Back in the teens, when railroad watch standards started getting stricter, and Webb Ball kind of started the crusade to try and get rid of 18 sizes,does anyone know if that took place on Canadian rail lines at about the same time? I know they allowed pendant-set and 17jewel watches later than here in the U.S.I know Ball was pretty strong in Canada too, but maybe not as much as here.Thanks, Ted.

I am surprised this did not get more interest ! the first were in 1893 , from what I have seen the standards were an evolving set of rules , by the early 20's they had tightened up quite a bit . I remember my grandfather had some watches that supposedly were used on the rails , but without a doubt they would have been grandfathered in or he bought the old watches ,he always liked a good deal . I do remember a hamilton 16s with a montgomery dial.

There's been interest, Kevin, but apparently few of us know WHAT they did in Canada in comparison to US standards during that time period. Buster, Larry?

Regard! Mark

I will be your Huckleberry !!

Everything to do with RR watches, RRG/RRA, North America, U.S.A., Canada, Mexico, different carriers, etc., etc., involved a "trickle down/snowball" effect where eventually everyone was on the same page. Some sooner than others some much later than others. If you break it down by U.S.A. RR's there was always competition between the carriers for business and when one superintendent on a particular line came out with a new "superintendent's bulletin" that regulated watches and "upped" the requirements, other lines were sooner than later to follow suit. This was because of "interchange" rules and running over other lines tracks to get from point A to B. When that happened then you had to be in compliance with the rules and regulations on that particular RR.

So as you can imagine it was a trickle down and snowball effect.

When you break it down country by country, the requirements were a bit slower to bring all into the same zone and be on the same page. But eventually they were brought up to snuff. The PG gives some of the nations different carriers and RR requirements and dates and other carriers not listed soon followed suit or came along to be in compliance.

If you are asking about who came first like the chicken or the egg ?? That would be harder to pin down since we don't have all the records and superintendents bulletins on each and every carrier and country.

The question asked really has more to do with 18 size vs. 16 size watches of which Webb C. Ball was instrumental on the RR's in N. America of getting the 18 size watches off the rails. Mostly it had to do with rapidly advancing technology and materials such as invar and elinvar and other [better] steels etc. that were continually evolving during the first 20 years of the 20th century and not in most of the older 18 size watches. It was a long process of which from start to finish took 5-7 years to accomplish. The "grandfather" clauses on each individual line sometimes lasted longer, until the owner of a particular watch retired and/or as long as it met the timekeeping requirements !!

"Yo North Rail" [Larry Buchan] usually adds more details to the thread with his vast knowledge of Canadian rules and regulations, dates and times, and individual carriers. I feel sure he will come along shortly with his own "snowball" effect

regards,
bb

Thanks, Buster! I KNEW I could count on you!

Regard! Mark

I hope that Larry is doing OK,sometimes his posts are few and far between. I imagine he will chime in sometime.I remember hearing that some watch inspectors didn't like working on full plate 18 sizes, and W.C. Ball wanted them gone, which is a shame because many of the finest RR watches ever made were 18 size. I was just wondering if it took longer in Canada than here. Thanks again Ted.

I have often wondered why the railroad commission disallowed 18 size watches in the first place. I can understand why they required a minimum 16 size.

Smaller watches seem less robust and a little harder to read, but what's wrong with bigger?

Bigger watches are easier to read, especially in low light. They have no downside regarding utility or reliability. All else being equal, they're easier to work on. Their size and heft makes them well-suited to knock-around outdoor work. (They seem well-balanced hanging on the other end of a chain from a set of railroad keys.)

The 18 size watches have no negatives that I'm aware of. It's all good except that, at some point, they were declared unacceptable.

Does anyone know why?

All I can do is theorize, as from one standpoint it would make more economic sense to a watch maker to downsize the watches they're making, as they're using less material to produce their watch and yet still able to sell them at the same price point.

With Ball at the helm of the watch inspecting group, I'd say there could have been (and probably was) a lot of 'advising' given to him by watch companies as their supplier to possibly move in that direction.

