Why do Network Rail still use some imperial measurements?

[45669]

I can understand a percentage discount in a shop or the addition of a percentage of a price for a handling charge, but I really can't grasp what a percentage means when it comes to hills. A 'one in ...' does make sense, it's one foot down or up in so many feet along; a percentage doesn't make sense in this context. And its adoption can't be anything to do with going metric, as 'one in...' it would work just as well in metres as feet.

I'm with you all the way there. It's been '1 in X' all my life, so why don't they wait until we oldies have shuffled off our mortal coils if they want to change things? In any case, there was no announcement or explanation about the change; it just suddenly happened and as there aren't any hills where I live I first stumbled across when on holiday somewhere hilly. Why should we have to contend with mental arithmetic, or get the calculator out when suddenly confronted with a steep hill? The roads are so busy nowadays, that all out attention as drivers should be on the driving, not doing sums. Or they could do what they do at Porlock Hill in Somerset; one sign says 1 in 4 and another says 25%. Bridges have heights in both feet and metres, so why not steep hills?

I think that some of the resistance of old codgers like me to going metric is that many of the imperial measures come from experience rather than, in the case of metric length measure, a scientific measurement which seems arbitrary when dealing with everyday business. An inch or a foot is an easily understandable measure for length, width or height (yards are for distance only); ounces and pounds much the same for weight (I think stones only apply to people's weights). If one has grown up with them, it's difficult to convert to a system that seems less 'natural'. It's not a question of my being dogmatic or nostalgic; I always use mm when working with precise measurements in, say, book or magazine production, as these are far more convenient than fractions of an inch.

Exactly. It's nothing to do with xenophobia as was suggested earlier in this thread. They should have said on decimal day in February, 1971 that everything was going decimal, not just the money. It might have cased a bit of head scratching for a while as did the money conversion, but we soon got used to pounds and pence instead of pounds, shillings and pence. So if weights and measures had also changed completely on that day as well, there's a fair chance that we might, just might, have got accustomed to it by now.

My pals from Continental Europe find imperial measures baffling; to them, having grown up with purely decimal systems of weights, measures and money, they are amused why old'uns like me still use such complex systems.

I expect they are, but it was just as confusing for us visiting the Continent in pre-decimal money days and it still is where weight and measures are concerned. Everywhere seems such a long way away when it says xxx hundred kilometres on a signpost. On the other hand, when driving, you get through kilometres a lot quicker than miles, so the journey seems quicker!

 

[Ediswan]

Though newly placed roadsigns seem to be at metric distances, judging from the weird yard measurements a lot of them show (Give way in 440 yards etc = 400 metres)

Some of the oddest are the signs in road tunnels giving the distances to the nearest emergency exists. They are in yards, but very 'untidy' numbers, such as 103 yds one way, 1152 yds the other. The metric conversions are not tidy either.

 

[AM9]

I think that some of the resistance of old codgers like me to going metric is that many of the imperial measures come from experience rather than, in the case of metric length measure, a scientific measurement which seems arbitrary when dealing with everyday business. An inch or a foot is an easily understandable measure for length, width or height (yards are for distance only); ounces and pounds much the same for weight (I think stones only apply to people's weights). If one has grown up with them, it's difficult to convert to a system that seems less 'natural'. It's not a question of my being dogmatic or nostalgic; I always use mm when working with precise measurements in, say, book or magazine production, as these are far more convenient than fractions of an inch.

My pals from Continental Europe find imperial measures baffling; to them, having grown up with purely decimal systems of weights, measures and money, they are amused why old'uns like me still use such complex systems.

An inch OR a foot wouldn't be a foot, but the relationship between then i.e. OK, if we used a duodecimal number system it might be "natural" but a base 10 number system does have a natural character because counting was and still is done using the 10 digits that can be found on apair of MKI human hands. The same goes for mass, a pound comprising 16 ounces might be natural in a hexadecimal counting culture, but then there's 14 pounds to a stone - a tetradecimal leap, how is that justified.
Did medieval oldies complain that the cubit should be used in perpetuity because it felt natural to them, (and not only that but at 18in., - it may have been relevant as a half yard! ).

I expect they are, but it was just as confusing for us visiting the Continent in pre-decimal money days and it still is where weight and measures are concerned.

