Metric Railway

[185143]

It is also worth mentioning that the first substantive steps towards metrification (is that a word?) started appearing in UK legislation with the 1963 Weights and Measures Act, which was adopted by parliament ten years before we even became an EU (or then EEC) member state.

I think the word is metrication.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I can't believe that the railways still deal with Imperial Units, children at school have been taught solely metric for the last 40-years. If I talk in feet and inches to my grandson it is like speaking in Clingon to him.

Has anyone ever tried to just add up (never mind multiply, etc.) in imperial on an Excel spreadsheet.

It is essentially the same as the roads. Engineers will measure and calculate in metric, but the signs will stay imperial. The two can happily coexist.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I would have thought that it would only be the lines with ERTMS fitted that would be converted to metric, seeing as that is a metric system with lots of bells and whistles which should prevent drivers speeding. It wouldn't make sense to convert otherwise because you'd have to either do it all overnight, or stage it so that units have got speedos reading in mph and kph, and then convert signs over, but ensuring there is some kind of differentiating feature between the kph boards and the mph boards, perhaps using a square board instead of round?

What is the situation with ERTMS on the Cambrian?

the kph boards have a black background that I can say

 

[TheNewNo2]

Roadside markers on motorways are already signed in metric (every 100m).

They have been since the motorways were built, or so I'm told.

I can't believe that the railways still deal with Imperial Units, children at school have been taught solely metric for the last 40-years. If I talk in feet and inches to my grandson it is like speaking in Clingon to him.

It's Klingon with a K.



London Underground is officially metric. Lengths and distances are measured in metres (from a 0 point at Ongar). However, when it comes to speed restrictions, they're still done in multiples of 5mph, though to calculate the lost customer hours you have to use kph.

When I was at primary school in the 90s, we were taught Imperial, but only as a secondary measure. Main stuff is rightly taught in SI units. However, given as a country we are not entirely metric, you do need children to be taught Imperial in a limited manner. It's mostly for length, possibly a bit for weights but very little.

There's no big problem in using Imperial for distance/speed and Metric for everything else. Just so long as you're consistent about things and don't switch from one to another needlessly.

 

[185143]

I would have thought that it would only be the lines with ERTMS fitted that would be converted to metric, seeing as that is a metric system with lots of bells and whistles which should prevent drivers speeding. It wouldn't make sense to convert otherwise because you'd have to either do it all overnight, or stage it so that units have got speedos reading in mph and kph, and then convert signs over, but ensuring there is some kind of differentiating feature between the kph boards and the mph boards, perhaps using a square board instead of round?

From experience of being in the driving cab of an ERTMS unit on the Cambrian (officially!!) it is impossible to "overspeed". The "system" just will not allow it!

And the speedos on the dash are in KPH.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What is the situation with ERTMS on the Cambrian?

The Cambrian is metricated!

Off topic, but if you don't mind me asking, were you on the Cambrian yesterday?

 

[notadriver]

Whilst overspeeding maybe impossible with ERTMS surely having a brake intervention is frowned up on ? Wouldn't it be like having a TPWS overspeed?

 

[Llanigraham]

Off topic, but if you don't mind me asking, were you on the Cambrian yesterday?

No, why?
Occurence in the morning just after Sutton Bridge Junc, perhaps?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Whilst overspeeding maybe impossible with ERTMS surely having a brake intervention is frowned up on ? Wouldn't it be like having a TPWS overspeed?

The example I was shown it just restricted the power available and I don't think there was any brake intervention. A bit like a cars rev limiter.

 

[edwin_m]

It's Klingon with a K.

Under the metric system one klingon is 1000 lingons.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

It's still the 46 3/4 even if you call it 75.237 (ignoring the fact that your zero isn't any closer to the buffers at Euston than mine).

We design in 18.288m lengths - so what?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Metrication can become standard in as little as ten years, but because of people's stubborn unwillingness to learn what has proven itself to be the superior system it's been much slower for Britain.

