Understanding tare weights

Northsider

Northsider

Modelling the Northern half of the Isle of Man
Country flag
Can anyone explain the tare weight data on goods wagons. There seem to be three numbers: 2-2-3, for instance; but the wagons I am modelling are described as having a tare of 2 tons 19cwt. How would this be written?
 
The three numbers are tons - hundredweight - quarters

So your example would be: 2-19-0

The third number is a "quarter" - 28pounds weight (UK measures)
 
Sorry - I'm lost. Kilograms / tons, all OK - but "quarter" of 28 pounds ...:(
Could you plase explain to me the logic behind?
 
65 1057 said:
Sorry - I'm lost. Kilograms / tons, all OK - but "quarter" of 28 pounds ...:(
Could you plase explain to me the logic behind?
Click to expand...

Imperial weight
16 ounces = 1 pound
14 pounds = 1 stone (14 pounds)
2 stone = 1 quarter (28 pounds)
4 quarters = 1 hundredweight (112 pounds)
20 hundredweight = 1 ton (2,240 pounds)

Just to confuse the issue, 1 ton can also = 100 miles per hour

David
 
65 1057 said:
Sorry - I'm lost. Kilograms / tons, all OK - but "quarter" of 28 pounds ...:(
Could you plase explain to me the logic behind?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately the logic behind the various weights ( and measures) has been lost in time.
Why 16 ounces, 14 pounds etc etc? I know Britain is still kicking ando screaming about Imperial Measures, but Metric can seem a bit more logical. And as for measuring in fractions.........
 
Grazie mille!

So an accuraft W&L BrakVan with tare wight data 3-7-1 means translated: 3 tons - 7 cwt - 1 quarter = 3048 kg - 355 kg - 13 kg = 3416 kg (rounded)
Am I halfways right?
 
65 1057 said:
Grazie mille!

So an accuraft W&L BrakVan with tare wight data 3-7-1 means translated: 3 tons - 7 cwt - 1 quarter = 3048 kg - 355 kg - 13 kg = 3416 kg (rounded)
Am I halfways right?
Click to expand...

Correct! :clap::clap:
 
65 1057 said:
Sorry - I'm lost. Kilograms / tons, all OK - but "quarter" of 28 pounds ...:(
Could you plase explain to me the logic behind?
Click to expand...

This may not help, a quarter is a quarter of a hundredweight, which is 112 pounds, and there are 20cwt (hundredweights) to a UK ton, which is different from the US ton and the metric tonne.
 
But an Imperial (UK) ton, and a metric tonne, are near enough the same. - Remarkably!

A (US) ton is smaller, but I am sure they will try to tell you it is bigger! ;):giggle::giggle:
 
playmofire said:
This may not help, a quarter is a quarter of a hundredweight, which is 112 pounds, and there are 20cwt (hundredweights) to a UK ton, which is different from the US ton and the metric tonne.
Click to expand...
Aha are we talking Ton or Tonne? I strongly feel that UK should return to full imperial measurements, it is what made us great. After all where would Brunel have been without his superb mathematical genius? Oh and LSD as well.
 
Paul M said:
Unfortunately the logic behind the various weights ( and measures) has been lost in time.
Why 16 ounces, 14 pounds etc etc? I know Britain is still kicking ando screaming about Imperial Measures, but Metric can seem a bit more logical. And as for measuring in fractions.........
Click to expand...
Yes, the problem is that metric is logical but pretty useless.

Even the continentals who invented it, and who devised the SI units, have to have a work around that uses centimetres - something that confuses the hell out of me, as when I converted (well sort of) from metric to imperial measurements, we only used SI units, which rely on multiples of 1,000.

And timber lengths are still multiples of 300 mm (0.3 m). The Danes stuck with a timber measure that was very similar to 1ft.

So I still go to a builders merchants to buy 2.4 m of 4" x 2"
 
The problem is taking the millimetre as the base unit for measurement. It's far too small; the cm would have been better.
 
playmofire said:
The problem is taking the millimetre as the base unit for measurement. It's far too small; the cm would have been better.
Click to expand...
My point entirely - but it's not an SI unit, so it becomes confusing.

So, as I said, logical but useless.

The base unit is the metre - so far so good, but it all falls apart after that. That's why the millimetre is so prevalent, especially in construction, because it's a thousandth of a metre - right and proper but not much good from a practical point of view.

However, we used metres and millimetres for many years, and it's only when you move outside construction that the frightening centimetre raises its ugly head - trying to envisage things with that description just doesn't work for me, I have to go back to millimetres.
 
The good news is that I had started with 'Tare 2 - 19' so I just need to add '-0' on the end. Result!

Thanks all!
 
Interesting watching major projects on TV such as crossrail. The bloke guiding 100 tons of gear is directing "another inch".
 
dutchelm said:
Interesting watching major projects on TV such as crossrail. The bloke guiding 100 tons of gear is directing "another inch".
Click to expand...
I'm sure that should be 100 tonnes of gear.

But yeah, what would you prefer:

'another 25 mm' ?

'another 2.5 cms' ?

Nah, the industry has some standard criteria, going from 'another inch' to 'half a gnats knacker'. :devil: :devil: :devil:
 
That reminds me when I started in an american company (well known for Pampers) and had to order 3/4 inch heating elements.
I thought: 3/4 inch = 19,05 mm - fine. Unfortunately I forgot the leading 1, and just 6 weeks later I recieved 4 heating elements with a diameter of 9.05 mm only.
I had to pay in total for 20 heating elements because the supplier has never ever manufactured heating elements with such an energy density, similar to a fuel rod...
 
PhilP said:
But an Imperial (UK) ton, and a metric tonne, are near enough the same. - Remarkably!

A (US) ton is smaller, but I am sure they will try to tell you it is bigger! ;):giggle::giggle:
Click to expand...
A US ton is 2000 pounds (lbs) compared to imperial ton of 2,240 lbs. It is also called a "short ton" in comparison to the imperial "long ton" . A metric tonne is 1000 kg or 2205 lbs (in round numbers).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom