Have we over estimated the importance of the time service?

[DeweyC]

I have been reading the histories of various railroads and came across Hungerford's 1911 "The Modern Railroad": The Modern Railroad

He describes in detail every department and operation of railroads from laying the rails to operations. The impact on air brakes on track clearances. Terminal design. Baggage handling. You name it.

In 547 pages he never mentions time service or the use of watches. Signals, timetables, interlocks, 1/2 mile long switch bars, everything else you can think of. But not a thing about time. Nothing about Ball.

I do not know what to think about this.

 

[DeweyC]

LOL! I will correct the title!

Huh. Used to be able to correct titles. Looks like no more?

 

[musicguy]

I just fixed it I was going to PM you



Rob

 

[grtnev]

I have been reading the histories of various railroads and came across Hungerford's 1911 "The Modern Railroad": The Modern Railroad

He describes in detail every department and operation of railroads from laying the rails to operations. The impact on air brakes on track clearances. Terminal design. Baggage handling. You name it.

In 547 pages he never mentions time service or the use of watches. Signals, timetables, interlocks, 1/2 mile long switch bars, everything else you can think of. But not a thing about time. Nothing about Ball.

I do not know what to think about this.

Dewey,

Interesting book - thanks for sharing.

"Have We Over Estimated the Importance of Time?"

IMHO Not at all - Chapter 14, "Operating the Railroad" beginning on page 220 of The Modern Railroad discusses schedules, scheduling, single vs. double track operation, express train priority, telegaph and its use to alter/update a given schedule, etc. Obviously all of these operations are based on a standard time and knowing, precisely, what the correct standard time is at any time of the day.

The author's focus is more about how a "modern railroad" is operated and maintained. His discussions imply that the correct standard time is a known and given quantity on which daily schedules, side track operations (where a lower grade train has to be on a siding during a specific time period in order to allow for a higher grade train (express for example) to pass, etc.

Although correct time is mission critical and an important quantity for the safe operation of the "modern railroad", in the context of his book it is assumed to be known and the details of how it is known are not required knowledge for his description of operating and maintaing the "modern railroad".

Richard

 

[Les harland]

I have not read the book
I would have thought that by 1911 "modern" signalling systems using block working would prevent two trains being on the same section of track (block) at the same time
Was Rail Road Standard Time taken for granted by then?

Railroad Standard Time was first adopted by The Great Western Railway November 1840
The GWR head office was Paddington Station London

 

[Kent]

... He describes in detail every department and operation of railroads from laying the rails to operations. The impact on air brakes on track clearances. Terminal design. Baggage handling. You name it.

In 547 pages he never mentions time service or the use of watches. ...

I suspect you can find many books about various American industries from auto making to steel production (and anything in-between) that that fail to mention the use of safety shoes/boots or safety glasses/goggles, but woe to the worker caught without them. For the last twenty years or more, it could mean instant firing for cause. (To all: please don't bother listing all the books that do mention them.)

The point is that it was such a commonplace thing that it didn't warrant mention. In the 160 pages of United States Military Railway Service - America's Soldier-Railroaders in WWII, Don DeNevi and Bob Hall, Boston Mills Press, Erin, Ontario, Canada, 1992, there's not a single word about watches or time service, but we know that Uncle Sam bought thousands of railroad watches for use by those 'Soldier-Railroaders' and had an adequate number of technicians to service those watches.

I have a copy of Hungerford's 1930 "The Run of the Twentieth Century" on my bookshelf. Its been a long, long time since I read it, but I don't recall anything about watches or time service in that book either; even though the Twentieth Century Limited was all about fast, safe, on-time service. I don't think that the book mentioned the crew eating either.

 

[richiec]

The crew had to eat? I guess because he never mentioned time keeping, there was no time to eat.

 

[johnbscott]

Every railway (railroad) needs to have a system of "safe working". The purpose of such a system is to keep trains apart. Some such systems are complex, others rudimentary.

In the developmental era of the railroads in America (before the telegraph came into widespread use) time-keeping was of the utmost importance because the operation of the trains was governed by the timetable, alone. If two trains were to "cross", the first of them was time-tabled to be at the crossing point designated by the timetable and in clear (in the siding) by a set time before the appointed arrival time of the opposing train. If there should be a delay and the first train could not reach the designated crossing point in time, then it would have to stop at the previous station and wait there for the opposing train. Accurate watches in the hands of train crews were vital to the success of such arrangements.

