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.