On 02/09/2019 11:07, Peter Able wrote:

Isn't the key difference that in the UK coaches were/are better fitted out?

Think about the LT RM and the RMC.

I'd comment on speed capability too - except that I can remember being
in an RM with a standard transmission doing close on 70mph, albeit not
in public service.

Ah, the RMC's and RCL's, out of Romford on the 721/722, remember them
well. They were always 'coaches' in LT parlance of the time, but they
were based on buses.

The definitions I have always employed are that buses are used for short
distance stage carriage work, and are fitted to a relatively basic
standard, whereas coaches are purpose-built for long-distance travel and
have large luggage lockers and toilets etc. The number of decks is
irrelevant.



--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]

On 02/09/2019 14:36, Recliner wrote:
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 11:23:25 +0100, Peter Able wrote:

On 02/09/2019 12:13, Recliner wrote:
Peter Able wrote:
On 02/09/2019 11:25, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 02/09/2019 09:49, Robin wrote:
On 02/09/2019 08:58, Marland wrote:
Recliner wrote:
Bryan Morris wrote:
In message , Recliner
writes
Marland wrote:

Isn't a coach simply a bus with lots of secure luggage space
(normally
under the floor) and capable of cruising at motorway speeds (ie,
?100 km/h)
all day?

These days, it would also have seat belts, aircon and quite
possibly a
toilet and refreshments. It might also have overhead luggage racks
and some
sort of AV system.

BEA / BOAC used double deck coaches mainly for luggage on the lower
deck
whilst passengers mainly sat upstairs (diverging I remember when
downstairs a bus was called "inside" as opposed to "outside" for
upstairs)

Yes, those airport buses met my definition of a coach, though of course
they didn't have modern mod-cons.


But public transport coaches are often referred to as single decker
buses.

Those public transport buses are not coaches, however many decks
they have.
Most buses are not coaches. It's nothing to do with the number of
decks.


In fact see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-deck_bus .
Whilst not exclusively British, double deckers are rare in many
countries.

Most single-deck buses are not coaches. But all coaches, whether
single or
double-deck, are buses.



Is their an actual definition somewhere or are we just advancing our own
interpretations?


Of course there are definitions.Â* In dictionaries, in legislation and
elsewhere.Â* But this is English so if you don't like the first
definition there'll one another one along shortly



Being English you'll wait for ages for a definition then three will come
long together.


Isn't the key difference that in the UK coaches were/are better fitted
out?

Think about the LT RM and the RMC.

I'd comment on speed capability too - except that I can remember being
in an RM with a standard transmission doing close on 70mph, albeit not
in public service.


I don't think modern hybrid publec transport buses can run at continuous
motorway speeds for very long; they rely on cooling down during periods of
battery operation. That's why I came up with my suggested definition of a
coach upthread:

"Isn't a coach simply a bus with lots of secure luggage space (normally
under the floor) and capable of cruising at motorway speeds (ie, ?100 km/h)
all day? These days, it would also have seat belts, aircon and quite
possibly a toilet and refreshments. It might also have overhead luggage
racks and some sort of AV system."

I can't comment on today, but LT staff outings to places like Brighton
involved plenty of high-speed running.

But probably not at continuous modern motorway speeds? I thought
their top speed was below 50mph.

I know the Boris Buses can't cruise even at low motorway speeds

The RMs rode very smoothly,
although every panel was significantly drunning. Later, flying in a
Boeing 777 took me right back to those days !

Obviously they wouldn't qualify as coaches for other reasons.


Travelling at government expense I wasn't flying "coach" - but I was
really taken back to RM days - particularly those engineers' "thrashing"
runs. You must remember how they could drum if the engines were revved
up - even if the RM was stationary. I'd guess that there was a problem
with the early 777s - that might have served by two more engines.

What was Rolls', or was it Royce's, reply to the question "Why do you
insist on flying in four-engine aircraft?"

"Because I don't know of any five-engine aircraft"

PA

On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 16:37:54 +0100, MissRiaElaine
wrote:

On 02/09/2019 11:07, Peter Able wrote:

Isn't the key difference that in the UK coaches were/are better fitted out?

Think about the LT RM and the RMC.

I'd comment on speed capability too - except that I can remember being
in an RM with a standard transmission doing close on 70mph, albeit not
in public service.