The minister responsible for halting the full conversion to metric, the recently deceased Geoffrey Howe, said it was the worst decision he ever made.
He recognised the confusion of the current mish-mash of standards.
But like anything to do with "Europe" the Daily Mail and UKIP will stop any further metrication moves.

 

[MisterT]

Whilst overspeeding maybe impossible with ERTMS surely having a brake intervention is frowned up on ? Wouldn't it be like having a TPWS overspeed?

I don't know how it's done in the UK, but at the high speed line in the Netherlands (ERTMS Level 2), you'll get a 'service brake'. The service brake will apply the brakes automatically, just enough to bring its speed back below the limit. The brakes will be released again when the train is no longer overspeeding.
When the service brake is not available (due to a technical issue), the brakes will fully apply and the train will come to a complete stop.
You will, however, get a warning before the brakes are applied (speedometer will turn yellow and a warning sound is played). A few kilometers an hour overspeed is no problem (at 160 kmh the max overspeed before the brakes are applied is 5 kmh, at 300 kmh it is 10 kmh).

 

[Trog]

It's still the 46 3/4 even if you call it 75.237 (ignoring the fact that your zero isn't any closer to the buffers at Euston than mine).

We design in 18.288m lengths - so what?

Seeing that the P-Way and OHL imperial zero points at Euston are different. Hence why the first OHL mast north of a milepost is often plated as the highest number mast in the previous mile. I would not be at all surprised if a set of new kilometre posts used a different zero to both existing systems. Just to make conversion that little bit more difficult.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That's a bit far-fetched in my opinion. Old staff might be saying it's the 46 3/4 milepost, but in twenty years time there will be mostly new staff who will be trained in using metric measurements if the scenario of changing it tomorrow was to occur. Metrication can become standard in as little as ten years, but because of people's stubborn unwillingness to learn what has proven itself to be the superior system it's been much slower for Britain.

More far fetched than that the line through Northampton finished in ~1880 is still often called the New line, to distinguish it from the Old line via Weedon?

Young Railwaymen learn from the old, the old will enjoy winding up the young by being obscure, if they can do it to graduates and new managers from outside the industry even better. As even younger staff join the now not so young staff will enjoy watching them try to get their heads round the use of old names and measurements. Every access point has a name, in fact they often have several often one each for P-Way, S&T and OHL. Some of these names are obvious the nearest pub, village or named house etc. For a lot of others you need a degree in railway history as they reference landmarks long since demolished, or amusing events relating to staff long since retired. But it is a collective thing and learning it is one of the ways you become one of the team. So that after a few years practice you can describe your days work to a non railway muggle in what appears to be a foreign language.

 

[Noddy]

But what do you all think, should be going metric now? Should we have gone metric back in the 1960s, or should we stick with the imperial measurements on our network? If you believe the last one, then I suggest not using the "if it isn't broke don't fix it" argument, because if the imperial system wasn't somewhat broken, the much more simple metric system wouldn't exist. Thanks...

Absolutely change as soon as possible. We should have done it when the rest of the Commonwealth did it.

There is nothing wrong with celebrating Imperial - it was a great system that served us well. However every so often something comes along that is just better, and in this case the metric system is simply better.

 

[didcotdean]

Indeed metrication was an initiative agreed within the Commonwealth that only the UK failed on.

I went to primary school in the late 1960s and remember being told that we were the first class to be only taught metric measures as by the time we left imperial measures would have become history so it wasn't worth confusing us.

 

[Barn]

Also unless the EU has brought in a law that over rides existing English laws such as the acts of Parliament that underpinned the building of the railway. I believe it would be illegal to remove the imperial mileposts as their provision and maintenance are usually a condition for the building of the lines.

Let us dispell this Euro-myth! Relatively few EU 'laws' override legislation from the UK parliament.

All EU legislative measures on weights a d measures (that I'm aware of) are directives and therefore do not have direct applicability and need to be translated into UK law through an act of parliament. Furthermore such directives will require the agreement of British (and other EU member state) ministers in the Council of the European Union.

I haven't checked weights and measures specifically but (a) directives are generally implemented by statutory instruments rather than bills which are subject to only very limited parliamentary scrutiny and (b) many directives only require a qualified majority vote and can thus pass without UK approval.

