Pumping useful heat out of the Tube

[Recliner]

<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-49482840>

[Robin9]

I certainly hope this turns out to be feasible. Now, if only they can
find a way of extracting surplus heat from inside tube trains and
pumping that into domestic heating systems! Central Line trains
should be the first. It has always puzzled me that eastbound Central
Line trains arrive at Stratford where the platforms are above ground
level, the doors open . . . . . . and the heat remains in the carriages


--
Robin9

[Recliner]

Robin9 <***@londonbanter.co.uk> wrote:
I certainly hope this turns out to be feasible. Now, if only they can

Post by Robin9
find a way of extracting surplus heat from inside tube trains and
pumping that into domestic heating systems! Central Line trains
should be the first. It has always puzzled me that eastbound Central
Line trains arrive at Stratford where the platforms are above ground
level, the doors open . . . . . . and the heat remains in the carriages!

I read a recent article, I think in MR, that pointed out,
counter-intuitively, that underground trains are hot not because of the
heat they pick up in the tunnels, but because of the solar heat they absorb
before entering the tunnel. Apparently experiments have proved that
underground trains that never emerge into sunlight stay cooler (eg, the
Drain). Even being stabled in open sidings (eg, the Victoria line)
pre-heats them.

So just ventilating the hot air in the carriages in a station actually
releases very little of the stored heat in the carriage body.

[Peter Able]

Post by Robin9
I certainly hope this turns out to be feasible. Now, if only they can

Post by Robin9
find a way of extracting surplus heat from inside tube trains and
pumping that into domestic heating systems! Central Line trains
should be the first. It has always puzzled me that eastbound Central
Line trains arrive at Stratford where the platforms are above ground
level, the doors open . . . . . . and the heat remains in the carriages!

I read a recent article, I think in MR, that pointed out,
counter-intuitively, that underground trains are hot not because of the
heat they pick up in the tunnels, but because of the solar heat they absorb
before entering the tunnel. Apparently experiments have proved that
underground trains that never emerge into sunlight stay cooler (eg, the
Drain). Even being stabled in open sidings (eg, the Victoria line)
pre-heats them.
So just ventilating the hot air in the carriages in a station actually
releases very little of the stored heat in the carriage body.

Open the door of a domestic refrigerator for, say, 5-10 seconds and the
cold air tumbles out - without significant effect on the fridge and
other contents.

Only connect :)

PA

[Roland Perry]

Post by Robin9
I certainly hope this turns out to be feasible. Now, if only they can
find a way of extracting surplus heat from inside tube trains and
pumping that into domestic heating systems! Central Line trains
should be the first. It has always puzzled me that eastbound Central
Line trains arrive at Stratford where the platforms are above ground
level, the doors open . . . . . . and the heat remains in the
carriages!

Because the platforms are even hotter?

[Recliner]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Robin9
I certainly hope this turns out to be feasible. Now, if only they can
find a way of extracting surplus heat from inside tube trains and
pumping that into domestic heating systems! Central Line trains
should be the first. It has always puzzled me that eastbound Central
Line trains arrive at Stratford where the platforms are above ground
level, the doors open . . . . . . and the heat remains in the
carriages!

Because the platforms are even hotter?

No, because the train body contains far more heat than does the air in
the carriage.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Robin9
I certainly hope this turns out to be feasible. Now, if only they can
find a way of extracting surplus heat from inside tube trains and
pumping that into domestic heating systems! Central Line trains
should be the first. It has always puzzled me that eastbound Central
Line trains arrive at Stratford where the platforms are above ground
level, the doors open . . . . . . and the heat remains in the
carriages!

Because the platforms are even hotter?

No, because the train body contains far more heat than does the air in
the carriage.

Letting in colder air should help in the short term though.

[Recliner]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Robin9
I certainly hope this turns out to be feasible. Now, if only they can
find a way of extracting surplus heat from inside tube trains and
pumping that into domestic heating systems! Central Line trains
should be the first. It has always puzzled me that eastbound Central
Line trains arrive at Stratford where the platforms are above ground
level, the doors open . . . . . . and the heat remains in the
carriages!

Because the platforms are even hotter?

No, because the train body contains far more heat than does the air in
the carriage.

Letting in colder air should help in the short term though.

Yes, briefly.

[MissRiaElaine]

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

[b***@nowhere.co.uk]

On Sat, 31 Aug 2019 17:25:25 +0100

Post by MissRiaElaine
How many more times..? It's the *UNDERGROUND* not the "Tube"
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR..!!!!!!!!!

