When did BR start using metric on signs?

[caradoc]

IIRC when BR electrified the Weaver Jc/Glasgow route, the OLE mast number plates used km measurements instead of miles. 

 

On 11/08/2021 at 21:26, Trog said:

I wish that the zealots on both sides would just let people use which ever set of measurements they preferred. and that the supermarkets labelled stuff using both systems.

 

And that is surely the answer to the whole imperial/metric/freedom etc debate. 

 

[BernardTPM]

4 hours ago, kevinlms said:

But a Metric Tonne is exactly 1000Kg! No approximation/conversion required.

True, but it diid mean that the marked weight on the wagons wasn't that much different before and after. Yes, the 100 ton tanks were 102 tonnes, but on the smaller wagons the tonne figure was more or less the same as the ton figure for loadings, so the transition wasn't too difficult for those working on the wagonload freight side. If you had a good idea how much of a particular load would weigh a ton, then it would hardy be any different for a tonne.

Much closer in percentage terms than the yard/metre situation.

[Jeremy Cumberland]

16 hours ago, roythebus1 said:

Pway certainly do still use chains as measurement.

Curiously, when I did some land surveying in the 1980s, we used metric chains (20 m). One advantage of this was that metric links are a convenient 200 mm. Imperial links, as anyone aged 50+ might remember from the backs of school exercise books, were 7.92 inches.

[Helmdon]

On 11/08/2021 at 13:12, Nearholmer said:

at junior school we got a rich brew of both.

As did we in the late 1980s… my parents were both teachers and IIRC there was a realisation that the great changeover wasn’t really happening so in about 1985 a working knowledge of feet, inches pounds and ounces (and metric conversion) went back on the curriculum. No idea how long that lasted for, but I was there for it.

 

 

Edited August 14, 2021 by Helmdon

[doilum]

3 hours ago, Helmdon said:

As did we in the late 1980s… my parents were both teachers and IIRC there was a realisation that the great changeover wasn’t really happening so in about 1985 a working knowledge of feet, inches pounds and ounces (and metric conversion) went back on the curriculum. No idea how long that lasted for, but I was there for it.

 

 

Correct. It was, I feel a more politically motivated move as Mrs T, having finished with the miners started to take aim at Europe. A sure vote winner in many areas!

Despite being totally for a full metric system, I sometimes wonder if those of us educated pre 1971 developed a much better set of mental arithmetic skills as we constantly juggled with numbers in a different base units. 

[kevinlms]

2 hours ago, doilum said:

Correct. It was, I feel a more politically motivated move as Mrs T, having finished with the miners started to take aim at Europe. A sure vote winner in many areas!

 

Yes, I'm afraid it was political. In the sense that Reagan & Thatcher (obviously leaders of the two most powerful English speaking nations) were both against conversion, even though both countries had spent a fortune going around 50% of the way to conversion.

Logic would have said that it was cheaper to keep going, since money for new machinery for metric had already been spent by many. Never a strong point for politicians to use logic, when there is ideology.

 

Places like Australia were probably even further progressed, but business still wanted to deal with Britain & the US.

[ejstubbs]

On 11/08/2021 at 21:26, Trog said:

I wish that the zealots on both sides would just let people use which ever set of measurements they preferred.

 

History tells that that approach doesn't always work out well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter#Cause_of_failure

 

(Note that NASA said the root cause of the failure lay with themselves for failing to make the appropriate checks and tests that would have caught the discrepancy.  Which was nice of them - but there is a valid underlying point that fewer checks and tests would be required overall if everyone was adhering to an agreed standard in the first place.)

[figworthy]

11 hours ago, doilum said:

I sometimes wonder if those of us educated pre 1971 developed a much better set of mental arithmetic skills as we constantly juggled with numbers in a different base units. 

 

You're not the first to suggest that, and I'm sure that there is something in that.

 

Adrian

[Mark Saunders]

British Railways were using metric long before you think as BD containers were lettered in both prior to the metrication act for working to the continent .

[doilum]

23 hours ago, kevinlms said:

Yes, I'm afraid it was political. In the sense that Reagan & Thatcher (obviously leaders of the two most powerful English speaking nations) were both against conversion, even though both countries had spent a fortune going around 50% of the way to conversion.

Logic would have said that it was cheaper to keep going, since money for new machinery for metric had already been spent by many. Never a strong point for politicians to use logic, when there is ideology.

 

Places like Australia were probably even further progressed, but business still wanted to deal with Britain & the US.

The Aussies went the whole country kilometre. Younger brother ( who lived there for over 20 years) recently recalled how difficult it was to source non metric nuts and bolts unless you approached the importers  of American plant and machines.

Having driven in Australia, I feel that in terms of urban road safety, we missed a real opportunity by not adopting the kilometre for speed limits.

[dhjgreen]

On 12/08/2021 at 22:35, BernardTPM said:

Highly unlikely in 1972. While not BR, the 'International' style road signs of that period were thoroughly Imperial. I somehow doubt BR would be using Metric signage  to warn the public at that time. Here's the restriction signs on the old Menai Bridge in August 1972.

 

 

It's an old adage, but there is some truth in 'never model a model'.

2.6m is about 8' 6" (same as the w.b. of BR bogies).

That (vauxhall?) car must be a time machine then, 1965.

[BernardTPM]

22 minutes ago, dhjgreen said:

That (vauxhall?) car must be a time machine then, 1965.

It's a 1965 Ford Corsair, but I can't see why you would need a time machine for it to appear in a 1972 photograph. It's just a 7 year old car.

