(first posted 12/29/2012. Revised and expanded 1/3/2022) GM has built some great vehicles in its day, but nothing can top their buses. They literally owned the bus market from the late thirties through the seventies, having earned that spot with superior technology and quality construction. One of the most brilliant and enduring examples of that is the “New Look” transit bus that came out in 1959. It ushered in a new era of buses with superb visibility and greater passenger comfort. It was built for almost two decades in the US, and a variation of it was built until 1997 in Canada.
For anyone who lived trough their long era, they became the iconic city bus. And there are still plenty around being used as motor homes, or hoping to be, like this one, a former Eugene (LTD) city bus.
GM acquired a controlling stake in Yellow Coach in 1925. With the introduction of their pioneering V-drive rear engine configuration in 1933, Yellow Coach buses became increasingly popular. This Model 718, a best seller, has all the hallmarks of the modern transit bus, except GM’s new two-stroke diesel engine. That would come in a few more years.
In 1940, a new series of Yellow transit buses arrived in 1940, with many innovations, including monocoque construction, a wide range of lengths and widths, wider availability of diesels and the Allison VH automatic transmission. Starting in 1943, the Yellow name was changed to GM Coach. After the New Look buses arrived, this family came to be known as the “old look” GM bus. Our history on them is here.
In 1959, the “new look” generation of GM transit buses arrived, and the changes were highly visible.
The most obvious one being the six-piece (later 4-piece) windshield, which gave these buses their nickname “fishbowl”. Driver visibility was vastly improved, and as a former driver of both of old and new look buses, the benefit was very substantial.
Some of these buses were still on the road in transit duty decades after they first saw the light of day. I saw one on a passenger run in Ashland, Oregon back in 2010. This picture is of one of the buses I drove in Iowa City in the early seventies. This is a 35′ foot version, 96″ wide, popular in smaller cities. The typical large city transit bus was the 40′ version and in 102″ length.
There were also “Suburban” versions, with individual front-facing seats and no back door.
A variation of this bus (the GM Classic) was still being produced in Canada by MCI until 1997. And GM Division Allison’s V-Series automatic was a revolution in itself. Try to imagine shifting a transit bus, double clutching every shift of the four speed un-synchronized transmission with a forty-foot long mechanical linkage. Shifts were extremely slow and arduous. The Allison was the greatest thing that ever happened to transit bus drivers.
The second breakthrough bus was GM’s over-the-road PD 4104 from 1953. It advanced the art of bus-making to a new level, with its advanced aluminum stressed-skin construction. That reduced weight, and made for an extremely rigid and solid monocoque structure. And its second, and perhaps more noticeable breakthrough was air suspension. The increase in riding comfort was dramatic. The PD 4104 set the template for all buses since, and they’re still desirable RV coach conversions.
The 4104 powered by the DD 6-71 and four-speed manual transmission (not so painful for over-the road use) could get up to 12 mpg. And of course, it spawned the legendary 4105Scenicruiser, specifically designed and produced for Greyhound. Unlike most of GM’s other buses, it suffered from some structural problems, and the complicated twin-engine (two 4-71 four cylinders) setup was also problematic, and they were all later rebuilt with a single 8-71V engine. But they were impressive sights in their day, and I remember some memorable trips in them.
GM’s New Look transit buses arrived in 1959, and used the new construction techniques that the 4104 pioneered, as well as the famous “fishbowl” front windshield.
The benefits were manifold, but none more so than for the driver. Visibility was beyond superb; it was like sitting in a green house compared to the “submarine” predecessors. And the steering was substantially lighter because of the lower weight. Note that power steering on these was highly optional; the power came from well developed arm muscles and the leverage of a large wheel and a high (numerical) steering ratio. This example undoubtedly has power steering, given its smaller non-original steering wheel.
Here’s the view of the helm with an original wheel. The shift lever for the Allison VH transmission is clearly visible here; it had only three positions: F N R. The airbrakes did the parking braking. The Allison was a god-send, but a curious affair. It had all of…one speed, technically, but two, in practice. It was really just a torque converter with a massive amount of effective gear range.
