Some of you may have seen a recent article of a startup intercity bus company that plans to offer “capsule hotel” type overnight bus service between LA and San Francisco – it’s called “Cabin.” According to the article, “The company wants to change people’s travel experience by giving them the chance to reclaim their time by merging transportation and accommodation into one experience. ” A statement that could have been just as easily been made in the late 1920’s/early 1930’s. We’ll review Cabin in a moment, but let’s first take a look at the original overnight sleeping bus – the Pickwick Nite Coach.

The Pickwick Nite Coach was produced by Pickwick Corporation, a major transport operator in Southern California in the teens and twenties. The company used the Pickwick Theater, and later the Pickwick Hotel, both in San Diego, as their informal terminal and departure point, hence the name. It ran routes to and from LA south to San Diego and north to San Francisco. It was successful and expanded rapidly – and by the mid ‘20’s had extended north to Portland and east to El Paso, St Louis, and Chicago. In 1923, it established an in-house manufacturing division to build its own coaches; the Pickwick Motor Coach Works, Ltd., and selected Dwight E. Austin as its Manager.  Austin, as many know, would go on to become a major influential figure in the transportation industry.

Austin had previously designed the innovative “Intercity Parlor Buffet Coach” for Pickwick in 1925, built off a Packard truck chassis. It had a small galley area where food could be prepared and served by an on-board steward. Note the added elevated “Pilot House” above the normal driver’s area – keeping with the nautical theme and giving the operator an expanded view of the road.

In 1928, Austin designed, and Pickwick produced, the first Nite Coach. This bus was 34 and a half feet long, 96 inches wide, and 10 feet tall – larger than any existing bus at the time. It came with a lavatory, a galley, and a steward.  The engine, mounted in front in an Austin-designed “roll-in, roll-off” cradle, was a Sterling Petrel, a 779 cu in, 110 hp inline gas “flathead” six cylinder. Sterlings were mostly used in marine applications but I’ll hazard a guess and say it was likely the most powerful gas engine available at the time.

Rather than normal seating, the Nite Coach had 13 individual compartments that could hold 2 persons each.  The compartments had seats that faced each other and were hinged. One would swing upward, the other downward, making an upper and lower sleeping berth.

In 1930, Pickwick introduced its Duplex Day Coach, a modification of the Nite Coach. It could carry 53 passengers, with power supplied by updated versions of the Sterling Petrel or Hall Scott gasoline engines; both in the 150 hp range.  I like those snazzy Woodlite headlamps.

Austin used a clean sheet to design the final Nite Coach model, brought out in 1933. This was the first coach to use his innovative angle drive with a transverse engine mounted in the rear, and the drive shaft offset at an angle to the engine and rear axle. Austin would patent this method, and take it with him when he left Pickwick for Yellow Coach, and subsequently GM – where it would be used in almost every GM bus for the next forty years.

The new design again allowed for 13 sleeper compartments, but added an additional restroom (2) and a larger galley. Eighteen were made before production ceased in 1935.

Most were ultimately scrapped but it looks like one was modified and given an extended life in Mexico…

Cabin’s coach is a tad more modern and bigger – it’s a Van Hool 925TD – 45 feet in length, 102 inches wide, and 12 feet in height – this is definitely a big bus.  Configured for passengers it can seat 81. Power in North America is a 6 cylinder Cummins ISX12 diesel, 11.9 Litres, 450 hp and 1650 ft lbs of torque. European models have DAF or MAN engines.

Each Cabin model has 24 “pods” that are similar to those found in capsule hotels in Japan – with TV, Wifi, and several USB outlets.  A bus attendant can serve drinks and snacks and a small Lounge area is at the front of the bus if you can’t sleep and desire company. One way overnight service from LA to SF is currently $115.

The company says ridership is at forecasted levels and they are considering a NY to Boston route. I hope they consider changing the exterior livery though – it’s a little too dark for me.

More info:

http://www.coachbuilt.com/bui/p/pickwick/pickwick.htm

https://www.ridecabin.com/

Car sales here in Japan follow the typical Japanese retail model – customer service is key. Example – if it’s too bothersome to head down to the ‘ole dealership, a sales person will gladly drop by your home with the model of your choice and let you take a test drive. Similarly, one of the sales persons from our nearby neighborhood Toyota dealer will stop by occasionally and ring our door bell to introduce a new model and see if we are interested.

This past weekend we were out so he placed some sales literature in our mailbox – one of the brochures was for a new model – the “Tank”. Well, that intrigued me – was this a new colossal Land Cruiser? Maybe a Sequoia on steroids? What massive, bloated, behemoth was Toyota going to offer now…

After 30 years on and off here in Japan, you’d think I’d know better than to assume a vehicle’s name somehow corresponds to its function. Japan is famous for using idiosyncratic, off-beat, and quirky English names for its domestic models.

The Tank is anything but tank-like – it’s a modestly larger and up-engined version of the Daihatsu “Tanto”; a kei-jidosha or minicar. Kei car dimensions are limited to 3.4 meters in length, 1.46 meters in width and 2 meters in height – with engines having a max size of 660 cc. The Tank is 3.7 meters (146″) long, 1.67 meters66′) wide, and 1.73 meters (68″) high, with a bored out 1000 cc version of the kei-class engine.with a 996cc 1KR-FE engine, which has three cylinders and makes 71hp.  As is clear from the image above, seating and interior room in these little boxes is very generous, comparable to a big American double cab pickup, except in width. There’s simply nothing that can beat these for space efficiency.