It's only confusing to those who choose not to learn to use the official standard UK measures. Those that have bothered don't have any problems at all, (I was born in the '40s and quite honestly, metrication was a relief from the timewasting use of irrational unit progressions in the imperial system).

 

[DelW]

Exactly. It's nothing to do with xenophobia as was suggested earlier in this thread. They should have said on decimal day in February, 1971 that everything was going decimal, not just the money. It might have cased a bit of head scratching for a while as did the money conversion, but we soon got used to pounds and pence instead of pounds, shillings and pence. So if weights and measures had also changed completely on that day as well, there's a fair chance that we might, just might, have got accustomed to it by now.

I think that was the intention when metrication was decided on in the late 1960s - the country should go fully metric within a few years. Exceptions would only be made for distances in miles (and so speed in mph) to avoid having to change road signs, and for milk and beer in pints, as a sop to traditionalists.
But there were the usual complaints from those who object to change, especially if it's seen as "foreign influence", and the xenophobic parts of the press produced regular outcries about "metric martyrs", so we ended up never quite finishing the job off.
In fact though, the great majority of items sold in shops are in metric quantities, and industry and engineering work almost wholly in SI units. Fahrenheit has finally disappeared from weather forecasts and only reappears when the press want a dramatic heatwave headline.
While most younger people will still have a fair idea of feet, pounds (weight) and pints, I doubt many of them will have any clue about furlongs, or hundredweight, or fluid ounces, let alone the more arcane stuff.

 

[45669]

(I was born in the '40s and quite honestly, metrication was a relief from the timewasting use of irrational unit progressions in the imperial system).

But that's the point of time discussion - we haven't metrified. Well, not properly. Only the money has been properly and fully metrified and, as has been thrashed to death in this thread, weights and measures are a mish-mash of both systems mixed up in a seemingly random fashion. Along with all the other examples that have been mentioned, if I were to walk across the road to the supermarket, I would find a shelf contained milk bottles containing four pints of milk. Next to them, I would find another brand of milk bottles containing two litres of milk.

This just adds to the confusion. If pints, gallons, miles, feet, inches, ounces, pounds, stones and all the other imperial measurements had been swept away on the 15th February, 1971 along with pounds, shillings and pence, this discussion would be unnecessary. I have a vague recollection that this was the plan, but a certain newspaper, or newspapers, stirred up strong opposition to this proposal with banner headlines proclaiming SAVE OUR PINTA - or words to that effect. And the government of the day caved in!

Metrification would be a good idea - but only if it's done properly and completely. Yes, I'd struggle with it now, but had it been done along with the money, I would have coped with it far better than I would now. Even so, I expect I'd get the hang of it eventually as it would mean only adapting to one new system. As it is now, I have to constantly try and convert metres to feet to understand how big, tall or high something is. Or convert kilometres to miles to comprehend how far away somewhere is. We all used to do this mentally converting 'new' money into 'old' money in 1971, but how many people do that now?

I think that was the intention when metrication was decided on in the late 1960s - the country should go fully metric within a few years. Exceptions would only be made for distances in miles (and so speed in mph) to avoid having to change road signs, and for milk and beer in pints, as a sop to traditionalists.
But there were the usual complaints from those who object to change, especially if it's seen as "foreign influence", and the xenophobic parts of the press produced regular outcries about "metric martyrs", so we ended up never quite finishing the job off.
In fact though, the great majority of items sold in shops are in metric quantities, and industry and engineering work almost wholly in SI units. Fahrenheit has finally disappeared from weather forecasts and only reappears when the press want a dramatic heatwave headline.
While most younger people will still have a fair idea of feet, pounds (weight) and pints, I doubt many of them will have any clue about furlongs, or hundredweight, or fluid ounces, let alone the more arcane stuff.

As I remember it, miles would have been replaced by kilometres and there was a plan to convert to driving on the right. I was once told that all new round-a-bouts and other new road layouts had to be designed in such a way that they could be used equally well if we drove on the left or the right. What happened to that idea?!

My son-in-law, and my grandson, are both keen on cricket; I shall have to ask them if they know what a chain is!

 

[Annetts key]

While most younger people will still have a fair idea of feet, pounds (weight) and pints, I doubt many of them will have any clue about furlongs, or hundredweight, or fluid ounces, let alone the more arcane stuff.

