7 car platforms

[Ben]

I always thought that the 96ts was built on longish underframes, like the ones used on 73ts when 6 cars of that replaced 7 cars of the shorter 59ts.
But most of the jubilee was built to 8 short cars, which is about the same length as 7 long ones.
I was never sure though cos I have no idea how the hell to make millimeters into feet.

And for that matter, may I ask if anyone knows the proposed formation of the 'S' stock 7 car trains? I take it its going to be a double ended (and reverseble)4 car unit+single end 3 car? Like the 72ts was at first.

[Deleted]

benedict said:

I always thought that the 96ts was built on longish underframes, like the ones used on 73ts when 6 cars of that replaced 7 cars of the shorter 59ts.
But most of the jubilee was built to 8 short cars, which is about the same length as 7 long ones.
I was never sure though cos I have no idea how the hell to make millimeters into feet.

And for that matter, may I ask if anyone knows the proposed formation of the 'S' stock 7 car trains? I take it its going to be a double ended (and reverseble)4 car unit+single end 3 car? Like the 72ts was at first.

The 7-car 96TS is approx 125m long, compared to approx 128-130m for the 67TS, 92TS, and A stock.

I would expect the S stock to be only have cabs at the extreme ends, as with the 92TS, 95TS, and 96TS.

[Deleted]

benedict said:

I have no idea how the hell to make millimeters into feet.

1 foot = 304.8mm

[CSLR]

benedict said:

I have no idea how the hell to make millimeters into feet.

In most cases, why bother? Much of the Underground and tube system was built to imperial sizes and any attempt to convert these measurements results in a number that makes nonsense of whatever it was that influenced the original engineers.
Handy tip: If you love feet and inches and know someone who is going to the USA, get them to pick up a tape measure for you from a DIY store - not a metric unit in sight on any of their stuff!
If you really must do a conversion, just use the type of tape measure that they sell over here and read across the width of the blade for an instant conversion without having to do a calculation.

[citysig]

benedict said:

I was never sure though cos I have no idea how the hell to make millimeters into feet.

Those who were in charge of upgrading the Central Line in the 1990s had this problem. Ordered the stock and then realised it didn't fit the tunnels and platforms ;D

The older part of the Jub was of course built using old money as new money hadn't been brought in ;D

[CSLR]

citysig said:

Those who were in charge of upgrading the Central Line in the 1990s had this problem. Ordered the stock and then realised it didn't fit the tunnels and platforms ;D

The older part of the Jub was of course built using old money as new money hadn't been brought in ;D

From what I heard, they tried to build cars with an overall length of 38 feet 12 shillings and 6 pence.

[Deleted]

cslr said:

If you love feet and inches and know someone who is going to the USA, get them to pick up a tape measure for you from a DIY store - not a metric unit in sight on any of their stuff!
If you really must do a conversion, just use the type of tape measure that they sell over here and read across the width of the blade for an instant conversion without having to do a calculation.

I have to say this idea of people not wishing to convert to metric a bit luddite. I'm in my mid 40's and can work with Metric (which the entire world except the US uses) and Imperial. I do find it dissapointing for our future if the younger generation can't work with Metric.

[Chris M]

As one of the younger-ish generation (I'm 25) I've grown up with a confusing mix of imperial and metric - I'm not completely fluent in either.

Generally I estimate in imperial but measure in metric, except for distance of less than about ½-¼ of an inch when I use centimetres/milimetres and large areas where I use hectares (due to using them exclusively at work).
I only use Farenheit in relation to the weather, and then only when its very hot (above about 25 C/80 F), everything else is celcius (or is it centigrade?).

I'll use feet and metres almost interchangably when estimating, but I'd measure in metric. Except when it comes to long distances when I work exclusively in miles.

I don't have a really good mental image of any unit of volume. I can cope with pints and half-pints, but fluid ounces are almost meaningless. Litres and gallons are almost interchanable, but I don't really have a grasp of either!

I weigh myself in stones and lbs, but I'd way something else in kg and g. A tonne is near as damn it a ton anyway so I don't really worry about which is which.

As for hundredweights, furlongs, chains, and cubic feet - I've got no idea!

Chris

[CSLR]

jim said:

I have to say this idea of people not wishing to convert to metric a bit luddite. I'm in my mid 40's and can work with Metric (which the entire world except the US uses) and Imperial. I do find it dissapointing for our future if the younger generation can't work with Metric.