Ah, the RMC's and RCL's, out of Romford on the 721/722, remember them
well. They were always 'coaches' in LT parlance of the time, but they
were based on buses.

The definitions I have always employed are that buses are used for short
distance stage carriage work, and are fitted to a relatively basic
standard, whereas coaches are purpose-built for long-distance travel and
have large luggage lockers and toilets etc. The number of decks is
irrelevant.

Yes, agreed. Coaches need secure luggage storage, and performance
adequate for long distance motorway travel. Most city buses can't
manage that. They also need seat belts, probably reclining seats,
aircon, reading lights, at least a PA system, but perhaps also some
sort of TV. A toilet is common, but not mandatory. Ditto with
catering.

But even with all that, a coach is still a type of bus, and it's not
wrong to refer to a coach as a bus. After all, we have Megabus, not
Megacoach, and we may soon be seeing our politicians travelling around
in luxurious battle buses.

Peter Able wrote:
On 01/09/2019 15:33, wrote:
On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 15:09:35 +0100
Peter Able wrote:
On 01/09/2019 14:25, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 01/09/2019 14:05, Peter Able wrote:
On 01/09/2019 12:41, MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 31/08/2019 23:36, Bryan Morris wrote:
In message , MissRiaElaine
writes

So why do all the roundel signs say Underground..? That's what it's
been known as my whole life and I was born in London even though I
don't live there any more.

Next time you're in London get a map, it's called the TUBE map.

It is now, because some idiot decided to change the name. All the old
maps I saved from my childhood say Underground.


Save toner and breath - and call it LT.ÂÂ* That was how it was 50 years
ago when I worked for, LT.


Wasn't it LRT for about 15 minutes in the 80s?



It was indeed. LRT was all part of Mrs. Thatcher's beating up the GLC,
all LT operations moving from the GLC to the Secretary of State for
Transport. Two years later, she extended the battle - sacking the GLC
entirely.

I never understood the change from L(R)T to TfL? What exactly did all the
office shuffling and rebranding achieve other than keeping some civil servants
in work? Transport For London is an unwieldy ugly name that sounds more like a
lobbying group than a large public transport organisation.


Image fetishism - commonplace since the 1980s. The good idea of
co-ordinated transport in London started off with the clumsy LPTB. The
nationwide expansion lead to the improved LTE, but the minimal LT, I
think, was the true "fit for function" name. Then "Brand advisers"
started "improving" things.

Ironic in this context. One of the pioneers of the idea of imposing unified
branding and images to provide a managed an manicured public facing
identity for an organisation was Frank Pick with the London Underground
branding: the roundel, the Johnston typeface, the Beck map, the colours for
lines, the universal Way Out signs and all that. If any one organisation
can claim credit for inventing the concept of corporate branding, it is
London Underground.

Robin

Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 01/09/2019 22:26, Recliner wrote:
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 01/09/2019 19:00, Marland wrote:

Anyhow if it wasn’t for American influence the Underground would not have
developed in the way in it did.
Do you object to them calling the vehicles cars instead of coaches for
instance.

No, but I do object to people who call coaches buses. They are quite
different.


Isn't a coach just a type of bus? So all coaches are buses, but most
buses aren't coaches.

Isn't coach a type of aeroplane seat?

It’s what you get on Amtrak if you’re too cheap for a roomette.

Robin

On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 22:55:39 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 01/09/2019 22:26, Recliner wrote:
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 01/09/2019 19:00, Marland wrote:

Anyhow if it wasn’t for American influence the Underground would not have
developed in the way in it did.
Do you object to them calling the vehicles cars instead of coaches for
instance.

No, but I do object to people who call coaches buses. They are quite
different.


Isn't a coach just a type of bus? So all coaches are buses, but most
buses aren't coaches.

Isn't coach a type of aeroplane seat?



In America. We call it Economy, or Y for short.

The USA has also been known to use "Tourist".

On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 00:35:55 +0100, Bryan Morris
wrote:

In message , Recliner
writes
Marland wrote:
Bryan Morris wrote:
In message , MissRiaElaine
writes
On 01/09/2019 19:00, Marland wrote:

Anyhow if it wasn’t for American influence the Underground would
not have
developed in the way in it did.
Do you object to them calling the vehicles cars instead of coaches for
instance.

No, but I do object to people who call coaches buses. They are quite
different.



