The failure of metric reform! You talk of the 'confusion' in the same breath - metre and mile. Instead you could simply say: If, a passenger car averages 25 m long. 40 cars would be ONE kilometre (25 x 40 = 1000 m). Easier teaching than 'harder lerning'."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."
(3) to seek out ways to increase understanding of the metricsystem of measurement through educational information and guidance and in Government publications.
Yes, there is a need to teach them young - young at age and mind.
Brij Bhushan Vij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20040504H0985(decimal) AM(IST)
Aa Nau Bhadra Kritvo Yantu Vishwatah -Rg Veda.
*****The New Calendar Rhyme*****
Thirty days in July, September:
April, June, November, December;
All the rest have thirty-one; accepting February alone:
Which hath but twenty-nine, to be (in) fine;
Till leap year gives the whole week READY:
Is it not time to MODIFY or change to make it perennial, Oh Daddy!And make the calendar work with Leap Week Rule! ***** ***** ***** *****
From: "Carleton MacDonald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [USMA:29662] Metric discussion regarding railroads - long but perhaps interesting
Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 10:52:00 -0400
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
_________________________________________________________________
Let your desktop sizzle! Get the hottest wallpapers. http://www.msn.co.in/entertainment/ Right here at MSN Entertainment!
