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