So is the Tank essentially an update on the original Scion xB/Toyota bB? The dimensions are quite similar, as the xB/bB some 9″longer, the same width, and 3″ less tall. That’s really quite close. Paul might like this as a replacement for his xB, should he ever need it. (Update: this, and the virtual identical Toyota Roomy and Daihatsu Thor, is the successor to the bB).

It’s certainly not a vehicle with a footprint any native English-speaking person would associate with the term “Tank”.

Perhaps Toyota’s naming committee missed this pic before signing-off on the final model name…

Its sister Daihatsu model is named “Thor” – another one that leaves me scratching my head…

Stepped bi-level or “deck and a half” buses were once very popular – Paul previously wrote a great overview of perhaps the most famous example, the GM PD 4501 Scenicruiser.  But as we’ll see below, in North America, the Scenicrusier was hardly the first to use this design.  In Europe, bi-level touring buses didn’t seem to catch on, but there were a few exceptions – like the model above, the Krupp SWO 480 – produced by one of Europe’s most storied industrial conglomerates – Friedrich Krupp AG.

Deck and a half buses go back to the twenties; you may remember the Pickwick Parlor coach from a recent post.

In the mid-1930’s, Kenworth built an innovative, semi-monocoque, streamlined bi-level that was used on West Coast routes.  It had a midships mounted underfloor Hall Scott gas 6 cylinder engine.

As Gene Herman commented in our ACF Brill post, that company made one prototype of a deck and a half based on its IC-41 coach in 1949.

Beck 9600

Beck 1040

And Beck made several models; one essentially a panel-for-panel copy of the Scenicruiser in the 1950’s.

The SWO 480 is actually not a deck and a half – as you can see from the picture above, the bus has both an upper and a lower seating area in the rear – a deck and a double?

Krupp updated the front in 1953…eliminating the distinctive coffin nose.

And later slightly modified the design for use in an urban transit role.

Friedrich Krupp AG is a company with a fascinating history – there are several links below for those interested.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThyssenKrupp

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krupp

Pittsburgh has a rich mass transit history; inclines, trolleys, buses, light rail, etc. It was also home town to one of twentieth century’s largest electronics and appliance makers – the Westinghouse Electric Corporation. These two interests merged in the mid-1960’s to introduce an innovative new form of mass transit – the Pittsburgh “Skybus”. But good fortune wouldn’t smile on the Skybus, and after an eternity of studies, panels, and commissions, it died a quiet death…let’s take a quick look at this large-scale, driverless “people-mover”…

By the early 1960’s, Pittsburgh was well into its “Renaissance Plan”, with goals to improve housing, cultural facilities, economic diversification and mass transportation. For the latter, the city hoped to accomplish three objectives; build an innovative rapid transportation system for Allegheny County, use it as a showcase for testing and marketing rapid transit hardware developed by Pittsburgh-based corporations, and promote the city as a leader in the rapid transportation industry.

Evaluating several proposals, city transportation officials favored one submitted by Pittsburgh-based Westinghouse – the company had developed an automated, driverless, rubber-tired coach that traveled on an elevated guideway – a mixture of monorail and bus – the forerunner of the wheeled carriages that we ride between concourses at almost all major airports today.

An initial demonstration section was planned, but transportation officials were ultimately looking at building a 92 mile system fanning out in four directions from city center, and linking to the Pittsburgh International Airport.

Moving forward, in 1963, Port Authority Allegheny County (PAAC – the consolidated transport authority in the Pittsburgh area and surrounding counties) secured matching funds from the federal government for the initial demonstration of the Westinghouse Transit Expressway System (locally dubbed Skybus, though that name already belonged to a regional airline). In August 1965, a 1.77 mile loop in the South Park section of the city near the Allegheny County Fairgrounds was opened to the public.

The Skybus vehicles could operate as single coaches or linked together as multi-coach trains. Top speed on the elevated concrete guideways was 50 mph. Each coach was 30 feet long and could seat 26 passengers, with an additional 28 standing. Power was from two 60 hp (45 kw) electric motors – with AC current being supplied by a center rail. During the ten month demonstration period, the system traveled over 21K miles, with few safety, maintenance or reliability issues.

But cracks starting developing in the coalition supporting Skybus – several new, incoming political leaders were not fans, and started a review of alternatives; more commissions, more studies, more panels. This opening gave a competing consortium, aligned with the steel industry, the opportunity to present their proposal, a light rail option that ran on steel wheels and steel rails.

Another nail in the coffin was a result of the social turmoil and racial friction in the late ‘60s.  Similar to other large metropolitan areas, Pittsburgh had its violent riots in 1968 after the assassination of Dr Martin Luther King. The proposed route for Skybus had it going from the mostly white suburbs to downtown. Political leaders were open to alternatives that would broaden  transportation opportunities for the city’s black neighborhoods.

It soon became clear that these newly elected officials were not going to support Skybus, and in 1976, after a planning period of over 10 years, a transportation consultant’s report recommended cancellation, and using the less expensive option of exclusive bus lanes, upgrading of the trolley lines to light rail, and construction of a downtown subway. Those options were adopted and are currently in use today.

