18s Vs. 16s RR pocket watches

[jdsmithnj]

As a new collector, I'm familiar with the published lists of "approved" RR watches, and
know that sometime in the 30s the 18s watch was removed from most of these lists. This begs the question, Why? Is the 18s inherently less accurate than the 16s? Or is it simply because the 18s had fallen out of favor (and in some cases production as with the 940) for other reasons? Thanks.

[This message has been edited by jdsmithnj (edited 09-01-2000).]

[jdsmithnj]

As a new collector, I'm familiar with the published lists of "approved" RR watches, and
know that sometime in the 30s the 18s watch was removed from most of these lists. This begs the question, Why? Is the 18s inherently less accurate than the 16s? Or is it simply because the 18s had fallen out of favor (and in some cases production as with the 940) for other reasons? Thanks.

[This message has been edited by jdsmithnj (edited 09-01-2000).]

[Don Dahlberg]

Two reasons:

First they were more difficult to work on than 16 size.

Second, there were several moves to reduce the number of approved grades produced by each manufacturer. This made it easier on the manufacturer and on the inspector who did not have to have so many parts in stock. Eliminating 18 size removed a large number of grades all at once.

It is easier to get good timing from a large watch, but once 16 size movements were made to keep time as well as 18 size, there was no reason to have to deal with 18 size watches and several reasons not to.

Don

[Greg Frauenhoff]

Here's my guess.

The trend from 1900 to 1930 was towards smaller watches. This was due to stylistic concerns not timekeeping ones (smaller watches were more fashionable). Thus, the watch companies began phasing out the 18 size PWs. It was probably felt that, for RR service anyway, watches less than 16s were not sturdy enough nor accurate enough timekeepers (this is a generalization of course and pertains mainly to American made mass produced watches).

So, for no other reason than fashion the 18s watches were discontinued and given that a new RR worker had to buy a watch (preferably a new one, in fact some RRs required new workers to buy new watches) to work on the RR, the 16s became the standard. Of course, older workers with an 18s generally were allowed to carry them so long as they meet the performance standard (this was true on many but probably not all RRs).

Just some opinons,

Greg

[doug sinclair]

Another thought to consider is that the technology applied to watches in the 20th century was applied largely to the 16-size models, and not so much on the 18-size. Features such as non-magnetic mono-metallic balance wheels, alloy hairsprings, alloy mainsprings, friction-fit balance staffs, and other features which may come to mind, were applied to the 16-size watch. The fact that this technology was applied to the 16-size and not the 18-size might have been a sales ploy by the factories to induce the raolroader to buy the newer watch. These features made the watch easier to service, easier to return to time standard, and certainly less prone to quirky behaviour. Electric-powered engines (and then the later diesel-electric) had begun to appear late in the 19th century, and these more modern watches would seem to be the watch of choice for use on this kind of equipment. FWIW.
Doug S. 083914

------------------

[John Cote]

If you look at production of the popular grades of 18s railroad watches, you will see that, with few exceptions, production stopped around 1914-15. Although there were 2 runs of 18s 21j Bunn Specials in 1924, (probably made up from left over parts) the last continuous runs stopped in 1913 or 1914. I have been told that Hamilton made the 21j grade 940 until 1918, but the last listed serial number of 1448200 is from 1914-15.

The two reasons for the halt in production of these watches has been mentioned above. First it is somewhat harder to diagnose disassemble and repair a full plate 18s watch, so the first group who took up the cause of 16s watches were watch inspectors and watch makers. Second was fashion. Railroad men at the time, as do many collectors now, preferred the smaller, lighter 16s watch.

By the time the 18s watches were taken off many of the lists of RR approved, it was darned hard to buy and 18s watch RR watch.

On a personal note, as a collector, I say to heck with the 992Bs and the 60 hour Bunn Specials. Give me a Hamilton 946 or a Big Bunn any time. A manly watch ought to fill a man's hand!

[Alan Walker]

I must concur with the general opinion that the demise of the 18 size watch was mainly due to the drive towards smaller watches (ie. fashion). The only real difference betweeb the 18 size standard watches and the 16 size standards was the use of Elinvar and similiar materials in the later 16 size watches. All that did was eliminate the need for the bi-metallic compansated balance wheel and gave the watches thus equipped some degree of resistance to magnetism.

If one were to note the dates of the addition of Elinvar to railroad standard watches, one notices that the dates coincide with the time period in which the steam locomotives were beginning to be replaced by diesel-electrics, which generated large electromagnetic fields. As pointed out by Kent Singer in his presentation at the Mid-South Regional this afternoon, that may have been the driving factor for the requirement of Elinvar hairsprings in the later standard watches.