 

[RichardN]

Some of us were taught both, I left school six years ago with a good knowledge of how to use both systems. Imperial still has it's uses in my opinion.

Including as the standard for aircraft altitude in all Europe except Russia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_level

 

[crehld]

I haven't checked weights and measures specifically but (a) directives are generally implemented by statutory instruments rather than bills which are subject to only very limited parliamentary scrutiny and (b) many directives only require a qualified majority vote and can thus pass without UK approval.

Yet more Euro-myths!

As for point (a) it is important to note that statutory instruments derive their authority from acts of parliament. If an EU policy can be implemented through a statutory instrument, chances are that policy is already compatible with UK legislation (a great deal of EU legislation is already part of UK law, often long before the EU even began proposing the measure). Where the policy for implementation is not already on the statute books it is simply not possible for the government to magic up a statutory instrument without any legislative basis. Furthermore to claim statutory instruments receive only very limited parliamentary scrutiny is far from the truth. The reality is, and especially in recent years since select committees have taken on a more independent and active role, they receive as much attention as bill presented before both houses.

As for point (b) this is true on paper at least, I'll grant you that. But it is important to note that standard practice in the Council of the EU is to reach consensus rather than actually cast votes. QMV is a procedure which is available but very rarely utilized. On the rare occasions where votes are actually cast, it is rarer still for the UK to vote against the majority (despite its reputation), and even rarer still for a decision to go 'against' the UK (my brief review of the data suggest only 4 decisions in the last year out of probably over 500 'legislative' decisions).

And I go back to the original fact, which is that directives have absolutely no direct applicability in EU member states. They provide the skeletal policy aspiration / goal which member states are free to interpret and transpose according to their unique political, cultural and economic specificities.

 

[Barn]

Yet more Euro-myths!

As for point (a) it is important to note that statutory instruments derive their authority from acts of parliament. If an EU policy can be implemented through a statutory instrument, chances are that policy is already compatible with UK legislation (a great deal of EU legislation is already part of UK law, often long before the EU even began proposing the measure). Where the policy for implementation is not already on the statute books it is simply not possible for the government to magic up a statutory instrument without any legislative basis.

Err, the only "legislative basis" required is the European Communities Act 1972 which allows ministers to pass statutory instruments in order to implement directives. That power does not require any other pre-existing UK legislation, and many regulations and orders are passed which rely on no other power but the 1972 Act. Statutory instruments passed using that Act have the full power of an Act of Parliament and can repeal or amend other legislation including Acts.

Furthermore to claim statutory instruments receive only very limited parliamentary scrutiny is far from the truth. The reality is, and especially in recent years since select committees have taken on a more independent and active role, they receive as much attention as bill presented before both houses.

European legislation is looked at by the European Scrutiny Committee which has to get through over 1000 legislative documents per parliamentary session. I'm afraid that's nothing like a bill which can have a bill committee dedicated to it alone for weeks. The implementing regulations are usually not considered at all.

As for point (b) this is true on paper at least, I'll grant you that. But it is important to note that standard practice in the Council of the EU is to reach consensus rather than actually cast votes. QMV is a procedure which is available but very rarely utilized. On the rare occasions where votes are actually cast, it is rarer still for the UK to vote against the majority (despite its reputation), and even rarer still for a decision to go 'against' the UK (my brief review of the data suggest only 4 decisions in the last year out of probably over 500 'legislative' decisions).

I'm afraid it's naive to think that the practice of consensus decision-making is independent of the underlying voting system. Understanding the backstop bargaining strength of any party to a negotiation is vital. It will colour both the conduct of the negotiations and the UK's position in those negotiations. Member states will negotiate in full knowledge that the QMV system is what will resolve any disputes, and the UK will actively try to avoid putting itself in a position where it loses a vote. That's a long way from the UK receiving its desired position, or directives passing only if the UK is truly 'happy' with them.

