7 car platforms

1 foot = 304.8mm

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

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.

Yep, agree with you there.

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.

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.

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?

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]

210*297 millimetres.

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

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)

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

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

Ooops, I mentioned it. Sorry.

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...