Huh? Even TfL call it the tube in their advertising and its been known as
such for probably a hundred years.

[Recliner]

Post by MissRiaElaine
How many more times..? It's the *UNDERGROUND* not the "Tube"
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR..!!!!!!!!!

You'll have to tell LU and TfL, who routinely call the whole system the
Tube. And in this context, where we're talking only about the deep Tube
lines, it's perfectly correct to call it the Tube.

[MissRiaElaine]

Post by Recliner

Post by MissRiaElaine
How many more times..? It's the *UNDERGROUND* not the "Tube"
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR..!!!!!!!!!

You'll have to tell LU and TfL, who routinely call the whole system the
Tube. And in this context, where we're talking only about the deep Tube
lines, it's perfectly correct to call it the Tube.

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.

Sorry, to me it always has been and always will be the Underground.

[Recliner]

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Recliner

Post by MissRiaElaine
How many more times..? It's the *UNDERGROUND* not the "Tube"
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR..!!!!!!!!!

You'll have to tell LU and TfL, who routinely call the whole system the
Tube. And in this context, where we're talking only about the deep Tube
lines, it's perfectly correct to call it the Tube.

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.
Sorry, to me it always has been and always will be the Underground.

That's the official historic name, but it's not what Londoners call it.
Only someone who doesn't know London would call it that.

It's not what TfL calls it. Try looking for the word 'Underground' in:
https://tfl.gov.uk

And if you want an official Underground map, guess what it's long been
called:
https://tfl.gov.uk/maps/track/tube

I don't recall that ordinary Londoners have called it the Underground for
at least a century; the Tube name started to catch on from 1900 with the
CLR, otherwise known as the 'Tuppenny Tube':
<http://www.historyhouse.co.uk/articles/the_tube.html>

[MissRiaElaine]

Post by Recliner

Post by MissRiaElaine
Sorry, to me it always has been and always will be the Underground.

That's the official historic name, but it's not what Londoners call it.
Only someone who doesn't know London would call it that.

Sorry, wrong. I was born in Romford and grew up in Barkingside. I only
moved up here when I got married, after a brief stint in the Midlands.
So don't tell me I don't know London.

The official historic name is good enough for me.

[Recliner]

On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 12:40:32 +0100, MissRiaElaine

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Recliner

Post by MissRiaElaine
Sorry, to me it always has been and always will be the Underground.

That's the official historic name, but it's not what Londoners call it.
Only someone who doesn't know London would call it that.

Sorry, wrong. I was born in Romford and grew up in Barkingside. I only
moved up here when I got married, after a brief stint in the Midlands.
So don't tell me I don't know London.
The official historic name is good enough for me.

If you want official historic names, why pick the arbitrary
Underground name? It wasn't the original name for the lines, and
isn't the current colloquial name. Would you talk about taking a
Metropolitan Railway train from Paddington to Farringdon? And, of
course, you'd use the City & South London Railway to get from London
Bridge to Stockwell. After all, those are the official historical
names.

The Tube is the technically correct term for the deep tube lines, but
being shorter, and most people not being techies, its use extended to
cover all the LU lines, and TfL has reflected that reality.

And, of course, there's a new naming issue coming up: Crossrail. TfL
is treating the Elizabeth Line as a network in its own right, not just
as another underground or Tube line. So it'll have its own roundel,
just like the whole of the Underground and the whole of the
Overground, but unlike, say, the Metropolitan Line (or, to you, the
Metropolitan Railway). One could have argued with equal logic that it
should be regarded as a Tube line or an Overground line.

[Bryan Morris]

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Recliner

Post by MissRiaElaine
How many more times..? It's the *UNDERGROUND* not the "Tube"
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR..!!!!!!!!!

You'll have to tell LU and TfL, who routinely call the whole system the
Tube. And in this context, where we're talking only about the deep Tube
lines, it's perfectly correct to call it the Tube.

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.
Sorry, to me it always has been and always will be the Underground.

Trolley Bus roundels used to say Trolleybus but it wasn't the name of
the LPTB

[Bryan Morris]

Post by MissRiaElaine
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.

[Marland]

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by MissRiaElaine
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.

Shouting TUBE like a loud mouthed toddler doesn’t negate that in the past
the map has been known as the UndergrounD. map and further back it has also
carried the legend Railways, Diagram of Lines.

