Jump to content

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, roeco said:

When passenger service disappeared so did alot of freight business partially due to the fact it went from 7 day a week to 5 day a week service and didnt run holidays...so it makes Gcx on those routes no more different than anyone else...And weekend shipping was something Greyhound had on everyone else...! Of course freight is profitable if it wasnt most agencies wouldnt be in business as its their Bread and Butter!!  Greyhound had a very high volume freight business so high their were running several tractor trailers in Western Canada...Now I think the only one remaining is the Trans Canada Hwy one from Calgary to Coquitlam. Their used to be a Prince George-Coquitlam, Edmonton-Calgary-Fort McMurray and Edmonton-Fort St John all run by semi trucks. Now of all those only the Calgary to Edmonton portion remains run by a 5 ton, 4 days a week.

Pretty much every major agency used to be Open 7 days a week for Freight....Now Most are Closed on Sundays including both Vancouver and Coquitlam. That should answer ur question!

Let's unpack this answer a little bit:

  • "Of course freight is profitable ... most agencies wouldn't be in business as its their bread and butter." Agency profitability has nothing to do with GCTC profitability. If the agencies are earning revenue based on a per parcel handled amount (or a commission on the freight fees or whatever), that's fine and good. But in an era where stand alone agencies are all but disappearing in favor of a counter inside a truck stop somewhere, understand that the revenue earned from the agency is just additional revenue contribution to the overall business profitability based around the core business.
  • Earlier the statement was made "Back in 2011 when Greyhound eliminated passenger service on several routes in Alberta their freight business was maintained on all routes, But several routes had freight drop as much as 50%" followed up by "When passenger service disappeared so did alot of freight business partially due to the fact it went from 7 day a week to 5 day a week service and didnt run holidays...so it makes Gcx on those routes no more different than anyone else."
    • These two statements do not present the same facts. If the freight business was so profitable, as part of the bus business, then they would have maintained freight service at the previous passenger service levels. They did not. 
    • Greyhound Package Express' core competitive advantage over UPS / FedEx and the other parcel handlers is their "next bus out service." One of the dirty little secrets about freight handling is that if you have someone who can handle the last mile on each end (ie can drop off and pick up the parcel at a terminal on each end). But this only matters if you know that you can get the parcel out on the next bus out. If there is no "next bus" for two days, then just let UPS pick up on your end, and drop it off at the destination, door to door. This, by the way, also applies to airfreight. It is shocking how inexpensively you can ship a parcel on Alaska Airlines (for instance) through their Gold Streak next flight service and how quickly it will be at its destination. Way cheaper and faster than FedEx, but you have to have someone do the last mile on both ends. In all of these cases, this business is additional contribution to revenue, but is not the core business.
  • So ... "every major agency used to be Open 7 days a week for Freight....Now Most are Closed on Sundays including both Vancouver and Coquitlam. That should answer ur question!"
    • This does answer my question. The cost of having an agent on hand 7 days a week to handle freight is not justified based on the profitability of the service. Thus, freight is marginally profitable, if at all. 

Let's add some more information and "facts" to this discussion. I took a look at the 2017 First Group Annual Report. As a multinational company based in the UK, this does not quite line up with a 10-K statement we are used to in the United States, but hey, I can pull some relevant information out if it. FWIW, keep in mind that it is based on the First Group's fiscal year, which appears to be April 1 2016 - March 31 2017. It can be found here.

