Convert imperial long tons to kilograms: 1 long ton is exactly 1,016.0469088 kg (2,240 lb). The long ton persists in shipping displacement and older British usage.
Settings
Generated locally in your browser β your settings and results never leave this page.
What this converter does
It converts imperial long tons to kilograms. The long ton is 2,240 pounds, the traditional British ton, and it is the unit meant by a bare ton in almost any United Kingdom document written before metrication and in most maritime contexts since. It is not the US short ton of 2,000 lb and not the metric tonne of 1,000 kg, though it sits close enough to the latter to be mistaken for it constantly.
The formula
Multiply long tons by exactly 1,016.0469088. That constant is 2,240 multiplied by the exactly defined pound of 0.45359237 kg, so every digit follows from a legal definition rather than a measurement. One long ton is 1,016.0469088 kg. Ten are 10,160.469088 kg. The tail digits are the pound definition showing through, as they do throughout this cluster wherever an avoirdupois unit meets the metric system.
Why 2,240 pounds
The number looks arbitrary and is not. A long ton is 20 hundredweight, an imperial hundredweight is 8 stone, and a stone is 14 pounds: 14 times 8 times 20 gives 2,240 exactly. The whole chain descends from the medieval English wool trade, where the stone and the hundredweight were the working units and the ton was simply twenty of the larger one. The United States kept the ton and the hundredweight but rationalised the hundredweight to a decimal 100 lb, which is precisely why its ton came out at 2,000 lb instead.
Worked examples
One long ton is 1,016.05 kg β just over a metric tonne, by 1.6 percent. A cargo of 500 long tons is 508,023.45 kg, or 508.02 t. A warship recorded at 45,000 long tons displacement is about 45.72 million kilograms, or 45,722 t, and comparing that record against a modern metric figure without applying the conversion understates the vessel by that same 1.6 percent.
Where long tons still appear
Ship displacement leads, by tradition rather than regulation: naval and merchant records have used long tons for so long that the convention survives even in modern reference works. Older British engineering documents come second β bridge ratings, crane capacities, railway specifications, all written before the 1970s. Commonwealth statistical series that began imperial and continued metric are a third, and reconciling those series is where the conversion matters most, because an uncorrected join introduces a step change that looks like real change.
The near-miss with the tonne
At 1.6 percent apart, the long ton and the metric tonne are the closest pair among the three tons, and that closeness is exactly the problem. During British metrication, prices, ratings and capacities quoted in tons transferred to tonnes with barely a visible change, so the substitution often happened without anyone converting anything. The resulting figures are wrong by a small, consistent margin that is easy to dismiss and hard to detect. Across a fleet, a century of statistics or a structural load calculation, 1.6 percent is not noise.
Precision and rounding
The factor is exact, so the result is exact until display. Two decimal places of a kilogram is far finer than anything weighing at long-ton scale can deliver, so the practical precision comes entirely from the source. For historical figures, remember that a displacement recorded as 45,000 long tons was itself a rounded estimate, and converting it to seven significant figures dresses an approximation in false precision.
Common mistakes
Reading a long ton as a tonne is the quiet one, wrong by 1.6 percent and rarely noticed. Reading it as a short ton is the loud one, wrong by 12 percent. Confusing displacement with gross tonnage is a category error rather than an arithmetic one: gross tonnage is a volume-derived regulatory measure of a ship capacity and has no mass meaning at all, so no mass converter applies to it. Displacement and deadweight are masses and convert correctly here.
Benchmarks
0.5 long tons is 508.02 kg. 1 is 1,016.05 kg. 2 is 2,032.09 kg. 5 is 5,080.23 kg. 10 is 10,160.47 kg. 20 is 20,320.94 kg. 100 is 101,604.69 kg. A long ton is also exactly 20 imperial hundredweight and exactly 1.12 short tons, which makes those two relationships useful cross-checks on any figure derived here.
