When did BR start using metric on signs?

[phil-b259]

3 hours ago, MJI said:

Modellers have an advantage, we use both.

 

I do have to convert thou plastic card to mm though.

 

A builder my parents engaged put it thus 'I use whats easiest to work with'

 

If dealing with very small measurements the metric unit of mm is far easier to handle than fractions of an inch. On the other hand 6ft is easier to remember than 1.8288m.

 

In other words keeping the number of digits and decimal places as low as is necessary!

Edited August 11, 2021 by phil-b259

[DavidBird]

6 hours ago, melmerby said:

 

Inches of mercury, of course.............

 

 

18 of them...

 

[DavidBird]

9 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

 

Depending upon exactly what the arch is, it may or not be a "road bridge" as in the sense of a bridge over a public road, so the Traffic Signs Regulations may, or may not, be applicable.

 

If it is a "private" sign, I would make two observations:

...

 

Back on topic, the picture I was referring to was certainly not a public road but merely a gap in a wall between two platforms in a station.  So it was definitely railway signage, in BR Rail Alphabet

[Trog]

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.
 

 But I don't think that there is much chance of that as so far as I can tell Tesco at least seems to have a policy of labelling goods in such a way that making comparisons is deliberately made difficult. I checked two of their brands of apples the other day one packet said so many apples of so many grams, and the other was so many apples of so many mm diameter. I also once noticed that cans of tinned fish of equal weight and price, were shelf edge marked as being different prices per 100g weight.  On asking the staff none of them seemed to think that this was odd, and I was told things like those ones are line caught which makes them heavier!

 

Myself I just use whatever is most convenient, although my wife would sometimes get funny with me if I was putting up say a group of pictures and working in Imperial vertically and in metric horizontally.

 

At work in the Area Civil Engineers Office we would design the vertical alignment of the track using metric data for the vertical height, recorded at points imperial dimensions apart. Quite what scale a diagonal line drawn at 10cm = 1m vertically and 5cm = 60 feet horizontally is at I don't know but it plotted out quite nicely. Needless to say when Railtrack came along and mandated the use of a particular computer system, (I still suspect just to make it easy for their site engineers to check compliance as having no railway experience what so ever they would not have known how to manually check the curve A values, if they even knew that they existed.) those scale options were not offered.

 

6' and relative rail levels were marked up in imperial as that was what the track gangs preferred, the technical staff converting the lifts and slues into metric in their heads when marking up on the sleepers for tampers which as they were manufactured in Austria had controls calibrated in metric.

[kevinlms]

6 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

On the other hand 6ft is easier to remember than 1.8288m.

 

In other words keeping the number of digits and decimal places as low as is necessary!

But that is merely using exact conversions and using that as an example as to why metric is bad.

 

If something was 1.8 metres and I told you that it was 5ft 10.86614in long, you'd tell me, I suspect, that I was being ridiculous. Rightly so, so I say 1.8288m is ridiculous (depending what the purpose of the exactness is), is equally nonsense.

 

I believe if you measured a wall or something at your house, it wouldn't measure any whole easy to remember number in either Imperial or Metric. It would be an odd number in either system. Why because someone made the length of the wall to fit.

 

So rather than use either system, to give least number of digits/ decimal places (why not fractions for Imperial?), IMO it is better to be consistent. To me that is the metric system.

[uax6]

Skirting back to on topic, the underpass bridge here at Littleport is a definite railway structure, but the road underneath it appears to be Cambs Highways or NR (dependant with what is wrong with it!). When it was closed to vehicles 18 months ago to make it a pedestrian underpass for the station I was amazed that the first action of the whole project was a completely un-expected one. 

I had reported the height sign on the down side as illegible 2 years earlier to the railway off track team, who came back and said its a highways sign, so I reported it to them. Nothing happened, until yep, until the road was blocked off to vehicles, where-upon they put up a new one! 

Interestingly in the last 3 months they have been back and done the up side now too... 

But it goes to show that even on a railway structure it may not be the railway that maintains the signage....

 

Andy G

[97406]

I went to primary school in from 1974 and we were taught metric. However my parents used imperial, so I was well versed in both sets of units. I now cherrypick the measurement system for different things, so I visualise distance in miles, but elevation better in metres. Cyclists and runners that measure distances in km are just cheating and making it seem like they’ve gone further (). I’ve made stuff using a combination of mm and inches before, as it’s easier to measure a whole number of inches for some dimensions. 