On take-off, (full throttle usually) the engine spun up to well into its rev range, and the bus would smoothly lumber away. Depending on vague factors beyond anyone’s apparent knowledge, at some speed between 30 to 35 or so, the torque converter would mechanically lock with a substantial jolt, and now the engine was in direct mechanical drive. With their low (high numerical) rear axle ratio, the transit buses could muster about 50-55 mph or so; the higher-geared Suburban versions could hit maybe 65 on a good day. Keep in mind that the 6-71V made all of 238hp.
My story of driving for Iowa City Transit in 1975-1976 is here. There were 12 of the smaller 35′ long and 96″ wide buses. like this one,
And two of the TDH-5304 big boys: 40′ long and 102″ wide, and with the bigger 318hp 8V-71 engine. The 35 footers were nimble compared to the forties, and one could whip them about pretty quickly in some of the older narrower streets of town. But the slightly newer 40 footers had one other nice feature in addition to the bigger engine: the throttle pedal was air actuated, instead of the mechanical linkage of the older buses. Not only did the mechanical linkage engender knee-ache (to go along with the back ache from the mechanical steering), but one jammed up on me one memorable day. E-pedals were still an engineer’s dream.
The bus in this photo has been converted by an enthusiastic Oregon Ducks football fan for game day parties in the parking lot.
That explains the interior remodel: the Ducks party bus.
The other bus I found is an old left-over from Eugene’s fleet of these 4523s, and is the victim of a botched conversion attempt, not an uncommon thing. How compelling it is to buy an a tired old transit bus with millions of miles under its belt to convert to the ultimate get-away vehicle. Some have the resources; others don’t, as these two variations of the theme illustrate graphically.
I’ve been tempted to go down this road myself, especially with a handsome PD 4104 conversion. But it’s probably a good thing I’ve resisted, since I like to take my little Chinook in places a 35′ bus would never get out again. But whenever I see one, it does tug on my heart.
I got distracted on RV conversions, and forgot to talk about how GM’s bus hegemony fell apart. It fell victim to the same factors (and others) that undid its car (and big truck) market share: sinking reliability caused in part due to government influence and a changing marketplace with nimbler new competitors. Since the feds fund the overwhelming share of all transit capital expense (but not operating costs), they started meddling early on with the bus designs themselves. The biggest one was the Transbus project to develop a new generation of buses in the seventies. GM’s proposal for that ill-fated boondoggle evolved into the GM RTS bus (above).
I’m not exactly an expert on the RTS, but it arrived with complications and issues, unlike the New Look buses. The Canadians (wisely) wanted no part in this new generation of buses, and kept the New Look in production for decades. The RTS had a very checkered career, and eventually GM got out of the transit business, selling the RTS design to MCI, which eventually passed it along again. It was an unloved child that ended up in four foster homes before it was finally surpassed by newer and more desirable designs.
GM’s over-the road coach business went on a bit longer, but eventually there were no new products, and it withered away. But GM’s buses from their golden era will undoubtedly be seen on the roads for decades, as RVs and increasingly, as restored classics, or just party buses.
More GMC buses:
GMC TDH-5101 “Old Look” Transit Bus – GM’s Greatest Hit #9 Despite Being The Agent Of A Deadly Sin
1947 GMC PD-3751 “Silversides” Coach – The First Modern Diesel Bus
GMC PD-4101 The Most Dominant and Influential Bus Ever
GMC PD-4501 Greyhound Scenicruiser – Everyone’s Favorite Bus Except For Greyhound And GMC
What a wealth of information from a dearth of bus lovers. I enjoyed reading all of the history and the members’ comments. I remember those buses that went CLUNK somewhere around 35 MPH when they were run in New York City. Now I know why. Bus travel is a delight. Did anyone every ride on a Greyhound with “Golden Eagle” service? I did a few times in1966. It was a short-lived deluxe service. You had to see the hostess trying to serve drinks and food while the bus rocked and rolled at high speed!