 

[Murph]

Including as the standard for aircraft altitude in all Europe except Russia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_level

Nautical miles will likely always remain the standard for distance and speed for nautical and aeronautic navigation. They are simply far too convenient due to their fundamental correspondence with latitude. Additionally, in the maritime environment, cables (and less commonly used chains) are unlikely to ever fall out of fashion for short range navigation, since all professional maritime navigators are quite used to using them and they are a quite convenient measure for shorter distances.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

More far fetched than that the line through Northampton finished in ~1880 is still often called the New line, to distinguish it from the Old line via Weedon?

Well, before High Speed 1, this country hadn't built a railway in one hundred years, so I guess it is kind of new in that sense. Having said that, it isn't very new is it? It's about 135 years old...

 

[DerekC]

Sorry to disappoint, but the version of ERTMS which is to be rolled out in GB (unlike the earlier one used on Cambrian) now allows for the driver display to be either in metric or imperial units, controlled by a software "switch" set by a variable transmitted from the infrastructure. So we can use miles for as long as we like and then switch to kilometres, or even have some routes in each unit, with the train display switching from one to the other as it crosses the boundary. The controlling specification is the Control, Command & Signalling (CoCoSig) TSI which allows for some national variations, this being one of them.

 

[crehld]

We're going wildly off topic so I will limit my response to the following and leave it there:

Err, the only "legislative basis" required is the European Communities Act 1972 which allows ministers to pass statutory instruments in order to implement directives. That power does not require any other pre-existing UK legislation, and many regulations and orders are passed which rely on no other power but the 1972 Act.

The European Communities Act (1972) does not offer a carte blanche for statutory instruments to be pushed through on anything the EU comes up with, and in this regard only grants ministers the authority to present EU legislation before parliament (as a bill or SI) to enable UK law to be changed. Where SIs are used they will derive their authority from a pre-existing Act. If no such Act exists a new bill will need to be presented. This has most recently been clarified by Section 18 of the European Union Act (2011).

Statutory instruments passed using that Act have the full power of an Act of Parliament and can repeal or amend other legislation including Acts.

Only an Act of Parliament has the full power of an Act of Parliament. SIs can amend certain provisions in Acts provided those Acts give scope for SIs to do so. Acts can only be repealed through the adoption of a repeal Act or through the process of implied repeal, itself a result of the adoption of another later conflicting Act.

European legislation is looked at by the European Scrutiny Committee which has to get through over 1000 legislative documents per parliamentary session.

The European Scrutiny Committee is merely a filtering body whose primary role is to assess the importance of EU legislative proposals. Note here the main scope is to look at proposals before they are decided, not adopted legislation.

I'm afraid that's nothing like a bill which can have a bill committee dedicated to it alone for weeks. The implementing regulations are usually not considered at all.

You appear to be confusing the role of a legislative committee (I guess that's what you mean by a 'bill committee'?) with a select committee. Once proposals agreed by ministers are adopted and require translating into UK law (be it through an Act of Parliament or through a statutory instrument whose authority is derived from a per-existing Act) a legislative committee will of course be established. Where statutory instruments are used select committees will review the government's actions according to their policy remit, if the committee believes the matter to be significant. Also don't forget the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which is focused solely on the adoption of statutory instruments by government.

I'm afraid it's naive to think that the practice of consensus decision-making is independent of the underlying voting system. Understanding the backstop bargaining strength of any party to a negotiation is vital. It will colour both the conduct of the negotiations and the UK's position in those negotiations. Member states will negotiate in full knowledge that the QMV system is what will resolve any disputes, and the UK will actively try to avoid putting itself in a position where it loses a vote. That's a long way from the UK receiving its desired position, or directives passing only if the UK is truly 'happy' with them.

I take your point here. If only my students were capable of such critical analysis!!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Sorry to disappoint, but the version of ERTMS which is to be rolled out in GB (unlike the earlier one used on Cambrian) now allows for the driver display to be either in metric or imperial units, controlled by a software "switch" set by a variable transmitted from the infrastructure. So we can use miles for as long as we like and then switch to kilometres, or even have some routes in each unit, with the train display switching from one to the other as it crosses the boundary. The controlling specification is the Control, Command & Signalling (CoCoSig) TSI which allows for some national variations, this being one of them.