Obviously, the march of technology has made absolute dependence upon the described arrangements unnecessary, so standard watches have ceased to be central to railroad safe working. Of course, shippers and passengers still appreciate it if trains run to time.

 

[DeweyC]

Dewey,

Interesting book - thanks for sharing.

"Have We Over Estimated the Importance of Time?"

IMHO Not at all - Chapter 14, "Operating the Railroad" beginning on page 220 of The Modern Railroad discusses schedules, scheduling, single vs. double track operation, express train priority, telegaph and its use to alter/update a given schedule, etc. Obviously all of these operations are based on a standard time and knowing, precisely, what the correct standard time is at any time of the day.

The author's focus is more about how a "modern railroad" is operated and maintained. His discussions imply that the correct standard time is a known and given quantity on which daily schedules, side track operations (where a lower grade train has to be on a siding during a specific time period in order to allow for a higher grade train (express for example) to pass, etc.

Although correct time is mission critical and an important quantity for the safe operation of the "modern railroad", in the context of his book it is assumed to be known and the details of how it is known are not required knowledge for his description of operating and maintaing the "modern railroad".

Richard

Richard and Kent,

I should offer that Hungerford is a respected contemporary historian of transportation in general and railroads in particular. I have read his books on the history of the B&O, NYC and the Erie. He is exhaustive to the point of tedium (maybe why I have an affinity with him??)

Anyway, I read his The Modern Railroad within its own context. Remember, it was published in 1911. I have attached two examples (one with air brakes, another where a watch is finally mentioned) to make the point that he fully describes events and inventions.

Put these in context to his descriptions of the use of Timetables (pg222-227) and the role of the Conductor (pg 250-251). He gives ALL the whistle, bell and hand signals used in train movements. Yet, not one word is mentioned about time service, or the development of RR time and how it unfolded, even though it was only 25 years earlier. And Ball's influence was much more recent. Not even a mention of the Conductor's watch!

But, he gives time to the development of the RR YMCA network.

He seems to indicate trains are very closely regulated by telegraph orders and have been for years. He certainly gives explanations about the use of the telegraph. Although his lack of a description of how telegraph traffic was managed could be considered akin to how the time service worked. But still, I would have thought he would have mentioned the tools of the time service.

As I said, I have no idea what to think of this. Years ago, when John Hankey was the curator of the B&O we became friends (he is now a noted RR historian). Lost touch with him when went for his Ph.D.. But, he was originally a fully qualified engineer.

At that time, he carried a rubber ring on a watch chain. When I asked him about it he said it was to demonstrate a common practice used to get past the supervisors who never asked to see your watch. This was in the 1990s, but John had worked in the late 70s and 80s.

Attached are the extracts of the book mentioning the development of airbrakes and of a watch. I cannot explain his complete inattention to time. I am trying to track John down.

The_Modern_Railroad Brakes.pdf_extract.pdf

The_Modern_Railroad president.pdf_extract_1.pdf

 

[topspin]

I have a copy of Hungerford's 1930 "The Run of the Twentieth Century" on my bookshelf. Its been a long, long time since I read it, but I don't recall anything about watches or time service in that book either; even though the Twentieth Century Limited was all about fast, safe, on-time service. I don't think that the book mentioned the crew eating either.

Good point. I'll bet most of these books don't mention the toilets either. To me this doesn't mean the toilets were unimportant, it just means the authors felt them to be so obvious and ubiquitous as to be unworthy of detailed discussion. Or that the readers of the day wouldn't be interested

 

[DeweyC]

The book under discussion, and to which I provided the link on Google Books, is an encyclopedia of American Railroad structure, engineering management and operations.

The suggestion that Time Service was too obvious to rise to discussion is interesting. Was the telegraph less obvious and therefore in need of explanation? The use of electric lights? The role of coal in early 20th century America?

Time service is notable by its absence given the detail he devotes to airbrakes, tunnel construction, telegraph, engine movements, yard operations, etc.

Bartky does a good job laying out the way the service developed and how it operated, but if I recall, even he does not claim it was the most important safety factor in 20th century railroad operations.

Given the work of Dowd and others who developed the 4 time zones in the late 1880s (a mere 25 years before) you would think he would have given at least as much attention to that as he did the much older telegraph.

Either it is a glaring lack of knowledge or Hungerford did not think the time service was very important. Either way, it is discrepant with what I thought I knew and now I am curious. I take very few things as an article of faith so that when I encounter a discrepancy, I question.

Read the treatise and then we can discuss it with the same backdrop.. It is hard to make judgments about an author's writing without reading it.

