Steamdemon
Pizza Delivery Train
I prefer the imperial system, uses the same system as cars. what about you guys?
Metric or imperial?
- Thread starter Steamdemon
- Start date
cascaderailroad
New member
I use the Imperial System for setting up the route, and use the Trainz ruler in feet.
However Trainz heights are in Metric System. The Metric System is fun and easier to use. I have even made my own metric equivilent chart to help me with gradients, and spline point heights:
It seems the magic number to divide by, is @ 3.28
Numbers rounded off to simplify things.
Imperial height elevation (ft) above sea level = Metric in Trainz (m):
2200' = 671 m
2180' = 665 m
2160' = 659 m
2140' = 652 m
2120' = 646 m
2100' = 640 m
2080' = 634 m
2060' = 628 m
2040' = 622 m
2020' = 616 m
2000' = 610 m
1980' = 604 m
1960' = 598 m
1940' = 591 m
1920' = 585 m
1900' = 579 m
1880' = 573 m
1860' = 567 m
1840' = 561 m
1820' = 555 m
1800' = 549 m
1780' = 543 m
1760' = 537 m
1740' = 530 m
1720' = 524 m
1700' = 518 m
1680' = 512 m
1660' = 506 m
1640' = 500 m
1620' = 494 m
1600' = 488 m
1580' = 482 m
1560' = 476 m
1540' = 469 m
1520' = 462 m
1500' = 457 m
1480' = 451 m
1460' = 445 m
1440' = 439 m
1420' = 433 m
1400' = 427 m
1380' = 420 m
1360' = 415 m
1340' = 408 m
1320' = 402 m
1300' = 396 m
1280' = 390 m
1260' = 384 m
1240' = 378 m
1220' = 372 m
1200' = 366 m
1180' = 360 m
1160' = 354 m
1140' = 347 m
1120' = 341 m
1100' = 335 m
1080' = 329 m
1060' = 323 m
1040' = 317 m
1020' = 311 m
1000' = 305 m
980' = 299 m
960' = 293 m
940' = 286 m
920' = 280 m
900' = 274 m
880' = 268 m
860' = 262 m
840' = 256 m
820' = 250 m
800' = 244 m
780' = 236 m
760' = 232 m
740' = 226 m
720' = 220 m
700' = 213 m
680' = 207 m
660' = 201 m
640' = 195 m
620' = 189 m
600' = 183 m
580' = 177 m
560' = 171 m
540' = 165 m
520' = 159 m
500' = 152 m
480' = 146 m
460' = 140 m
440' = 134 m
420' = 128 m
400' = 122 m
380' = 116 m
360' = 110 m
340' = 104 m
320' = 98 m
300' = 91 m
280' = 65 m
260' = 79 m
240' = 73 m
220' = 67 m
200' = 61 m
180' = 55 m
160' = 49 m
140' = 43 m
120' = 37 m
100' = 30 m
95' = 28.96 m
90' = 27.44 m
85' = 25.91 m
80' = 24.39 m
75' = 22.87 m
70' = 21.34 m
65' = 10.82 m
60' = 18.29 m
55' = 17.77 m
50' = 15.24 m
45' = 13.72 m
40' = 12.20 m
35' = 10.67 m
30' = 9.15 m
25' = 7.62 m
20' = 6.10 m
15' = 4.57 m <--- ( 5m, seems to be @ the height to see over top of a train) http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?t=73877
10' = 3.04 m
9' = 2.74 m
8' = 2.43 m
7' = 2.13 m
6' = 1.82 m
5' = 1.52 m
4' = 1.22 m
3' = 0.91 m
2' = 0.61 m
1' = 0.30 m
6" = 0.15 m
3" = 0.91 m
No matter if I select Metric or Imperial, the elevation height in Trainz always shows Metric...Why is this ? I am using TRS2006
__________________
However Trainz heights are in Metric System. The Metric System is fun and easier to use. I have even made my own metric equivilent chart to help me with gradients, and spline point heights:
It seems the magic number to divide by, is @ 3.28
Numbers rounded off to simplify things.
