Looks like I started something on a railroad-oriented
list. Someone said that a "half-mile long" passenger train was the longest
he had seen. Then he described a 70-car train. I pointed out how
long it was - and away things went; it got rather interesting.
This is
rather long and if you don't want to read it this is a good time to click
delete. But it shows that consideration of metric goes well beyond our own
group, and is an underlying current in the general population. Despite
what the whiners would have us believe, there is more support for conversion
that one would think.
The moderators of this railroad list let things
stray a bit if they seem to be interesting.
Carleton
I
started out with:
"A passenger car averages 25 m long. 25 x 70 =
1750 m. One mile is
1609.344 m, so a 70-car train would be considerably
longer."
Marty answered:
Please recall that when you look out
your office window, you are looking
at the USA and the USA uses a different
set of measurements then
something known as "m.". Regardless what you
think of those
measurements that the USA uses,, they still are the standard
for this
country and should be used.
From the above note I gather that
a 70 car trains is longer then a mile
but the other numbers mean absolutely
nothing to me.
Marty
Someone else responded with a
rhyme:
"A yard is a meter
A quart is a
liter."
And Marty said:
NO, in this country a
yard is 3 feet
a quart is 2 pints
If you want to play with meter and
liter's go to Canada or almost
anywhere else but this not anywhere else this
is here and I don't care
what the world does, I don't care how many people
think our system is
archaic, old fashion, out of touch with the world
(similar to a reporter
using "chugging" to describe an Amtrak train) etc, the
fact remains that
it is our system and it hasn't been changed (not without
trying, but
still not changed).
4 feet 8 1/2 inches is still the gauge
not some other mucky muck number
I'm 63, and while you can teach old dogs
new tricks, many times old dogs
don't want to learn new tricks when it is not
necessary. And at this
point in time and space it is not
necessary.
Marty
And the response from Vancouver,
BC:
Well, I'm sorry you feel that way about the measurement
systems, but do
note that there are members from all over the world on this
list, plus
many others from the US that *DO* understand metric
measurements. If
you don't want to learn metric, then feel free to skip
the post.
Personally, I'm fine with the metric system, and don't think "I
don't
wanna learn" is a valid reason not to make certain
changes.
Robert
Vancouver, BC
To which Tony from
Australia responded:
Marty,
Just remind me -
Are
those miles of yours
-
Statute
Roman
Russian
Swedish
Irish
Nautical?
And
then Merritt from the USA chimed in:
Actually, regardless of
what you think, the metric system is a standard
for this county (the USA,
that is--I don't know where the original
posters office is and what he sees
when he looks out the window). It
may not be used as much by the
average person as the "English" system,
but is is a legal standard, and all
our "English" measurements are
based on it, not the other way
around.
> From the above note I gather that a 70 car trains is longer
then a mile
> but the other numbers mean absolutely nothing to
me.
From the above, I take it you went to school many many years
ago, or
you wouldn't be saying that.
Merritt
Merritt
had more to say:
On Tuesday, April 27, 2004, at 01:25 PM,
Marty wrote:
> "A yard is a meter
> A quart is a
liter."
>
> NO, in this country a yard is 3 feet
> a quart is
2 pints
But legally, they aren't. In the USA, a yard is 0.9144
meters, and a
quart is 0.946 liters. USA customary measures are defined
by the
government (Bureau of Standards) in terms of metric
measurements.
> If you want to play with meter and liter's go to
Canada or almost
> anywhere else but this not anywhere else this is here
and I don't care
> what the world does, I don't care how many people think
our system is
> archaic, old fashion, out of touch with the world (similar
to a
> reporter
> using "chugging" to describe an Amtrak train) etc,
the fact remains
> that
> it is our system and it hasn't been
changed (not without trying, but
> still not changed).
It is not
really "our" system, it is the English system (with
some
modifications). And it was changed by us to be based on the
metric
standards. What hasn't changed much is our everyday
usage.
> 4 feet 8 1/2 inches is still the gauge not some other mucky
muck number
4 feet 8.5 inches and 1435 mm are the same distance and both
are
"standard" gauge.
> I'm 63, and while you can teach old dogs
new tricks, many times old
> dogs
> don't want to learn new tricks
when it is not necessary. And at this
> point in time and space it
is not necessary.
It is one thing to have a preference for using one
system over the
other (obviously, most Americans prefer the customary
system), but that
doesn't call for complaining when someone else uses the
other system.
I am 69 years old, have always lived in the US, and are
comfortable
with either system (but I have always been a scientist/engineer,
so I
am used to dealing with metric measurements. And I am still
learning
new tricks <grin>.
Merritt
Jeremy
commented on track gauge:
Not quite, if you are going to be
picky. 4 feet 8.5 inches is 56.5
inches. There are 25.4 mm in an inch;
that is an *exact* conversation
factor, not rounded, and is part of the
definition of an inch.
Therefore the exact conversion from 56.5 inches is
1435.1 mm.
So, is standard guage defined as 56.5 inches or 1435mm or
1435.1 mm? Is
it different in Europe vs. the US? Does
it matter?
In reality it shouldn't matter, at least in the US, as that
0.1 mm is
still well within the tolerances of the highest FRA class, class
9
track. Class 9 track allows track to be from 4'8 1/4" to 4'9
1/4",
which is equivalent to 56.25 - 57.25 in, or 1428.75 - 1454.15 mm.
So
even if someone makes a 0.1 mm mistake, there shouldn't be any
issue.
