London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #61   Report Post  
Old September 2nd 19, 12:51 AM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jul 2019
Posts: 895
Default 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.


  #62   Report Post  
Old September 2nd 19, 08:58 AM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Feb 2018
Posts: 220
Default 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

  #63   Report Post  
Old September 2nd 19, 09:49 AM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jun 2018
Posts: 86
Default 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
  #64   Report Post  
Old September 2nd 19, 09:50 AM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Apr 2019
Posts: 37
Default 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

  #65   Report Post  
Old September 2nd 19, 11:07 AM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jun 2016
Posts: 93
Default 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.


  #66   Report Post  
Old September 2nd 19, 11:23 AM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jun 2016
Posts: 93
Default 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


  #67   Report Post  
Old September 2nd 19, 11:24 AM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jun 2016
Posts: 93
Default 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.
  #68   Report Post  
Old September 2nd 19, 11:25 AM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,715
Default 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.

  #69   Report Post  
Old September 2nd 19, 12:13 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jul 2019
Posts: 895
Default 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."



  #70   Report Post  
Old September 2nd 19, 02:36 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jul 2019
Posts: 895
Default 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.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Roadside Ticket Machines run by London Buses - how useful / reliableare they? Tim B London Transport 4 August 1st 11 08:22 PM
Cheap, free, fun, or memorable things to do in London - useful website chlz London Transport 0 August 5th 08 11:08 AM
Any useful Oyster card FAQs? Clive Page London Transport 7 January 17th 06 06:39 PM
Worried about terrorism on the tube? - useful item on Ebay Nick McCamley London Transport 3 March 4th 05 12:10 PM
Oystercard - not quite as useful as we were led to believe Boltar London Transport 18 December 22nd 03 01:07 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:11 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 London Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about London Transport"

 

Copyright © 2017