Just checking, is it the driver who decides whether he/she would like to see miles/km?

 

[notadriver]

No it depends what part of the line and signalling is in use

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Well, before High Speed 1, this country hadn't built a railway in one hundred years

*cough*

Manchester Airport Branch - 1993
Windsor Link - 1989
Selby Diversion - 1983

 

[Barn]

The European Communities Act (1972) does not offer a carte blanche for statutory instruments to be pushed through on anything the EU comes up with, and in this regard only grants ministers the authority to present EU legislation before parliament (as a bill or SI) to enable UK law to be changed. Where SIs are used they will derive their authority from a pre-existing Act. If no such Act exists a new bill will need to be presented. This has most recently been clarified by Section 18 of the European Union Act (2011).

I'm afraid that's simply not true.

There are hundreds and hundreds of SIs that derive their authority only from the 1972 Act. If you have access to Westlaw etc, just go to the 1972 Act, look at the "SIs made under this Act" function and read the preambles to the SIs. For many of these SIs there is no corresponding domestic legislation.

If you really want to disagree with me, perhaps you could tell me what the non-1972 Act legislative basis was for the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2006?

Section 18 of the 2011 Act does not say anything about how directives are implemented. It is a reminder that directly applicable EU law is applicable only because the 1972 Act (or other Acts) says that it is and thus at least technically parliamentary supremacy is maintained. It was inserted for largely political reasons.

Only an Act of Parliament has the full power of an Act of Parliament. SIs can amend certain provisions in Acts provided those Acts give scope for SIs to do so. Acts can only be repealed through the adoption of a repeal Act or through the process of implied repeal, itself a result of the adoption of another later conflicting Act.

That applies to SIs generally but SIs implementing EU directives have much grander powers than this. See section 2(4) of the 1972 Act which provides that "the provision that may be made under [this section] includes, subject to Schedule 2 to this Act, any such provision (of any such extent) as might be made by Act of Parliament".

It's as if you're reading from a constitutional law textbook without considering the difference between normal statutory instruments and EU-implementing ones.

You appear to be confusing the role of a legislative committee (I guess that's what you mean by a 'bill committee'?) with a select committee.

I said "bill committee" because I meant bill committe, which scrutinise primary legislation. (http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/offices/commons/scrutinyunit/public-bill-committees/). We were comparing whether EU legislation receives the same level of scrutiny as bills, and they clearly don't.

Select committes are entirely different and relate to governmental performance monitoring and topical investigations rather than legislative scrutiny.

Once proposals agreed by ministers are adopted and require translating into UK law (be it through an Act of Parliament or through a statutory instrument whose authority is derived from a per-existing Act) a legislative committee will of course be established.

As far as I understand, a dedicated legislative committee will not be established for a 1972 Act SI, which is by far and away the most common way of implementing directives. I've certainly followed the passage of many SIs and have never been aware of any substantive domestic parliamentary debate on them. Scrutiny is more likely to take the form of a public consultation.

Also don't forget the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which is focused solely on the adoption of statutory instruments by government.

Again, this is a very busy committee which provides nothing like the analysis of a dedicated bill committee even if it decides to call in an SI. Most SIs passed under the 1972 Act are subject only to anulment on a negative resolution rather than requiring any form of positive approval of Parliament.

 

[cjp]

London Underground is officially metric. Lengths and distances are measured in metres (from a 0 point at Ongar). However, when it comes to speed restrictions, they're still done in multiples of 5mph, though to calculate the lost customer hours you have to use kph.


There's no big problem in using Imperial for distance/speed and Metric for everything else. Just so long as you're consistent about things and don't switch from one to another needlessly.

And I hate the TfL travel planner telling me distances in Kilometres rather than miles.
It is not being cutting edge it is selfish inconsiderateness as all signs are are in miles and speeds in mph.
If I am running I can accept Km but for cycling or driving it is Miles in this country

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

*cough*

Manchester Airport Branch - 1993
Windsor Link - 1989
Selby Diversion - 1983

Well, I never... I've been lied to about HS1

 

[Radedamer]

Under the metric system one klingon is 1000 lingons.