Examples of both in these links to current ebay sales

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Tube-map-1966-vintage-London-underground-/113868840132

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Vintage-London-Transport-Railways-Map-Diagram-of-Lines-Underground-HC-Beck-1953-/183874190840

Go back further and the maps carried the title London Electric Railways


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 .


GM

[MissRiaElaine]

Post by Marland
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.

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

[Graeme Wall]

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Marland
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.
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.

[MissRiaElaine]

Post by Graeme Wall
Actually train station appears to be a tabloidism, railroad stations
and/or depots seem to be the preferred nomenclature across the pond.

Yes, I think you may be right, not been over there for a while. I did
take the coast-to-coast trip from New York to Oakland and down to LA
about 20 years ago, would love to do that again.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by MissRiaElaine
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.

Indeed. It's a British thing, falling into step (oops, I nearly said 'in
line') with Bus Station.

[Recliner]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by MissRiaElaine
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.

Indeed. It's a British thing, falling into step (oops, I nearly said 'in
line') with Bus Station.

And, to be fair, that's perfectly logical. Bus stations aren't called
road stations, after all. We go to stations to board trains or buses,
not to visit the steel rails or roads. So, although it still grates on
me, I can't really object to Train Station.

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Graeme Wall

 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.

Indeed. It's a British thing, falling into step (oops, I nearly said 'in
line') with Bus Station.

Hence the saying, bus stations are where buses stop, train stations are
where trains stop, work stations…

[David Cantrell]

Post by Graeme Wall
Hence the saying, bus stations are where buses stop, train stations are
where trains stop, work stations???

Thus neatly demonstrating that anyone who expects language to be
consistent is a space alien unfamiliar with actual human language.

[bob]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Marland
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.
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

[Roland Perry]

Post by MissRiaElaine
I spent 15+ years working for British Rail, not British Trains.

When did they lose the "ways"?

<https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-original-british-railways-logo-
20114170.html>

[MissRiaElaine]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by MissRiaElaine
I spent 15+ years working for British Rail, not British Trains.

When did they lose the "ways"?
<https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-original-british-railways-logo-
20114170.html>

1965, according to Wiki - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by MissRiaElaine
I spent 15+ years working for British Rail, not British Trains.

When did they lose the "ways"?
<https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-original-british-railways-logo-
20114170.html>

1965, there was a massive rebranding exercise introducing drab blue
liveries[1] and the indecisive arrow.

[1] Actually looked quite smart when new but didn't wear well, cheap paint!

[Marland]

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Marland
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.

Post by MissRiaElaine
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

[Peter Able]

Post by Marland

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Marland
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.

Post by MissRiaElaine
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

[Recliner]

Post by Marland

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Marland
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.

Post by MissRiaElaine
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>

Post by Marland
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.

[MissRiaElaine]

Post by Marland
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.

[Recliner]

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Marland
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.

[Arthur Figgis]

Post by Recliner

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Marland
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?

[Recliner]

Post by Arthur Figgis

Post by Recliner

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Marland
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.

[Graham Harrison]

On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 22:55:39 -0000 (UTC), Recliner

Post by Recliner

Post by Arthur Figgis

Post by Recliner

Post by MissRiaElaine

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".

[bob]

Post by Arthur Figgis

Post by Recliner

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Marland
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

[Bryan Morris]

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Marland
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.

[Marland]

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Marland
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-fleet/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

[Recliner]

Post by Marland

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Marland
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-fleet/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.

[Bryan Morris]

Post by Recliner

Post by Marland

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Marland
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-fleet/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.

[Recliner]

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by Recliner

Post by Marland

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Marland
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-fleet/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.

Post by Bryan Morris
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.

Post by Bryan Morris
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.

[Marland]

Post by Recliner

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by Recliner
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.

Post by Bryan Morris
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.

Post by Bryan Morris
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

[Robin]

Post by Marland

Post by Recliner

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by Recliner
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.

Post by Bryan Morris
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.

Post by Bryan Morris
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 :)

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Marland

Post by Recliner

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by Recliner
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.

Post by Bryan Morris
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.

Post by Bryan Morris
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.

[Peter Able]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Marland

Post by Recliner

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by Recliner
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.

Post by Bryan Morris
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.

Post by Bryan Morris
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.

[Recliner]

Post by Peter Able

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Marland

Post by Recliner

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by Recliner
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.

Post by Bryan Morris
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.

Post by Bryan Morris
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."

