Riverside Maximus - lever or pendant set?

[Larry Treiman]

The obvious point of lever-setting, as I'm sure you realize, was to prevent the time being accidentally reset, unknown to the user of the watch, when the watch was constantly being pulled from the user's vest or overall pocket, and possibly being handled with leather gloves, to boot!

And, quite frankly, the negative pendant-setting system, with its "iffy" sleeve action stinks, to put it bluntly. You mentioned that no watch inspector would ever let a watch in their care get into that bad shape. But a spring leaf on the sleeve could break off at any time, unbeknownst to the owner of the watch, let alone the inspector, and setting the scene for a disaster. And BTW, I have frequently carried negative pendant-set watches where the sleeve seemed OK, but still might occasionally allow the watch to slip into setting mode and change the time before I knew what had happened....usually just after I had set the damn thing to WWV. I guess it was a good thing I didn't work for a railroad!

The watches were checked by inspectors at intervals that varied over the years, but frequent inspection was not always practical. And operating officials, such as "Road Foremen of Engines" might compare watches with any employe at any time. However, I remember seeing a photo of a Roqd Foreman of Engines at the throttle of a diesel. On his wrist was a man's rectangular dress wrist watch. On many, if not most railroads it was a violation of the rules to carry any watch other than a standard watch while on duty. The guy should have written himself up for that!

As for employes not being allowed to set the watches themselves, anyone who believesthat rule was strictly observed at all times might be interested in some time shares in the Brooklyn bridge. Maybe at one time and under some inspection systems such a rule might have been followed. But a more common practice over the years was the employe checking the watch against standard clocks at terminals, yard offices and roundhouses, etc., and resetting it if it was more than 20 or 30 seconds off standard time. And if no standard clock was available, they were supposed to check it against watches of other employes who had checked their watches recently against a standard clock, and reset it themselves. Do you really think that there was an inspector standing....well, sitting by 24-hours a day in every place where employes started their runs, just to reset someone's watch when it got too far off? Railroads were busy places where employes started their runs at all hours of day and night, and observed crazy work hours, often being summoned out of a sound sleep for a run. Watches were accidentally allowed to run down, and had to be reset, and where would one find an open jewelry/watch inspector shop at 3 AM to set a watch? It was simply not practical. And while in use the watches were constantly

If an employe didn't have the brains and dexterity to set a &#@$%^%@ railroad watch to the correct time from a standard clock, or the watch of another employe, that person should never have been entrusted with running a locomotive or being in charge of the safety of a train.

What I believe was inexcusable was allowing the use of pendant-set watches at all when lever-set watches were available. But I have discussed this with inspectors years ago and I am convinced that railroad pocket watches ideally should have been equipped with some version of pin-setting or other safety-setting device that would prevent accidental resetting, but not require that the bezel be removed to reset the watch, as with lever-set watches. Perhaps something like as smaller version of the setting mechanism used on the Hamilton grade 22, the 35-size chronometer watch in the watch case, or even a pin-set movement if it could have been designed so the winding/setting mechanism didn't go into setting mode by default if a spring broke or something like that! But I don't live in a fantasy world, so in the meanwhile they would just have to "make do" with a lever-set Riverside Max or Premier Max, I guess!* <];>)

Larry Treiman

*Actually, it could be argued that any 16 or 18-size, high-grade, position and temperature-adjusted, double-roller, lever-set movement with 16 or 17 (and maybe even just 15) jewels was all that was ever needed for railroad service. In effect, that's what Webb C. Ball argued in his advertising, though with a 17 jewel minimum. Just food for thought; don't let it give you mental indigestion!

LT

[Tom McIntyre]

OK Larry, I guess once the guy had ripped off the bow, he could easily put the watch in setting position when taking it out of his pocket.

You are a lot more fun that Kent and Ed. They usually just tell me to buzz off.

[Larry Treiman]

I've never ripped off the bow, but in spite of that, I have still managed to change the time accidentally! But thanks for the tip, anyway! I'll keep it in mind! <];>)

Larry

[Neuron]

My guess is that the RR folks insisted on LS just because it made it a wee bit more difficult for the rank and file user to set the hands.

Nick

I have always wondered what the point of lever set was if wearers were not allowed to set the hands of the watch anyway. It has always struck me as more symbolic than real. I don't know that I have ever seen any watch except maybe a dollar watch that was in danger of moving the hands during winding. No watch inspector would ever let a watch in their care get into that bad shape.

[Larry Treiman]

My guess is that the RR folks insisted on LS just because it made it a wee bit more difficult for the rank and file user to set the hands.

Nick

A wee change in wording is in order: "They insisted on lever setting because it made it virtually impossible to unintentionally reset the hands."

To suggest anything else is both absurd and is inexcusably demeaning to the railroaders.......or am I missing an attempt at humor here? If so, I apologize......."ha ha!"

Larry

[Bryan Eyring]

How do you know they have been replaced? Is the balance a different shape on the non-magnetic?

Tom, does this watch belong to you? If so look at it closely or at least at the photos of it that you have posted.

[Tom McIntyre]

Yes, I have had it about 20 years now. It does have a blue dyed hairspring. I don't know what a non-magnetic balance from this period is supposed to look like, but the numbers match.

[Bryan Eyring]

it appears to be constructed of brass and steel

i was unaware that Waltham used dyed non-mag hairsprings

[Tom McIntyre]

We should probably start a new thread on the history of non-magnetic designs at Waltham. It was a long time before they got to the final alloy forms of balances and hairsprings.