Horses arses and space shuttles

[ScottSA]

I posted this before, as a matter of general interest, because I found it interesting, and I thought most folks would find it interesting. I was told that I couldn't post it because:

A ) "Plagiarism" isn't allowed, and

B ) "There is no "political commentary" added to the post.

A ) The following is in general distribution as an email, and requires no citation. Posting it is not "plagiarism." B ) I posted it then and I post it now only because I find it interesting and think others will too, but with a nod toward the required "political commentary"...ummmm...ok, did you know that the Romans built the spaceshuttle, and that therefore...no wait...on a serious note, this demonstrates, I think, that the roots of culture go much deeper into history than we often acknowledge in today's fragmented postmodern society, where so much effort is being pouring into destroying the commonalities of western culture and fragmenting them in order to accomodate multiculturalism.

Anyway, here it it:

Does the statement, "We've always done it that way" ring any bells? The US standard railroad gauge (distance between the rails) is 4 feet, 8.5 inches. That's an exceedingly odd number. Why was that gauge used?

Because that's the way they built them in England and English expatriates built the US Railroads. Why did the English build them like that?

Because the first rail lines were built by the same people who built the pre-railroad tramways, and that's the gauge they used. Why did "they" use that gauge?

Because the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they used for building wagons, which used that wheel spacing. Okay! Why did the wagons have that odd wheel spacing?

Well, if they tried to use any other spacing, the wagon wheels would break on some of the old, long distance roads in England, because that's the spacing of the wheel ruts. So who built those old rutted roads?

Imperial Rome built the first long distance roads in Europe (and England) for their legions. The roads have been used ever since. And the ruts in the roads?

Roman war chariots formed the initial ruts, which everyone else had to match for fear of destroying their wagon wheels. Since the chariots were made for Imperial Rome, they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing. The United States standard railroad gauge of 4 feet, 8.5 inches is derived from the original specifications for an Imperial Roman war chariot. And bureaucracies live forever. So the next time you are handed a specification and wonder what horse's ass came up with it, you may be exactly right, because the Imperial Roman war chariots were made just wide enough to accommodate the back ends of two war horses.

Now the twist to the story... When you see a space Shuttle sitting on its launch pad, there are two big booster rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel tank. These are solid rocket boosters, or SRBs. The SRBs are made by Thiokol at their factory in Utah. The engineers who designed the SRBs

would have preferred to make them a bit fatter, but the SRBs had to be shipped by train from the factory to the launch site. The railroad line from the factory happens to run through a tunnel in the mountains. The SRBs had to fit through that tunnel. The tunnel is slightly wider than the railroad track, and the railroad track, as you now know, is about as wide as two horses' behinds.

So, a major Space Shuttle design feature of what is arguably the world's most advanced transportation system was determined over two thousand years ago by the width of a horse's ass.

[M.Dancer]

There's a lot to be said about avoiding e-mail chain crap.....

Imperial Rome built the first long distance roads in Europe (and England) for their legions. The roads have been used ever since. And the ruts in the roads?

Roman war chariots formed the initial ruts, which everyone else had to match for fear of destroying their wagon wheels. Since the chariots were made for Imperial Rome, they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing.

"Imerial Rome" didn't use "war chariots"

Chariots were used for show or for entertainment, but were obsolete in the Roman Legions.

And as for the this urban legend........send it to the trash bin

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/r/railwidth.htm

[ScottSA]

That article simply says that there is no proof, but it is reasonable to assume that the measurements didn't simply come out of thin air, and that even if Stephenson was the one who determined the width, he didn't simply pluck it from the air.

As for the chariot story, the first roads predated the empire, so the guage could very well have been set before the imperium.

Anyway, you're being a party pooper.

[M.Dancer]

http://www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.htm

Here's some more rain for your parade.....

Now give me 50 and thank me for improving your slack and idle mind.

[M.Dancer]

As for the chariot story, the first roads predated the empire, so the guage could very well have been set before the imperium.