Miami Metro-Mover – older Westinghouse C-100 model

But it wasn’t all for naught – using Skybus technology Westinghouse went on to participate in building the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system in California, the Miami Metro-Mover, and automated people movers at several major U.S. airports, including Tampa, Dallas-Ft. Worth, and Orlando.

So what became of Skybus? The public could continue to take rides on the demonstrator loop until the early ‘70s, when it was closed. In 1980, the entire overhead guideway system was torn down and scrapped. Fortunately, one Skybus coach has been preserved and is open to the public at the Bombardier facility in Pittsburgh – which had purchased the transit division of Westinghouse in 2001.

I hate to say it since its almost a cliché, but its clear from their looks that these vehicles were built by a company most famous for its household electrical appliances…

As I’m sure readers and contributors to CC know, there’s a whole lot of photoshopping going on out there in cyberland – it’s easy to fall prey to some fantastic looking photo only to find out after a little research that it was bogus. I’m pretty certain this one is legitimate – this is an Autotram Extra Grand and at 30.73 meters (100.8 ft) long, is currently the world’s longest bus.

The Autotram was developed by the Fraunhofer Institute for Transportation and Infrastructure Systems, a German research organization. Actual production is by a consortium of German manufacturers including TU Wittur Electric Drive GmbH, who developed the drive engines, and Dresden-based M&P Motion, Control and Power Electronics GmbH, who contributed the vehicle’s computers and super capacitors. Overall assembly is by bus manufacturer Göppel Bus GmbH.

And it likely needs lots of computers – the Autotram is a hybrid vehicle; but with two diesel engines, a 6.0 L IVECO N60 (inline 6 cylinder) and a 4.0 L Mercedes OM629 (V8). The IVECO is the primary power plant that feeds the generator that runs two electric traction motors, and also sends some juice to be stored in super capacitors. The Mercedes sends its power to be stored in the system’s lithium-ion batteries. The bus can run in pure electric mode for 8km, before the engines cut in.  You sure need some smart electronics to figure all that out…

The coach has five axles; axles 1, 3, 4 and 5 are steerable, giving this very long coach a much tighter turning radius than typical articulated buses.

Total capacity, seated and standing, is 256 passengers.

The bus was introduced in 2012, but it appears there have been few buyers. Two buses were bought for Shanghai and Beijing, and one was used as a demonstrator in Dresden. I couldn’t find any other users – perhaps because of the price – the demonstrator cost $10 million, and production models are supposedly around $1.5 million.

While not quite as large, most bus manufacturers today offer a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) bi-articulated model, at much lower cost. The Van Hool AGG330 above is 26 meters (81 ft) long and can hold 150 passengers – with a per-unit cost of around $250K.  Volvo also has a model it markets in Brazil that is 98 ft and with reduced seats (more standing) can hold over 300 passengers – but if you want the longest, the AEG is your bus…

Last week we reviewed the Autotram Extra Grand, the longest bus currently in operation. That begs the question; what’s the shortest bus out there? Well, let’s refine our criteria a little first – we’ll rule out one-off prototypes and home-made hacksaw IH Loadstars (amazing how many are out there…) and focus on production models. That leads us to the bus above – the Technobus Gulliver U520, built by Technobus SPA, of Frosinone Italy.

The Gulliver is a transit bus made specifically for small urban streets, like those found in many European cities. The bus is only 5.3 meters (17.3 ft) long and 2 meters (6.8 ft) wide.

Capacity is 10 passengers seated with an additional 10 standing, for a total of 20.

Powertrain is electric – currently there are three versions; the basic model above was introduced in 1996 and is powered by a lead-acid battery pack which limits range to between 40-60 km. This limited range restricts the bus to very short routes – but the battery pack is on a removable pallet that can be changed out quickly.

Customers desired longer range and air conditioning, which the Base model’s lead acid batteries couldn’t support. In mid-2000’s, Gulliver introduced an updated model with a new lithium-ion battery pack that allowed for A/C and an extended range to around 120 km.

Recently introduced is the latest model which incorporates fuel cell technology that allows a range of over 250 km.

Many European cities have purchased the Gulliver – Rome is currently the largest operator with over 50 of the coaches.

While most sales have been in Europe, Quebec City purchased eight in 2008 for use in its “Old Quebec” district as a free shuttle.

At 17.3 feet, its two feet shorter than my 1978 Lincoln Town Coupe (19.3 ft)…

I have been a fan of Toyota for many years – must have had over ten since my first 1974 MS60 Toyota Crown “Kujira” in 1981.  Of the three cars we currently own, two are Toyotas.  Styling wasn’t the first criteria for purchasing – engineering, durability, and reliability were typically what drove our decision. Still, several I thought were pretty attractive. I really can’t say that about any of the current models the company is producing – and its most recent examples seem to be getting worse. Evidently the current head of Toyota styling is a fan of runny mascara – that’s about the only way I can describe these recent front and rear styling trends.

Not something I find especially good looking…

A representative example of the company’s world-wide and JDM models follows…

Lexus LC 500

4Runner

Camry

Estima

Sienta

Along with the Lexus spindle grill, this black body molding trim doesn’t do much for me – and would probably be a deal-breaker if I was in the market.