Once that rule was put in place, everyone followed suit....kind of like the 17j to 21j wars.

Again, just thinking out loud here.

Regard! Mark

Mark,

I'm sure manufacturing costs had a lot to do with it.

I have found this interesting reading, but have no way of knowing just how accurate it is.

Rails West

It has a lot of info in it all the way to the end of the Railroad pocket watch.

Regards,
Larry

I think at least some of it was "politics".The watch companies including Ball probably thought that the new 16s only standards would mean a ton of new sales, I doubt they thought that all the grandfathering that went on would happen. I've seen the Rails West site that Larry mentioned, it's a nice one.One thing I noticed was that the Santa Fe RR was still allowing 3-position watches in the 1920's,long after the others stopped.Maybe because those Illinois Santa Fe Specials were only 3-pos.?

The Rails West is an interesting site Larry, thanks for posting it. RR grade/approved through the years.

Rick

quote:

I think at least some of it was "politics".

Yes, I would assume so, perhaps. It had to to mostly with the "new" inventory that dealers such as Ball now had in stock in the new 16 size offerings !! The 18 size watches were going out of vogue and production was coming to a halt on them, while the new 16 size watches were coming in "hot off the presses" !! I feel sure Ball wanted those old 18 size watches out of the picture and he wanted all the RR workers to have to buy the new 16 size watches that he along with other dealers now had. His marketing genius worked like a charm as his sales went over the top with his campaign to get the old 18 size watches off the rails. As you are aware he allowed a trade-in of the old 18 size watches for the 16 size watches and he re-sold the old 18 size watches to other rail workers that weren't required to have a RRA watch. It was a "WIN~WIN" for Ball and other dealers

regards,
bb

Thanks again Buster...I'd like to time travel back and pick up some of those 18s trade-ins! I have to ask, when you ran the rails, what did you use for a watch?

I hired out on the defunct Texas & Pacific Railway in 1966. My watch was a Hamilton 992B. I carried it on a leather strap with a fob that hung outside that I could grab the fob and pull the watch out of my pocket which also held my keys and coins !! As you can imagine it was soon scratched and dinged. But then it was a tool and it was merely normal use of wear and tear !!

The next year we were allowed to have a wrist watch !! My watch at that point was a Ball Trainmaster 25J wrist watch. Then we went thru a merger and the Texas & Pacific was no more as we were now the Missouri Pacific Railroad. Later we would be bought by the Union Pacific Railroad . My watch of choice after the Ball was Seiko RR Approved quartz which I went thru 3-4 of those before retirement. The original Seiko quartz watch I had would have lasted for the rest of my tenure but about every 5-10 years a Divisional Safety Award or Years of Service new Seiko was won/issued. I still have those watches and they all served me very well.

regards,
bb

Thanks for that Buster!I have a nice Seiko RR quartz that my wife bought me, but I seldom use it, I carry most of my PW collection, but with a chain & leather bow protector.I used to use fobs, but ended up with too many case back dings. Best Regards, Ted.

In my research/talks with people that had a pretty good idea what was happening back then, the 18 size watch was something that was in the way of "making money". It was a great watch, but it was getting in the way of the 16 size, and Mr. Ball wanted some of that money. One way of getting it was to make the 18 size obsolete. and he did.

It didn't take long for the 18 size to go away, and the 16 size to be the Railway Watch. Think about how many watches that could have been handed down to the next generation of railway workers, that were no longer railroad approved watches, and how many 16 size watches that had to be purchased because of the new standards. What do they call it? "politics"??

Regards,
Larry

As has been discussed in the past, a FEW roads DID grandfather 18s watches in the possession of individuals who had to have approved timepieces in their pocket.

I've mentioned it before, but my great grandfather carried an approved Elgin 21j 18s watch until his retirement in 1957 on the Norfolk and Western.

It all seemed to depend on who you knew, and if the division watch inspector 'liked' you enough to approve your watch and keep it operating to road time standards.

Once again....politics.

Regards! Mark