So the roman roads in Britain predate the empire?

[ScottSA]

As for the chariot story, the first roads predated the empire, so the guage could very well have been set before the imperium.

So the roman roads in Britain predate the empire?

Nope, but the guage of transport used there does, and if it was originally determined by chariots, then it would hold over. I have no idea if "war chariots" set the guage, but given that many roman roads had ruts intentionally carved into them, there is at least some reason to believe that there might be more to this story.

Party pooper.

[M.Dancer]

but given that many roman roads had ruts intentionally carved into them, there is at least some reason to believe that there might be more to this story.

I am aware that roman roads had steps in them (so pedestrains might avoid the muck, and they had gutters too...but this intentionally carving ruts?

To what purpose and is there any evidence of this?

[ScottSA]

but given that many roman roads had ruts intentionally carved into them, there is at least some reason to believe that there might be more to this story.

I am aware that roman roads had steps in them (so pedestrains might avoid the muck, and they had gutters too...but this intentionally carving ruts?

To what purpose and is there any evidence of this?

Why yes, there is:

Intentional ruts are an interesting feature of some ancient Roman roads. While there are some ruts that developed from general use, there are others that are purposeful, between 6 and 30 centimeters deep, with sharp edges shaped by a pick or a point and hammer. Such ruts seem to have been used to guide wagons on difficult stretches of the road (Chevallier 89).

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:vwb_H8...clnk&cd=1&gl=ca

You will also notice ruts in the road of the middle arch. Roman roads were used for millenniums (even after the empire fell). The ruts in Roman roads determined the distance for axles for almost 2000 years as people built their carts to fit in these ruts (so not to break the axles). This distance was so common that when the railroads were built (1400 years after Rome had fallen), they used this standard for the distance between the rails.

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:dO7oN3...clnk&cd=5&gl=ca

[kimmy]

The original story depends on this link between railroad and horse-drawn wagons:

Because the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they used for building wagons, which used that wheel spacing. Okay! Why did the wagons have that odd wheel spacing?

This bit, from the TruthOrFiction article, seems more plausible to me:

Where did the four-foot, eight-and-a-half-inch standard originate? Gabriel says it was from a Englishman named George Stephenson. Carts on rails had been used in mines in England for years, but the width of the rails varied from mine to mine since they didn't share tracks. Stephenson was the one who started experimenting with putting a steam engine on the carts so there would be propulsion to pull them along. He had worked with several mines with differing gauges and simply chose to make the rails for his project 4-foot, eight inches wide. He later decided that adding another six inches made things easier. He was later consulted for constructing some rails along a roadway and by the time broader plans for railroads in Great Britain were proposed, there were already 1200 miles of his rails so the "Stephenson gauge" became the standard.

It sounds like an early example of a "standard", an idea that was probably quite novel at the time (see the accompanying information about US railroads that were incompatible with each other due to different track).

The idea that Stephenson chose this spacing for his railway project because he'd already used it for his mine-car project has an element of believability to me. It establishes a link between old technology and new technology, something that the story about the wagons does less believably.

-k

[M.Dancer]

You will also notice ruts in the road of the middle arch. Roman roads were used for millenniums (even after the empire fell). The ruts in Roman roads determined the distance for axles for almost 2000 years as people built their carts to fit in these ruts (so not to break the axles). This distance was so common that when the railroads were built (1400 years after Rome had fallen), they used this standard for the distance between the rails.

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:dO7oN3...clnk&cd=5&gl=ca

From someone who chastises others for over attendance at Google U, using a travelogue which simply repeats the same idiocy is truly hilarious......pass the tin foil, we got hats to make.....

[ScottSA]

The idea that Stephenson chose this spacing for his railway project because he'd already used it for his mine-car project has an element of believability to me. It establishes a link between old technology and new technology, something that the story about the wagons does less believably.