What’s your opinion?

I would imagine most readers would assume this “double decker” bus must be from the UK….or perhaps one of the “colonies” – Hong Kong? Actually, this is a 1936 Model 720 Series bus built by the Yellow Coach Corporation of Chicago Illinois. At the time this bus was built, Yellow Coach was majority owned by General Motors (GM would purchase the company outright in 1943). Given its exquisitely patinaed livery, this looks to be one of the famous double decker coaches operated by the Fifth Avenue Coach Corporation of New York City from 1934 to 1953.

Fifth Avenue Coach has a storied history in the Big Apple. It provided transit service starting in 1896 until 1954, using both regular coaches and specialized double decker models. It was considered a “premium” service – where five cents bought a ticket on other bus company lines, it cost a “dime” to ride on the Fifth Avenue.

While the company had its own coachworks that assembled double deckers, in the 1920’s they began transitioning to buses from the Yellow Coach Corporation – like this 1930 model.

The last double deckers in service with the company were these Yellow Coach Corp. 720/735 models; 96 inches wide, 35 feet long, and almost 13 feet tall. Passenger capacity (seated) was 72. These were some of Yellow’s first transverse rear-engined models using Dwight Austin’s innovative angle drive. Austin had joined Yellow in 1934 after leaving Pickwick – and brought the patents for his angle drive with him. The engine was a big 707 cu in GM OHV gas inline six cylinder.  This engine family was first introduced in 1933 and came in four sizes (cubic inches): 468, 525, 616 and the big 707, and was used in various GM truck, bus and industrial applications. The 707 made 174 hp @2100rpm, and a mighty 505 lb.ft. of torque at 1000rpm.

Similar to San Francisco’s cable cars, these double deckers were an iconic symbol of the city. But by the early Fifties, they were getting tired, and the last models were taken out of service in 1953.

In 1954, Fifth Ave Coach was sold to the New York City Ominbus Corp. The new company elected to replace the double deckers with diesel-engined GM Old Looks, certainly more cost effective to operate, but not quite as distinctive.

Interestingly, in the mid-1970’s, NY City Transit Authority (CTA) purchased eight Leyland A-N-68A-2L Atlantean double decker buses as a pilot program to see if it could bring back some of the old magic. It didn’t – the Leyland’s proved less than reliable and were retired several years later.

Fortunately NY MTA retained a 735 for its historical fleet and No. 2124, fully restored, is brought out on special occasions offering passengers a nostalgic ride down Fifth Avenue.

A few weeks ago we looked at several current Toyota and Lexus models that had at best some questionable styling elements. As evidence that those models weren’t outliers, allow me to introduce you to the current Toyota Alphard…

The Alphard is one of Toyota’s larger non-commercial JDM minivans, and is marketed here in Japan typically as a luxury model. The interior is actually quite nice, and an up-market model is making in-roads in the “Executive” sedan segment previously ruled by Toyota’s Century – a little easier to enter and exit, and more room inside for those older, less limber CEO’s and VP’s.

But as with the black moldings we discussed in the previous post, the Alphard’s styling tends towards the bizarre. One wonders what the Head of Toyota Styling was thinking when he grafted on this large “belt buckle” grille. Maybe he’s a WWF fan…

The Alphard has a sister model called the Vellfire that looks a little better, though still a little too much chrome for my taste.

To each his own but as nice as the inside is, I just couldn’t park an Alphard in my driveway – not with that schnoz…

What do you think?

OK CC readers – here’s one for you – name the make and model of this vehicle. I’ll give you one hint – its not a Nash…

Several very good guesses but unfortunately no winners from yesterday’s CC Clue – but let’s take a look at this unique vehicle anyway.  What we have here is a Bedford OB CAC 31/33 passenger bus – the CAC stands for Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation, an Australian aviation company originally from Melbourne.

CAC CA 13 “Boomerang” Fighter

Incorporated in 1935, CAC was a privately owned company that expanded greatly during WW II and manufactured both indigenous and foreign aircraft designs in support of the war effort.

After the war, with aircraft production winding down, the Australian government wanted to retain the aluminum and metalworking skills it had developed within the workforce at CAC, so the company entered into a partnership with Bedford to supply aluminum bodies for the Bedford OB bus chassis.

The Bedford OB (O = series number, B = Bus) was built from 1939 to 1951, and with over 12,000 produced, was one of the more prolific buses of the inter and post-war period. It could be seen throughout the UK and most of the colonies.

A little over 16 feet in length, it could typically carry 25-29 passengers – power in early models was a small Bedford petrol 4 cylinder that produced only 28 horsepower. Later models had a version of the Chevrolet “Stovebolt” OHV inline six cylinder that had in been in use by Bedford since the mid-1930’s. The chassis was semi-forward control,  with the rear of the engine extending into the cabin – resulting in the somewhat “shrunken” nose and bonnet.

CAC had the chassis modified to a full forward control configuration, allowing more passenger space, and endowed it with a streamlined aluminum body with fully enclosed sides, similar to Nash models in the US. George Mason would have been a fan.

They were used for a variety of services; regular passenger to school bus.