I would be quite happy to drop feet, yards and chains. Away from the railway, I hardly ever use them anyway. I do however use inches, miles and MPG. I’m perfectly happy to use mm, cm, metres and km.

I never use ounces, pounds or stone (although I do know my approximate weight in stone, but I also know it in kg). When food shopping, I’m happy using grams and kg.

I know how much a pint is, due to drinks and milk still being available in pints (or rather, the metric equivalent amount). Soft drinks are however mostly sold in ml. So I really don’t care if the pint disappeared.

Furlongs, hundredweight and fluid ounces mean absolutely nothing to me.

Oh, and I left school over 35 years ago, so alas, I can no longer be described as young

 

[DelW]

But that's the point of time discussion - we haven't metrified. Well, not properly. Only the money has been properly and fully metrified and, as has been thrashed to death in this thread, weights and measures are a mish-mash of both systems mixed up in a seemingly random fashion. Along with all the other examples that have been mentioned, if I were to walk across the road to the supermarket, I would find a shelf contained milk bottles containing four pints of milk. Next to them, I would find another brand of milk bottles containing two litres of milk.

Milk is actually one of relatively few official exemptions - almost everything else liquid is sold in millilitres, although not always in very rounded numbers.

As I remember it, miles would have been replaced by kilometres and there was a plan to convert to driving on the right. I was once told that all new round-a-bouts and other new road layouts had to be designed in such a way that they could be used equally well if we drove on the left or the right. What happened to that idea?!

If that was ever the case, it had been abandoned by 1979, when I was designing new bypass road alignments, including roundabouts and grade-separated junctions. There was no intention to make them reversible, indeed it was never considered or discussed at all. Having said that, many junctions could be switched with few major changes, though obviously road markings, signs, traffic signals etc. would need to be replaced.

 

[swt_passenger]

If that was ever the case, it had been abandoned by 1979, when I was designing new bypass road alignments, including roundabouts and grade-separated junctions. There was no intention to make them reversible, indeed it was never considered or discussed at all. Having said that, many junctions could be switched with few major changes, though obviously road markings, signs, traffic signals etc. would need to be replaced.

I‘ve always assumed it would be the major motorway grade separated junctions, slip roads and link roads that wouldn’t easily be “reversible”. Aren’t the entry and exits at big roundabouts now designed slightly differently?

 

[DelW]

I‘ve always assumed it would be the major motorway grade separated junctions, slip roads and link roads that wouldn’t easily be “reversible”. Aren’t the entry and exits at big roundabouts now designed slightly differently?

Yes, the geometry is different for entry and exit lanes, but in most cases the changes would only need some realignment of kerbs and strips of additional surfacing.

Overall it would be a horrendous logistical exercise though!

 

[45669]

I've just googled it and found this article:

BBC NEWS | Magazine | Could the UK drive on the right?

news.bbc.co.uk

 

[Noddy]

While most younger people will still have a fair idea of feet, pounds (weight) and pints, I doubt many of them will have any clue about furlongs, or hundredweight, or fluid ounces, let alone the more arcane stuff.

While not young any more acre vs hectare is always the one that gets me. Does anyone actually have a clue how big an acre is? Hectare is 10000m2. The length of a 100m running track squared. So easy to visualise.

 

[DelW]

While not young any more acre vs hectare is always the one that gets me. Does anyone actually have a clue how big an acre is? Hectare is 10000m2. The length of a 100m running track squared. So easy to visualise.

Cricket might give you your answer - a square with each side the length of a cricket pitch is 22yd x 22yd = 484 square yards. Ten squares like that are an acre (4840 square yards). Put another way, it's a pitch length by ten pitch lengths. Not sure how much that helps though!

 

[AM9]

While not young any more acre vs hectare is always the one that gets me. Does anyone actually have a clue how big an acre is? Hectare is 10000m2. The length of a 100m running track squared. So easy to visualise.

An acre is 4940 sq ft as I recall and there are 640 to a sq.mile. So a square of 1 acre area would have sides of just ove 70 ft.

Oooops!! Just seen @DelW's post. That'll tech me to quote school figures from memory. I got the 640 right though.