-k

Oh I agree that the trace to Stephenson is quite believable. In fact I have no doubt that the guage originated with him. Whether it originated in his head as an arbitrary guage or from pre-existing cart tracks tracks, determined by carts with standardized wheelspans that predated him at the mine(s) he used, is an open question. Further, if cart wheel spans were standardized, then it would make sense that the tools and jigs used for them would be employed in his experimentation with tracks. I sincerely doubt it has anything to do with Roman "chariots," but tradition and technology often operate on a feedback loop, and it seems intuitively reasonable that there is a link, however vague, between Roman civilization and track guage.

[Bonam]

Standards on how to do things tend to propagate themselves almost forever, long past when the original reason for them has long since ceased to apply:

- Buttons on the cuff of a shirt?

- Steering wheel on a car (like a navigation wheel on a ship) instead of a more intuitive control system.

- The entire freaking english/imperial measurement system.

- The division of an hour into 60 minutes and of a minute into 60 seconds. Why don't they have 100 minutes with 100 seconds each, with a second being 0.36x as long? Would make the math a lot easier, but an ancient civilization had a base 60 numerical system, and we've kept it for millenia.

- Religion, lol. Some of the teachings sure could use an update to be more applicable 2000 years (or whatever length of time for any other religion) later.

Just a few examples off the top of my head. Now I dunno whether the story in the original post is accurate, but it wouldn't surprise me.

As an engineer, having to divide/multiply by 12 instead of 10 when designing things, because everything has to be in imperial units, because our machines are imported from the US, which uses the english system because it was originally an english colony, which has a ratio of 12 inches in a foot because one king had a bigger foot than the previous one, stories like this wouldn't surprise me at all.

Edited July 20, 2007 by Bonam

[August1991]

It sounds like an early example of a "standard", an idea that was probably quite novel at the time (see the accompanying information about US railroads that were incompatible with each other due to different track).

I'll weigh in on this obscure topic at this point.

There is no "standard" railway gauge. Spain and Russia do not use the same standard as elsewhere in Europe. This means that international trains must either stop at the border or be adjustable. (I recall once sitting in Siberia for several hours while each wagon was lifted by a crane and its wheels adjusted to cross from China into the Soviet Union.)

The question of gauge is really a question of friction and force. Most trains that climb steep slopes (eg. in the Alps or underground in mines) are narrow gauge. In general, the wider the better but wider reduces permissible gradients.

On this question of a "standard", the widespread use of trains in the 19th century led to a major standardization: time. I believe that the idea of time zones was invented in Canada to cope with train schedules. Until then, time was not standardized and 12 noon was decided by whenever the local church clock chimed.

A different standardization concerns driving on the left or right of a road, and it's also the simplest illustration of a non-unique equilibrium. It is in no single person's interest to drive on the left when everyone else drives on the right. (BTW, an equilibrium is when everyone is satisfied with the final result. For couch potatoes, an equilibrium is when no one is willing to go to the trouble to get up and change the channel.)

In the case of driving, left is just as good as right and either is a stable equilibrium. IOW, society can have different final and stable outcomes. The Japanese and Indians drive on the left. We and the Germans drive on the right.

[bush_cheney2004]

On this question of a "standard", the widespread use of trains in the 19th century led to a major standardization: time. I believe that the idea of time zones was invented in Canada to cope with train schedules. Until then, time was not standardized and 12 noon was decided by whenever the local church clock chimed.

Close, but no cigar:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_zone#History

[ScottSA]

In the case of driving, left is just as good as right and either is a stable equilibrium. IOW, society can have different final and stable outcomes. The Japanese and Indians drive on the left. We and the Germans drive on the right.

I remember many years ago when I was campaign manager of a Rhino Party candidate(for our US friends, the Rhino party...never mind, you'll figure it out in a minute...), one of our policies was to switch from driving on the right side to driving on the left, but to avoid culture shock we were going to start slowly, by switching only trucks and buses at first, and ending with ambulances and wheelchairs.