[Peter Able]

Post by Recliner

Post by Peter Able

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Marland

Post by Recliner

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by Recliner
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.

Post by Bryan Morris
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.

Post by Bryan Morris
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
"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

[Peter Able]

Post by Peter Able

Post by Recliner

Post by Peter Able

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Marland

Post by Recliner

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by Recliner
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.

Post by Bryan Morris
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.

Post by Bryan Morris
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
"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

Er, drumming.

[Recliner]

Post by Peter Able

Post by Recliner

Post by Peter Able

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Marland

Post by Recliner

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by Recliner
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.

Post by Bryan Morris
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.

Post by Bryan Morris
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
"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

Post by Peter Able
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.

[Peter Able]

Post by Recliner

Post by Peter Able

Post by Recliner

Post by Peter Able

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Marland

Post by Recliner

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by Recliner
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.

Post by Bryan Morris
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.

Post by Bryan Morris
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
"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

Post by Peter Able
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

[MissRiaElaine]

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.

[Recliner]

On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 16:37:54 +0100, MissRiaElaine

Post by MissRiaElaine

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.

[Graham Harrison]

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by Recliner

Post by Marland

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by MissRiaElaine

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-fleet/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/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g190763-d629264-i270600340-Brooklands_Museum-Weybridge_Surrey_England.html
and then front entrance Routemasters with a baggage trailer
https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/838654761833587997/

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Graham Harrison

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by Recliner

Post by Marland

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Marland
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-fleet/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/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g190763-d629264-i270600340-Brooklands_Museum-Weybridge_Surrey_England.html

Southern Television's first Outside Broadcast unit was a conversion of
one of those.

Post by Graham Harrison
and then front entrance Routemasters with a baggage trailer
https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/838654761833587997/

[Marland]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Graham Harrison

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by Recliner

Post by Marland

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Marland
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-fleet/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/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g190763-d629264-i270600340-Brooklands_Museum-Weybridge_Surrey_England.html

Southern Television's first Outside Broadcast unit was a conversion of
one of those.

Interesting, I was expecting it to be one the BEA coaches I used to see on
their way to the airport in the sixties
as in the link above which were AEC version of the AEC Regal and with a
strong family resemblance to the AEC
Regal single decker buses seen all around London outskirts in that era.

The Southern TV one is a much older model which a search reveals to be a
Commer Commando and I have no
recollection of seeing one of those at all so presumably were withdrawn
when I was still too young to remember or all my attention was on the
Trolleybuses.

Only picture I can find of it.
https://images.app.goo.gl/eL3qyWdzR88jfmvN8

Apparently the RAF had some as well.

Some info here and a survivor here.

http://yorkshireairmuseum.org/exhibits/support-vehicles/commer-commando-q4/


GH

[Graham Harrison]

Post by Marland

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by MissRiaElaine

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-fleet/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.

[Marland]

Post by Graham Harrison

Post by Marland
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

[Graham Harrison]

Post by Marland

Post by Graham Harrison

Post by Marland
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

Maybe it was Midland Red that I was thinking about in terms of speed.

[David Cantrell]

Post by Bryan Morris
A coach is simply a single decker bus.

I'll try to remember that this evening, maybe it will make the 130 seem
more glamourous.

[Bryan Morris]

Post by David Cantrell

Post by Bryan Morris
A coach is simply a single decker bus.

I'll try to remember that this evening, maybe it will make the 130 seem
more glamourous.

Then of course there were Route Master Green Line double decked buses
branded as coaches (better upholstery than the common or garden red
version and with a closing door to the platform)
Loading Image...

[MissRiaElaine]

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by David Cantrell

Post by Bryan Morris
A coach is simply a single decker bus.

I'll try to remember that this evening, maybe it will make the 130 seem
more glamourous.

Then of course there were Route Master Green Line double decked buses
branded as coaches (better upholstery than the common or garden red
version and with a closing door to the platform)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Routemaster_RCL_2233.jpg

They were simply beautiful when they were new. I've driven a standard
Routemaster (well an RML actually) that a friend restored, but I've
always wanted to have a go in one of these.

[Basil Jet]

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Marland
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.

You can call it what you like. But "railway station" aka "train station"
is a concept independent of which country you are in or which
organisation runs it or used to run it.

[Basil Jet]

Post by MissRiaElaine
I spent 15+ years working for British Rail, not British Trains. It will
always be a railway station as far as I'm concerned.