 

[Noddy]

Cricket might give you your answer - a square with each side the length of a cricket pitch is 22yd x 22yd = 484 square yards. Ten squares like that are an acre (4840 square yards). Put another way, it's a pitch length by ten pitch lengths. Not sure how much that helps though!

But which yard are you using-survey or international?!

An acre is 4940 sq ft as I recall and there are 640 to a sq.mile. So a square of 1 acre area would have sides of just ove 70 ft.

Oooops!! Just seen @DelW's post. That'll tech me to quote school figures from memory. I got the 640 right though.

I rest my case your honour!

 

[DelW]

There's a really bizarre imperial unit used in the US for rainfall runoff and reservoir calculations - the acre-foot. It's a volume of liquid equal to an acre in area by a foot deep.

If you wanted a metric equivalent, it would presumably be a hectare-metre, which would easily convert to 10,000 m^3 or 10 megalitres.

To convert an acre foot to gallons, you'd need to multiply by 4840, then by 9, then by 6.25, to get gallons. Try doing that in your head, and it'll show you one reason why SI is easier than imperial.

 

[vic-rijrode]

I've just googled it and found this article:

BBC NEWS | Magazine | Could the UK drive on the right?

news.bbc.co.uk

I'm sure that we could drive on the right in Britain, but we would have to manage the changeover carefully. One suggestion that has been made is that we do it in stages. Firstly cars and vans would switch over to driving on the right. Then after that had bedded in, lorries and buses would switch, say after a month or so. I like that.

After all, the GWR switched from 7ft 1/4in. to 4ft 81/2 in. over a single weekend.

 

[swt_passenger]

Cricket might give you your answer - a square with each side the length of a cricket pitch is 22yd x 22yd = 484 square yards. Ten squares like that are an acre (4840 square yards). Put another way, it's a pitch length by ten pitch lengths. Not sure how much that helps though!

I suggest a railway acre would be ten square chains? I was also taught to think of it as a cricket pitch by a furlong…

 

[domcoop7]

I think that was the intention when metrication was decided on in the late 1960s - the country should go fully metric within a few years. Exceptions would only be made for distances in miles (and so speed in mph) to avoid having to change road signs, and for milk and beer in pints, as a sop to traditionalists.
But there were the usual complaints from those who object to change, especially if it's seen as "foreign influence", and the xenophobic parts of the press produced regular outcries about "metric martyrs", so we ended up never quite finishing the job off.
In fact though, the great majority of items sold in shops are in metric quantities, and industry and engineering work almost wholly in SI units. Fahrenheit has finally disappeared from weather forecasts and only reappears when the press want a dramatic heatwave headline.
While most younger people will still have a fair idea of feet, pounds (weight) and pints, I doubt many of them will have any clue about furlongs, or hundredweight, or fluid ounces, let alone the more arcane stuff.

I suspect, but don't know, that it was part of a general trend together with joining the EU (or EEC) and Decimalisation.

Speaking of the good old EU, Article 1.2 of Council Directive of 18 October 1971 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to units of measurement (71/354/EEC) formally required that member states must prohibit the use of measurements listed in the Chpater 3 of the Annexe. Imperial measurements were not so listed (presumably because, at that time, the UK and Ireland had not yet joined so it was not felt necessary to ban them, albeit the Official Journal of the EU was being published in English). Some odd things are listed on there such as the Festmetre, the Kilopond and the Stilb. More well known measures that member states were ordered to ensure "are to disappear from use as soon as possible, and at the latest by 31st December 1977" were the mmHG (millimetres of mercury) and the calorie - see 1971 Directive PDF to view the legislation (I won't quote it here as it is only in PDF form)

Rail transport and things subject to international treaties (namely aviation) were also exempt

In 1980 the EU actually gave permission to use imperial measures. The ones listed in Chapter 3 of the Annexe to Council Directive ( 80/ 181 /EEC) are inch, foot, mile and yard and - but for marine navigation only - the fathom - see 1980 Directive PDF

However there were two conditions for use of these units. Firstly, they had to be in use in the member states concerned before 21st April 1973, and secondly they had to be abolished on or before 31st December 1989.