> It is one thing to have a preference for using one system
over the
> other (obviously, most Americans prefer the customary system),
but that
> doesn't call for complaining when someone else uses the other
system.
> I am 69 years old, have always lived in the US, and are
comfortable
> with either system (but I have always been a
scientist/engineer, so I
> am used to dealing with metric
measurements. And I am still learning
> new tricks
<grin>.
Agreed. And after all, the Carleton's message, to which
Marty takes
exception, did include the conversion factor from miles to
meters, so
the meaning was 100% clear. And it was comparing passenger
train
lengths in Australia and Belgium, not the US. So I'm not sure why
Marty
thinks his opinion on the matter is relevant -- last I checked
meters
and mm *are* used in Australia and
Belgium.
Regards,
Jeremy
Peter then
added:
Right. It doesn't matter in the USA. In
France, it matters, but not in
the USA.
USA Class 9:
+0.75"/-0.5"
France TGV: +/- 1 mm (about 1/64")
Here is what I posted
when this came up in 2002:
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 16:15:29 -0500
(CDT)
Subject: "millimeter tolerance"
Remember the thread about gauge
tolerance that devolved into a "debate"
about how SI (a/k/a the metric
system) was evil, etc? Well, I think I
found the source of the original
poster's information.
In reading up on the TGV (and ICE), I found the
following passage
at
http://mercurio.iet.unipi.it/tgv/rec-track.html:
"Just as on all TGV lines, the rails were aligned to 1 mm
(3/64
in) tolerances, and the
ballast was blasted to remove small,
loose
gravel."
So it
appears that the issue was not converting tolerances to Metric but
that the
SNCF MAINTAINS TGV LINES TO A TOLERANCE OF 1 mm!!!! Incredible!
What
did the FRA find with CSX ("Route of the Pumping Ballast" proudly
stencilled
on box cars) the other year? Tolerance of 1 *inch*? For
the
record, there are about 25.4 mm in 1 inch. Can you imagine *any*
North
American railroad maintaining track to this kind of tolerance?
Ha.
The site is wonderful and really makes one *proud* to be American
...
See http://mercurio.iet.unipi.it/tgv/ for TGV and
http://mercurio.iet.unipi.it/ice/ for ICE info
...
Norman, an expat from Los Angeles now living in Toronto, had
this to say.
I decided to see what the law of the United States
actually says,
as recorded at http://uscode.house.gov.
It says that the metric system
has been legal for any use in the
United States since 1866, and has been the
preferred system since
1975; and that preference was confirmed by a law
passed in 1988.
It also says it's OK to use nonstandard measurement for
personal
use.
So statements like `the USA doesn't use the metric
system' are
wrong; the law of the land says otherwise. If you want to
use
cubits and toenail-clippings for your own purposes, that's up
to you;
but if you tell someone else he's not allowed to use
metric, you're violating
the law.
The deficiences of US schools are no excuse; I was exposed
to
both systems of measurement when I went through grade school.
Now
can we please talk about trains again for a while?
Specific quotes from
the United States Code:
It shall be lawful throughout the United
States of America to
employ the weights and measures of the metric system;
and no
contract or dealing, or pleading in any court, shall be
deemed
invalid or liable to objection because the weights and
measures
expressed or referred to therein are weights or measures of
the
metric system. [15 U.S.C. 204; derived from an act passed
by
Congress on 28 July 1866.]
The Congress finds as
follows:
(1) The United States was an original signatory party to
the
1875 Treaty of the Meter (20 Stat. 709), which established the
General
Conference of Weights and Measures, the International
Committee of Weights
and Measures and the International Bureau of
Weights and Measures.
(2)
Although the use of metric measurement standards in the
United States has
been authorized by law since 1866 (Act of July
28, 1866; 14 Stat. 339), this
Nation today is the only
industrially developed nation which has not
established a
national policy of committing itself and taking steps
to
facilitate conversion to the metric system.
(3) World trade is
increasingly oriented toward the metric
system of measurement.
(4)
Industry in the United States is often at a competitive
disadvantage when
dealing in international markets because of its
nonstandard measurement
system, and is sometimes excluded when it
is unable to deliver goods which
are measured in metric terms.
(5) The inherent simplicity of the metric
system of measurement
and standardization of weights and measures has led to
major cost
savings in certain industries which have converted to the
that
system.
(6) The Federal Government has a responsibility to
develop
procedures and techniques to assist industry, especially
small
business, as it voluntarily converts to the metric system
of
measurement.
(7) The metric system of measurement can provide
substantial
advantages to the Federal Government in its own
operations.
[15 U.S.C. 205a; derived from the Metric Conversion Act
of
1975, as amended in 1988 and (I think) 1996.]
It is therefore the
declared policy of the United States -
(1) to designate the metric system
of measurement as the
preferred system of weights and measures for United
States trade
and commerce;
(2) to require that each Federal agency, by
a date certain and
to the extend economically feasible by the end of the
fiscal year
1992, use the metric system of measurement in its
procurements,
grants, and other business-related activities, except to
the
extent that such use is impractical or is likely to cause
significant
inefficiencies or loss of markets to United States
firms, such as when
foreign competitors are producing competing
products in non-metric
units;
(3) to seek out ways to increase understanding of the
metric
system of measurement through educational information and
guidance
and in Government publications; and
(4) to permit the continued use of
traditional systems of
weights and measures in non-business activities.
[15 U.S.C. 205b,
from the same act of 23 Dec 1975, as amended 23 Aug
1988.]
Norman
Toronto ON