And under the imperial system, one lingon is 928 lingonberies!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Converting miles at either 1600m or 1608m: surely for accuracy, metric posts should be put in on the basis of new measurements? Any conversion, however precise, will only perpetuate old inaccuracies. It might be just a tale that the Victorian navies knocked a couple of chains off each milepost so they could get paid a bit more...

As for converting at all: if it's to do with ERTMS, I'm sure I've read on this very forum that ERTMS Phase 2 offers no real benefits (unlike Phase 3) and is only really being implemented due to EU regs. In which case, it might all be irrelevant in a couple of years.

 

[Maurice3000]

While the whole discussion about the EU is interesting, it has nothing to do with any of this.

Britain’s parliament voted to introduce the metric system in the late 19th century. Britain decided in 1964, after years of dithering, to really put some effort in and replace everything with metric. That was ten years before Britain joined the EEC. And, over 90% of Britain is metric nowadays (even if you don’t always see it on the surface).

The EU has nothing do with this, they didn’t push for it, they didn’t ask for it. Legally Britain has the right to use any measurement system it wants to. The only legal requirement is for British manufacturers that want to sell in the EU who need to advertise their wares in metric for the benefit of consumers. Not a big deal as practically all British manufacturers switched to metric in the seventies.

The real reason this is happening is because Network Rail is in a proper measurement mess. They have repeatedly been criticised for their asset management. Nobody knows exactly how much track Network Rail is responsible for because part of it is on the books in chains, part of it in miles and part of it in kilometres. Considering 99.99% of all engineering in the world is done in metric anyway and everything ‘official’ (government, armed forces, police, NHS, civil engineering etc.) in Britain completed metrication in Britain years ago it makes sense for Network Rail to get on with it. Especially in a time when so many new and upgrade projects are underway. And about time I’d say.

 

[Trog]

The real reason this is happening is because Network Rail is in a proper measurement mess. They have repeatedly been criticised for their asset management. Nobody knows exactly how much track Network Rail is responsible for because part of it is on the books in chains, part of it in miles and part of it in kilometres. Considering 99.99% of all engineering in the world is done in metric anyway and everything ‘official’ (government, armed forces, police, NHS, civil engineering etc.) in Britain completed metrication in Britain years ago it makes sense for Network Rail to get on with it. Especially in a time when so many new and upgrade projects are underway. And about time I’d say.

What system the network is measured in is irrelevant, except that doing it in imperial is probably easier than metric, as you would just be extending existing and updating the existing data sets. As for 99.99% of all engineering being done in metric, the USA alone probably makes that a lie.

 

[Emblematic]

What system the network is measured in is irrelevant, except that doing it in imperial is probably easier than metric, as you would just be extending existing and updating the existing data sets. As for 99.99% of all engineering being done in metric, the USA alone probably makes that a lie.

As the problem is the unreliability of the data, the sensible approach is to normalise the data you have to metric, then update and correct with new measurements as they are taken. No distance measurements are made in imperial now, surveying equipment usually provides only metric measurements.
99.99% is an exaggeration, but apart from construction & civils, even American engineering is overwhelmingly metric. Globalisation has taken care of that.

 

[Trog]

As the problem is the unreliability of the data, the sensible approach is to normalise the data you have to metric, then update and correct with new measurements as they are taken. No distance measurements are made in imperial now, surveying equipment usually provides only metric measurements.
99.99% is an exaggeration, but apart from construction & civils, even American engineering is overwhelmingly metric. Globalisation has taken care of that.

You obviously know little about the railway and its systems, distance measurements in imperial are common, and many current systems use imperial or sometimes both imperial and metric depending on what is most suitable.

The conversion of current records to metric, would cost millions for no real benefit as multiplying a record by 0.914 does nothing to improve its accuracy. It would also add an extra level of disconnect in that older paper records would be in one system, with newer in another.

First rule of Engineering if it is not broken don't fix it.