Pumping useful heat out of the Tube
 

On 01/09/2019 16:11, Recliner wrote:
Peter Able wrote:
On 01/09/2019 15:32, Recliner wrote:
On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 14:05:50 +0100, 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. That was how it was 50 years
ago when I worked for, LT.

LU, surely? LT includes more than the Underground.


Not 50 years ago

Was LT only the Underground back then? I thought it included the buses. If
not, what was the umbrella organisation called?

- and as I explained (shame on you for quoting
selectively)

But I didn't. I quoted your whole post. Shame on you for thinking I'm
Roland!

it strengthened morale and never led to ambiguity. LU
sounds like where that morale got flushed down by the "image fetishists"
I never remember seeing an intending rail passenger waiting for that
train at a bus stop - or vice-versa.

Of course, that doesn't mean it never happened...:)




Yes, but that was not my latest post on the matter in that part of the
thread - 20 minutes earl1er than yours. Nevertheless, you've cut me to
the quick to think that I might have appeared to be be comparing anyone
to that augusty gentleman. My abject apologies.

And my earlier point was that LT did cover the whole field - preserving
the idea of a co-ordinated system - and giving the staff the idea that
here was a for-the-benefit-of-the-public service. Incidentally, as an
old-style conservative I was a bit shocked at first that the unions
seemed to have their foot so firmly on the windpipe of the LT
management. I soon found out, across the several LT premises that I
visited, that the the unions had a very strong management code for the
bruvvas - and sistas - who were thought to be swinging the lead.

A sort of "On The Waterfront" on wheels !

PA

Pumping useful heat out of the Tube
 

On 01/09/2019 16:28, Bryan Morris wrote:
In message , Recliner
writes
Peter Able wrote:
On 01/09/2019 15:32, Recliner wrote:
On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 14:05:50 +0100, 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.Â* That was how it was 50 years
ago when I worked for, LT.

LU, surely?Â* LT includes more than the Underground.


Not 50 years ago

Was LT only the Underground back then?Â* I thought it included the
buses. If
not, what was the umbrella organisation called?

As far as I recall LPTB was the umbrella organisation for London Buses
Tube and trams etc. from the 1920s

On Transport Nationalisation in 1948 this became LTE (London Country
Buses & Green Line Buses were excluded)

Might be wrong.

OT I wonder who prefer callingÂ* buses Omnibuses their original name.

Flanders & Swann

https://youtu.be/mVHbF0jAzMw



- and as I explained (shame on you for quoting
selectively)

But I didn't. I quoted your whole post. Shame on you for thinking I'm
Roland!

it strengthened morale and never led to ambiguity.Â* LU
sounds like where that morale got flushed down by the "image fetishists"
Â*I never remember seeing an intending rail passenger waiting for that
train at a bus stop - or vice-versa.

Of course, that doesn't mean it never happened...:)


PA

Pumping useful heat out of the Tube
 

Bryan Morris wrote:
In message , Recliner
writes
Peter Able wrote:
On 01/09/2019 15:32, Recliner wrote:
On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 14:05:50 +0100, 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. That was how it was 50 years
ago when I worked for, LT.

LU, surely? LT includes more than the Underground.


Not 50 years ago

Was LT only the Underground back then? I thought it included the buses. If
not, what was the umbrella organisation called?

As far as I recall LPTB was the umbrella organisation for London Buses
Tube and trams etc. from the 1920s

On Transport Nationalisation in 1948 this became LTE (London Country
Buses & Green Line Buses were excluded)

Might be wrong.

Assuming you're right, and LTE is indeed the parent organisation, what were
the underground railways and buses parts called?


OT I wonder who prefer calling buses Omnibuses their original name.

Yes, I wondered that too. Of course, you still occasionally hear people
talking about charabancs.

Pumping useful heat out of the Tube
 

On 01/09/2019 17:00, Recliner wrote:
Bryan Morris wrote:
In message , Recliner
writes
Peter Able wrote:
On 01/09/2019 15:32, Recliner wrote:
On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 14:05:50 +0100, 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. That was how it was 50 years
ago when I worked for, LT.