In 1989, the EU changed the law again. It split imperial measure into three categories. The first category (chapter II) had to be abolished on an unspecified date in the future; the second category got a reprieve until 1999; the third category was to be phased out by 1994. - see 1989 Directive PDF

Chapter II (to be abolished at some point in the future)

Road traffic signs, distance and speed measurement	mile, yard, foot, inch
Dispense of draft beer and cider; milk in returnable containers	pint
Land registration	acre
Transactions in precious metals	troy ounce

The 1994 categories were drinks in non-returnable containers (i.e. bottles of beer), spirits in pubs, "therms" to measure gas supply, and loose goods (i.e. pounds and ounces).

As most people know, the 1994 abolitions were brought in apart from loose goods, which had a compromise permitted by the EU which was they were to be abolished by 1999 instead, but in the meantime could be used if and only if the metric units were used more prominently.

On the 24th January 2000, 1999 Directive text, the 1999 deadline was extended to 2009, mainly because the USA were complaining about the EU before the WTO (World Trade Organisation) as they felt this would prevent American products being offered for sale in the EU even if they displayed dual units, because the directive didn't simply require metric to be shown, it banned imperial units from being displayed altogether.

In March 2009, the EU graciously noted in Council Directive 2009/3/EC that:-

Council Directive 80/181/EEC (3) requires the United Kingdom and Ireland to fix a date for ending the exemptions, where they are still being applied, in respect of the units of measurement known as ‘pint’ for milk in returnable bottles and beer and cider on draught, ‘mile’ for road signs and speed indications, and ‘troy ounce’ for transactions in precious metals. However, experience has shown that, given the local character of those exemptions and the limited number of products concerned, maintaining the exemptions would not result in a non-tariff barrier to trade and, as a consequence, there is no longer a need to put an end to those exemptions.

See also this BBC News article at the time:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6988521.stm
EU gives up on 'metric Britain'
European Union commissioners have ruled that Britain can carry on using imperial measurements such as pints, pounds and miles.
Europe's Industry Commissioner Gunter Verheugen said: "There is not now and never will be any requirement to drop imperial measurements."

Mr Verheugen's role includes trying to improve the EU's reputation in member states - and in an interview with the BBC, he admitted the EU had been making itself unpopular on an issue that did not really matter.

"I organised a huge consultation, and the result was that industry told us there was no problem with the existing system. I want to bring to an end a bitter, bitter battle that has lasted for decades and which in my view is completely pointless. We're bringing this battle to an end."

Apart from the Acre which is now banned, the other units are still permitted including, oddly - given Brexit and the fact that Ireland changed to metric road signs in 2005 - the use of miles, yards, feet and inches on road signs which is still permitted for any member state that used them prior to 1973. Which as far as I know is only Ireland (maybe Malta and Cyprus?). Rail transport is still exempt. And so far as I can tell, most member states aren't especially zealous in enforcing it apart from the good old UK when we were members who of course famously prosecuted a market trader for selling a pound of apples to an old lady in Sunderland

 

[ABB125]

I suggest a railway acre would be ten square chains? I was also taught to think of it as a cricket pitch by a furlong…

Any fool knows that an acre is the area of land that a horse can plough in a day...

 

[snowball]

But which yard are you using-survey or international?!

Both these terms are US terminology which I had to look up.

The only legal yard in Britain since about 1959 is by definition exactly 0.9144m, known in the US as the international yard, making 1" exactly 25.4 mm.

As others have remarked an acre is 1 chain x 1 furlong, or 10 square chains, or 4840 square yards.

Since 4840 is pretty near to 4900, an acre is near enough the area of a square of side 70 yards.

A hectare is near enough 2.5 acres; an acre is about 0.4ha.

 

[XAM2175]

I suspect, but don't know, that it was part of a general trend together with joining the EU (or EEC) and Decimalisation.

It seems utterly remarkable by comparison that Australia managed an entire programme of metrification (including railways) between 1970 and 1988 without even considering joining the EEC and with precisely zero interest in going back on it.

 

[AndyPJG]

While not young any more acre vs hectare is always the one that gets me. Does anyone actually have a clue how big an acre is? Hectare is 10000m2. The length of a 100m running track squared. So easy to visualise.

Good guide is a football pitch is near enough an acre. (eg 100x50 yds = 5,000 sq yd, an acre being 4,840 sq yd) Easier to visualise than a hectare in my book.