Obviously, similar to the Nash, this body style tends to be fairly polarizing – as for the CAC, I give it a “thumbs up”…

I’m old….AARP eligible old. So maybe that’s why I’ve been casting an approving eye at some of the new station wagon models that have recently hit the scene. I mean, I was a teenager in the 1960’s – station wagons were what Steve Douglas (Fred MacMurray) drove during all twelve seasons of My Three Sons. You can’t get much more “un-hip” than that…right Uncle Charlie?

Of course, it could also be that automotive stylists have penned some absolutely beautiful wagons lately – I mean really top-notch designs. Allow me to highlight five of these wagons, in no particular order, that I think meet or exceed the attractiveness of their respective sedan stablemates.

Volvo V90. There was a time I thought that Peter Horbury was the only one out there that could style a good-looking Volvo (other than the P1800). But Volvo and Geely struck gold when they signed up Thomas Ingenlath as Volvo VP of Design – he showed his talents with the series of Volvo concepts several years ago – and the new XC90, XC60, and S90 are gorgeous. But the V90 is the best of the bunch – beautifully proportioned – a Scandinavian stunner.

VW Golf Wagon. All the Golf Gen 7 models are winners; but the best looking of them all is the wagon. Again, it has a symmetry and balance that just looks right. The analogy I’ve heard frequently with regards to Golf styling is that “it looks like an expensive, finely tailored suit”. I agree. Even the jacked up North American All Track model looks good.

Buick Regal Wagon. Europe sends North America another model which we then “ugly up”. But even with the added wheelwell plastic cladding, this Buick (Opel) wagon still looks striking. Low, lean, and again beautifully proportioned – I hope it sells in big numbers. If so, maybe Buick will give us the “clean” version (lower photo)

Mazda 6 (Atenza) Wagon. As CC readers know, I’m a big fan of the current gen Mazda 6 – because of our distaste for wagons, Mazda doesn’t sell this model in North America – our loss. The wagon is just as beautifully proportioned as the sedan – a sensuous, flowing design.

Peugeot 508 Wagon. As famous for their wagons as Volvo, the 508 carries on that fine Peugeot tradition – and looks great doing it.

So, what do you think, are we in a Golden Age for station wagon styling?

You don’t see many of these anymore. Hard to imagine in today’s online, interconnected world that there was a time when libraries were the main source of non-electronic information and entertainment for most Americans. But even then, there were regions, mostly smaller towns and rural areas, that lacked the resources or population base to sustain their own public library. For those areas, residents were typically served by a “Bookmobile”; a large commercial vehicle with a special body. In the US, the company that provided 90% of these vehicles from the post-war period through 1986 was the Gerstenslager Co. of Wooster Ohio – the picture above is one of their medium-sized, forward-control models from the 1960’s.

Gerstenslager was one of the many custom body builders that flourished in the 1920’s and 30’s – providing custom body work that went over an existing chassis supplied by one of the major truck manufacturers. During this period, its primary customers were the US Govt, which purchased over 5,000 Ford Model A-based small postal delivery vehicles, and moving/storage companies for the company’s large vans.

Post-war, the company was looking to expand, and searched for a niche to exploit – they found one in building mobile libraries; “Bookmobiles.” Communities could choose from several different sizes; on the right above is a smaller version, built on the ubiquitous Ford Vanette chassis, and on the left is a larger model, with chassis by International Harvester.

The Ford could be powered by one of several inline sixes, depending upon model year – a 226 Flathead, a 223 OHV, and finally Ford’s 240 and 300 cu in fleet/truck engines. The IH had the company’s “Red Diamond” inline gas six in 5.2 to 8.2 litre sizes.

High quality craftsmanship made for many repeat customers…

Larger models could also be ordered using a transit or school bus chassis – this one appears to be from White.

Sales increased in the 60’s as larger cities sought to bring books to poorer, disadvantaged neighborhoods that lacked a library annex.

1959 Ward LaFrance with Gerstenslager body

Gerstenslager supplemented the bookmobile business with a line of fire apparatus (both full trucks and special bodies), rescue vehicles, and mobile hospital suites.

They also built the 1952 “Gen 2” version of a this somewhat famous vehicle.

The last Gerstenslager Bookmobile was built in 1986 and unfortunately a downturn in all its products forced the company to discontinue its custom body line in the 90’s, but it is still in business today, providing custom steel stampings to all the major auto and truck manufacturers.

So, when was the last time you saw one of these?

For me, the turn of the year always brings forth a sense of nostalgia – another year past and a longing to look back at the “good old days” of my youth in the early and middle 1960’s. More so now as I’m into my seventh decade – and wonder how much longer I’ll be able to keep these memories…

Paul’s recent article on the step-down Hudson Hornet made these reminiscences much more vivid, as it brought back those long forgotten of a Hudson owned by a family in our neighborhood. That then led to recollections of other “classics” that roamed the streets of our lower middle class section of Columbus Ohio, and their unique and colorful owners. Thanks for the memory jogger Paul – if you’ll allow me, I’d like to reach back and offer some thoughts on these owners and classics, with a now over fifty years of perspective. Note names have been changed and pictures are representative examples from the Internet.