 

[terry hall]

At that time, he carried a rubber ring on a watch chain. When I asked him about it he said it was to demonstrate a common practice used to get past the supervisors who never asked to see your watch. This was in the 1990s, but John had worked in the late 70s and 80s.

Certainly curious to hear more on this ,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[Clint Geller]

I had to dig pretty deep to find references to the importance of watches in Civil War armies too, though I found them. But watches were omnipresent in Civil War armies. In Gordon Rhea's third volume on the Overland Campaign of May-June 1864, he mentions several examples of troops harvesting large numbers of watches from both dead and living opponents after a battle. So when you consider that, unlike me, the historian wasn't assiduously documenting every mention of a watch he came across in Civil War letters, memoirs, and diaries, that's pretty telling. In one instance, Rhea mentions a sorely disappointed rebel scavenger who found only one "fresh" Union corpse on the field, and worst of all, "his watch had already been taken."

 

[DeweyC]

As I read deeper and get into the actual operations of the dispatcher, it turns out that while the timetable was considered a starting point, it was too rigid for reality. It was a "goal". By 1911, block control and interlocks were the primary safety features. Also, by 1911 the telephone was replacing the telegraph for train orders. Orders were delivered to the next station to handle the various realities that came up that impacted movement.

The dispatcher (department) was actually working in near real time and was constantly adjusting the traffic movement.

Interestingly, the telegraphers had lobbied Congress to pass an 8 hour day for them a couple years before 1911. Just at the time the telephone was gaining acceptance. The RRs jumped on it.

The RR executives (including many Presidents), from the General Manager and Superintendents on down all worked their way up through the system. There is one vignette where the General Manager and his wife listened to the telegraphers in real time on the key in the bedroom. They had both worked as telegraphers during his posting as station master and could understand Morse as easily as speech.

I had to dig pretty deep to find references to the importance of watches in Civil War armies too, though I found them. But watches were omnipresent in Civil War armies

Clint, a Civil War history description of watches would be akin to expecting Hungerford describing switch lock keys. The Civil War use of balloons and spies would be more analogous to the RR time service in the 20th century. Telegraph? Trains for troop movements? Bugle calls and drum rolls?

Given the importance we assign to railroad timekeeping, it is very discrepant that no history of railroading I have read includes it as a factor. Certainly, the description of operations provided in Hungerford indicates train control was not dependent on the time table.

I do not claim to have conducted an exhaustive search of railroad history. I have read only about a dozen books, modern and vintage.

Are there any RR histories that describe the use of the time service in the 20th century? The only author I know is Bartky and he does not make the claim that the timeservice was essential to 20th cent. railroading. And Bartky wrote specifically about the time service.

When things settle I will try to have a discussion with the staff at the B&O and visit the PRR museum.

 

[DeweyC]

Certainly curious to hear more on this ,,,,,,,,,,,,

Terry,

I wish I had more. I did find John on a social site and sent him an email but have not yet heard back. He would be a little older than me and I hope he is ok. There appears to be no update since 2018.

 

[Clint Geller]

As I read deeper and get into the actual operations of the dispatcher, it turns out that while the timetable was considered a starting point, it was too rigid for reality. It was a "goal". By 1911, block control and interlocks were the primary safety features. Also, by 1911 the telephone was replacing the telegraph for train orders. Orders were delivered to the next station to handle the various realities that came up that impacted movement.

The dispatcher (department) was actually working in near real time and was constantly adjusting the traffic movement.

Interestingly, the telegraphers had lobbied Congress to pass an 8 hour day for them a couple years before 1911. Just at the time the telephone was gaining acceptance. The RRs jumped on it.

The RR executives (including many Presidents), from the General Manager and Superintendents on down all worked their way up through the system. There is one vignette where the General Manager and his wife listened to the telegraphers in real time on the key in the bedroom. They had both worked as telegraphers during his posting as station master and could understand Morse as easily as speech.



Clint, a Civil War history description of watches would be akin to expecting Hungerford describing switch lock keys. The Civil War use of balloons and spies would be more analogous to the RR time service in the 20th century. Telegraph? Trains for troop movements? Bugle calls and drum rolls?

Given the importance we assign to railroad timekeeping, it is very discrepant that no history of railroading I have read includes it as a factor. Certainly, the description of operations provided in Hungerford indicates train control was not dependent on the time table.

I do not claim to have conducted an exhaustive search of railroad history. I have read only about a dozen books, modern and vintage.

