stop strips. Did the NeoPlan (MAN) buses that followed soon after these have those, too? Or had the lesson been learned?
What I don’t remember is why PAT moved on from the RTS so quickly. I don’t recall any real problems with them – was it because NeoPlan offered to set up an assembly plant in PA?
In n y c. The police could not see into them due to the tinted windows. Criminals liked them for this reason .everything has its drawbacks
Hah! In San Diego, street cars have dark tinted windows so you can’t tell they’re almost always completely empty from the outside. The inconvenience and expense they impose on the public is the real crime.
Very nice article-I’ve always been partial to these ever since my days as a bus-riding teenager back in San Jose. From what I remember, the Santa Clara County Transit District (or “the Transit” as we called it,) got a batch of these from AC Transit in Oakland after handicapped/disabled activists raised a ruckus over the busses’ limited wheelchair access.They made such a fuss that AC decided to wash their hands of the matter and, as a result, the Transit got a good deal on some virtually new busses.
At that time, the rest of the Transit bus fleet was a dog’s breakfast of aging New Looks, bought second-hand from all over the country, and German-designed Neoplans, built under license in Hayward by Gillig. The Gilligs were good but most of the New Looks seemed to be ready for the junkyard. So, the sight of a RTS, still in its AC orange and green stripes, meant freshly upholstered seats, air conditioning and a smooth, uninterrupted ride. As they got older, they developed problems (don’t we all?) but back then, they were the right bus at the right time.
My retired bus driver friend lamented the passing of the GM New Look very much, saying it was the best piece of public transit equipment yet devised by man. He didn’t much care for the RTS II, citing a wider turning radius, marginal HVAC (particularly early versions with non-opening windows), and a wheel chair lift at the rear door. The wheel chair lift was a particular annoyance, requiring the driver to stop at a bus stop, allow able-bodied passengers to board, close the door and pull up several feet, secure the bus, get out of the driver;s seat, walk to the back door and operate the wheelchair lift to allow the physically challenged passengers to board. The RTS II was much heavier than a New Look because of the stainless steel modular construction and non-structural composite outer panels.
As for the vehicle being a ‘deadly sin’, I would have to cite extenuating circumstances. My G.M. friends were of the opinion that G.M. was perfectly happy building the profitable New Look. However, with the creation of UMTA and substantially increased Federal funding to public transit agencies, transit bus design became less about building functional, durable, and economical vehicles and more about meeting complicated and sometimes contradictory government regulations. Certainly some of the new requirements were worthwhile, but many were dubious. In addition, transit bus production became very sporadic, coinciding with when the Feds. were funding and agencies were ordering. This resulted in GM’s Pontiac transit bus production line only operating a few months out of the year. Not the way G.M. likes to do business.
One other point: My bus driver friend did comment that as bad as the RTS II was when it first entered service, the bus did improve as time went on. In addition, subsequent new transits were even worse than the RTS II, so in retrospect maybe it wasn’t that bad.
Long live the Fishbowl!
I was going to mention the difficult access for the passengers with wheelchairs as the retrofitment in the rear exit doors turned out to be abysmal. Bob B. described the scenario perfectly.
Lot of buses with front entry wheelchair lift have wide doors and more than adequate room to manouvre inside. RTS II didn’t have either, lengthening the boarding and disembarking time at the bus stops.
This might be one of reasons why many public transit agencies started to ditch RTS II in droves for different buses with better wheelchair access.
“Unfortunately, by 1974, the Transbus effort was succumbing to government “red tape” and a realization that it was perhaps an over-reach; the buses were prohibitively expensive and some of the cutting-edge technologies (such as the turbine engine) were not ready for commercial, day-to-day use.”
UNfortunately????
Been reading a lot about the RTS and as I once an operator on them, I must confess that there was absolutely nothing that I liked about them. The long wheel base, necessitating a long turning radius; rear door door wheelchair lift, the sealed windows which in Los Angeles, could be hell. But another feature that no one so far has mentioned, was the rear door, was located immediately in front of the rear duals. But the nature of passengers is to walk forward, trying to squeeze out of an usually narrow front door… There were signs to use the rear doir and you could attempt to direct patrons to the rear door but to avail. That meant more dwell time in zones. Also, when the bus was full, they had a tendency to dip in the lower right corner, inches from the pavement. And don’t hit a pothole. You jarred your brains because they were hard riding. RTD bought 930 RTS 04’s and as far as I was concerned they could have junked them on the spot. Later models rode better but the configuration didn’t change. In all, RTD had 1,700 RTS buses from both GMC and later, TMC. I went into supervision a few years later but actually drove the very last RTS bus at MTA that had been using as an instruction bus. I didn’t miss them. Some people lament over the Flxible ADB’s but functionally, they were better.