The “Golden Eagle” service was provided by the Railways Bus System. They had the Silver Eagle which was standard intercity bus service, and the Golden Eagle service which was more akin to riding on a train – there was a Hostess aboard the bus, snacks were served, and the seating had tables where people could play cards or other games while on the road. It was very exclusive service.
I’ve been going back and forth between the pics of the 35′ and 40′ orange Iowa City Transit buses, and for the life of me can’t see any difference. Where is the extra five feet of length hiding?
Let me help you with that. I’ve put them together in the image below. keep in mind that the 40′ bus (bottom) is coming at the camera more head-on than the 35′ bus (top), so it doesn’t necessarily look longer, due to the camera angle. But there’s several tip-offs.
If you imagine turning the angle of the 40 footer a bit, like the 35 footer, the difference would be quite obvious. As it is, the side windows on the 40 footer are clearly longer, to my eye, and other distances are too.
One proof is in their front ends.The 40′ bus is 102″ wide, the 35′ is 96″ wide. Notice how the vent in the bright band between the curb side headlights and the center badge is more crowded on the 35 footer. Each side is 3″ longer, but it’s enough to make a clear difference.
Those little tinted upper windows: the 40′ has one more than the 35′.
Here’s the ultimate proof. I drove these exact buses. Numbers 1-12 were the original fleet of 35′ buses bought in 1972. I drove them all. The one shown here is #11.
The 40′ footer is one of two bought in 1974, numbers 13 and 14. This is clearly #13.
And keep in mind that that 5′ only represents 12% of the total length of the 40 footer, so it’s not all that obvious unless looking straight on their sides.
I wasn’t doubting they really were differently sized, just that it’s not obvious to people like me who’ve never driven a bus and for whom these were mostly gone by the time I was grown up. I’d forgotten that the long buses were also a half foot wider; I find the different proportions much more apparent on the front than on the sides, at least with the angles a bit different. Still i’m a bit surprised GM made this much effort to make the short and long versions both look properly proportioned, as opposed to just putting an extra 5 foot extension in the sides (or two 2-1/2 foot extensions if they wanted to keep the rear door centered). This is GM we’re talking about; at the time the first new look buses were being built, this same company had no qualms about stretching their upmarket full-sized sedans by inserting an awkward and obvious plug between the rear doors and rear wheels. I’d have thought bus operators would’ve actually preferred that approach, allowing them to keep a single size of side glass stocked to replace broken windows and such.
Was the extra 6″ of width used to squeeze in an extra seat in each row in a 3/2 arrangement, or was it 2 on each side but with wider seats, or same width seats with a wider center aisle, or a combination of these? I’m trying to recall how the New Look buses I rode on as a teenager were configured; think they had some areas with side-facing seats but mostly forward facing benches for two people on each side like a school bus. Some of the newer buses had individual seats rather than a bench. Looking online it seems different bus operators used different arrangements, as on aircraft.
Yes, the 35 and 40′ buses are proportionally largely similar, by using smaller windows. The 30′ isn’t, as it just uses three of the 35′ windows, and it look a bit odd as a result.
The 6″ extra width allowed more standing room. Keep in mind that back then, packed buses were common. Even in Iowa City, on winter mornings headed to the university hospital, my bus was packed absolutely to the gills, with the last riders standing on the entry steps. So the extra 6″ allowed for easier aisle movement and more room.
The seating was the same, with center-facing seats over the large wheel humps and the rest being regular benches, 2/2.
I only recently found out that the 35′ version was available in 102″ width, but only a small number were sold.
The 40′ came in either 96 or 102″ width, for transit use. The suburban version only came in 96″, as the 102″ buses were technically not legal on highways and such, outside of city limits. I’m not sure exactly how that was permitted, as this was long before trucks were allowed to have 102″ width.
I’m pretty sure it was NYC that first allowed 102″ buses way back, and then that spread to other big cities. I’d have to research that.