Are there any RR histories that describe the use of the time service in the 20th century? The only author I know is Bartky and he does not make the claim that the timeservice was essential to 20th cent. railroading. And Bartky wrote specifically about the time service.

When things settle I will try to have a discussion with the staff at the B&O and visit the PRR museum.

Dewey, the historian Gordon Rhea does not describe the details of Civil War watches or their significance to combat operations. He mentions only several instances of the presence of large numbers of watches on Civil War battlefields. I mostly had to look elsewhere to document the significance and specific uses of watches in combat operations. There are only a handful of books that touch on this subject other than indirectly (Wells's book, McCrossen's book, and my own), and as far as I know, the only book that describes what watches were and were not used during the Civil War, along with a discussion of their characteristics, is my own book. (One can find detailed discussions of all these kinds of watches in other sources, of course, but not in the specific context of their relevance to the Civil War.) The importance of railroad lines to the combatants comes up frequently in Rhea's narrative.

 

[DeweyC]

Dewey, the historian Gordon Rhea does not describe the details of Civil War watches or their significance to combat operations. He mentions only several instances of the presence of large numbers of watches on Civil War battlefields. I mostly had to look elsewhere to document the significance and specific uses of watches in combat operations. There are only a handful of books that touch on this subject other than indirectly (Wells's book, McCrossen's book, and my own), and as far as I know, the only book that describes what watches were and were not used during the Civil War, along with a discussion of their characteristics, is my own book. (One can find detailed discussions of all these kinds of watches in other sources, of course, but not in the specific context of their relevance to the Civil War.) The importance of railroad lines to the combatants comes up frequently in Rhea's narrative.

Got it Clint.

I thought you were making an equivalency between the paucity of documentation of watches in Civil War histories to the lack of attention to the RR Time Services in the 20th-century railroad history literature.

I did locate the Pennsy corporate records. Another trip when things settle down.

 

[Kent]

Dewey:

I think that you're missing something. Its not that we may have over estimated the importance of the time service because Hungerford (and others) didn't write about it; its more like Hungerford (and perhaps others) didn't see the importance of the time service, even though the evidence was right there in front of him (them). Since the turn of the century, and certainly by 1911, every railroader who had anything to do with the movement of trains had a standard watch that they would have consulted regularly. How could Hungerford have missed it?

Time service, and the watches it required, were written about in all sorts of publications. If you check the documents listed in "Railroad Time Service Watch Rules," you'll see what these publications were. First of all, there were reports and stories in the watch and jewelry trade press. Don't be too quick to dismiss these as being written to promote the watches, many of their subscribers were watch inspectors (who were, by and large, jewelers) who had a direct interest in the subject.

Next were the very occasional stories in the railroad trade press (Railway Age). That's where Ball's address to the National Safety Council on Freakish Dials was published.

Then there were the railroad employe magazines, a place where the railroaders could get the official latest word on the subject. There were also the railroad magazines published for their (long haul) riders to read. These occasionally carried stories describing the importance of time service programs.

Railroad Time Service rules and the changes to them were reported upon by the local newspapers in the cities and towns served by the railroads upon which they were reporting.

So, how did Hungerford miss the importance of it?

 

[DeweyC]

Kent,

I fully understand your point. But given the encyclopedic coverage that Hungerford provided, I am not willing to presume he was unaware of the role the time Service played in 20th century railroad operations.
Why would he know the intricacies of interlocks, telegraphy, air brakes, career paths of each conductor, engineers, MOW superintendents, and how tires are fitted to wheels and NOT be aware of the role of the time service (if it was as important as we think)?

I draw no conclusions about this omission. It is very discrepant with my expectations however. And discrepancies are opportunities for learning.

It is clear to me from reading his book in entirety that train operations were extremely dependent on train orders, revised train orders, interlocks and block signaling. He describes how superintendents would test engineer compliance with block signals and it was a major offense. Not a word about watch inspections.

He talks about the timetable as a starting point; but it did not rule rail operations. There were too many variables impacting traffic from weather to breakdowns and wrecks and even special holds for people who had the money. The district dispatcher offices were actually like a war room every day. The dispatcher knew the conditions of his zone and what was running. Change orders were executed by the telephone by 1911 and instructions would be sent to the next station.

At this point, I have no idea if Hungerford was ignorant of the facts as you suggest, or if we collectors are a tail wagging the dog. I will try to resolve the discrepancy by talking with modern RR historians.

When things calm down I will go down to the B&O museum and also see if I can find anything in the Pennsy corporate records.