It is equally sad when historians cannot work in imperial sizes if those units are relevant to what they are doing. One example which I always give is that of the 9.12m diameter station tunnel. It seems like such a stupid size to use to build a tunnel until you realize that the engineers actually chose the quite logical dimension of 30 feet. If you fail to acknowledge the actual units of measurement (which many people do) you loose the original plot.
As you may have gathered from my online name, I have a particular interest in a tube line that was conceived and constructed in the 1800s and operated as an isolated unit until the mid-1920s. Everything about it was to imperial sizes.
As part of my research, I have actually located and inspected something like one tenth of the company's rolling stock (much of which was subsequently destroyed). When you look at carriages (they were not called 'cars' on the C&SLR) most of which have been exposed to the elements for years and which are (or were) in various states of decay you must take measurements using the same units that were used in their construction. When a piece of wood is swollen or decaying. it is relatively easy to establish that it was a piece of quarter inch teak - or whatever. Imagine trying to take such measurements using the metric scale and without any knowledge of the sizes that were used in the construction. I have seen it done that way and the results are a distorted waste of time.
If it was built in metric, measure it in metric; but if it was built in imperial sizes it is far better to work within that framework and add a metric scale or annotation afterwards. Please remember that a lot of the stock that is mentioned here and the vast majority of the infrastructure of London's Underground was not built to metric sizes.
Finally, thank you so, so much for referring to me as a Luddite. I have waited all my life for someone to call me that. The Luddites were greatly misunderstood and are mostly recorded as a group who broke up machines to prevent change (remember the history of conflict is almost always written by the winners). If you look at what the Luddites really believed, you may just realise that you have paid me a great compliment.
Thanks again.

[Deleted]

80 chains to a mile, 1760 yards in a mile. A furlong is 20 chains or 0.25 mile or 440 yards. 25.4mm = 1 inch

[Deleted]

cslr said:

jim said:

I have to say this idea of people not wishing to convert to metric a bit luddite. I'm in my mid 40's and can work with Metric (which the entire world except the US uses) and Imperial. I do find it dissapointing for our future if the younger generation can't work with Metric.

It is equally sad when historians cannot work in imperial sizes if those units are relevant to what they are doing. One example which I always give is that of the 9.12m diameter station tunnel. It seems like such a stupid size to use to build a tunnel until you realize that the engineers actually chose the quite logical dimension of 30 feet. If you fail to acknowledge the actual units of measurement (which many people do) you loose the original plot.


If it was built in metric, measure it in metric; but if it was built in imperial sizes it is far better to work within that framework and add a metric scale or annotation afterwards. Please remember that a lot of the stock that is mentioned here and the vast majority of the infrastructure of London's Underground was not built to metric sizes.

Yep, agree with you there.

cslr said:

Finally, thank you so, so much for referring to me as a Luddite. I have waited all my life for someone to call me that. The Luddites were greatly misunderstood and are mostly recorded as a group who broke up machines to prevent change (remember the history of conflict is almost always written by the winners). If you look at what the Luddites really believed, you may just realise that you have paid me a great compliment.
Thanks again.

Whilst not wishing to insult you, I was merely refering to the fact that a purely imperial tape measure is a backward step. I believe the US are starting to use some metric now. I accept I know little of the Luddites, other than the word, so you have one over me on this, as well as the unintentional compliment.

[CSLR]

tubeoperator92 said:

80 chains to a mile, 1760 yards in a mile. A furlong is 20 chains or 0.25 mile or 440 yards. 25.4mm = 1 inch

Almost right. It is actually 10 chains to a furlong (thus 220 yards) and at 8 furlongs to a mile, so you are quite right about the number of chains in a mile.
Nevertheless, you did not learn that from a cornflake packet!
Ten marks for effort.

[CSLR]

I keep a couple of sets of purely imperial measures, tapes, calipers and angles. It is much easier in difficult conditions to only have one scale to work from.

[Deleted]

Thanks for the correction CSLR - I am not a Horse racing fan. That and railways are all that I know of, that use 'chains' as a form of measuring distance.

I did have science set for school, you know compass etc. The really interesting thing was that it had half mm measurements on it. Now I know my writing and drawing skills are appalling, despite somehow attaining a grade C in GCSE English all them years ago. I just thought whats the point of 0.5mm measurements? You coulding see that unless you had a magnifying glass...

[CSLR]

tubeoperator92 said:

Thanks for the correction CSLR - I am not a Horse racing fan. That and railways are all that I know of, that use 'chains' as a form of measuring distance.

