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)

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.