  • Greyhound is all lumped together... GLI, GCTC, BoltBus, Valley Transit and whatever other subsidiaries are still operating. This makes it a little difficult to figure out exact figures, but hey, we can make pretty good inferences. 
  • Here's a quote: "Our Canadian operations (15% of Greyhound revenue) have remained particularly challenging, with the lower oil price directly impacting on competitiveness compared with other modes but also affecting the health of the economy, particularly in western Canada. Despite considerable regulatory and structural constraints, we continue to take action including reducing mileage further but Greyhound Canada remained loss-making."
    • Total revenue is $894,000,000 USD. This is down year over year for the third year in a row. 
    • Overall adjusted operating margin is 6.2%
    • Package Express accounts for 8% of total revenue, or $71,520,000 USD. Because package express' costs are absorbed by the rest of the passenger carrying infrastructure, its not totally suspect to assume that the total operating profit on package express for both the US and Canada is $4,434,240 USD.
      • That's not much profit. 
      • Given that the whole of Greyhound Canada is losing money, I'd have to assume, that all of this operating profit from package express is coming from GLI's network, and not GCTC. This number would presumably be higher, if Canada was not included in the reporting, because that net loss is being subtracted from the margin.
      • Let's break it down further... the whole of GCTC is 15% of total revenue, or $134,100,000 USD. That's really not much revenue for all of GCTC, indicating how small the operation really is. Then say that the 8% of total revenue is constant between GLI and GCTC (I'd don't believe it is, could be more or less, but all we can do now is assume constant). $10,728,000 USD would be the total revenue earned by freight in Canada. Yikes. That's a pretty small number. And we know GCTC is not profitable, so there's no point in trying to figure out how much profit was earned off the less than a million USD in revenue freight earns.
        • How about a what if exercise? What if GCTC's freight revenue is a much higher percentage of total revenue earned, reflecting the freight business and its past strength compared to that of GLI's?
          • What if freight revenue was 25% of total GCTC revenue? It would be $33,525,000 USD. That's still not a lot of money. 
            • What if GCTC was profitable, at the same margin as GLI (it's not) and it earned 25% of its revenue off freight in Canada. That would be $2,078,550 USD in profit. A mere drop in the bucket.
  • Conclusion, the freight service operated in Canada is not profitable, nor will it "pay for itself" because all of GCTC is losing money. Even if it were, the operating profits of the division are tiny relative to Greyhound's total revenue. This is not a core business, and is not self sustaining the network as passenger volumes fall.
    • Freight is, as I suspected, additional revenue that can be earned with minimal additional fixed or variable costs (stations/agents are in place, and are there to service passengers - core business, can do the freight on the side). Thus, it is additional revenue to be contributed, and can push a marginal run or route into profitability. It is a difficult managerial accounting exercise to try to split out those costs given the annual report doesn't break them out. But understand that if the full fixed and variable costs had to be fully absorbed by the freight business alone, the business would look pretty bad.

     

     

Edited by northwesterner
Corrected GCTC Revenue calculations
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

1142 has safely made its way out east, and is now operating in the Eastern Canadian fleet.

It's an Irizar i6: http://www.irizar.com/usa/. Those pictures look to be taken at LAD.

Some shots from my trip to Toronto this summer from July to August. I enjoyed the Coach Terminal a lot! Greyhound Prevost X3-45 #86096-1 by Dannny29, on Flickr Greyhound MCI 102-DL3 #6260-1 by Dan

Posted Images

1 hour ago, northwesterner said:

Let's unpack this answer a little bit:

  • "Of course freight is profitable ... most agencies wouldn't be in business as its their bread and butter." Agency profitability has nothing to do with GCTC profitability. If the agencies are earning revenue based on a per parcel handled amount (or a commission on the freight fees or whatever), that's fine and good. But in an era where stand alone agencies are all but disappearing in favor of a counter inside a truck stop somewhere, understand that the revenue earned from the agency is just additional revenue contribution to the overall business profitability based around the core business.
  • Earlier the statement was made "Back in 2011 when Greyhound eliminated passenger service on several routes in Alberta their freight business was maintained on all routes, But several routes had freight drop as much as 50%" followed up by "When passenger service disappeared so did alot of freight business partially due to the fact it went from 7 day a week to 5 day a week service and didnt run holidays...so it makes Gcx on those routes no more different than anyone else."
    • These two statements do not present the same facts. If the freight business was so profitable, as part of the bus business, then they would have maintained freight service at the previous passenger service levels. They did not. 
    • Greyhound Package Express' core competitive advantage over UPS / FedEx and the other parcel handlers is their "next bus out service." One of the dirty little secrets about freight handling is that if you have someone who can handle the last mile on each end (ie can drop off and pick up the parcel at a terminal on each end). But this only matters if you know that you can get the parcel out on the next bus out. If there is no "next bus" for two days, then just let UPS pick up on your end, and drop it off at the destination, door to door. This, by the way, also applies to airfreight. It is shocking how inexpensively you can ship a parcel on Alaska Airlines (for instance) through their Gold Streak next flight service and how quickly it will be at its destination. Way cheaper and faster than FedEx, but you have to have someone do the last mile on both ends. In all of these cases, this business is additional contribution to revenue, but is not the core business.
  • So ... "every major agency used to be Open 7 days a week for Freight....Now Most are Closed on Sundays including both Vancouver and Coquitlam. That should answer ur question!"
    • This does answer my question. The cost of having an agent on hand 7 days a week to handle freight is not justified based on the profitability of the service. Thus, freight is marginally profitable, if at all. 