I did have science set for school, you know compass etc. The really interesting thing was that it had half mm measurements on it. Now I know my writing and drawing skills are appalling, despite somehow attaining a grade C in GCSE English all them years ago. I just thought whats the point of 0.5mm measurements? You coulding see that unless you had a magnifying glass...

I did not learn that from horse racing either. I would not have a clue how to drive a horse. Like you, I see chains as the way in which the railway system was laid out and measured.
Your recollection of sizes that are too small to see reminds me of another problem with the metric system, that of metric paper size which apparently works on the principle that the next size up is double the size you move up from. If you start with A4 and work down (A5, A6) you quickly get to sizes that are so small they are impossible to use, yet the numbering system is infinite; but when you go the other way you quickly reach A0 and so have to start a different sequence because you have run out of numbers. Clever or what?

[Phil]

As an ex-science teacher I've had to be fluent in both.

The secret is (as has been hinted above) NEVER convert unless you absolutely have to. If you start in one, end in it whether it's imp. or metric. If the Space scientists had understood that the Marslander would never have crashed wasting millions of pounds dollars.

Railways still use chains etc: no point at all asking how many metres - they think you're stupid!
And a piece of 4x2 wood. If you try to combine it with the metric equivalent of 100x50 nothing quite fits.

Beer in litres: no thanks!

[Deleted]

I still say A4 paper, because I cant remember what the measurements are in CM.
Still, you've always got the great Weights and Measures debate. 1 Pint = 568ml [just over half a litre]

[Dmitri]

rbruce1314 said:

Beer in litres: no thanks!

What about half-litres ;D?

[Dmitri]

tubeoperator92 said:

I still say A4 paper, because I cant remember what the measurements are in CM.

210*297 millimetres.

[Chris M]

Wikipedia has a good article on paper size - including how to convert between American paper density and the (much simpler) rest-of-the-world paper denisity.

The A series of paper is based on the square root of 2, starting from the eminently logical area of 1 square metre for A0. Becuase it is based on a number that isn't a round number, the numbers of some of the smaller paper sizes appear fairly illogical - e.g. A4 is 210 × 297mm. Why A0 has dimensions of 841 × 1189mm I don't know though.

As for larger sizes, the German standard has 2A0 and 4A0 for paper twice and four times larger than A0.

Chris

[Deleted]

So I take it, that say, A4 paper, at 80gsm, translates to grams, per square metre???

[oliver]

tubeoperator92 said:

So I take it, that say, A4 paper, at 80gsm, translates to grams, per square metre???

Correct !

What’s confusing is that as someone brought up on both systems like Chris M I use different measurements for different purposes but to add to the confusion I lived in he states for a while who have different pint / gallon sizes etc ...

1 US pint = 16 fluid ounce
1 Imperial pint = 20 fluid ounce

Have you ever tried to work out how much fuel costs in the states - you need to not only convert from imperial to metric but also convert the different imperials!

[Harsig]

awkward42 said:

Why A0 has dimensions of 841 × 1189mm I don't know though.

Chris

The answer was almost in you original post. For the A series of paper sizes the ratio of the length of the sides is 1 to the square root of two. The dimensions for a sheet of A0 are the ones which comply with this ratio and also give an area of 1 sq m (Give or take a few rounding errors)

[Colin]

Errmm, wasn't we talking about 7 car platforms? ;D ;D

That has to be the biggest digression of a thread this forum has seen ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

[Chris M]

Well "car" is a unit of measurement is it not

[Phil]

And at least it has not wandered to a certain beverage that is not coffee, as things used to do inevitably!!!

[CSLR]

rbruce1314 said:

And at least it has not wandered to a certain beverage that is not coffee, as things used to do inevitably!!!

Surely you do not measure platform lengths in cups of tea, do you?

Ooops, I mentioned it. Sorry.

[Phil]

No, but you can measure turnround times and PNBs in such terms...........

[Ben]

It would appear I've stirred up something of a hornets nest...I only like imperial because I find it easier to estimate in, and most stuff, as has been pointed out, is or rather was measured in those units.

Anyhoo. 7 cars. Just out of interest is it purely for ecconomy purposes that 8 cars are not the favoured length? It seems a bit odd that the District won't get 8 car trains; again...

[Phil]

Basically, Yes. It's cheaper to build 6 long cars than 8 short ones (bogies etc. etc.)