Let’s first look at the Hudson – it was owned by a large Italian family named Murcer. The father was a part time house painter, and as with most others in the neighborhood, didn’t have much money. He drove a early 50’s faded blue step-down Hudson – probably a Hornet because I can remember the large “Twin H” badge on the back. It was  both a work and family car – I would always see his ladder, tarp, and other supplies stored in the trunk and back seat. At this point, the Hudson was at least 10 years old – which in the 60’s was ancient. As an eight year old already fascinated by cars, I thought this Hudson was one of the ugliest cars on the road – compared to the new crisply-styled Stingrays, Rivieras, T-Birds, and Starfires that passed by our neighborhood enroute to the more upscale environs of Columbus, the Hudson could only be described as hoary, bloated, and roach-like. I’d wince when it went by, it was so ugly.

Across from the Murcer’s were the Andrienko’s; a Ukrainian family with the parents first generation immigrants from the old country. Neither the mother or father spoke much English, but the children, several my age, were all born in the US and were typical US kids. Perhaps because of his lack of language skills, the father performed mostly odd jobs; small mechanical and electrical repairs, etc. The family car was a early 50’s “bullet-nosed” Studebaker Starlight coupe. Here was another car that I thought was beyond bizarre – a wrap-around cathedral like rear window and what looked like a propeller hub in the nose,  Its trunk was longer than its hood – maybe the first cab-forward.  Truly weird.  You couldn’t call it ugly – it was too strange to call ugly – I’d just stare at it; puzzled…

Across from our flat was Mr Dillard, a middle-aged, single gentlemen who lived with his elderly mother. He had some type of office job as he always wore a suit to work. He was formal and very uptight – one who had no time for young kids running around causing noise and mayhem. He was a routine visitor to our home complaining to my parents about something I had done to upset him or his mother. He had the only new car in the neighborhood – a bone-stock early 60’s Ford Falcon, white, completely lacking in chrome, with dog-dish hubcaps. It fit his personality…

Down at the end of the street near the railroad tracks lived Mark – Mark was a professor at nearby Ohio State University – and was one of the nicest guys in the neighborhood. A bachelor, he lived in an apartment, and his door was always open to us young kids. Today I imagine folks would raise an eyebrow at this, but Mark was just this truly nice gentleman who would share with us his time, food, books, and music. He also would impart things that maybe our parents had forgot to do – always say please and thank you, never interrupt a speaker, etc.  Surprisingly he didn’t drive a Volvo but a haggard 1956 Desoto – which appropriately was covered with “stop the war” and “save the environment” bumper stickers.

At the opposite end of the apartment complex from Mark lived Tony – Tony was probably in his early 30’s, a bachelor, and a “player”.  I never knew his job, but my guess would have been “salesman.”  He was always friendly to us but was more interested in the string of young ladies that he escorted into his apartment. Between these liaisons, he would occasionally invite us in – he had a ham radio kit and would explain how the radio worked and show us how it operated – fascinating stuff to young kids.  He drove an early 60’s Buick Lesabre convertible – a few years old but in very good shape.

Looking back, I’ve learned some things over the intervening fifty some years;

The Hudson may have been ugly then, but its a gem now. Big flathead six, quality step-down unit construction; sure would love to have one in the garage.

The Starlight coupe still puzzles me – I can appreciate its then (and now) daring styling – but even today when I see one I still just stare at it, puzzled…

I wish I had been nicer and more empathetic to Mr Dillard – who was probably an awkward, lonely soul whose common complaints were likely just his attempt to communicate with us.  And I’d be glad to be an owner of an original bone-stock Falcon.

Mark is one of those few people from your childhood you look back on with true admiration – and a ‘56 finned, hemi-engined Desoto would be pretty cool to have too.

And from now on every time I see an early 60’s Buick convertible, I’ll remember Tony cruising our neighborhood with the top down and a cute young thing in the front seat.

Thanks again for the memory jogger Paul…

Here’s another bus you would have likely have seen or ridden in if you were spending time in any large North American metropolitan area in the decades of the 1950s and ’60s, especially those in the US Midwest. It’s a Flxible Twin Coach FT series urban transit coach.

Before there was a “Flxible – Twin Coach” there was a “Fageol – Twin Coach” – a company that manufactured buses, trucks and marine engines – and was founded by the innovative Fageol brothers after they left American Car and Foundry (ACF) in 1927. Why Twin Coach? Because one of the first models they introduced in 1929 was a dual-engined transit bus. It had two Waukesha six cylinder gas engines, one on each side located about mid-way between front and rear. This design offered more power and increased interior space over then current front- or rear-engined models.

With more powerful and improved engines available post-war, the company introduced a new single-engined design to compete with GM and other urban transit bus manufacturers. It was designated the S-series, and came in sizes seating 34, 38, 41, 44, and 50 passengers. It was 96 in. wide and varied in length from 29 to 38 ft.

While GM had its innovative airbag suspension and others were still using steel springs, Twin Coach used BF Goodrich’s “Torsilastic” torsion bar setup – later a staple on Eagle coaches and their European predecessors.

While engines from different manufacturers could be ordered, most came with an in-house gas or propane fueled Fageol FTC, a 404 cubic inch inline OHV six that put out 180 hp and 379 ft lbs of torque (gas version).

Lacking a diesel engine to compete with GM, Twin Coach partnered with Leyland and produced a version of Leyland’s diesel. Engines were located underfloor amidships and were all longitudinal “laydown” designs.