LU, surely? LT includes more than the Underground.


Not 50 years ago

Was LT only the Underground back then? I thought it included the buses. If
not, what was the umbrella organisation called?

As far as I recall LPTB was the umbrella organisation for London Buses
Tube and trams etc. from the 1920s

On Transport Nationalisation in 1948 this became LTE (London Country
Buses & Green Line Buses were excluded)

Might be wrong.

Assuming you're right, and LTE is indeed the parent organisation, what were
the underground railways and buses parts called?


I don't think that they had an individual identity - intentionally. The
ethos then was the reverse of that today. Ashfield and Morrison would
turn in their graves!


OT I wonder who prefer calling buses Omnibuses their original name.

Yes, I wondered that too. Of course, you still occasionally hear people
talking about charabancs.


And wasn't it a Mister Train who introduced Trams to London?

PA

Pumping useful heat out of the Tube
 

In message , Peter
Able writes
On 01/09/2019 16:28, Bryan Morris wrote:
In message , Recliner
writes
Peter Able wrote:
On 01/09/2019 15:32, Recliner wrote:
On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 14:05:50 +0100, 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.* That was how it was 50 years
ago when I worked for, LT.

LU, surely?* LT includes more than the Underground.


Not 50 years ago

Was LT only the Underground back then?* I thought it included the
buses. If
not, what was the umbrella organisation called?
As far as I recall LPTB was the umbrella organisation for London
Buses Tube and trams etc. from the 1920s
On Transport Nationalisation in 1948 this became LTE (London Country
Buses & Green Line Buses were excluded)
Might be wrong.
OT I wonder who prefer calling* buses Omnibuses their original name.

Flanders & Swann

https://youtu.be/mVHbF0jAzMw

I used to go to events at a wine bar called The George Shillibeer the
inventor of the omnibus
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Shillibeer).
The building still has the London General Omnibus's name on it outside
being, at one time, the omnibus depot

The first omnibus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George...st_omnibus.png

and not a roundel in sight.
--
Bryan Morris

Pumping useful heat out of the Tube
 

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. That was how it was 50 years
ago when I worked for, LT.

PA


50 years ago was 1969 which seems horribly recent with many of the
interesting parts of LT already fading away like Q stock with only a couple
of years left in service. When was it they replaced the gold coloured
legend London Transport on the side of the cars with a plain white roundel
and changed the shade of red from train red to bus red on the remaining
stock that wore it? It never seemed quite the same after that happened .
Didn’t some of the silver stock lose the London Transport name in Red
Letters having it replaced by the plain title UndergrounD .
50 years back from 1969 takes us to 1919 so it is likely that when you
joined a few old hands were still
knashing their dentures at the take over by the LPTB in 1933 and still in
their mind were working for the Combine.


GH

Pumping useful heat out of the Tube
 

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
vintage and generally still do. 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 way 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.

Officially were you not working for British Railways?

British Rail is just as much a fashion change albeit a 1960’s one for
publicity purposes
as Underground being changed to Tube for similar reasons more recently.


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

I suppose you can claim they are a few miles closer but would you want to
tell some of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland with their notoriously
quick temper that their railway system is wrong to use an Americanism.

https://images.app.goo.gl/ozCeMHXXvBCw4WWs9

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.

GH

Pumping useful heat out of the Tube
 

On 01/09/2019 18:45, Marland wrote:
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. That was how it was 50 years
ago when I worked for, LT.

PA


50 years ago was 1969 which seems horribly recent with many of the
interesting parts of LT already fading away like Q stock with only a couple
of years left in service. When was it they replaced the gold coloured
legend London Transport on the side of the cars with a plain white roundel
and changed the shade of red from train red to bus red on the remaining
stock that wore it? It never seemed quite the same after that happened .
Didn’t some of the silver stock lose the London Transport name in Red
Letters having it replaced by the plain title UndergrounD .
50 years back from 1969 takes us to 1919 so it is likely that when you
joined a few old hands were still
knashing their dentures at the take over by the LPTB in 1933 and still in
their mind were working for the Combine.


