View Full Version : Comparing time at the start of the run?
So, the train crew gathers under the station clock to compare time at the start of the run.
The engineer's Hamilton 992 is a minute fast.
The conductor's B. W. Raymond is a minute slow.
The brakeman's Vanguard is dead right.
The fireman's Howard Ball has stopped, since he forgot to wind it.
They are, of course, forbidden to reset their watches.
What was SUPPOSED to happen according to the rules?
(I know what DID happen, they all reset & went on.)
So, the train crew gathers under the station clock to compare time at the start of the run.
The engineer's Hamilton 992 is a minute fast.
The conductor's B. W. Raymond is a minute slow.
The brakeman's Vanguard is dead right.
The fireman's Howard Ball has stopped, since he forgot to wind it.
They are, of course, forbidden to reset their watches.
What was SUPPOSED to happen according to the rules?
(I know what DID happen, they all reset & went on.)
Steven Mercer
05-22-2002, 02:39 AM
??and some irate passenger thinks the train is 5 minutes late since his unadjusted Illinois is running 5 minutes fast???? :biggrin: :wink: :biggrin:
Greg Davis
05-22-2002, 02:55 AM
And let's not forget about the blissfully ignorant passengers, whose Swiss watches are happily set to the wrong time zone.
My, how you people do worry about those trains and their crews.
- Greg
Lindell V. Riddle
05-22-2002, 07:31 AM
WAIT A MINUTE, "hc3" the one that's "dead-right"... that says "B.of R. T. STANDARD, Ball Watch Co., Cleveland..." right on the dial!
And to answer Greg's:
"My how you people do worry about those trains and their crews".
The answer, the real true answer is that nearly every one of us in our secret heart-of-hearts would love to be on that train! We see in our minds that locomotive on those seemingly endless iron tracks taking us off to a far simpler time, and we are fascinated with not only that time, but with our time-machines, these wonderful RR watches and clocks! (Hey, I love even typing "RR" it's just so cool!) We all want to clasp that "B. of R. T. Standard" and never let it go. It puts us in touch with our past, or what we perceive that past as having been.
We love to speculate about how it all worked, how "RailRoad Standards" caused not only the RailRoads (RR!) to run on time, to become safe enough for the populace to trust as the preferred way to travel, it's our escape-hatch, our secret passage, our way out from where we are to where we'd rather be.
No Greg, we don't worry about it, we're just so fascinated by it, and that time so very long ago when a very complicated to design, but simple to maintain miniature time-telling machine brought the nation together on the rails, rails that could take anyone anywhere, at any time they wanted to go there.
It was a time like no other, and today we are so impressed that at about a hundred years old the Ball Standard, the Veritas, the Rockford Indicator, and the ultimate "THE", "The Studebaker" can in our own hands and by the fruits of our studied intellect and personal labor still operate within, and even exceed those RR Standards.
Together as we... "compare time at the start of the run"... we are preserving something that for those how ever many hundreds of years to come will fascinate all those "RR" collectors yet to come in much the same way they fascinate us today.
At least that's how it feels to... "worry (and wonder) about those trains and their crews"... from 23 miles east of Cleveland in Ball RR Watch and Clock Country.
Tom McIntyre
05-22-2002, 10:50 AM
You know, it is just possible that the wearers of the watches noted the differential and corrected for it when reading the watch during the run.
That was the mechanism used for marine chronometers.
In some cases on a long journey, the ships chronometer would also have thermometer corrections that were used to adjust the time as well as using the rate to adjust the time.
Having the watch actually read civil time is for sissies that can't do addition in their heads. :biggrin:
------------------
Tom McIntyre
Past President, NAWCC Chapters 174 and 87
Member Chapters 8, 87, 149, 159, 161 and 174
NAWCC: Crafts Committee, Web Committee
Pocket Horology Web (http://www.pocketwatch.org)
Tommy the JOAT's Web (http://www.AWCo.org)
And, of course, those with English watches did not care, having had the goos sense to arrange their lives so that it was unnecessary to personally know the time. After all, there are people to do that sort of thing.
But still, no answer and I really am curious!
What did the rules SAY the crew was supposed to do if one or more of their watches was wrong??
I know they weren't supposed to just mentally correct, that's the point of all these regulations in the first place, to make the instruments reliable & then to rely on them, eliminating human error. If a train man couldn't be trusted to read a hunter, or a Roman dial, then he could certainly not be trusted to add or subtract 54 seconds from the correct time.
There should be a real answer, all you experts,what is it?
Regarding the passengers whose watches weren't up to standard, some of them didn't fair too well. Here's an account first published in the Streator, Illinois Times and then picked up and carried in The Jewelers' Circular - Weekly and Horological Review, February 7, 1900.
Killed Because His Watch Was a Half Minute Slow.
Charles S. Glass, who was killed by a train of the Chicago and Northwestern railroad Wednesday night in Chicago, lost his lilfe because his watch was half a minute slow. No one saw him die. He was picked up below the upright girder of the street elevation at the crossing, where he had been flung when he failed to reach the front platform of the rear car. The train was promptly on time, and the deputy coroner and other persons who attended the inquest are convinced that if the watch carried by Glass had been keeping correct time, instead of being half a minute slow, he would have reached the train in safety.[HR][HR]
I wonder how many jewerlry shops cut out and placed the article on display by their watch counters?