Imperial height elevation (ft) above sea level = Metric in Trainz (m):
2200' = 671 m
2180' = 665 m
2160' = 659 m
2140' = 652 m
2120' = 646 m
2100' = 640 m
2080' = 634 m
2060' = 628 m
2040' = 622 m
2020' = 616 m
2000' = 610 m
1980' = 604 m
1960' = 598 m
1940' = 591 m
1920' = 585 m
1900' = 579 m
1880' = 573 m
1860' = 567 m
1840' = 561 m
1820' = 555 m
1800' = 549 m
1780' = 543 m
1760' = 537 m
1740' = 530 m
1720' = 524 m
1700' = 518 m
1680' = 512 m
1660' = 506 m
1640' = 500 m
1620' = 494 m
1600' = 488 m
1580' = 482 m
1560' = 476 m
1540' = 469 m
1520' = 462 m
1500' = 457 m
1480' = 451 m
1460' = 445 m
1440' = 439 m
1420' = 433 m
1400' = 427 m
1380' = 420 m
1360' = 415 m
1340' = 408 m
1320' = 402 m
1300' = 396 m
1280' = 390 m
1260' = 384 m
1240' = 378 m
1220' = 372 m
1200' = 366 m
1180' = 360 m
1160' = 354 m
1140' = 347 m
1120' = 341 m
1100' = 335 m
1080' = 329 m
1060' = 323 m
1040' = 317 m
1020' = 311 m
1000' = 305 m
980' = 299 m
960' = 293 m
940' = 286 m
920' = 280 m
900' = 274 m
880' = 268 m
860' = 262 m
840' = 256 m
820' = 250 m
800' = 244 m
780' = 236 m
760' = 232 m
740' = 226 m
720' = 220 m
700' = 213 m
680' = 207 m
660' = 201 m
640' = 195 m
620' = 189 m
600' = 183 m
580' = 177 m
560' = 171 m
540' = 165 m
520' = 159 m
500' = 152 m
480' = 146 m
460' = 140 m
440' = 134 m
420' = 128 m
400' = 122 m
380' = 116 m
360' = 110 m
340' = 104 m
320' = 98 m
300' = 91 m
280' = 65 m
260' = 79 m
240' = 73 m
220' = 67 m
200' = 61 m
180' = 55 m
160' = 49 m
140' = 43 m
120' = 37 m
100' = 30 m
95' = 28.96 m
90' = 27.44 m
85' = 25.91 m
80' = 24.39 m
75' = 22.87 m
70' = 21.34 m
65' = 10.82 m
60' = 18.29 m
55' = 17.77 m
50' = 15.24 m
45' = 13.72 m
40' = 12.20 m
35' = 10.67 m
30' = 9.15 m
25' = 7.62 m
20' = 6.10 m
15' = 4.57 m <--- ( 5m, seems to be @ the height to see over top of a train) http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?t=73877
10' = 3.04 m
9' = 2.74 m
8' = 2.43 m
7' = 2.13 m
6' = 1.82 m
5' = 1.52 m
4' = 1.22 m
3' = 0.91 m
2' = 0.61 m
1' = 0.30 m
6" = 0.15 m
3" = 0.91 m
No matter if I select Metric or Imperial, the elevation height in Trainz always shows Metric...Why is this ? I am using TRS2006
__________________
Last edited:
Really? So where can you find the engine capacity of any UK made or sold car quoted in cubic inches in preference to litres?
Steamdemon
Pizza Delivery Train
ah. I see your point.
steamboateng
New member
Each has its uses!
johnwhelan
Well-known member
Red_Rattler
Since 09 May 2003
Their are also cases in which combined metric & imperial used at the same time.
EG: HO/OO, N Scale etc.
For example, which looks better?:
3.5mm = 1 ft or
0.138in to 1ft or
0.138in to 30.48cm,
or 0.138in as a fraction (as close as I can get) ie: 35/254 in to 1 ft?
PS: That X/XXX is suppose to be a fraction, but I can't find a way to have a top & bottom number under a line.
EG: HO/OO, N Scale etc.
For example, which looks better?:
3.5mm = 1 ft or
0.138in to 1ft or
0.138in to 30.48cm,
or 0.138in as a fraction (as close as I can get) ie: 35/254 in to 1 ft?
PS: That X/XXX is suppose to be a fraction, but I can't find a way to have a top & bottom number under a line.
Approach_Medium
Trainz Addict
Even though I live in the only major country (US) that still does not use the metric system, I am using metric all the way. I have converted to using metric and Celsius in my everyday life.
FW
FW
Well I use the metric system a lot at work but for some reason I prefer the imperial. It's what I was brought up with and it looks like for the most part here in the US still have to live with.
For route building I use metric all the way. Which means I have to convert almost all the reference data I use to metric.
For the engine power, steam physics and other in game physics calcs and testing I use both but usually start or convert to imperial and convert to metric for input into Trainz.
For driving it's imperial all the way.
Of course in either system I'm just mostly confused.
Bob Pearson
For route building I use metric all the way. Which means I have to convert almost all the reference data I use to metric.
For the engine power, steam physics and other in game physics calcs and testing I use both but usually start or convert to imperial and convert to metric for input into Trainz.
For driving it's imperial all the way.
Of course in either system I'm just mostly confused.
Bob Pearson
steamboateng
New member
In my years chasing fame and furtune opon the high seas (niether of which I achieved) I have come to know both in a working capacity. Steamboats were US built and thus all imperial, while diesel boats were generally all metric due to their European machinery (Sulzer, MAN, etc). I keep both wrench sets in my workshop at home, and routinely will grab an 11mm wrench for a 7/16" or a 16 mm for a 5/8". Heck, John, I'm almost bilingual when it comes to that stuff! Hey! (But for the life of me, I could never understand a word Dr. Who or Benny Hill said. I can understand Craig Fergusen on late nite telly!)