GH

The past is a foreign country... All sorts of mixtures of the various Q
stock in a unit. Pre-decimal currency and the sheer weight of cash-up
bags; old guys with their fingerprints just about erased by
aforementioned currency; old guys with their hands irretrievably
blackened; old, old passengers with their special life-long passes -
leather and metal - presumably from pre-LPTB rights; no sign of the
white roundels; occasional use of old wooden ticket "wickets" on the
buses; jobs for life.

PA

Pumping useful heat out of the Tube
 

On 01/09/2019 19:00, Marland wrote:
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
vintage and generally still do. 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 way 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.

Officially were you not working for British Railways?

British Rail is just as much a fashion change albeit a 1960’s one for
publicity purposes
as Underground being changed to Tube for similar reasons more recently.


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

I suppose you can claim they are a few miles closer but would you want to
tell some of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland with their notoriously
quick temper that their railway system is wrong to use an Americanism.

https://images.app.goo.gl/ozCeMHXXvBCw4WWs9

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.

GH

Good point. Likewise northbound, southbound etc.

Yerkes lives !

PA

Pumping useful heat out of the Tube
 

Marland wrote:
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
vintage and generally still do. 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 way 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.

Officially were you not working for British Railways?

British Rail is just as much a fashion change albeit a 1960’s one for
publicity purposes
as Underground being changed to Tube for similar reasons more recently.


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

I suppose you can claim they are a few miles closer but would you want to
tell some of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland with their notoriously
quick temper that their railway system is wrong to use an Americanism.

https://images.app.goo.gl/ozCeMHXXvBCw4WWs9

Isn't Gatwick Airport station called the 'Train Station' as you walk
towards it from Arrivals?

Ah yes, found this:
https://images.app.goo.gl/xoh9mQopQ9Te6fW36


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.


Yes, that's a good point.

Pumping useful heat out of the Tube
 

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.


--
Ria in Aberdeen

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

Pumping useful heat out of the Tube
 

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.

Pumping useful heat out of the Tube
 

On 31/08/2019 17:25, MissRiaElaine wrote:

How many more times..? It's the *UNDERGROUND* not the "Tube"
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR RRR..!!!!!!!!!



I'll ask the people in the 10 items or less queue at the supermarket
near St Pancreas train station (where the Eurotunnel goes from). Or
maybe the Queen of England should give a ruling, so we can post the
answer here on the web. Anyway, once we have left Europe, we can call it
anything we want.

PS my grandfather drove the Flying Scotsman.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Pumping useful heat out of the Tube
 

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?


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Pumping useful heat out of the Tube
 

In message , Recliner
writes
Bryan Morris wrote:
In message , Recliner
writes
Peter Able wrote:
On 01/09/2019 15:32, Recliner wrote:
On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 14:05:50 +0100, 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. That was how it was 50 years
ago when I worked for, LT.

LU, surely? LT includes more than the Underground.


Not 50 years ago

Was LT only the Underground back then? I thought it included the buses. If
not, what was the umbrella organisation called?

As far as I recall LPTB was the umbrella organisation for London Buses
Tube and trams etc. from the 1920s

On Transport Nationalisation in 1948 this became LTE (London Country
Buses & Green Line Buses were excluded)

Might be wrong.

Assuming you're right, and LTE is indeed the parent organisation, what were
the underground railways and buses parts called?


OT I wonder who prefer calling buses Omnibuses their original name.

Yes, I wondered that too. Of course, you still occasionally hear people
talking about charabancs.

The name derives from the French char à bancs ("carriage with wooden
benches"), the vehicle having originated in France in the early 19th
century.

Not many of those left
--
Bryan Morris

Pumping useful heat out of the Tube
 

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.
--
Bryan Morris

Pumping useful heat out of the Tube
 

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

Pumping useful heat out of the Tube
 

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.

Pumping useful heat out of the Tube
 

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.

Pumping useful heat out of the Tube
 

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)

But public transport coaches are often referred to as single decker
buses. In fact see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-deck_bus .
Whilst not exclusively British, double deckers are rare in many
countries.
--
Bryan Morris

Pumping useful heat out of the Tube
 

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.