A coach is simply a single decker bus.

.5 seconds on the web finds plenty of operators of double deck coaches
though this was first hit ,

https://www.procterscoaches.com/the-...double-decker/

so that it is pretty poor attempt to define one.

And it is not a recent innovation that we have had double deck deck
coaches in the UK,National Express were using them decades ago , stopped
using them after an accident and reintroduced a small number a few years
back.


Isn't a coach simply a bus with lots of secure luggage space (normally
under the floor) and capable of cruising at motorway speeds (ie, ?100 km/h)
all day?

These days, it would also have seat belts, aircon and quite possibly a
toilet and refreshments. It might also have overhead luggage racks and some
sort of AV system.

BEA / BOAC used double deck coaches mainly for luggage on the lower deck
whilst passengers mainly sat upstairs (diverging I remember when
downstairs a bus was called "inside" as opposed to "outside" for
upstairs)



BOAC used Atlanteans in that configuration
https://www.flickr.com/photos/aecsouthall/40612039785. BEA used a one
and a half layout with seating over the luggage area (can't remember
the make)
https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Locati...y_England.html
and then front entrance Routemasters with a baggage trailer
https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/838654761833587997/

Graeme Wall wrote:
On 01/09/2019 12:44, MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 01/09/2019 10:57, Marland wrote:

So using the maps and what they are titled isn’t really a good indication
of what the network was popularly known as at any one time as saying “
I’m
going to take the London Electric Railways “ would be a bit of a
mouthful.�

My London relatives who were around from the 1920’s generally called
it the
UndergrounD and I of 1950’s
vintageÂ*Â* and generally still do.Â* Tube which has equally been around
since
the early 20th century since it it started as a catchy marketing title
was
generally thought to be the the deeper bored lines.
The distinction between the two seems have become blurred from about
the1970’s- 1980’s and has now become official.

The same period has seen many use Train Station instead of Railway
Station.,neither are wrong it is just the wayÂ* our language evolves .

I spent 15+ years working for British Rail, not British Trains. It will
always be a railway station as far as I'm concerned.

Train station is an Americanism. Next you'll be wanting me to drop the u
from colour, armour and similar words. No thanks.

Actually train station appears to be a tabloidism, railroad stations
and/or depots seem to be the preferred nomenclature across the pond.

Both Amtrak and VIA Rail disagree with you, they both consistently use
“train station� (or “gare�) in all of their publicity material.

Robin

On 1 Sep 2019 22:24:10 GMT, Marland
wrote:

Bryan Morris wrote:
In message , MissRiaElaine
writes
On 01/09/2019 19:00, Marland wrote:

Anyhow if it wasn’t for American influence the Underground would not have
developed in the way in it did.
Do you object to them calling the vehicles cars instead of coaches for
instance.

No, but I do object to people who call coaches buses. They are quite
different.



A coach is simply a single decker bus.

.5 seconds on the web finds plenty of operators of double deck coaches
though this was first hit ,

https://www.procterscoaches.com/the-...double-decker/

so that it is pretty poor attempt to define one.

And it is not a recent innovation that we have had double deck deck
coaches in the UK,National Express were using them decades ago , stopped
using them after an accident and reintroduced a small number a few years
back.


GH





Ribble/Standerwick were running double deck Atlanteans under the name
"Gay Hostess" back in the 1960s
https://www.rvpt.co.uk/gay-hostess-25/. I can't find a cite but I seem
to recall this was before the 70 limit on the motorways and there were
stories about higher than 70 speeds being attained.

Graham Harrison wrote:

And it is not a recent innovation that we have had double deck deck
coaches in the UK,National Express were using them decades ago , stopped
using them after an accident and reintroduced a small number a few years
back.


Ribble/Standerwick were running double deck Atlanteans under the name
"Gay Hostess" back in the 1960s
https://www.rvpt.co.uk/gay-hostess-25/. I can't find a cite but I seem
to recall this was before the 70 limit on the motorways and there were
stories about higher than 70 speeds being attained.


The one coach that I remember that was designed for Motorway work at speeds
higher than permitted now were the ones built by Midland Red for thier
Motorway express service on the newly constructed M1 which were also
amongst the first to have a toilet.

I was too young to knowingly see the real thing but was given a Corgi toy
one at the time.

https://images.app.goo.gl/86BPud8euFEE5rXm9

GH