Newbie question :) be kind...

Exactly true.

Who knows, even more so, who cares? I just waded into it when the time felt right to do so. {:^)

Our earliest standard loading gauge was set by British engineers resident in Britain to match the then current UK loading gauge around

1870. (7' width, 11' height) Within ten years it had grown a foot wider and 6" taller. (8' x 11'6") It has grown numerous times since. The "problem" is that bits built to earlier standards don't get major upgrades until something forces change. Goods wagons stayed at 7' width for nearly a century because branch lines and industries were built for that width. Passenger carriages were quickly built wider because people complained. 8'6" is normal everywhere and 9'6" in some places. There is no "blame" attached, one can't expect an engineer on the other side of the planet 130 years ago to have foreseen today's container trends.

Greg.P.

If it's not worth discussing, then why bother to include the 0.1 in the ratio? The NMRA obviously thought the distinction was worth making.

BTW the difference in your quoted dimensions is 0.10308" which is visible.

I work to about 0.05mm but 0.5mm is about as close as I can measure by eye over the length of a (50') wagon.

Were you the guy who directed me up that goat-track to the scenic lookout last Christmas???? =8^)

Not I, sir. If I were to direct someone up a cow path, I would warn them what to expect on their way. I'm not as miserable a person as my wife leads people to believe.

Your wife? Was she the one I met on the goat-track? She's pretty!

On 1/20/2008 2:58 PM Greg Procter spake thus:

Well, okay then. It sounded as if you were complaining about the goldurn container makers or something.

On 1/20/2008 3:05 PM Greg Procter spake thus:

OK, Greg, just for you, we're going to change the official NMRA ratio to:

1:87 point one .

Does that work for you?

My bad; the 2nd number should have been 6.88863. Happy fingers there.

Some of us Americans understand and use Brittish English, when the need arises. Most of the time I speak American English. or U.S English. Some of us Americans DO want to improve our grammar and diction. However, the U.S Public school systems failed to properly teach this important subject adaquately. Now, as an adult, I would like to find a school or course where I can learn to speak and write properly. I watch lots of Brittish television (thanks to BBC America) and have been using those programs to help me improve my diction. Sadly I know of no perfect place to go to improve my grammar. Likewise I embrace the Metric System, however, I contstantly find myself constantly having to handle U.S units.

A few weeks after I emigrated to the USA from Northern England:

Waiter in Denny's: I can't place your accent but you speak English real good for a foreigner.

Me: Thank you. You speak it really well for an American.

On 1/20/2008 4:39 PM B'ichela spake thus:

By "improve our diction" I hope you don't mean "adopt upper-crust-sounding British speech patterns". Please tell me you don't mean that.

American, spoken well, is every bit as good as RP ("received pronunciation") British. (Don't believe me, just tune into Garrison Keillor's Prairie Home Companion.) Just a lot less pretentious.

Interesting - NZers always sound as though they are complaining - yanks always sound obnoxious - obviously a language difficulty.

A 2x4 is a piece of lumber a "nominal" 2 inches thick and 4 inches wide. Standard lengths are 8, 10, 12, 14 and 16ft. Studs are also supplied, they are 91.5" long. That "nominal" is the kicker, As I explained in an earlier post, about 50 years ago it referred to the rough sawn, unplaned lumber, and the planed lumber was in fact somewhat smaller. Since then, the nominal size has been made smaller again, so as to get more pieces of lumber out of a log. So the actual size of a 2x4 is 1-1/2" by 3-1/2". That's standard all over North America. Got that? One of the effects of this is that a 2x2 is not half of a 2x4....

I also happen to know that in Europe there were a number of different standard lumber sizes, all specified in mm of course, and all of which originated in each country's traditional lumbering standards. I believe there is a CE standard now. In time, there will no doubt be ISO standards, too, but like the ones for paper, I think there will different series of sizes. It's just too much hassle to change standard sizes for lumber. In fact, the changes made in the last century or so cause trouble when older houses are renovated.

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

Wolf, I know all this. I've worked on building sites, I've worked in timber yards, (student days) I've renovated. Your US 2x4 (according to you) isn't a 2x4 nor even something that started as an unplaned 2x4. A 1.5" x 3.5" planed piece of timber began as something like 1.75" x

3.75" rough sawn. Therefore it never was 2" x 4". Therefore, in summary "2x4" is a US code for something entirely different!

Our own standard "4x2" (of pre-metrication days) also isn't 4" x 2" except in that it starts that way before planing. It's more like 1.75" x 3.75". That's about 20% larger cross-section.

Regards, Greg.P.

Not US - North American. it applies in Canada and Mexico, too, and anyone trading finished lumber into North America.

[snip]

I wrote "all over North America." Got that?

[snip further explanation by me]

Reread what I wrote.

[snip further twittishness]

Ok, so is the US following Canada or Mexico on this issue?

I'm joking now, Wolf, that doesn't need an answer.

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 11:11:16 +1300, I said, "Pick a card, any card" and Greg Procter instead replied:

It already has. You have no navy thanks to Helen. Well, nothing to speak of. Surrounded by water and your have no air force and no navy. Tsk, tsk, tsk . . .

Who you gonna call?

-- Ray

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 11:13:11 +1300, I said, "Pick a card, any card" and Greg Procter instead replied:

Perhaps when I write one. It's fun to watch you lose an argument. As soon as you start realizing it, you leap into attacking something that is completely irrelevant. That's known as a . . . never mind. You couldn't possibly understand.

Now that, my friend, is a brilliant non sequitur about your poor use of the non sequitur. Take notes.

-- Ray