If you'd spent fifteen years working for National Express or Green Line,
what would you call a coach station?

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Basil Jet

Post by MissRiaElaine
I spent 15+ years working for British Rail, not British Trains. It
will always be a railway station as far as I'm concerned.

If you'd spent fifteen years working for National Express or Green Line,
what would you call a coach station?

Home

[MissRiaElaine]

Post by Basil Jet

Post by MissRiaElaine
I spent 15+ years working for British Rail, not British Trains. It
will always be a railway station as far as I'm concerned.

If you'd spent fifteen years working for National Express or Green Line,
what would you call a coach station?

I did spend 15 years working for National Express actually, funny you
should say that. After I left the railways I moved sideways.

The National Express HQ is, believe it or not, based at Digbeth *Coach*
Station in Birmingham.

[Recliner]

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Basil Jet

Post by MissRiaElaine
I spent 15+ years working for British Rail, not British Trains. It
will always be a railway station as far as I'm concerned.

If you'd spent fifteen years working for National Express or Green Line,
what would you call a coach station?

I did spend 15 years working for National Express actually, funny you
should say that. After I left the railways I moved sideways.
The National Express HQ is, believe it or not, based at Digbeth *Coach*
Station in Birmingham.

Why is that in any way surprising?

[MissRiaElaine]

Post by Recliner

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Basil Jet

Post by MissRiaElaine
I spent 15+ years working for British Rail, not British Trains. It
will always be a railway station as far as I'm concerned.

If you'd spent fifteen years working for National Express or Green Line,
what would you call a coach station?

I did spend 15 years working for National Express actually, funny you
should say that. After I left the railways I moved sideways.
The National Express HQ is, believe it or not, based at Digbeth *Coach*
Station in Birmingham.

Why is that in any way surprising?

Given that some people here seem to think it's surprising to call buses
buses and coaches coaches it seemed possible. A lot of people seem to
want to call coach stations bus stations as well.

[tim...]

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Recliner

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Basil Jet

Post by MissRiaElaine
I spent 15+ years working for British Rail, not British Trains. It
will always be a railway station as far as I'm concerned.

If you'd spent fifteen years working for National Express or Green Line,
what would you call a coach station?

I did spend 15 years working for National Express actually, funny you
should say that. After I left the railways I moved sideways.
The National Express HQ is, believe it or not, based at Digbeth *Coach*
Station in Birmingham.

Why is that in any way surprising?

Given that some people here seem to think it's surprising to call buses
buses and coaches coaches it seemed possible. A lot of people seem to want
to call coach stations bus stations as well.

Don't know about elsewhere

but Barton Busses in Nottingham(shire) traditionally ran a fleet of what I
would call coaches on their the single decker routes

made getting on and off a full bus rather slow

tim

Post by MissRiaElaine
--
Ria in Aberdeen
[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]

[Roland Perry]

Post by tim...

Post by MissRiaElaine
Given that some people here seem to think it's surprising to call
buses buses and coaches coaches it seemed possible. A lot of people
seem to want to call coach stations bus stations as well.

Don't know about elsewhere
but Barton Busses in Nottingham(shire) traditionally ran a fleet of
what I would call coaches on their the single decker routes

Having used them myself, they are just single-decker buses.

Post by tim...
made getting on and off a full bus rather slow

Ditto bendy-buses with the centre doors sealed off (for whatever
reason).

[tim...]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by tim...

Post by MissRiaElaine
Given that some people here seem to think it's surprising to call buses
buses and coaches coaches it seemed possible. A lot of people seem to
want to call coach stations bus stations as well.

Don't know about elsewhere
but Barton Busses in Nottingham(shire) traditionally ran a fleet of what I
would call coaches on their the single decker routes

Having used them myself, they are just single-decker buses.

before 1989 - when "Barton Busses" ceased to exist? I see that it was
actually called Barton Transport

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barton_Transport

tim

[Basil Jet]

Post by MissRiaElaine
A lot of people seem to
want to call coach stations bus stations as well.

There's no obvious difference between the structures - you'd be hard
pushed to tell them apart unless the vehicles were present.

In America they seem to say "Greyhound bus" where we would say "coach".
I imagine all of their coach stations are called bus stations.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Marland
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.

One if the worst offenders for "Train Station" are bus companies (the
bigger ones also train operators of course) in the naming of bus stops
and even painting on the side of a bus.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/***@N08/36278889712

[MissRiaElaine]

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by MissRiaElaine
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.