Well at least the turbine would have justified the unnecessary change from the timeless new looks, it would have been an instant spectacular failure rather than a lingering one. The RTS could have remained in memory as another awful 70s period piece, and put an end to any notion of making it work. Instead it was merely a compromised POS but just capable enough of one where it remained in production and service for freaking ever.
It’s the FWD X/A body of busses, and while we can all look at the bright side with those and say Ceiras are roaches of the roads, is that really a good thing? Constantly being reminded of GMs lowest ebb of design and engineering talent for 20+ years after production? It’s things like this that make certain human minds fear change, not because of selfishness or laziness, but because the next change may be indefinite. For that reason the RTS II as is is a contemptible blight directly damaging to the human condition, nothing of substance to gain initially and nothing to learn from beyond the fact that design from nearly two decades earlier was better in every single possible way. Very UNfortunate I say!
Speaking of non opening windows and substandard A/C, the City of Houston bought a bunch of these 01/03 models. You can imagine what the problems were like with 100 degree days, 99% humidity and a non function air conditioner. People were actually breaking out the windows. The city applied considerable pressure to get a fix done FAST. One thing they did was threaten to stop buying GM vehicles. I don’t think they actually did stop but I recall that the problems were solved pretty quickly.
This was during the period before the creation of METRO when the City of Houston operated the bus system. Houtran (as it was known after COH took over the private bus lines in the early ’70s) was already an absolute disaster when they decided to buy the RTS…..
I was a Houston bus rider in those early years of the RTS implementation. It was a total disaster. At one point they put a window in the window. The WIW could be open so the riders could get fresh (steaming) air when the a/c stopped working. On one particular ride the passengers popped open the escape hatches on the top to get some relief. I also remember a/c units leaking water on passengers. This was after a new fix was tried. Needles to say it was a horrible time for bus riders in Houston. And this was at a time when bus time schedules were hardly ever met. Sometimes they showed up sometimes they didn’t.
Nice photo of an early RTS II in SEPTA (Philadelphia) livery. I remember when those first appeared in service in the summer of 1980. Being the first A/C equipped buses in Philly, you were always glad when one pulled up to your stop. By then Philly’s New Looks were noisy, rattling heaps.
Only in retrospect, given the buses of today, can one see how the RTS didn’t really address any of the basic transit bus design flaws of the time, unless you count that horrible rear mounted wheelchair lift. Why did it take so long to figure out how to do obvious things like lower the floor, widen the doors and have a front mounted fold-out ramp so wheelchair users can roll right on board?
Funny the Canadians never fell for this, and continued to build New Looks.
They were smart! The Classic model, which followed the new look, was an extension of something that had worked.
The bus division of GM seemed to parallel EMD. They were “kings of the world” in the locomotive business and then the 50 series locos came out and GE, whose stuff was, well, not great, stepped up and now they rule the loco business. GM ended up selling EMD to some investor group who then sold it to Progress Rail, who is owned by CAT, who has the money to make them competitive with GE. They won’t have a Tier 4 loco for sale in the US until at least the end of 2016, if not 2017. They can obviously come back from this, if GE could take the crown, they can take it back.
The unmentioned thing is that the RTS buses had curved side windows like all cars since the 70’s. And they weren’t rattly like most other buses. And the windows looked continuous like modern a Range Rover or Mini. A much more modern look than any buses since, at least in the US, not counting England. I’ve always thought no bus was really as modern since. In the 90’s pretty much all buses in Honolulu were these, but they had a badge inside near the front that said SAAB Scandia. Anyone know what that was about?
The hard seats thing was not really part of the design. The seats could have been anything if any city wanted something else. Hard plastic seats started showing up in New Looks in NYC in the 1960’s. But it seems to me that those must have had some kind of air suspension because they rode way better than buses today, which are all terrible. The RTS buses may have had something similar.
But buses are slowed way down by people getting on and off. Finally making a logical chassis with a low floor and big interior wheel wells and a raised rear seating area over the drive train, instead of having the whole floor three steps up makes loading and unloading far faster, and the wheelchair lift at the front door, already at about curb level, is by the driver and about 10 times faster. The old back door version had to include an elevator function. If someone was in a wheelchair at the stop you would probably be able to get on the next bus sooner.