 

ETA the point I was going to make…. As far as I remember bridge height road signs were alway in ft and inches, and gradient signs were ratios when I were a lad.

 

Edited August 12, 2021 by 97406

[DavidBird]

A google search for images of "Penmouth and Curzon" gives this, from PressReader.com, a digital magazine service.  The sign in question is above the Western - it is to my mind a perfect fit with the scene.  At that time (early 1970s), I was learning metric at primary school, so signs like this would seem to be natural - but of course the architecture and signage woud get absolutely zero attention from a 7 year old...

 

Edited August 12, 2021 by DavidBird

[phil-b259]

10 hours ago, kevinlms said:

But that is merely using exact conversions and using that as an example as to why metric is bad.

 

 

 

Not so!

 

Its actually a manifestation of the phrase KISS (Keep it simple s*****).

 

If something measures out as 6ft 2" exactly then why not use it? Similarly if when you measure something and it comes out as 1.8m then why not use that?

 

Naturally such an approach is not appropriate where complex calculations are used or where clarity is needed for business sales, but is perfectly acceptable in a DIY situation say.

Edited August 12, 2021 by phil-b259

[LBRJ]

17 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

A builder my parents engaged put it thus 'I use whats easiest to work with'

 

If dealing with very small measurements the metric unit of mm is far easier to handle than fractions of an inch. On the other hand 6ft is easier to remember than 1.8288m.

 

In other words keeping the number of digits and decimal places as low as is necessary!

 

That is exactly what I do too - use whichever suits the application.

Keep the numbers small and manageable for mental arithmetic.

 

I do laugh a bit when I look at Yuotube etc and see US Framers and Builders jump through hoops to multiply or even just add, obscure fractional measurements though

[AndrueC]

3 hours ago, LBRJ said:

 

That is exactly what I do too - use whichever suits the application.

Keep the numbers small and manageable for mental arithmetic.

 

I do laugh a bit when I look at Yuotube etc and see US Framers and Builders jump through hoops to multiply or even just add, obscure fractional measurements though

It was also interesting how Mythbusters were imperial for everything linear but as soon as volume or force were involved they switched to metric if they actually needed to calculate the result. It seemed like imperial was something of an aged system. Fine for basic distance measurements but when things got complicated metric was easier. Probably because the units are interelated and consistent. From what I remember of my physics the final units of a calculation could be deduced by treating those of the left hand side like any other expression and simplifying them.

Edited August 12, 2021 by AndrueC

[kevinlms]

54 minutes ago, AndrueC said:

It was also interesting how Mythbusters were imperial for everything linear but as soon as volume or force were involved they switched to metric if they actually needed to calculate the result. It seemed like imperial was something of an aged system. Fine for basic distance measurements but when things got complicated metric was easier. Probably because the units are interelated and consistent. From what I remember of my physics the final units of a calculation could be deduced by treating those of the left hand side like any other expression and simplifying them.

Yes, but Americans don't even use the imperial system, they use a bastardised version called customary. It is based on the old British system of the 1820s, with modifications, such as weights, i.e. a US Ton is 2000 pounds. 

[kevinlms]

4 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Not so!

 

Its actually a manifestation of the phrase KISS (Keep it simple s*****).

 

If something measures out as 6ft 2" exactly then why not use it? Similarly if when you measure something and it comes out as 1.8m then why not use that?

 

Naturally such an approach is not appropriate where complex calculations are used or where clarity is needed for business sales, but is perfectly acceptable in a DIY situation say.

I can't agree with any of that, far from KISS.

[doilum]

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

The Imperial-Metric crossover in schools must have spread through the late 1960s, and I have a hunch that Decimalsation of the currency in 1971 marked a sort of watershed, with Imperial everything being "normal", but Metric taught as a secondary thing before that, and the reverse position afterwards.

 

Certainly, when I started at infants' school (1963, I think) everything was Imperial, and we very quickly had to grapple with all the different 'bases' that throws at you (not that we knew they were 'bases' at that stage). By secondary school, everything was metric, thankfully, while at junior school we got a rich brew of both.

I remember dad ( a primary head teacher) coming home with a large box full of wooden rulers sometime in 1972/3. The new metric ones had arrived and the order from the education office was to consign all the imperial rulers to the bin. He had a lifetime supply of paint stirrers.

I recall in my first year of teaching, 1978, the head of the geography department waving an official letter from the examination board reminding schools that the period of grace was up and from that summer's examinations no credit would be given to any answer unless it was it used metric units.