******************************************
hc3's question, "What did the rules SAY the crew was supposed to do if one or more of their watches was wrong??" might be answered by an account published on page 95 in the February 2002 NAWCC Bulletin. The story was related by Don Robinson, a former employee of the Boston & Maine.
Another event occurred in Canada during the 1950s on a branch line of the Canadian Pacific between Dorchester and St. George, NB. Another fellow and I were photographing the local freight and had had lunch with the crew in the caboose, at which time they informed us that they would not be making any stops on the way home. We drove along to a station right beside the road for a picture. Imagine our surprise when the train stopped, and the conductor came running up to the engine. He pulled out his watch and called up to the engineer who pulled out his watch and then called to the fireman. At this point I went over to find out what it was all about since supposedly, they "owned the railroad." The conductor's watch had stopped! The engineer's watch had stopped! They were debating whether to take the fireman's time or ask the agent to get it from the dispatcher which would mean admitting the stoppings. The matter was settled by the agent being out of the office.[HR][HR]
I suspect that they were supposed to obtain the time from a Standard Clock, by 'phone, if necessary.
Kent :smile:
The answer!
"If watches reflect a variation of more than 30 seconds when compared with correct time, they must be set to reflect the variation of less than 30 seconds. Employees must not regulate their watches.
Watches of conductors, enginemen, and yard foremen must be compared with a designated standard clock, were provided, before commencing each days work. The time when watch is compared with standard clock, and the result of such comparison must be recorded on the prescribed form. If watch is set the word "set" must also be recorded with the variation."
Lindell V. Riddle
05-25-2002, 08:57 PM
Say, I think you knew that all along!
Like all correct anwers to such questions, it turns out to be what a reasonable person would do under the circumstances given.
Now that we've all checked our watches, I see my 229 "The Studebaker" is right on the button, lets get on that train!
ALL ABOARD!
Spike
05-26-2002, 05:05 AM
Buchaneer http://www.nawcc.org/ubb/Forum3/HTML/002406.html quotes the CPR?s Uniform Code of Operating Rules, Revision of 1962: "If watches reflect a variation of more than 30 seconds when compared with correct time, they must be set to reflect the variation of less than 30 seconds. (my italics) Employees must not regulate their watches. Watches of conductors, enginemen, and yard foremen must be compared with a designated standard clock, where provided, before commencing each days work. The time when watch is compared with standard clock, and the result of such comparison must be recorded on the prescribed form. If watch is set the word ?set? must also be recorded with the variation."
This appears to imply that ?less than 30 seconds? represented (on the CPR in 1962, at least) the limits of accuracy within which a trainman might be expected to set his watch.* If a trainman was required to set his watch if necessary before commencing each day?s work, and if each reset might reflect a (dutifully recorded) error of as much as 29+ seconds, how could the inspector carry out his biweekly responsibility to assure that the watch kept time accurately to within 30 seconds a week?
* According to Kent?s posting ( http://www.knology.net/~ksinger/t&norule.jpg ), in 1901 on the Temiskaming & Northern Ontario road ?employees in charge of the Company?s clocks? were required to reset them daily if they varied from Standard Time by more than ten seconds.
(Please note: same message posted to the Timekeeping and railroad safety thread http://www.nawcc.org/ubb/Forum3/HTML/002406.html.)
[This message has been edited by Annie (edited 05-26-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Annie (edited 05-26-2002).]
Hi Annie:
Its always difficult to find consistancy when comparing the rules of two different roads or from two different eras. However, the bottom line is that, in general, standard watches kept time much closer than 30 seconds per week. As hc3 pointed out, there was a record made if the employee set his watch. In checking records when the watch was presented to the inspector for comparison, that fact would be noticed and action taken to correct the watch's problem.
The wearing of safety glasses and safety shoes in industrial plants today is carefully monitored. Violations bring disciplinary action with repeated offenses leading to dismissal. Time service regulations were safety requirements with far more serious possible consequences. Violation of the time service regulations, or falsifying records, would have brought similar disciplinary action.
In all cases, although the crewmen's watches would have varied from eachother's by as much as a minute and several seconds, they would be no worse than 30 seconds +/- a few seconds from standard time. Bear in mind that Standard Time is that which was shown on a Standard (or Comparison) Clock, +/- the deviation shown on the clock's placard.
Kent :smile:
[This message has been edited by Kent (edited 05-26-2002).]
Lindell V. Riddle
05-26-2002, 07:30 AM
Well put Kent, as always.
What is really amazing is that now about a hundred years later these watches still perform so flawlessly. That 30 seconds a week translates to less than 5 seconds a day, but a properly serviced example does even better. Many of us can tell stories of their being "beat-for-beat" with the "automic clock" at the end of a week.
All those checks and balances in the watch and clock maintenance and time-keeping records account for much of the fascination we have with these wonderful machines today.
NOW, can we get on that train?
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.