All of your comment is spot on, including the Honolulu SAAB Scandias.
SAAB and Scania must had a tie up in the past they share a logo but saab is extinct and Scania is owned by VW now as far as I know.
From 1969 to 1995 Saab and Scania were part of one company, Saab-Scania AB.
Volkswagen is (by far) the biggest shareholder of both Scania and MAN. Neoplan, also mentioned above, is MAN’s bus division. Daimler (Mercedes-Benz) also has its own bus division: Setra (another very renowned name !).
We still have a few of these running in NYC, but most of the fleet has moved on to squarer but more comfortable low-floor buses, the newest ones LNG-powered.
I remember when these and the Flixables came out, there was government money to upgrade older buses, but the operators were required to paint the window area black, for no apparent reason other than it looked cool. So you got New Look buses that looked like this.
After Nova Bus acquired the Transit Bus Divisions from Motor Coach Industries (MCI) and its subsidiary Transportation Manufacturing Corporation (TMC), the following were the product offerings from Nova Bus from 1995-96. This was about a year before the Classics were discontinued in 1997, the RTS division sold to the dormant Millennium Transit Services, LLC. (MTS) in 2003 and the LFS eventually replacing both models and becoming Nova Bus sole product line with numerous options even including the LFSA to the present. These three bus offerings from Nova Bus also happened before the Volvo Bus Group became a parent company to Nova Bus and therefore Prevost becoming its sibling division. Both BTW were and continued to be home based in Quebec, Canada. The LFS from the start (in 1994 as a new product line) continues to be a Nova Bus exclusive and it was not acquired from the MCI/TMC Transit Bus Divisions acquisitions. The LFS may look modern (just as we used to say about the RTS in the 1990s) but actually this model came with various subtle design changes to keep the appearance up to date. It’s no longer considered a modern bus design though. Photos courtesy of various Bus Photographers who have taken these photos.
As a follow up from my comments from exactly six years ago, these Bus Photo Montage Compilations I had created about five years ago were the last high floor transit buses (save the high floor express over the road coaches) that the MTA ever owned and used into service.
I drove these buses, and one flaw that hasn’t been mentioned is the front destination sign door on the inside slants in. Tall people were hitting their heads on it while paying fares. One guy was so mad that he threatened our bus company with a law suit. I told him to sue GM instead . Our bus company was cheap and ordered these without AC. The passenger windows opened and there were roof vents, which helped. But the driver only got a tiny portion of the huge side window that opened. Later they installed fans for the drivers and a side opening vent at foot level which helped somewhat. The wheelchair lift at the rear was inconvenient. I was glad when we got newer buses with lifts at the front door. I did like the futuristic styling. One of our drivers called them the lunar modules.
Interesting tale, and reminds to look out details of the Leyland National and Leland Titan of the 70 and 80s that were expected to be standard buses for the UK….CCs hopefully coming
I don’t get the mania for automotive turboshafts. Their inefficiency at low speeds should not have been news to engineers, & would’ve made the Oil Crises that came shortly after the RTX program even worse.
The Army has evidently been able to tolerate the M1’s excessive thirst, but the conventionally [multifuel] powered Leopard, with the same power rating, has been much more popular in foreign military sales. Most M1 foreign customers are oil-rich Mideast states.
Small world.
The 40ft. PaTransit bus (since reverted to “Port Authority”) has a WDSY Radio ad on its side, which dates the pic to mid-late 80’s.
Today the station is known as Y108, a/k/a my radio employer.
And the Port Authority runs Gillig buses now painted in multiple colors with different graphics up and down the sides, front and rear. Some celebrate local historical heroes, others say “ziggin, zaggin”…almost too cool to put a bus ad on.
I rode plenty of these miserable busses in Washington DC. Almost always no AC and when it worked it was pathetic. I used to sit near the front for any available,hot and humid fresh air. I have driven to work ever since and can’t imagine getting on a bus again. I hope not anyway.
It sounds like GM had as much contempt for bus riders as for people driving small cars.
Here in Cobb County, GA, the RTS is still a common sight. However, they’re all in need of new paint and look a bit tired. I think they’re just waiting for them to die. One of their replacements seems to be the MCI D4500. Maybe a decade from now they’ll have buses with the floor at head level.