Edited August 12, 2021 by doilum

[PaulRhB]

12 hours ago, uax6 said:

But it goes to show that even on a railway structure it may not be the railway that maintains the signage....

If it’s a public road it’s the Highways Authority responsibility, we spend too much time telling them their signs are obscured or missing so the MOM’s frequently clean them or cut back foliage themselves if they can reach. 
As to the op, I know the railway has tried at least once in my career to go metric but we still measure lines in miles and chains although we did introduce metric distances into the rule book about 15 years ago to replace the 4ft and 6ft but most dimensions were duplicated in both for a while. I suspect the sign on the platform was specified as a minor job and the units chosen by the person who ordered it rather than any policy, maybe someone was being progressive as we’d just joined the EU?  

[62613]

On 11/08/2021 at 18:51, phil-b259 said:

 

A builder my parents engaged put it thus 'I use whats easiest to work with'

 

If dealing with very small measurements the metric unit of mm is far easier to handle than fractions of an inch. On the other hand 6ft is easier to remember than 1.8288m.

 

In other words keeping the number of digits and decimal places as low as is necessary!

In that case you use 1825 or 1830mm and adjust accordingly. In 30 years of piping design, finishing in 2016, I don't think I ever quoted a dimension on a drawing closer than 5mm. One D.O. supervisor boll****d a draughtsman for dimensioning a pipe 10m long to the nearst millimetre.

 

 

 

Edited August 12, 2021 by 62613

[Nearholmer]

10 hours ago, DavidBird said:

google search for images of "Penmouth and Curzon" gives this, from PressReader.com, a digital magazine service.

It’s a really well observed bit of modelling, so notwithstanding all the interesting discussion we’ve had, it’s hard to believe that the layout-builder didn’t do his research    Into signage. Pity we can’t ask him!

[Mark Saunders]

On 11/08/2021 at 16:00, Nearholmer said:

......... as in having an Empire, you mean?

You mean an alternative to the Odeon!

[uax6]

4 hours ago, PaulRhB said:

As to the op, I know the railway has tried at least once in my career to go metric but we still measure lines in miles and chains although we did introduce metric distances into the rule book about 15 years ago to replace the 4ft and 6ft but most dimensions were duplicated in both for a while. I suspect the sign on the platform was specified as a minor job and the units chosen by the person who ordered it rather than any policy, maybe someone was being progressive as we’d just joined the EU?  

 

AFAIAA where ERTMS (Or ERTMC or whatever its called) is in use, then the railway has to have distance measured in kill-o-meters... 

 

Andy G

[BernardTPM]

On 12/08/2021 at 10:32, DavidBird said:

A google search for images of "Penmouth and Curzon" gives this, from PressReader.com, a digital magazine service.  The sign in question is above the Western - it is to my mind a perfect fit with the scene.  At that time (early 1970s), I was learning metric at primary school, so signs like this would seem to be natural - but of course the architecture and signage woud get absolutely zero attention from a 7 year old...

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).

Edited March 31, 2022 by BernardTPM

[Trog]

28 minutes ago, uax6 said:

 

AFAIAA where ERTMS (Or ERTMC or whatever its called) is in use, then the railway has to have distance measured in kill-o-meters... 

 

Andy G

 

I suspect that the PW will still be using miles and yards, and even saying things like.."Go and fix the twist fault 20 yards past the 24 Kilometre mile post." 

[uax6]

27 minutes ago, Trog said:

 

I suspect that the PW will still be using miles and yards, and even saying things like.."Go and fix the twist fault 20 yards past the 24 Kilometre mile post." 

 

I hope that chains are still used too,' a chain before the 38 km post' sounds quite nice....

 

Andy G

[roythebus1]

Pway certainly do still use chains as measurement.

 

The metric requirement for height signs came in in 1985 TSRGD regulations. Height had to be in metric and imperial, but still drivers of overheight vehicles hit low bridges.

 

There used to be some interesting traffic signs off the road that goes from Camden Town towards Holloway. The side roads were marked "6'6" width restriction in 50 metres".

 

BR started using metric weight in 1973 with the introduction of TOPS, with train loads being measured in tonnes not tons.

[BernardTPM]

Ironically a British Ton (2240 lbs) is nearer to a Metric Tonne (2204 lbs) than it is to an American Ton (2000 lbs).

[kevinlms]

11 hours ago, BernardTPM said:

Ironically a British Ton (2240 lbs) is nearer to a Metric Tonne (2204 lbs) than it is to an American Ton (2000 lbs).

That's the Americans for you!

 

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