[maico]

All units of length are based on the SI unit. The metre defined as the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299 792 458 of a second. You can covert that into anything you want, for example a barleycorn or foot as long as there is an agreement.

Since the International Yard and Pound Agreement of 1959, one foot is defined as 0.3048 meters. Why anyone should bother with additional non-SI units remains a mystery...

 

Charles de Gaulle was very tall at 196cm. What is that in feet and inches?  Some will use an online caculator and still get it wrong!

 

 

Edited August 15, 2021 by maico

[dhjgreen]

32 minutes ago, BernardTPM said:

It's a 1965 Ford Corsair, but I can't see why you would need a time machine for it to appear in a 1972 photograph. It's just a 7 year old car.

Misread it as 62, need my eyes checking again 

[doilum]

The real beauty of the SI system is the ease with which area, volume and weight can be correlated. In theory, 1mm of rain over 1sq metre of roof produces 1 litre of run off. When it is collected in the big plastic bowser, which measures 1 cubic metre, it will weigh 1 tonne when full.

Edited August 15, 2021 by doilum

[Dave-5-5-7]

On 11/08/2021 at 15:50, AndrueC said:

There's also the more ignorant Brexit supporters who thought that leaving the EU would mean the UK going back to imperial.

Indeed, we have never left Imperial measurements. I can only speak for my own education, but I was at secondary school in the early 90s and was taught both Imperial and Metric units. In college it's mostly SI units, but some assessments required conversions. Basically designed to catch you out. 

Personally I tend to mix feet and inches for longer measurements and mm for anything under an inch just because it annoys people, the look on someones face when you say "8ft and 12mm" is comical. Oh and I use decimetres for a laugh. There are some measurements I don't use, I don't use Hertz, my old man always used c/s so that's what I use. 

[BernardTPM]

56 minutes ago, maico said:

All units of length are based on the SI unit. The metre defined as the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299 792 458 of a second.

On that basis, given that is quite an odd fraction of a second, you could just as easily and equally accurately define a foot or a cubit. It doesn't add particular validity to any of them.

 

Anyway, to return to the original question, would BR have put up a public sign (not markings on a ferry wagon, container or on engineering drawings) in Metric measurements in 1972 while all the recently introduced 'Internatonal' style road signs gave feet and inches - I don't think so.

I'm not even sure why there would be a headroom sign there unless that was for vehicle access and even then there appear to be other signs hanging down into that space that would be hit by an 8' 6" or 2.6m high vehicle.

Edited August 15, 2021 by BernardTPM

[doilum]

51 minutes ago, maico said:

All units of length are based on the SI unit. The metre defined as the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299 792 458 of a second. You can covert that into anything you want, for example a barleycorn or foot as long as there is an agreement.

Since the International Yard and Pound Agreement of 1959, one foot is defined as 0.3048 meters. Why anyone should bother with additional non-SI units remains a mystery...

 

Charles de Gaulle was very tall at 196cm. What is that in feet and inches?  Some will use an online caculator and still get it wrong!

 

 

This is the current definition. When first conceived around 225 years ago, it was based upon the, then calculated size of the earth. One metre was 1/10,000th of the distance from the equator to the north pole.

The fact that this Wikipedia article dates it to 1793 (French Revolution) might indicate a need for more research as I thought it was a bit older and the work of an English man.

[Steamport Southport]

Anyone advocating using Metric should be forced to use metric time and dates! 

 

 

Yes. It was a thing. Funnily enough Napoleon refused to use it and got rid of it as soon as he could.

 

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

 

 

[doilum]

3 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

Anyone advocating using Metric should be forced to use metric time and dates! 

 

 

Yes. It was a thing. Funnily enough Napoleon refused to use it and got rid of it as soon as he could.

 

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

 

 

But was it his adoption of the SI system that sealed British antipathy towards it. 

[maico]

1 hour ago, BernardTPM said:

On that basis, given that is quite an odd fraction of a second, you could just as easily and equally accurately define a foot or a cubit. It doesn't add particular validity to any of them.

 

 

 

Yes it does, the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant.

 

SI base units used in science are metric kg ,Ampere, kelvin etc. Why would you use a foot which has a fractional division of 12 inches?

[Steamport Southport]

39 minutes ago, doilum said:

But was it his adoption of the SI system that sealed British antipathy towards it. 

 

No idea what a SI system even is.

 

Didn't do maths or science beyond the basics. 

[maico]

48 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

Anyone advocating using Metric should be forced to use metric time and dates! 

 

 

Yes. It was a thing. Funnily enough Napoleon refused to use it and got rid of it as soon as he could.

 

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

 

 

 

The second is an SI unit defined in terms of radiation corresponding to the caesium-133 atom. It used to be based on a weight  falling 4.9 metres from rest which of course is not a constant and not accurate enough for science or the division of the day which is even less accurate.

[AndrueC]

14 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

No idea what a SI system even is.

 

Didn't do maths or science beyond the basics. 

Might be worth reading up on it.

 

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

 

Nevertheless, with this nearly unversal level of acceptance, the SI system "has been used around the world as the preferred system of units, the basic language for science, technology, industry and trade."

 

Not knowing your species' official system of measurement isn't a good look

Edited August 15, 2021 by AndrueC

[doilum]

16 minutes ago, AndrueC said:

Might be worth reading up on it.

 

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

 

Nevertheless, with this nearly unversal level of acceptance, the SI system "has been used around the world as the preferred system of units, the basic language for science, technology, industry and trade."

 

Not knowing your species' official system of measurement isn't a good look

The great shame is, that when they wrote the National Curriculum      ( which, in general, was a good thing,) there was no provision to study the SI system as an integrated topic.