[August1991]

Close, but no cigar:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_zone#History

You believe Wikipedia?

Just because you read it on the Internet doesn't mean that it's true.

[bush_cheney2004]

You believe Wikipedia?

Just because you read it on the Internet doesn't mean that it's true.

Wiki at least offers citations...you offered none....so I should believe you instead?

[M.Dancer]

Close, but no cigar:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_zone#History

You believe Wikipedia?

Just because you read it on the Internet doesn't mean that it's true.

You're both Right! sort of..........

The need for a standard time was felt most particularly in the United States and Canada, where several extensive railway routes passed through places that differed by several hours in local time.

Sir Sandford Fleming, a Canadian railway planner and engineer, outlined a plan for worldwide standard time in the late 1870s. Following this initiative, in 1884 delegates from 27 nations met in Washington, D.C., for the Meridian Conference and agreed on a system basically the same as that now in use

http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/info/time-zones-history.htm

Time zones were first proposed for the entire world by Canada's Sir Sandford Fleming in 1876 as an appendage to the single 24-hour clock he proposed for the entire world (located at the center of the Earth and not linked to any surface meridian). In 1879 he specified that his universal day would begin at the anti-meridian of Greenwich (now called 180°), while conceding that hourly time zones might have some limited local use. He continued to advocate his system at subsequent international conferences. In October 1884, the International Meridian Conference did not adopt his time zones because they were not within its purview. The conference did adopt a universal day of 24 hours beginning at Greenwich midnight, but specified that it "shall not interfere with the use of local or standard time where desirable".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_zone#History

[kimmy]

It sounds like an early example of a "standard", an idea that was probably quite novel at the time (see the accompanying information about US railroads that were incompatible with each other due to different track).

I'll weigh in on this obscure topic at this point.

There is no "standard" railway gauge. Spain and Russia do not use the same standard as elsewhere in Europe. This means that international trains must either stop at the border or be adjustable. (I recall once sitting in Siberia for several hours while each wagon was lifted by a crane and its wheels adjusted to cross from China into the Soviet Union.)

The question of gauge is really a question of friction and force. Most trains that climb steep slopes (eg. in the Alps or underground in mines) are narrow gauge. In general, the wider the better but wider reduces permissible gradients.

I gather you didn't read the supporting articles?

The use of a 56.5 inch track in England was, apparently, a "de facto" standard, as the ubiquity of that gauge made the idea of manufacturing railway equipment for any other gauge unprofitable.

The use of 56.6 inch track in the United States was not a standard, but it had a significant foothold as much of the early railroad equipment in the US was purchased from England. During the Civil War, using the railway to support the North's war effort encountered difficulties as other track widths were encountered along routes to the south, resulting in supplies having to be transfered by hand between different trains at places where different tracks widths met. Subsequently, the US Congress decreed the 56.6 inch track to be the law of the land. (a "legislated standard".)

I find the process by which de facto standards emerge to be interesting. For instance, there's no law anywhere that says Thou Shalt Use Adobe PDF To Disseminate Thine Technical Documents. But from what I hear, every manufacturer of microchips and other electronic components distributes their documentation and specifications in PDF format. I asked an engineer in my life what he'd do if there was a manufacturer who didn't provide PDF documentation, and he said he'd probably just move along to a manufacturer that did. How did PDF become so universal?

-k

[M.Dancer]

I find the process by which de facto standards emerge to be interesting. For instance, there's no law anywhere that says Thou Shalt Use Adobe PDF To Disseminate Thine Technical Documents. But from what I hear, every manufacturer of microchips and other electronic components distributes their documentation and specifications in PDF format. I asked an engineer in my life what he'd do if there was a manufacturer who didn't provide PDF documentation, and he said he'd probably just move along to a manufacturer that did. How did PDF become so universal?

-k

This is my standard adulation of a Kimmy post. I wish I could stop but she is simply Frabjous to read. I wish she was on TV too.........