Peraonally, I feel that the 18 size standards are more desirable than the 16 size ones. First of all, they were generally more accurate. They also had more personality than their 16 size counterparts, especially the later ones. This was due mostly to the fact that the 18 size watches, with few exceptions were sold separate from the case. That meant that the movement had to catch the eye of the buyer and thus damaskeening was very important when showing a watch to a prospective buyer. The importance of that fine engraving diminished significantly with the factory casing of watches that became predominant in the period from roughly 1915-1920.

Finally, concerning the grandfathering of older watches, many railroads did follow that practice. Some like the Norfolk Southern have requirements that are so vague that movements as old as 90 to 100 years are still permitted in service, so long as they can keep time +/- 30 seconds a week. Some railroads though, did not grandfather watches. In 1938 the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad changed their list of Approved Standard Watches. The only watches approved under that list were 16 size 21 and 23 jewel B.W. Raymonds, Bunn Specials, the Hamilton 992 and the 950. It makes no reference to the grandfathering of older watches, which was always mentioned when approved by a railroad. That this particular railroad refused to grandfather watches after the revision in 1938 has been verified through first hand information from retired Lackawanna railroaders. I have a friend who had worked on the Lackawanna in the late 1930s and 40's and had other family members that worked for the Lackawanna. His father worked under time service requirements and carried a fine, high grade Hamilton standard watch. His recollection was that in the late 1930s, his father had to trade that watch in after the railroad revised its list of approved watches and refused to grandfather any watch other than those listed as approved under the new list. A number of us who had seen the circular dated Jan. 1, 1938 had suspected that grandfathering was not allowed and the statement I gained (purely by chance) confirmed our suspicions. You never know what you'll learn when you ask the right questions to the right people.

[Tom McIntyre]

They really did not allow the Waltham Vanguards and Crescent Streets? I did not realize that Waltham was excluded from any of the roads. http://www.nawcc.org/ubb/confused.gif


------------------
Tom McIntyre
Tommy the JOAT's Web (http://www.mcintyre.com/McIntyre)

[Alan Walker]

I must admit that you caught me on that one. They did allow the 16 size, 23 jewel Vanguard. I did look through the other circulars that I have on file and did note that many railroads did exclude the Waltham Crescent Streets but not the Vanguard. Of particular note is that the Waltham Premier Maximus (16S, 21J) was permitted in time service by the Louisville and Nashville Railroad as late as 1978, indicating that it was for time service more than one might think.

[Tom McIntyre]

It would seem that the railroads' accuracy in describing watches was on a par with the general price guides that appear currently.

The Premier Maximus was a 23J pendent set watch. Some Riverside Maximus watches were made in 21J, but they are uncommon in 16S. A very small number (200) of Riverside Maximus watches were also made lever set and they were all 23J.


------------------
Tom McIntyre
Tommy the JOAT's Web (http://www.mcintyre.com/McIntyre)

[Alan Walker]

I meant 23 jewels but appearently hit the wrong key.

[lak611]

Peraonally, I feel that the 18 size standards are more desirable than the 16 size ones. First of all, they were generally more accurate. Is it true that the 18 size watches were more accurate? I have never seen any information that showed 18 size watches were more accurate than 16 size watches. Does anybody have any documentation to prove this?

[Jon Hanson]

Peraonally, I feel that the 18 size standards are more desirable than the 16 size ones. First of all, they were generally more accurate. Is it true that the 18 size watches were more accurate? I have never seen any information that showed 18 size watches were more accurate than 16 size watches. Does anybody have any documentation to prove this?



WATCHES CAN BE AS ACCURATE AS THE WATCHMAKER WHO ADJUSTS THEM CORRECTLY

[lak611]

That's what I thought. I know that even lower grade watches (not railroad grade) can be adjusted to <30 seconds per week by good watchmakers easily.

I was surprised that nobody else questioned the comment by that poster. I didn't believe what he said, but I wanted expert responses.

Thank you, Jon. :)

[Tom McIntyre]

I think the implication is that for a given level of effort and for a given expectation of keeping time going forward that the 18 size are superior.

I don't necessarily think that is true, but it certainly was a common argument in the early days of the 20th century.

The real fundamental issue is rough service.

A 10 size 921 or Colonial Maximus will probably keep better time in light service than any 16 or 18 size railroad watch because the pivots are smaller and the losses in the train are less. The hairspring is harder to adjust for positions, but not beyond the skill of those specializing in the art.

On the other hand those wonderful small pivots are more easily damaged than the larger pivots on the larger watches.

[M. Cross]

Alan Walker quote: Some like the Norfolk Southern have requirements that are so vague that movements as old as 90 to 100 years are still permitted in service, so long as they can keep time +/- 30 seconds a week. Some railroads though, did not grandfather watches.:unquote

The N&W was always that way. My great grandfather carried an 18s Elgin Father Time on the Norfolk and Western until the day he retired in the late 1950's, and he was the chief engine inspector in the Portsmouth Ohio yards.

Regard! Mark