Let's add some more information and "facts" to this discussion. I took a look at the 2017 First Group Annual Report. As a multinational company based in the UK, this does not quite line up with a 10-K statement we are used to in the United States, but hey, I can pull some relevant information out if it. FWIW, keep in mind that it is based on the First Group's fiscal year, which appears to be April 1 2016 - March 31 2017. It can be found here.

  • Greyhound is all lumped together... GLI, GCTC, BoltBus, Valley Transit and whatever other subsidiaries are still operating. This makes it a little difficult to figure out exact figures, but hey, we can make pretty good inferences. 
  • Here's a quote: "Our Canadian operations (15% of Greyhound revenue) have remained particularly challenging, with the lower oil price directly impacting on competitiveness compared with other modes but also affecting the health of the economy, particularly in western Canada. Despite considerable regulatory and structural constraints, we continue to take action including reducing mileage further but Greyhound Canada remained loss-making."
    • Total revenue is $894,000,000 USD. This is down year over year for the third year in a row. 
    • Overall adjusted operating margin is 6.2%
    • Package Express accounts for 8% of total revenue, or $71,520,000 USD. Because package express' costs are absorbed by the rest of the passenger carrying infrastructure, its not totally suspect to assume that the total operating profit on package express for both the US and Canada is $4,434,240 USD.
      • That's not much profit. 
      • Given that the whole of Greyhound Canada is losing money, I'd have to assume, that all of this operating profit from package express is coming from GLI's network, and not GCTC. This number would presumably be higher, if Canada was not included in the reporting, because that net loss is being subtracted from the margin.
      • Let's break it down further... the whole of GCTC is 15% of total revenue, or $134,100,000 USD. That's really not much revenue for all of GCTC, indicating how small the operation really is. Then say that the 8% of total revenue is constant between GLI and GCTC (I'd don't believe it is, could be more or less, but all we can do now is assume constant). $10,728,000 USD would be the total revenue earned by freight in Canada. Yikes. That's a pretty small number. And we know GCTC is not profitable, so there's no point in trying to figure out how much profit was earned off the less than a million USD in revenue freight earns.
        • How about a what if exercise? What if GCTC's freight revenue is a much higher percentage of total revenue earned, reflecting the freight business and its past strength compared to that of GLI's?
          • What if freight revenue was 25% of total GCTC revenue? It would be $33,525,000 USD. That's still not a lot of money. 
            • What if GCTC was profitable, at the same margin as GLI (it's not) and it earned 25% of its revenue off freight in Canada. That would be $2,078,550 USD in profit. A mere drop in the bucket.
  • Conclusion, the freight service operated in Canada is not profitable, nor will it "pay for itself" because all of GCTC is losing money. Even if it were, the operating profits of the division are tiny relative to Greyhound's total revenue. This is not a core business, and is not self sustaining the network as passenger volumes fall.
    • Freight is, as I suspected, additional revenue that can be earned with minimal additional fixed or variable costs (stations/agents are in place, and are there to service passengers - core business, can do the freight on the side). Thus, it is additional revenue to be contributed, and can push a marginal run or route into profitability. It is a difficult managerial accounting exercise to try to split out those costs given the annual report doesn't break them out. But understand that if the full fixed and variable costs had to be fully absorbed by the freight business alone, the business would look pretty bad.

     

     

Their actually are still quite a few stand alone agencies more than u may think. Even smaller centres quite a few are Still stand alone and still making $$.and it sure isnt from passeners..!  Greyhound carries more freight in Canada by far....Do u think they pull trailers or have freight trucks in the USA....Nope! ..they cap their schedules even at Christmas time...the Demand is their always has been .! Even in the summer....they used to make a killing on several routes...not any more cause they cap the schedules.  Diversification also is Crucial or u die a slow and painful death!   Also when was the last time post office gave u boxes and tape for free??   Greyhound's profitability is limited as to what they want it to be. 