Twin Coach was also a major producer of electric trolley buses.

A few also made it to Europe.

In 1953, Fageol sold the bus portion of the business to Flxible, who at that time did not have a transit model. Flxible kept the design with few modifications, but renamed it the FT series (Flxible Transit). They also kept the protruding six-pane front windshield design, which would become a Flxible transit bus trademark.

One articulated demonstrator that seated 55 was built, but unfortunately found no buyers – you can see the rear wheel steering in action in the photo above.

Fortunately it has survived and resides at the Seashore Trolley Museum in Maine, awaiting restoration.

Flxible kept the design in production until 1959, though sales steadily declined throughout the 1950’s. One city that was a loyal Twin Coach customer was Chicago who maintained a large Twin fleet, until finally succumbing to the GM juggernaut. In this photo you can just make out the Flxible logo on the front below the windshield which was placed on top of the Twin Coach badge.  This bus is also a 102 inch wide model, introduced in 1952.

By 1961, Flxible had its “New Look” model ready for the market and the Twin Coach name was laid to rest…

Well built, a few of these Twin Coaches were still in regular service in the mid-’70s.

Our only daughter graduated college and left the house about a year ago to work at a job in downtown Tokyo. She lives in Koto Ward, which is one of 23 wards, or boroughs, that make up the central part of the city. Fortunately, her apartment is only about 30 minutes away from the trendy district of Odaiba, which, in addition to having several of the largest and most modern shopping malls, is host to Toyota’s Megaweb; a combination museum, showroom, and amusement park – a must stop for any Japan Domestic Model (JDM) fan visiting the country.

Megaweb is divided up into three separate facilities. The most recent addition is the History Garage, modeled after a small street in downtown Tokyo, circa 1960s.

You’re greeted by this cheeky Mazda Carol as you enter – CC reviewed the Carol previously here.

After the Carol are a couple of European tourists – an Alfa Spyder and a BMW-Isetta.

Opposite is a Subaru 360 – similar to the one Paul drove.

The museum also features lots of memorabilia from the ’50s-’60s.

The American contingent is represented by, what else, a ’59 Caddy and a ’63 Vette…

The star, as least in my view, is this white Toyota 2000 – hard to believe that when I first arrived in Japan in 1981, I had the opportunity to purchase a 2000 – a co-worker who had a used car business on the side found one, and was selling it for the then significant price of $20,000. Oh, those decisions you regret…

This very nice early Porsche 356 rounded out the street scene.

In a separate room are some beautifully preserved models; a Corona, an early Nissan Bluebird, and a Gen 1 Crown.

Exit the Garage and going through the shopping mall brings you to building #2, the Toyota City Showcase – you’re greeted by this all-original, pristine 1951 Toyopet SA – one of Toyota’s first post-war models.

Think of the Showcase as a large, two-story dealership, except there are no salespersons hovering over you, and every JDM car Toyota offers is available to peruse; climb in, pop the hood, kick the tires, etc.

Having owned several Toyota Crowns, I had to sit in this Royal Saloon – very nice.

Here’s a Camry that’s been modified by the Toyota Racing Development (TRD) folks. You can get this package as an option on your Camry here.

Lots of cutaway models also – this one the fuel cell Mirai. No matter how you feel about this technology, seeing the engineering that went into it is fascinating.

There’s a section for concept cars also – currently on display is the Toyota FT 1 – I’m not a fan of current Toyota styling, but this looks pretty sharp. No info on the engine, but the two exhaust outlets in the rear were coffee can-size.  This may be the upcoming Supra.

After poking through the models on the floor, you can present your driver’s license (Japanese or International) and take a spin in the car of your choice on a 1.3 km closed track – I passed when they said no V-12 Centuries were available that day.

A quick jaunt past the 113-meter tall Observation Wheel is building #3; Joy Ride – here are several areas that allow children and teens to drive a variety of electrical vehicles on a controlled track.

A great way to spend a Sunday – Honda has a similar, though smaller showcase in a different area of Tokyo – it’s on the calendar for a future visit.

I came across this quaint documentary video made by the Santa Monica Bus Lines – and it sure brought back a flood of memories of my bus riding days in the ‘60s. 

Coin changer, transfers, small talk with the driver…things have changed quite a bit over the past fifty years. LA residents will likely recognize many of the streets and locations.

Santa Monica‘s “Big Blue Bus” held on to their New Looks much longer than other locales – the last one was finally retired in 2005.

What a beauty – this is a 1941 White 700 Series Transit coach, modified as a Suburban model, and outfitted as a mobile postal sorting facility. If you haven’t heard of these Highway Postal Buses, they have quite the interesting history – let’s take a quick look…

Rail transportation was just seeing the very tip of its slow, unfortunate decline as the decade of the 1940’s began. The US Postal Service, which had used the rail system to transfer and sort mail in specially designed rail coaches for over 80 years, was looking for alternatives.

They chose to purchase a fleet of buses, outfitted very similar to the railcars – and for their first models they chose truck and bus manufacturer White. We previously looked at these White coaches and can likely understand why they were selected. Stoutly built, they had the company’s unique and powerful 464 cubic inch 12 cylinder opposed piston (flat) gas engine. That certainly helped get the mail delivered quickly…

At 96 inches wide and 35 feet long, they were no doubt a little more cramped inside that the larger railcars.  And as the stains on the shirts show, this was before the advent of portable A/C units for buses.