Accuracy and limits
Exact factor, exact decimal arithmetic, display-only rounding, and scientific notation for very large masses. The tool converts the imperial long ton specifically and says so on every result. Where an outside document says only ton, this converter cannot determine which was meant, and the honest response to that ambiguity is to establish the unit rather than to assume it.
The hundredweight chain in full
Working down from the long ton makes the whole imperial ladder visible: 1 long ton is 20 hundredweight, 1 hundredweight is 4 quarters, 1 quarter is 2 stone, and 1 stone is 14 pounds. Multiplied out that is 2,240 lb, and each rung has its own metric value β the imperial hundredweight at 50.80 kg, the quarter at 12.70 kg, the stone at 6.35 kg. Old shipping papers and agricultural records use these rungs freely, and converting a mixed figure such as 3 tons 4 cwt means handling both levels rather than one.
Coal, grain and the trades that used it
Before metrication the long ton was the unit of British bulk trade: coal was sold by it, grain shipped by it, iron and steel produced by it. Statistical series from those industries run in long tons well into the 1970s, and the conversion is what makes them comparable with anything modern. The practical caution is that older figures were often rounded to the nearest ton at source, so the precision of a converted value belongs to the record rather than to the arithmetic.
Displacement versus deadweight
Both are masses and both convert correctly here, but they measure different things and are frequently conflated. Displacement is the mass of water a vessel displaces, which is the mass of the vessel itself; deadweight is the carrying capacity β cargo, fuel, stores and crew. A ship of 45,000 long tons displacement has a considerably smaller deadweight, and quoting one where the other is meant misstates a vessel by a wide margin, entirely independently of any unit error.
A quick magnitude check
Long tons times a thousand gets within 1.6 percent of the kilograms: ten long tons gives about 10,000 against a true 10,160. That approximation is close enough to catch a misplaced decimal instantly and nowhere near close enough for a document, which is a fair description of most mental arithmetic in unit conversion β useful for detecting nonsense, useless for producing answers.
How to use the Long Tons to Kilograms Converter
- Enter the imperial long tons β the 2,240 lb ton.
- Read the kilograms: exactly 1,016.0469088 per long ton.
- Ship displacements and older British documents are the usual sources.
- The kilograms to long tons page is the mirror.
Frequently asked questions
What is the formula for long tons to kilograms?
Multiply by 1,016.0469088 β exactly. The long ton is 2,240 lb (20 hundredweight of 112 lb), and 2,240 Γ 0.45359237 kg gives that factor with every digit definitional.
What is 1 long ton in kg?
1,016.05 kg β just OVER the metric tonne, by 1.6%. The long ton and the tonne are near-twins, which is why older British figures often survived metrication unchanged in casual use: the numbers barely moved.
Where do long tons still appear?
Ship displacement above all β naval and merchant tonnage tradition β plus older British engineering documents, some Commonwealth records, and anywhere "ton" was written before UK metrication. New British usage is metric.
Why 2,240 pounds?
It is 20 hundredweight of 112 lb each β the imperial cwt being 8 stone of 14 lb. The whole chain multiplies out of the medieval wool trade: 14 Γ 8 Γ 20 = 2,240. The US kept a decimal-friendly 100 lb hundredweight instead, hence its 2,000 lb ton.
What is a battleship's 45,000 long tons in kg?
About 45.72 million kg β 45,722 tonnes. Displacement figures in long tons need the 1.016 factor before comparing with modern metric tonnage; skipping it understates ships by 1.6%.
Is the long ton ever called anything else?
"Imperial ton", "gross ton" (ambiguous β gross tonnage of ships is a volume-derived measure, not mass), or "weight ton" in old freight papers. When a UK document predates the 1970s, a bare ton is almost certainly this 1,016 kg unit.
Does the long-ton factor introduce any error?
Fully β both constants are definitions and the arithmetic is exact. 1,016.0469088 kg reads back as exactly 1 long ton.