Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Roadside Ticket Machines run by London Buses - how useful / reliableare they? | London Transport | |||
Cheap, free, fun, or memorable things to do in London - useful website | London Transport | |||
Any useful Oyster card FAQs? | London Transport | |||
Worried about terrorism on the tube? - useful item on Ebay | London Transport | |||
Oystercard - not quite as useful as we were led to believe | London Transport |