Most runs were around 150 miles, as that was the typical unrefueled range. They’d make stops at on average 25 cities and towns along their routes, dispensing and picking up mail.

The Whites served well for over 10 years, but as the company exited the bus business in 1953, the Post Office looked to a variety other manufacturers for replacements – here a GM Old Look.

Fageol provided a version of its trailer-bus hybrid, made in conjunction with Fruehauf.

Flxible offered its popular Clipper.

And Southern California bus and fire apparatus maker Crown, known for readily modifying its products to meet customer’s requirements, had this model.  There’s likely a big 779 cubic inch Hall-Scott SOHC gas six cylinder laying on its side amidships under the floor.

In the 1960’s, automation brought sweeping changes in mail sorting and delivery. By the early 1970’s, the Postal Buses were no longer needed, and the last run was made in 1974.  Fortunately two of these buses have survived – a beautifully restored model is located at the Crawford Museum of Transportation and History in Cleveland – fitting as that was the hometown of White.  And the model in the photo at the top of the article is at the Virginia Museum of Transportation, awaiting its restoration.

I came across this picture and couldn’t quite make out what type of bus this was – but the back window design seemed rather unique.  After a little research, I was able to pin it down.  Glad I did because I had no idea this manufacturer produced this model – it’s a Prevost Citadin, a 1950’s urban transit bus from the company most famous for its premier line of intercity coaches.

1950 Prevost Intercity Coach

2017 Prevost X3-45

As we saw in an earlier post, Quebec-based Prevost has a rich transportation history. Beginning post-war, they have been very successful in producing a series of well-designed, well-built long-haul buses, right up to today.

What I didn’t know was that from 1949 until the late 1950’s, they also manufactured a city transit bus, the Citadin, which I’m sure our Franophone readers know is French for “Townsperson” or “City-Dweller”.

The Citadin came in 30 and 35 foot lengths, and was 96 inches wide. There wasn’t much information I could find on engines and transmissions, but imagine it came with powertrain options typical to North America in that era; Hercules, Waukesha, Fageol, International Harvester, Cummins, etc.  I’ll hazard a guess and say engine location was longitudinal, based on the rear engine opening.  In the picture above, you can just make out the air inlet scoop in the top/back, similar to that found on the Flxible Clipper.

A Suburban model was available also.

In the early 60’s, Prevost replaced the Citadin with this “New Look” type model, but by that point, GM had a production line going at its plant in London Ontario and was capturing most of the Canadian market.  Prevost decided to focus solely on its more profitable intercity coach models.

Fortunately, Prevost and the Toronto Transit Co. recovered and restored this mid-50’s model and it is now a part of TTC’s historical fleet.  Hopefully someone does the same for the one in the top photo…

And as I’m sure Paul can appreciate, this one has been modified as an RV/ motor home.

I really enjoyed Paul’s article on the GM PD 4501 Scenicruiser last week – and it got me thinking.  That, and as you may have heard, Greyhound has also been in the news lately, unfortunately not in a good way. A video recently emerged of passengers on a Greyhound bus from Phoenix to Dallas who “mutinied” when they saw the driver trying to remain awake behind the wheel. Not quite consistent with the slogan I’m most familiar with…

GM PD 4106

MCI MC 5C

MCI MC 8

Well, hopefully they’ll recover from this very embarrassing (and dangerous) incident. It did however remind me of my poor college student days “riding the dog” in the mid to late 70’s. I can remember traveling on the old (by then) GM PD 4106s, the somewhat newer MCI MC 5’s, and the brand new MCI MC 8’s. I haven’t ridden a Greyhound bus since 1979 and it got me wondering what the fleet was composed of today – let’s take a look…newest to oldest…

Greyhound’s most modern coach is the MCI D4505, first introduced in 2010. It’s 45 feet long and 102 inches wide, seating 50. Caterpillar, Detroit Diesel, and Cummins engines can be ordered – but most come with a Cummins ISX 12 liter inline 6 cylinder, with 425hp and 1,450 lb-ft torque. Transmission is a Gen V Allison B500 6-speed automatic.

Next newest coach is the Prevost X3-45, purchased in 2009. This coach has similar dimensions, and also seats 50, but comes with a 13 litre Volvo D-13 SOHC inline 6 cylinder, 435hp and 1650 lb-ft of torque, coupled with the Allison B500.

The MCI G4500 was introduced in 2001, same dimensions, but with a different seating design that carries 55 passengers. Power train is a Detroit Diesel Series 60 12.7 litre SOHC six, 475 hp and 1550 lb-ft, also with a B500.

Greyhound’s oldest coach stems from 1998 and is the MCI 102DL3 – a 45 foot coach, all of which were recently given a major refurbishment. Older Cummins M11 motors were replaced with the Cummins ISX and a B500. Also as part of the refurbishment, they were painted in the older “neoclassic” livery.

It’s doubtful I’ll ever ride the dog again, but if I did, I think I’d choose the Prevost – and make sure I had some no-doze to hand to the driver before boarding…