I was born in Toronto and lived and worked there for most of my life, so I am very familiar with these buses, and also the streetcars, trolleys and the subway. Another reason is that my father worked for the TTC and its predecessors for his whole career. He started with summer jobs while he was at university and when he graduated in 1936 he took a permanent job and stayed until his death in 1967.
I remember his taking me to the garage (for those familiar with Toronto, Hillcrest garage on Bathurst at Davenport) and giving me a tour when I was about 10. He was showing me the engine of one of the buses and remarking that the bus cost about the same as a Rolls Royce. At the time the TTC had an intercity division (Gray Coach) so they also purchased intercity buses and he said that they were about double the cost of a city bus.
The other thing that impressed the 10 year old me was the way they vacuumed them out. The cleaner got on the bus and left the front door open and we got to get on with him. Something like a jet-bridge at an airport came out on bellows and sealed around the door. It was part of a giant vacuum. The cleaner, who had a small broom, went to the back and opened the very back windows and they turned on the vacuum. There was a quite a roar as the air came in the back windows and went out the front door into the vacuum along with most of the litter. Some bits under the seats did not immediately respond, so the clear just brushed them out into the aisle and away they went.
When I worked for the Dallas bus system, we had the same type of vacuum system that you described in your posting. The main difference was that instead of a small broom, the cleaner used a long wand that blew compressed air out. He/She could just walk down the isle of the bus and blow all the trash out from under the seats and the suction from the vacuum would suck it out the front door. An interesting part of this system is that the trash was sucked into a large machine that ground it up to a fine pulp, was mixed with water, and then washed down the were system. Very ingenious system! It was used until the agency bought the new RTS coaches, and this system could not be used due to the difference in the front doors of the two coaches. Eventually, the system was modified for the RTS coaches and was used for many years after that. At least until the EPA decided that they couldn’t wash that stuff down the city sewer system.
Interesting. We didn’t have that in Iowa City, with just 14 buses.
So, I’m enjoying the commentary here and it made me think of something….
I have a ’70 New Look 40’er and my transmission is faulty. I have to turn the engine off to align the gears into reverse, turn the engine back on, and then I can reverse.
There is apparently one old timer transmission guy in town that may have some experience with this kind of Allison, but it’s not going to be cheap ($1000 just to show up, yes…thousand).
Is there any other option that you guys can think of that may mitigate that expense? Any input is appreciated.
Regards
Head to this forum. Register and leave a post with your question. I hear a fellow by the name of John is the most knowledgeable one there. Good luck.
busconversionmagazine.com/forum
Thanks!
Looks like a 1959 35 footer just popped up on Craigslist out of Gilroy. At $4950 I would guess that is a decent price with driveshaft needing replacement???
The engine
After looking over the sellers ad on Craigslist, this bus looks like a newer model than a 1959. I would say that this is more likely a 1968-69 model. The clearance lights and front turn signal lenses give it away. Also, the valve covers on the engine have the newer Detroit Diesel logo on them that the 1959 6V71 would not have. Also, if the tow truck driver towed that bus without pulling the rear axles, then the transmission is probably screwed up – not just the drive shaft. Anyone who is thinking about buying this bus should also ask to see the service records and find out the last time the engine was overhauled, and if so, how many miles the rebuild has on it. Just some of my observations.
I’m hoping thid thread isn’t dead… I have a GM TDH5301 New Look bus that I’m selling for a friend but i have no idea where to start… The bus is retired #343 from Edmonton Alberta, currently in British Columbia.
Did you sell it?
Hi there Mr. smokin’ Bus Driver. Lol! My how times have changed. I’m old enough to remember when Greyhound transitioned from the back half of the bus was the smoking section. Then it was down to the last three rows. Then no smoking at all. That sure didn’t stop some riders from lighting up a heater in the bathroom. If they knew what they were doing they opened the vent window. If they didn’t open the vent all the smoke came pouring out when they opened the door and the driver would get on the intercom in a stern voice reminding them about the rules.