Pumping useful heat out of the Tube
 

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?

Mine for what its worth would be a vehicle that has dedicated luggage
compartments like the underfloor lockers or on really old examples a boot
would be a coach.
If the only luggage area is a cubby hole under the stairs or a small area
for shopping ,push chairs etc then it is a bus.
That doesn’t preclude a coach being used as bus as often happens in rural
areas where an operator uses a small fleet that might be taking a bowling
club to a fixture and next day using the same vehicle on a registered
service as the once a week bus to town on market day.
Buses too can be hired for outings but the passengers may well not be able
to bring as much personal gear and once upon a time going any distance like
London to the seaside in an RT was a bit masochistic, modern buses are less
challenged on the performance front.
Some operators once had a couple of vehicles with a more up market finish
like some seats with tables
for such business, I remember when Southampton got a couple as we found the
two years they did an evening
mystery tour on Wednesdays was fun as they always ended up at a pub, on one
occasion the driver took a wrong turn and we ended up in a farmyard near
Basingstoke surrounded by a bemused herd of Holsteins.


Perhaps there is an official definition in the various vehicle construction
and use regs but as its sunny I’m
not going to wade through them now.

Got things to do.

GH


















lockers

Pumping useful heat out of the Tube
 

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. In dictionaries, in legislation and
elsewhere. But this is English so if you don't like the first
definition there'll one another one along shortly :)


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Pumping useful heat out of the Tube
 

On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 16:00:13 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:



Not 50 years ago

Was LT only the Underground back then? I thought it included the buses. If
not, what was the umbrella organisation called?

As far as I recall LPTB was the umbrella organisation for London Buses
Tube and trams etc. from the 1920s

On Transport Nationalisation in 1948 this became LTE (London Country
Buses & Green Line Buses were excluded)

Might be wrong.

Assuming you're right, and LTE is indeed the parent organisation, what were
the underground railways and buses parts called?



The Londin Passenger Transport Board was set up in 1933, taking over
control of almost all public transport in London except for the main
line railways. At this time was established the London Transport area,
which extended to about 30 miles from London. It included such places
as Luton, Bishop's Stortford, Slough, Guildford and Reigate.

This was all shaken up in 1948, when the railways, docks, road haulage
and so on were nationalised. London's transport was put into the hands
of the London Transport Executive which sat alongside the Railway
Executive (and others) under the British Transport Commisson.

LTE was replaced by the London Transport Board in 1963.

Each of the above transfers affected political control and
accountability but not, I think, operations. The whole LTPB/LTE/LTB
operation was known publicly as London Transport. This included Trams,
Trolleybuses, Cental Buses, Undergound, Country Buses and Green Line
Coaches.

I think, from memories of reading London Transport Magazine in the 60s
and 70s, groups used different terms internally. The red buses were
Central Road Services and the Underground was divided into its lines
for administrative and for sports/inter-service rivalry purposes.

A good book for this stuff is the two volume A History of London
Transport by Barker and Robbins. The second volume (20th century) came
out in 1974, so it isn't entirely up to date.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

Pumping useful heat out of the Tube
 

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.

Pumping useful heat out of the Tube
 

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

PA

Pumping useful heat out of the Tube
 

On 02/09/2019 11:23, 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.Â* The RMs rode very smoothly,
although every panel was significantly drunning. Later, flying in a
Boeing 777 took me right back to those days !

PA


Er, drumming.

Pumping useful heat out of the Tube
 

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.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Pumping useful heat out of the Tube
 

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."

Pumping useful heat out of the Tube
 

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.* In dictionaries, in legislation and
elsewhere.* 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.

Pumping useful heat out of the Tube
 

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]

Pumping useful heat out of the Tube
 

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

Pumping useful heat out of the Tube
 

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.

Pumping useful heat out of the Tube
 

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

Pumping useful heat out of the Tube
 

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

Pumping useful heat out of the Tube
 

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".

Pumping useful heat out of the Tube
 

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/

Pumping useful heat out of the Tube
 

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

Pumping useful heat out of the Tube
 

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.

Pumping useful heat out of the Tube
 

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