[Recliner]

On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 12:41:40 +0100, MissRiaElaine

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by MissRiaElaine
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.

Guess what, there also wasn't a London Overground when you were a
child, even though those same railway lines existed then.

[b***@nowhere.co.uk]

On Sun, 01 Sep 2019 14:05:01 +0100

Post by Recliner
On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 12:41:40 +0100, MissRiaElaine

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by MissRiaElaine
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.

Guess what, there also wasn't a London Overground when you were a
child, even though those same railway lines existed then.

Most of of the Overground is little more than a cynical rebranding exercise.
The only new section is the ELLX and the service on it is a long way short of
being metro service standard. Late trains, large gaps in the service in rush
hour, trains skipping stations, pointlessly slow speeds and acceleration, you
name it, its got it. If you want a nice scenic trip around hipsterville then
its great, if you want to get somewhere quickly then use the tube.

[Peter Able]

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by MissRiaElaine
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

[Graeme Wall]

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by MissRiaElaine
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.

Wasn't it LRT for about 15 minutes in the 80s?

[Peter Able]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by MissRiaElaine
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.

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.

But that was well after my time with LT. Just for the OP, morale was
sky-high in those days. Staff were proud to be with LT - and I don't
remember any circumstances that there was ambiguity. I started at
Chiswick Works which was primarily LT Buses, but did do things like
paint tests for both rail and road IIRC. Lots of painted panes on the
flat roof of a building - 500 shades of red! On the engineering side
everyone was so proud of the A-stock and, being Chiswick, the RMs in
particular - though I never saw one on the skid pad - I wonder why?

I was in hospital for a colonoscopy this morning - but my spirits were
well and truly raised by a bunch of bus enthusiasts marshalling RM(L)s
and an SM(?) outside the endoscopy ward !

PA

[b***@nowhere.co.uk]

On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 15:09:35 +0100

Post by Peter Able

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by MissRiaElaine
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.

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.

[Peter Able]

Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 15:09:35 +0100

Post by Peter Able

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by MissRiaElaine
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.

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.

Huh!

PA

[bob]

Post by Peter Able

Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 15:09:35 +0100

Post by Peter Able

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by MissRiaElaine
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.

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

[Recliner]

Post by Peter Able

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by MissRiaElaine
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.

[Peter Able]

Post by Recliner

Post by Peter Able

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by MissRiaElaine
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 - and as I explained (shame on you for quoting
selectively) 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...:)

PA

[Recliner]

Post by Peter Able

Post by Recliner

Post by Peter Able

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by MissRiaElaine
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?

Post by Peter Able
- 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!

Post by Peter Able
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...:)

[Bryan Morris]

Post by Recliner

Post by Peter Able

Post by Recliner

Post by Peter Able

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by MissRiaElaine
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.

Post by Recliner

Post by Peter Able
- 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!

Post by Peter Able
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...:)

[Peter Able]

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by Peter Able

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by MissRiaElaine
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

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by Peter Able
- 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!

Post by Peter Able
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...:)

PA

[Bryan Morris]

Post by Peter Able

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by Peter Able

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by MissRiaElaine
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
http://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
Loading Image...

and not a roundel in sight.

[Recliner]

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by Recliner

Post by Peter Able

Post by Recliner

Post by Peter Able

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by MissRiaElaine
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?

Post by Bryan Morris
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.

[Peter Able]

Post by Recliner

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by Recliner

Post by Peter Able

Post by Recliner

Post by Peter Able

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by MissRiaElaine
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!

Post by Recliner

Post by Bryan Morris
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

[Bryan Morris]

Post by Recliner

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by Recliner

Post by Peter Able

Post by Recliner

Post by Peter Able

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by MissRiaElaine
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?

Post by Bryan Morris
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

[Trolleybus]

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

Post by Recliner

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by Recliner

Post by Peter Able
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

[Peter Able]

Post by Recliner

Post by Peter Able

Post by Recliner

Post by Peter Able

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by MissRiaElaine
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?

Post by Peter Able
- 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!

Post by Peter Able
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

[Marland]

Post by Peter Able

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by MissRiaElaine
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

[Peter Able]

Post by Marland

Post by Peter Able

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Bryan Morris

Post by MissRiaElaine
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

[Arthur Figgis]

Post by MissRiaElaine
How many more times..? It's the *UNDERGROUND* not the "Tube"
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR..!!!!!!!!!

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.