Newbie question :) be kind...

So, in summary "2x4 " is a US code for something entirely different!

Regards, Greg.P.

On 1/20/2008 11:31 AM Brian Smith spake thus:

Yes, I think by now we all know that story (old unplaned studs being a full 2" x 4", while new S4S ones are smaller). But it's a bit of a fallacy to say a 2x4 is no longer a 2x4: (practically) nobody thinks of them as being 2" x 4" anymore. The full term for them is "nominal 2x4". (Some refer to the old unplaned pieces as "rough 2x4s").

The cornerposts and castings are the load bearing parts of the ISO container. Those are only fitted at the ends of standard containers or at the nominal 40' mark of those 48' or 53' containers. You can place a 40' on top of 2x 20' or 1x 30' and 1x 10' but not the other way up. The floor and top rails only serve to keep the corner pockets seperated, in regards to stacking so 2x 20' containers on a 40' would crush the centre of the 40'. Some containers, eg tanks, don't even have floors and top rails.

Greg.P.

Sorry I have annoyed you!

Regards, Greg.P.

Exactly _why_ should I be more humble? Is the US intending to include NZ in it's empire in addition to Australia??? ;-)

Regards, Greg.P.

Yanks buy New Zealand made machine tools??? I didn't know that!

Greg.P.

If you find one let us know if you pass.

On 1/20/2008 1:57 PM Greg Procter spake thus:

So whose fault was that: the container manufacturers for making their containers "too tall", or you for having sustandard tunnel heights? I can guess who'd win *that* pissing match.

I stated it very carefully - baring the odd person like me, yank car enthusiasts ...

Try to think about it in general terms, rather than just looking for the exceptions to further your argument.

Where we use "gallons" we use UK imperial gallons. (pints ...) Where we use "Tons" we use UK imperial tons. (cwts, lbs, ozs ...) Where we use "miles" we use UK imperial miles. (feet, inches ... nautical miles, knots ...)

Ok, so miles and feet just happen to be the same, but the rest are different. It's the UK imperial measurements that some NZers hang on to.

Regards, Greg.P.

On 1/20/2008 12:17 PM Greg Procter spake thus:

Just to put this canard to rest, that whole 1:87 vs 1:87.1 business is a difference totally without a distinction.

For example, taking a scale 50' boxcar (yes, that's what we call them: wagons are things that trail behind horses, or little children playing):

o At 1:87, the actual length is 6.89655" o At 1:87.1, the actual length is 6.99963"

The difference in actual lengths is 0.00792.

Now, are you going to tell us with a straight face that you could even detect this difference, even if you had that boxcar in your hands?

They're essentially the same and not even worth discussing further.

So are you saying that "English" and "English" are the same (LOL), or that "English" and "English" are different???

Greg.P.

I happen to know a number of Sydney-siders. Your "i" ("y" being the same there) is pronounced as "eee". (as in Seeedneee) Your "h" is pronounced as "Huh-aitch". (as in Huh-(h)olden) Your "a" is pronounced like a sheep's cough.

The sheeps cough "a" isn't unique to Australia but your "i" and "h" probably are.

Every country and even region has it's unique pronounciations - we really don't mind being different to Australians, it's an indication we're doing something right!

Regards, Greg.P.

That's a great theory! In Denmark (I assume you are in Denmark) HO is 1:87. (no decimal point, no extra numbers, exact, precise) (official)

Why would anyone in their right mind form a ratio from _two_ measuring systems, one being archaic? Why would one set an _exact_ scale ratio and then round off that ratio??

Regards, Greg.P.

I beg to differ - the width is of so little importance that you wouldn't bother to mention it. If at some point or points it varied to less than a car width you might mention it.

Ok, but we need a name for whatever it is they use or we're going to be discussing "......" ;-)

Greg.P.

Infinity minus one!

Hi Wolf, I've been there many times. Check out the more recent listings (standards/recommendations), they are now being published with a disclaimer in regard to the accuracy of their metric "conversions" or a note that the NMRA is no longer providing metric conversions. (specifically G/I scales and gauges)

Regards, Greg.P.

On 1/20/2008 2:39 PM Greg Procter spake thus:

Fair enough; I've heard them referred to as "(American) customary units", which is a pretty bland description, but better than none. Apart from this, I don't think there actually is a name for our (North American) "system" of measurement. (Corrections welcomed.)