|
13 May 02 - 11:31 AM (#710253) Subject: Horses Bottoms From: GUEST,Patrish Just for fun and to let you know I'm still here
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, 8.5inches. 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 then? 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 particular 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 like 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 arse came up with it, you may be exactly right, because the Imperial Roman war chariots were made just wide enough to accommodate the back end of two war horses. But, it goes a bit further ... Here's the rest of 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 SRB's. The SRB's are made by Thiokol at their factory in Utah. The engineers who designed the SRB's would have preferred to make them a bit fatter, but the SRB's 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 SRB's 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 arse. ... and you thought being a HORSE'S ARSE wasn't important! |
|
13 May 02 - 11:48 AM (#710264) Subject: RE: BS: Horses Bottoms From: CapriUni LOL! Is there, or is there not, a song challenge in that???!!! |
|
13 May 02 - 11:56 AM (#710268) Subject: RE: BS: Horses Bottoms From: Paul from Hull *LOL* Patrish! Though didnt it used to be the case that in the US, because there were so many different companies running Railways when they first began to span the US (I've heard that even during the Civil war there were many variations in Guage) - though in UK many different companies also 'shared' the rail network, & were responsible for their own track (unlike the stupid system we have at the present moment). I've only heard tell of the US situation though....dunno about the UK having probs like that at all. Anyone know how true this is? |
|
13 May 02 - 11:59 AM (#710269) Subject: RE: BS: Horses Bottoms From: katlaughing Geez, Patrish, it is nice to see you here, again. Where ya been? I hate to be the one to tell you, but BSeed beat you to this one back in '99, but that's part of the folk process, right?*bg* (Just teasin'..no offense intended. There's always a new crop of folkies who haven't seen the old threads, anyway...they need to read these things, too!) So, stick around, willya? Hope life is treating you right... all the best, kat |
|
13 May 02 - 12:01 PM (#710270) Subject: RE: BS: Horses Bottoms From: GUEST,Patrish I got it sent to me in an e-mail today with no information as to the source But I'm sure someone here will have seen it before and may be able to enlighten you.
I hope that it is true |
|
13 May 02 - 12:06 PM (#710275) Subject: RE: BS: Horses Bottoms From: GUEST,Pat Thanks Kat - should have checked it out before I posted. I don't get much time on the mudcat these days. Life is treating me OK at the moment and as always I try to live in hope that it will continue to do so, although I do have a zit on my chin I could do without! Hope everyone out there is fine, big hugs to those that want/need them Patrish x |
|
13 May 02 - 12:12 PM (#710281) Subject: RE: BS: Horses Bottoms From: Paul from Hull The thread Katlaughing linked to explains it all..... which is a pity, cos I wanted your thing to be true too! |
|
13 May 02 - 05:00 PM (#710470) Subject: RE: BS: Horses Bottoms From: Gray D Just a moment, here. Are you telling me that all horses' backsides are the same width? D@mn, us townies have a lot to learn! |
|
13 May 02 - 05:10 PM (#710477) Subject: RE: BS: Horses Bottoms From: SharonA I was pretty sure there's a more recent thread on the subject too, because I remembered reading it on the Forum, and I wasn't around till well after the last post to the thread kat linked to. So I did a Forum Search and found it! It's called... BS: We've always done it that way. |
|
13 May 02 - 05:20 PM (#710483) Subject: RE: BS: Horses Bottoms From: Mr Red Call me a pedant but what are horses arses doing in a bullshit thread? This story is growing in length - I got an e-mail 'bout Feb on this one, but shorter. |
|
13 May 02 - 05:21 PM (#710486) Subject: RE: BS: Horses Bottoms From: catspaw49 Thnaks Sharon....As I was reading down this one I thought,it was the other for a moment as we just ran that one!!!! I remembered reposting one of the better explanations on the later thread since so many rarely bother with a clicky at times. It's okay Patrish.......We're just glad to see you anyway!!! Spaw |
|
13 May 02 - 06:51 PM (#710548) Subject: RE: BS: Horses Bottoms From: Gareth Interesting thought. If the width of the Traction Animals Back side determins the track gauge you would expect to find different gauges in different countries railways. If we take the European Horse as Standard we get 4' 8.5 ", In India where the bullock was the draught animal we get (as in Ireland, Portugal and Spain) 5'3". In the remoter parts of Ireland and Wales we find 3 foot or less. Question, how wide is a Goat's backside ? In Africa 3'6 inches - Question what was the draught animal. And underground, in the Rhondda, or any other coalfield the gayge underground was 18 inches. Which is just about the width of a woman or child, who in less enlightened days was the haulage power of the tram !! By History ye shall know your betterments ! BTW Whilst I've not been to Bristol recently in the early 1990's I was working there and comuting from Wales. At the foot of the approach to Temple Meads Station there was a strtch of 'Cobbled' pavement Inset were some very old railway lines. Yup ! One evening I measured them, 7 foot gauge ! Nigh on 100 years since the Broad Gauge disapeared ! Gareth Gareth |
|
13 May 02 - 06:59 PM (#710555) Subject: RE: BS: Horses Bottoms From: Snuffy More like 110, isn't it? WassaiL! V |
|
13 May 02 - 10:56 PM (#710654) Subject: RE: BS: Horses Bottoms From: Uncle_DaveO Funny, I always thought that a horse's bottom was called a hoof! Dave Oesterreich |
|
13 May 02 - 11:31 PM (#710664) Subject: RE: BS: Horses Bottoms From: GUEST Cripes - an oldtimer comes back to the flock - and katlaughing has to put him down, that he isn't old enough to know better!
|
|
13 May 02 - 11:32 PM (#710665) Subject: RE: BS: Horses Bottoms From: GUEST Then again, isn't that the way to housetrain a cat? Rub her nose in it so she won't do it again? |