While driving for Orange County Transit District, we were one of the first systems to get this bus. The earliest versions had a terrible hesitation when accelerating from rest. I found that there was a two to three second pause between pushing on the gas pedal and the bus finally moving. Our great mechanics eventually solved this problem and I think that GM adopted their solution on latter buses. The other thing I hated about these buses was the rear doors. They opened too slowly and we’re very heavy. If you closed the rear doors before a passenger had totally cleared the heavy doors would shut and injure the passenger.. Many of the local transit districts (Los Angeles, Long Beach, Riverside) modified these doors because of the high rate of injuries suffered by exiting passengers.
Saw plenty of these when I arrived in Raleigh, NC in ’98 to start college. The 70’s-futuristic looks of the bus were complemented by the 70’s-looking paint scheme they were still running. The RTS II’s were phased out sometime around 2004 or so in favor of Orions, which have themselves been replaced by Gillig Low Floors sometime in the past few years (I moved away in ’12). However, they were still running the very same 70’s vintage colors until 2015 when the whole line rebranded from CAT (Capital Area Transit) to GoRaleigh (which sounds more like a tourism web site.)
I agree with that last statement about GoRaleigh. Like I mentioned before, I wished that they would have finished the era by ordering from Millennium Transit.
When I first rode Capital Area Transit in Raleigh, the whole major line fleet was RTS buses. For as long as I’ve known those RTS buses can handle better in the snow than of the Gillig Low Floor buses that are currently running now. Though of my favorite RTS buses with CAT (Now GoRaleigh) is the GMC/TMC RTSs. The NovaBUS RTS was ok. Though the GMC and TMC RTS buses held out longer. (I wish they would have gotten the ones from Millennium Transit to finish the era)
I’d love to see an article on some of the Prevost models (old and/or new). I know in the relative sense, they’re a small company (especially next to GM), but they’ve always struck me as attractive and innovative. I remember their “Le Mirage” models in particular being a common sight when I was growing up in New England.
Great suggestion Chris – I’ll add them to the list. Jim.
I remember when Kalamazoo, MI replaced it’s New Looks with these around 80. At the same time Grand Rapids bought Grumman Flxibles. The screaming coming from GR about their Flxibles drowned out any complaints that might have been voiced about the GM coaches. I guess everything, including bus misery, is relative.
At the same time, I saw AM General buses in service in Detroit.
Grummans were horrible. Some in NYC actually BROKE IN HALF, total structural failure.
Indeed. Oddly, NJ Transit managed to use them for years afterwards, and roads in NJ were far from great back then. They eventually shipped the body tooling to China, and I remember stopping in my tracks when I first saw one on the street in Beijing. Whether they had a new frame or not wasn’t clear.
I wonder how long the jokes lasted. I mean…the bus that broke in half was made by FLXIBLE, after all………..
Our “New Look” buses here in Providence. These seemed to be around forever. The light blueish aqua color was their trademark!
When the RTS buses arrived it was like aliens had arrived from space! They were so modern and futuristic looking. I had ridden on both the old and the new, and for certain the RTS did ride better. I know for a fact there were always issues with the A/C not working on them. I vividly remember one summer the local news interviewing riders that were so frustrated with the lack of A/C that they were boycotting them, but had no choice but to ride them because they were their only means of transportation.
Here is a pic of the RTS we he had with its yellow paintwork. Felt like these were around forever, too!
I think initially it was the novelty of the gas turbine that led designers to try and use them everywhere. One of the other attractions was compactness and power to weight as with the far more practical Wankel engines.
It;s worth noting that the first tank to use a gas turbine was the Swedish Stridsvagn 103 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stridsvagn_103 which took the logical intermediate step of emulating marine practice by using a diesel engine as the primary low speed maneuvering and cruising engine and reserving the gas turbine for high speed operation.
That said the Strv 103 proved an evolutionary dead end and was replaced by a Leopard II variant.
My perception of a GM Deadly Sin is not based on the vehicles utility or reliability rather a marketing mishap, a missed opportunity. These buses were miserable POSs labeling them a DS would be a quantum leap in motoring history.