 

But if u want to talk more northwesterner we can continue eslewhere

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, roeco said:

Their actually are still quite a few stand alone agencies more than u may think. Even smaller centres quite a few are Still stand alone and still making $$.and it sure isnt from passeners..!  Greyhound carries more freight in Canada by far....Do u think they pull trailers or have freight trucks in the USA....Nope! ..they cap their schedules even at Christmas time...the Demand is their always has been .! Even in the summer....they used to make a killing on several routes...not any more cause they cap the schedules.  Diversification also is Crucial or u die a slow and painful death!   Also when was the last time post office gave u boxes and tape for free??   Greyhound's profitability is limited as to what they want it to be. 

In case you missed it in my above post...

Greyhound Canada is operating a loss. The whole thing. Package Express revenues are fractional compared to the big picture.

Agency profitability has absolutely zero to do with Greyhound Canada's package business being profitable. It's not, because the whole operation is not profitable.

Obviously GCTC carries more freight per schedule than what GLI does in the US. That is why I went through the what if exercise above, where increased the percentage of total revenue to reflect what it could be. Even then that's only $33 million in revenue, to support a capital intensive, far flung transportation network.

Regarding capping the schedules. Let's see what the annual report has to say about that: "With our pricing and yield management algorithms continuing to increase in scope and effectiveness, and assuming a somewhat less volatile oil price environment in the near term compared with the last three years, we are confident that Greyhound can return to growth in the year ahead."

The reason the schedules are capped is due to their yield management systems that are now in place. Yield management can mean turning down potential customers if you can't fill a section. Yield management means that you know the optimal number of buses to have in the system to maximize revenue versus capital costs. I can remember traveling the US by Greyhound over a decade ago and seeing hundreds of coaches, parked, at outstations throughout the system. They were left where a second section "died" and the driver cushioned home. These buses would sit for weeks on end without turning a wheel, which is a nightmare if you're trying to actually generate revenue with your capital assets. With yield management in place, they no longer have the equipment to serve every customer, but they are able to keep maximize the total passengers transported by bus. Make no mistake, this is good management.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, northwesterner said:

I know, why would you want any discussion rooted in reality on CPTDB....

I am not against your topic of discussion.  I am only against it being in this thread.  Just create a new thread and be done with it...

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/4/2017 at 8:45 AM, northwesterner said:

I know, why would you want any discussion rooted in reality on CPTDB....

this discussion is really what Greyhounds issues are...and Are Not! Are you from Canada? Do u work directly or indirectly for Greyhound? Do u know Greyhound before and after First took it over?  Reports are just that .I def wont be posting any more of this on here!!!

18 hours ago, Swadian said:

Found a picture of #1130 posted by CBC. It appears to be taken at Prince George? Looks like it has a Yukon plate?

Greyhound 1130 CBC.jpg

No Blue buses are Yukon plated...that looks like a BC plate and a City of Vancouver for hire plate!  about 85% of the white ones are yukon plated. If their BC plated their Yukon plated Except 1265.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 04/09/2017 at 2:38 AM, northwesterner said:

In case you missed it in my above post...

Greyhound Canada is operating a loss. The whole thing. Package Express revenues are fractional compared to the big picture.

Agency profitability has absolutely zero to do with Greyhound Canada's package business being profitable. It's not, because the whole operation is not profitable.

Obviously GCTC carries more freight per schedule than what GLI does in the US. That is why I went through the what if exercise above, where increased the percentage of total revenue to reflect what it could be. Even then that's only $33 million in revenue, to support a capital intensive, far flung transportation network.

Regarding capping the schedules. Let's see what the annual report has to say about that: "With our pricing and yield management algorithms continuing to increase in scope and effectiveness, and assuming a somewhat less volatile oil price environment in the near term compared with the last three years, we are confident that Greyhound can return to growth in the year ahead."

The reason the schedules are capped is due to their yield management systems that are now in place. Yield management can mean turning down potential customers if you can't fill a section. Yield management means that you know the optimal number of buses to have in the system to maximize revenue versus capital costs. I can remember traveling the US by Greyhound over a decade ago and seeing hundreds of coaches, parked, at outstations throughout the system. They were left where a second section "died" and the driver cushioned home. These buses would sit for weeks on end without turning a wheel, which is a nightmare if you're trying to actually generate revenue with your capital assets. With yield management in place, they no longer have the equipment to serve every customer, but they are able to keep maximize the total passengers transported by bus. Make no mistake, this is good management.

 

Yes it's good management... if it's not being done carelessly. It also puts them into a position where the public will assume that they are greedy and not customer oriented. They want a million dollars a bus which is a pipe dream.