Has anyone run across a history of a 20th Century first class American RR that includes an explanation on the use of time and watches?

 

[musicguy]

I draw no conclusions about this omission

I'm not so sure

Trying to get into the mind of an author is not always that easy. I believe that Kent
made a solid argument using the Trade Magazines, Newspapers, ect that detail
the service. Maybe(and now you have me doing it) it was covered so much during that time
that it was not necessary to reiterate it. Maybe like the Nobel prize there
isn't a prize for Math or Biology weren't they important too.



Rob

 

[Kent]

... I fully understand your point. ...

I'm not sure that you do. Of course Hungerford knew about standard watches and their use; that was a major part of my point in posts #8 & #21. The watches and their use were just plain commonplace and not worthy of mention - they were intentionally ignored - by just about everybody who has written railroad books. Maybe it was because they were owned by the railroaders, not the railroads - just like safety shoes/boots.

...
I will try to resolve the discrepancy by talking with modern RR historians.

When things calm down I will go down to the B&O museum and also see if I can find anything in the Pennsy corporate records. ...

Good luck with that. About 30 years ago I gave a presentation on time service and standard watches at the national convention of the National Model Railroad Assoc. Of the three people who attended, two were friends of mine. At a similar presentation I did three or four years ago at the national convention of the Assoc. of Historic Railroads and Railroad Museums, about 15 people showed and only five were family or friends. Its frequently been standing room only at NAWCC regionals. Oh, historical societies haven't been too helpful either.

... Has anyone run across a history of a 20th Century first class American RR that includes an explanation on the use of time and watches?

I'll be amazed if anybody here comes up with anything. I've gone through hundreds of railroad books (with over a hundred on my bookshelves - albeit mostly about the NYC) since the early 60s when I became aware that railroaders had to have special watches. I know of only two books beyond the very few quoted in the rules article that touch on the subject; one is Grand Central, David Marshall, Whittlesey House Division of McGraw-Hill, NY, 1946 which mainly discusses who takes care of the clocks at that terminal and the other is a sidebar in the 2nd volume on the Boston & Maine that Ed Ueberall and I wrote about 20 years ago (the sidebar - not the book).

To sum up, very few people who care about railroads also care about time service and standard watches.

 

[DeweyC]

Rob,

By that logic he would have ignored telegraphy and the telephone. The book is 550 pages long. Hungerford knew his subject area. And he was not a one trick pony.

The tell will be histories of 20th century RR operations that cover the value of the time service. If anyone can point us to one of those, it would be great to hear about them.

Everything I ever read on RR time peters out after 1900. It is all about track management in the 19th century. Before block signalling and interlocks and double trackage.

As I said, I will also be talking to some archivists as well.

No, I have not drawn any conclusions. I do have a couple hypotheses, but those are very tentative and will be tested in the archives.

 

[DeweyC]

I'm not sure that you do. Of course Hungerford knew about standard watches and their use; that was a major part of my point in posts #8 & #21. The watches and their use were just plain commonplace and not worthy of mention - they were intentionally ignored - by just about everybody who has written railroad books. Maybe it was because they were owned by the railroaders, not the railroads - just like safety shoes/boots.




Good luck with that. About 30 years ago I gave a presentation on time service and standard watches at the national convention of the National Model Railroad Assoc. Of the three people who attended, two were friends of mine. At a similar presentation I did three or four years ago at the national convention of the Assoc. of Historic Railroads and Railroad Museums, about 15 people showed and only five were family or friends. Its frequently been standing room only at NAWCC regionals. Oh, historical societies haven't been too helpful either.




I'll be amazed if anybody here comes up with anything. I've gone through hundreds of railroad books (with over a hundred on my bookshelves - albeit mostly about the NYC) since the early 60s when I became aware that railroaders had to have special watches. I know of only two books beyond the very few quoted in the rules article that touch on the subject; one is Grand Central, David Marshall, Whittlesey House Division of McGraw-Hill, NY, 1946 which mainly discusses who takes care of the clocks at that terminal and the other is a sidebar in the 2nd volume on the Boston & Maine that Ed Ueberall and I wrote about 20 years ago (the sidebar - not the book).

To sum up, very few people who care about railroads also care about time service and standard watches.

Kent,

Your experience with presentations can be interpreted several ways. RR historians are too stupid to understand the role of RR watches all the way to other extreme that RR operations in the 20th century did not rely on RR watches.