Regards
A kind of passingly daft (meant to be satirical) aside from pware especially as the measure cannot be put to the door of the Prince of Wales etc. I prefer feet and inches as most here do I suspect. Apparently it is legal to use such in GB yet tv reporting still stuffs metric down our throats. The average person can associate better with a 30MPH speed limit for example than the alternative. Of course you have a choice here. Being a committed Monarchist like me has nothing to do with the distance measuring!
schweitzerdude
Active member
Metric here (right on: Approach Medium)
As an American, I believe it is a disgrace that the USA did not go metric 50 years ago (or more). One way to show my displeasure with this is to use metric in Trainz.
As an American, I believe it is a disgrace that the USA did not go metric 50 years ago (or more). One way to show my displeasure with this is to use metric in Trainz.
Last edited:
As a committed republican and not a monarchist, I prefer the metric system - you can keep your King Charles and Queen Camilla
I'll vote for you! The media are ramming some royal wedding thing down our throats at the moment. Like I or the majority of people could actually give a toss.
Anyway, living here, I have to deal with both Imperial and Metric. If I drive over the border, everything is metric, including speed limits. On this side of the border, almost everything is metric, except speed limits and distances.
I prefer metric myself, especially when carrying out DIY jobs as mm's are far more accurate than ' and "s though I do miss ordering a quarter of soor plooms.
Those of you who are fans of the TV show "Air Crash Investigation" would probably be familiar with the dangers of being "bilingual" when it comes to measurements.
One of my favourite episodes was about the brand new Air Canada 767 jet that ran out of fuel mid air. Fortunately it managed to glide to what the pilots thought was an old military airfield (which turned out had been converted to a drag racing strip and was actually in use for a "meet" at the time of their unscheduled arrival) and, with a few scrapes and minus a nose wheel, managed to land safely. Fortunately empty fuel tanks meant there was no danger of fire.
The cause of the debacle was a measurement conversion error - the required fuel for the trip had to be supplied in metric units (based on fuel volume in litres) while the fuel tanker was only equipped with imperial meters (based on fuel weight in lbs). The fuel technician miscalculated the complex conversion. This, combined with a fuel management computer that was not working, lead everyone to believe that they had the correct quantity of fuel aboard.
Imagine if railroad engineers miscalculated a track gauge when converting from imperial to metric - I have seen Irish Broad Gauge (5 ft 3 inch) incorrectly converted to 1500 mm on an official document that, fortunately, was not used for any engineering works.
One of my favourite episodes was about the brand new Air Canada 767 jet that ran out of fuel mid air. Fortunately it managed to glide to what the pilots thought was an old military airfield (which turned out had been converted to a drag racing strip and was actually in use for a "meet" at the time of their unscheduled arrival) and, with a few scrapes and minus a nose wheel, managed to land safely. Fortunately empty fuel tanks meant there was no danger of fire.
The cause of the debacle was a measurement conversion error - the required fuel for the trip had to be supplied in metric units (based on fuel volume in litres) while the fuel tanker was only equipped with imperial meters (based on fuel weight in lbs). The fuel technician miscalculated the complex conversion. This, combined with a fuel management computer that was not working, lead everyone to believe that they had the correct quantity of fuel aboard.
Imagine if railroad engineers miscalculated a track gauge when converting from imperial to metric - I have seen Irish Broad Gauge (5 ft 3 inch) incorrectly converted to 1500 mm on an official document that, fortunately, was not used for any engineering works.
Consider yourselves lucky. When I learnt Physics in the 1940s. we had to use four different systems; Imperial, practical metric and in electricity emu (for magnetism) and esu (for electrostatics). Later as a Physics teacher was I glad when they adopted just the one (modern) metric system based on the practical everyday metric units (SI). Unfortunately our planned conversion to metric here in the UK was sabotaged by Margaret Thatcher who stopped the process in mid flight after the schools had changed to teaching metric. This is why we still have a sad mixture of units to confuse everybody. I must admit that although I am quite at home with metric units I still use some Imperial units for everyday.
steamboateng
New member
How about the multi million $$ US space mission which spent months in orbit collecting 'stardust' which was collected on special glass filter trays. When the probe returned to Earth, the shute failed to open, resulting in a large pit somewhere in the southwest.....
The programmer dialed in metic units shute deploy, when the system was so obviously set-up for imperial!
My tax dollars at work!!!!!!!!!!!!
steamboateng, that reminded me - NASAs Mars Climate Orbiter spacecraft - crashed into Mars on arrival on Sept 23 1999 instead of going into orbit. The data inputs to the program that controlled the spacecraft's orbital breaking thrusters were in imperial units instead of metric - the programmers goofed!!!