As far as I'm concerned, First only gives a damn about paying off their share holders. Unfortunately, GLC is just a write off for Last Group.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, roeco said:

this discussion is really what Greyhounds issues are...and Are Not! Are you from Canada? Do u work directly or indirectly for Greyhound? Do u know Greyhound before and after First took it over?  Reports are just that .I def wont be posting any more of this on here!!!

Do the answers to any of those questions matter in regards to what I have to say, and how I've said it?

Because they shouldn't, especially when the information is presented in a straightforward, fact based manner. 

If you're saying that the only ones that should be able to comment regarding the situation with Greyhound Canada are those who:

  1. Work directly or indirectly for Greyhound
  2. Are Canadian
  3. Have knowledge of Greyhound before and after First

Then that's an awfully small group. It also certainly diminishes the contributions of those here who either know the bus business really well or have strong interests in over the road transportation.

 

And since you asked, here's my answers:

  1. Yes, a few years ago, but no, not currently
  2. No
  3. Yes, extensive.
6 hours ago, INowKnowwhY said:

Yes it's good management... if it's not being done carelessly. It also puts them into a position where the public will assume that they are greedy and not customer oriented. They want a million dollars a bus which is a pipe dream.

As far as I'm concerned, First only gives a damn about paying off their share holders. Unfortunately, GLC is just a write off for Last Group.

I'd generally say, that given the paucity of second sections I see operating, either in the US or Canada, they may have over cooked the yield management.

But I also don't know how many are turned away because Greyhound won't put out a second section to walk-ups. 

For instance, given their IT upgrades, and the ability to purchase tickets on an app, how many chose not to travel on a certain schedule, or day, because they are now greeted with "Sold Out?" I don't know, you don't know, and Greyhound probably doesn't even know. 

What they do know is that if they have constant, repetitive sold out voyages, day over day, week over week, or month over month, they could consider increasing service. Right now, especially in Canada, it doesn't look like that's the case.

But you do make a good point, which is that Greyhound, for so many years (really going back forever) was known as a place where you could find out when the bus is leaving, and literally walk up and get a ticket on the next bus out. And they'd usually find a way to accommodate you. Does going against the commonly known and expected practices harm your opinion with your customers? Yes, probably. But 15 years ago Greyhound accommodated everyone, and had a terrible reputation. At least now they're focused on what they need to do to attain profitability.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good.  Except I currently have some first hand knowledge of Greyhound currently., as I work in the Agency network and I live in Canada and see first hand how much freight volumes have decreased in the last 3 years. Would love to chat more at a different time and place.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

A bus service cannot be designed or operated in a way that it operates routes that are only profitable. 

By cutting the routes that are not profitable, and preventing people from getting to the profitable routes is what has killed Greyhound.  Poor connections and poor customer service, changing stop locations and bus frequencies without notice. Making it inconvenient for people who use it, resulting in less people using it.

It has to be created in such a way that the profitable routes makeup for the ones that are not.  

Think of the TTC, every route that it operates does not break even, but the higher density routes make up for the less busy routes.

Remember when they cut weekend service and evening service? It resulted in less people using the system overall.  It took them years to get back to pre cut ridership. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/20/2017 at 6:36 PM, Shaun said:

A bus service cannot be designed or operated in a way that it operates routes that are only profitable. 

By cutting the routes that are not profitable, and preventing people from getting to the profitable routes is what has killed Greyhound.  Poor connections and poor customer service, changing stop locations and bus frequencies without notice. Making it inconvenient for people who use it, resulting in less people using it.

It has to be created in such a way that the profitable routes makeup for the ones that are not.  

Think of the TTC, every route that it operates does not break even, but the higher density routes make up for the less busy routes.

Remember when they cut weekend service and evening service? It resulted in less people using the system overall.  It took them years to get back to pre cut ridership. 

 

I agree with most of this, generally, though I'd like to point out that a transit agency like the TTC has zero profit motive, so I don't think that's a great comparison.

A system like Greyhound is a network system, where the various routes have various levels of profitability given the need for people to depart from and arrive at a myriad of individual destinations. 

One of the best criticisms of Greyhound's cuts is that they are not doing enough to grow revenue. How can they attract new passengers? What is their niche? What make someone chose the 'Hound versus flying or driving? 

These things are hard to do when you're in a continuous cut mindset. 