Another useful one (from my days in construction industry) is that an 8'x4' sheet (2.439x1.219m if you prefer) of plywood is near enough 3 sq m (2.974).

 

[Irascible]

I would be quite happy to drop feet, yards and chains. Away from the railway, I hardly ever use them anyway. I do however use inches, miles and MPG. I’m perfectly happy to use mm, cm, metres and km.

I use feet for rough estimates ( probably more than inches by now ), it's a convenient fraction of a metre. ISO metric feet are 30cm which is unfortunately not the 1/3d of a metre we want. I have to think what a gallon actually is, I think fuel was the only place I ever ran into it before that went to litres.

Furlongs, hundredweight and fluid ounces mean absolutely nothing to me.

No idea what a furlong is! some measurement of horse racing circuits?

 

[AM9]

I use feet for rough estimates ( probably more than inches by now ), it's a convenient fraction of a metre. ISO metric feet are 30cm which is unfortunately not the 1/3d of a metre we want. I have to think what a gallon actually is, I think fuel was the only place I ever ran into it before that went to litres.



No idea what a furlong is! some measurement of horse racing circuits?

A furlong is one with of a mile, i.e. 220 yards. One hundredweight - abbreviation cwt, is one twentieth of a ton (avoirdupois), and is 112 lb. The most common domestic encounter with that was for coal deliveries.

 

[Noddy]

Good guide is a football pitch is near enough an acre. (eg 100x50 yds = 5,000 sq yd, an acre being 4,840 sq yd) Easier to visualise than a hectare in my book.

Full size football pitches (eg Wembley, Old Trafford, Ibrox) are a lot bigger than that! So if folk are thinking or told this they are visualising an acre being far larger than it is! But I digress

 

[Mcr Warrior]

I'm sure that we could drive on the right in Britain, but we would have to manage the changeover carefully. One suggestion that has been made is that we do it in stages. Firstly cars and vans would switch over to driving on the right. Then after that had bedded in, lorries and buses would switch, say after a month or so.

So, how would that work? No lorries, no buses for a whole month? Or lorries and buses on the left, cars and vans on the right, for a manic transitional month of dodgems?

Good guide is a football pitch is near enough an acre. (eg 100x50 yds = 5,000 sq yd, an acre being 4,840 sq yd) Easier to visualise than a hectare in my book.

Absolute minimum football pitch dimensions. 110 x 70 yds (= 7,700 sq yds) is the minimum for those venues hosting international matches.

 

[snowball]

No idea what a furlong is! some measurement of horse racing circuits?

A furlong is 220 yards or 10 chains, but its etymology is "furrow long", the length of a furrow.

 

[birchesgreen]

So, how would that work? No lorries, no buses for a whole month? Or lorries and buses on the left, cars and vans on the right, for a manic transitional month of dodgems?

All buses would need replacing or modifying as they would have their passenger doors on the wrong side.

 

[zwk500]

So, how would that work? No lorries, no buses for a whole month? Or lorries and buses on the left, cars and vans on the right, for a manic transitional month of dodgems?

All buses would need replacing or modifying as they would have their passenger doors on the wrong side.

I don't think the suggestion was particularly serious...

When Sweden changed sides, didn't they ban all road traffic for a day to do the last bits of the swap? If that was Sweden in the 60s, then I shudder to think how long the UK would need now....

 

[swt_passenger]

A furlong is one with of a mile, i.e. 220 yards. One hundredweight - abbreviation cwt, is one twentieth of a ton (avoirdupois), and is 112 lb. The most common domestic encounter with that was for coal deliveries.

I know you meant to put “eighth” but someone might not…

It seems utterly remarkable by comparison that Australia managed an entire programme of metrification (including railways) between 1970 and 1988 without even considering joining the EEC and with precisely zero interest in going back on it.

I once saw a comparison of our metrication and decimalisation strategy and the latter was held up as having all the key features metrication didn’t bother with. Especially a known chop date, and a provisional end of the campaign 6 months later, although it was said that it was basically all done and dusted within about 2 months. I suspect Australian metrication policy was much more well defined and with targeted dates for various changes.

But someone proposed earlier the currency change was part of metrication, but I dont think so, it was just a coincidence, they were always separate programmes.