I’m on the east coast, And i’m looking for rear bumpers for 1982 series 04 model bus. can anyone give me a lead on rear bumpers
1980’s In Los Angeles, ( then R.T.D., now M.T.A. ) these buses was crap. So bad that R.T.D. had a guarantee of no charge if the bus was late. It did not last long because if you was a pass holder it meant nothing, for cash fare riders it seemed that everybody would claim that it was late, which in general they was late. Also the wheelchair lift usually never worked, and was installed in the rear doors, so when a wheelchair did board he or she could not see the next stops because they are in the back. Also the rear doors was a pain to push open, they had electronic sensors on the handle bars that had to both be evenly pushed at the same time, so if you only push one handle or release one handle the doors would not open, and you had to wait 3 seconds after the green light is on to open, and when they did they would get stuck and not close. Also the pull cord was removed, instead riders pushed the rubber “tape” for next stop, which failed really quick because riders would peel off the rubber. The front door was not the usual 2 door swinger, instead was 2 doors that would push out then slide open, but when it would push out it would hit anything or anyone that was 2 feet close to the bus. The entrance was really narrow and the fare box was at a bad angle for the driver to see the fare. ( at this time it was the glass fare box )
Is the sales comparison to the previous New Look justifiable when GM was hit with the Sherman anti-trust law in their face? GM was forced to sell its components to competing bus manufacturers, and share some trade secrets which made them so successful in that market. Of course, when your major customer of a transit bus is a government industry, they can ‘back door’ a lower price, and in turn, build quality by maneuvering a few laws in their favor.
It’s definitely not an apples to apples comparison given just how many more competitors GM was facing during this era – Flxible was the biggest, but the market was absolutely oversaturated with both manufacturers and manufacturing capacity – even more so once White Book regulations were scrapped, allowing US properties to buy New Look-style buses once again.
Not to mention that, following that initial UMTA boom in the late 70s, available funding for fleets in the mid-80s did shrink. Look at the rise of coach rebuilding firms during this time – Blitz, Midwest, and others saw a need to refurbish older coaches (including New Looks) as operators didn’t have as much opportunity to buy new.
The truth is far more nuanced than this blog (rife with other factual errors – ‘GM built into the 2000s,’ give me a break) suggests, but it’s what i’ve come to expect from a CC post that also steals images without attribution. Sad!
Good comment about the New Looks becoming available again in the 1980’s. Canada never did develop an interest in the RTS series as the few demonstrators that were provided to transit operators were universally unloved by the majority of them. As the New Look plant in Quebec was already operating at capacity fulfilling Canadian municipal transit system orders, and the many faults of the RTS series became known, several US transit operators placed orders for them. This allowed the original 1959 design New Look to remain in production in Ste. Eustace and live long past its due-date, with the last one being built in 1986. (It should also be noted production of the Old Look buses were also produced simultaneously with the New Looks until 1966 or so, as some transit operators also preferred a ‘time-tested-and-true’ design before committing to New Looks.)
Well this is an interesting blog about the RTSII Coach. Seems everyone is angry with the coach and it’s design. From the perspective of a mechanic and having help take delivery of the 01 series coaches, indeed there were many things that we needed to address. These were the same series which went to San Antonio, TX. Air conditioning condenser in front of the radiator made for overheating problems, and poor performance of the HVAC system. We found the lack of education on the system the worst cause of HVAC system failures. As part of the major feedback network we made management very much aware of the lack of air flow across the condenser and radiator. The District engineers evaluated it and found we mechanics were correct. The district went back to GM and pretty much demanded a redesign of the system and cost sharing of the retrofits. The square back 03 system was installed at our O&R facility and we got huge improvements in performance. The primary failures of the transmission were heat related and not so much mechanical since the heat exchanger from the transmission to the engine coolant was undersized in addition to the lack of air flow across the radiator. The move to the direct drive fan by removing the fan torus system added nearly a 50% increase to the air flow. All of which reduced transmission failures. No manner of work will EVER solve rattles between panels inside a coach. There isn’t a single coach I know that doesn’t rattle. As for the most common complaint our operators had was the throttle delay built into the governor. Sure we “could” fix it but the smog laws wouldn’t allow us to do so in California.
As for overall safety of the vehicle, well when a cement truck hit one broadside the cement truck was towed back to its yard and the RTSII was driven back to the O&R. Overall, in a transit bus back then it was the best one that could be had for almost any money.
Call me insane if you want but i love these buses there are a few kickin around victoria and their great for our climate
We had a fleet of the RTS -04 buses in south Florida this unit did have some issues with transmission PTO shafts failure and air conditioning issues but we fixed and unit was fairly reliable compared to a NABI modern bus !!
The Honolulu Saab-Scania buses were N112s, powered by an 11 L Scania diesel.
https://www.cptdb.ca/wiki/index.php/Saab-Scania_N112
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab-Scania
Curb side Classic bus stop, Do you have GMC RTS slant back bus for sale ? if it needs fixing its ok.
I’ll never forget those hard plastic seats