But as I've pointed out here before, First Group has done a decent job of executing the very difficult "shrink to grow" strategy. Typically when a business does that, they shrink too much and never recover, because as you note, their customers no longer have any reason to use them and incrementally these individual customers make up enough lost revenue to continue pushing the company into a death spiral. 

So in a network system like Greyhound's, you'd ideally see lots of small time routes connecting with busier trunked corridors to help fill those buses.

But how do you pull that off, especially in a country with as low population density as Canada?

I know a little something about the financial aspects of motorcoach operations. Trust me when I say, when you lose a little money, its not long until you're losing a lot of money. The issue with having a network full of "loss-leader" routes that feed into the big profitable trunk routes is that the revenues just aren't high enough on the trunk routes to overcome the losses on the feeders. 

The capital and operating costs of smaller "full size" motorcoaches like the TEMSAs we see running around aren't significantly less than a 45ft MCI or Prevost. The labor costs are the same, the purchase price is a bit less, and the operating costs (fuel, maintenance, insurance, etc) are similar. 

You could get some Sprinter vans and put a trailer on the back to handle the luggage and freight. That's a reasonable solution, and one that Greyhound probably should have explored more fully for some of these routes before cancelling them. At least to service routes within a 5-6 hour R/T of Highway 1, they could still gather some incremental revenue from the passengers that need to go to and from those smaller towns. But will the union contract with the drivers allow them to pay someone on a lower classification of driver less to operate one of those vans (to cut the labor costs down)? I don't know.

It's a tough situation from Greyhound to be in. I've driven the Alaska Highway to Whitehorse before; its sparsely populated, and if there is a mechanical failure, you're a long ways from help (also means recovering from said failure is extremely expensive). The costs of operating that service are very high, and the potential passenger catchment is very low. I don't know what the right thing to do is, but I don't think that just focusing on the "network effects" as the reason for cutting some far northern routes really encapsulates all the issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

northwesterner i totally agree with you on the sprinter idea...its starting to be used more now days especially with smaller routes....Its totally possible for a 3rd party operator to pick up several of the routes Greyhound wants to abandon, use sprinter type vehicles hook into Greyhound's network and haul Greyhound freight and use the agency network along that corridor much like Tofino bus is doing on the Island.  Most routes they want to abandon only would require a sprinter type vehicle for passengers and not have to run 7 days a week either. Mind u Greyhound could use First Canada to do the exact same thing....as First has a more diversified fleet..! 

 

And I dont believe using a sprinter type vehicle with a trailer would cost any more than hauling just straight GCX with a truck and no passengers. The operating costs I dont think would be any more plus u have passengers to supplement.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not worth it. Reason Greyhoud drops them cause they dont make money. Aboutown did it a few years ago in Southern Ontario. Took over routes Greyhound had dropped. Had modified smaller buses with cargo storage in the back. None of the routes really made any money. Kinda reason why they no longer exist. Did it for passenger convenience, but one or 2 passengers don't pay the bills. And you make zip on GCX delivery.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Some shots from my trip to Toronto this summer from July to August. I enjoyed the Coach Terminal a lot!

37611408282_f65ff7c2c4.jpgGreyhound Prevost X3-45 #86096-1 by Dannny29, on Flickr

36933347984_992c41e47a.jpgGreyhound MCI 102-DL3 #6260-1 by Dannny29, on Flickr

37644412141_976671eed4.jpgGreyhound MCI 102-DL3 #6200-1 by Dannny29, on Flickr

37644415591_13c8434085.jpgGreyhound MCI D4505 #1298-1 by Dannny29, on Flickr

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Swadian said:

Does anyone know where Greyhound Canada #1126 is? The 2000 MCI 102DL3.

If it didn't get a refurbishment, it likely got retired along with most of the other original Greyhound Canada 102-DL3/D4500 units. Check the Wiki; 1126 is not listed among the units that received a refurbishment.

The influx of hundreds of refurbished ex-GLI 102-DL3 units plus the multiple service reductions over the past 5 years has wiped out the need for most of the old fleet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 2:36 PM, Articulated said:

If it didn't get a refurbishment, it likely got retired along with most of the other original Greyhound Canada 102-DL3/D4500 units. Check the Wiki; 1126 is not listed among the units that received a refurbishment.

The influx of hundreds of refurbished ex-GLI 102-DL3 units plus the multiple service reductions over the past 5 years has wiped out the need for most of the old fleet.

Were they scrapped or were some of them sold? I'm trying to trace the units that weren't remanufactured.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...