And that is the crux of my interest in the discrepancy between what I expected to find in Hungerford, and what I did not. Without more information, I am unwilling to jump to a conclusion that RR watches were unimportant, or that Hungerford was ignorant or that RR historians are too stupid to understand. I simply do not know why the discrepancy exists.

 

[Ethan Lipsig]

I am notoriously uninterested in and unknowledgeable about railroads and railroad watches, but it is my impression that it was only in the U.S. or perhaps North America that trainmen had to carry standard watches. If my impression is correct, that the rest of the world's railroads saw no need to require trainmen to carry such watches, surely that would suggest that standard watches were not material to the proper operation of U.S. railroads.

 

[rrwatch]

Standard watches were required on the railroads in Canada, Mexico and the United States.

 

[Kent]

I am notoriously uninterested in and unknowledgeable about railroads and railroad watches, but it is my impression that it was only in the U.S. or perhaps North America that trainmen had to carry standard watches. ...

As Ed noted above, similar rules to those in the US. were in place in Canada and Mexico. These can be found in the list in the Encyclopedia article entitled "Railroad Time Service Watch Rules."

Originally, the same watches (more or less) were required throughout North America. But as the twentieth century progressed, Mexican railroads realized that their standard of living didn't permit most of their workers to own the extravagant watches being required by their northern neighbors and Mexican standards continued to accept watches that were only adjusted to three positions 'til the end of the pocket-watch era. These were perfectly capable of keeping a rate of +/- 30 seconds/week - watches that were only adjusted to three positions were grandfathered into the late 1940s in the U.S.

I don't know too much about railroad practice throughout the rest of the world. U.S. watch manufacturers furnished lesser (than U.S. railroad grade) watches for use in India and Australia. At the 1996 NAWCC "Railroad Timekeeping" seminar (in Rockford, IL), one of the subjects presented was Railroad Timekeeping in Great Briton. I don't know if this was supposition on the part of the presenter or if it was actual policy, but the point was made that lesser watches were used because:

a) The average distance between stations was very much less than in North America requiring a much shorter duration during which a watch would need to display accurate time; and

b) Standard clocks were located on the station platforms, visible to the train crews, thus providing them the opportunities to check and correct their watches.

Around the same time, in preparation for a Railroaders' Corner column on Swiss watches, I wrote to Omega asking what watches they had supplied for railroad time service. When I received the reply, I was embarrassed to realize that I had neglected to state "for use in North America." The nice person who answered took the time to list (lesser) watches furnished to railroads worldwide!

... If my impression is correct, that the rest of the world's railroads saw no need to require trainmen to carry such watches, surely that would suggest that standard watches were not material to the proper operation of U.S. railroads.

So, the rest of the world's railroads saw a need to require trainmen to carry watches, just not the high grade watches used in North American practice.

For the first thirty years of U.S. watch production, 18-size, 15-jewel watches, fitted with a patent regulator and adjusted to temperature (heat & cold) and perhaps position, were adequate for railroad service; holding a rate of +/- 30 seconds/week.

I think that it was capitalistic competition that, starting in the early 90s, first drove the 15-jewel standard watch off the market. This was soon followed by the watches only adjusted to temperature as adjustment to three positions became common by the turn if the century, only to give way when adjustment to five positions became common over the next ten years.

The railroaders' complaints were spot on; they were being forced to buy needlessly expensive watches so that the watch inspectors could make money! Standard watches were needed, but not ones that could hold a rate of +/- 5 seconds for months at a time.

 

[Ethan Lipsig]

Kent, aren't you answering "yes" to Dewey's question "have we over estimated the importance of the time service" when you say that "The railroaders' complaints were spot on; they were being forced to buy needlessly expensive watches so that the watch inspectors could make money! Standard watches were needed, but not ones that could hold a rate of +/- 5 seconds for months at a time.essential to rail."

 

[DeweyC]

One of the things I will be looking at is who actually did not buy RRG watches. By this I mean the following.

As we properly maintained, a RRG watch will serve well for 100 years. WE also know that railroaders were not flush with cash and did not follow today's trend to buy a new model every year. Thirdly, a great many many railroaders retired out after 40 years of service.

Yet, perhaps several hundred thousands RR grade watches were made every year from 1910 to 1940.

So who else was buying them other than RR workers? Who was actually the larger market? Who benefited by promoting keeping the "standard" on the ICC books? Who would be harmed by removing the reg?

I do not know the answers. I only know some questions I want to answer through data.

 

[viclip]

Nations beyond North America used the "token" system to avoid head-on train collisions. As I understand it, the trackage was monitored by ground crews who would give permission to a particular train to proceed over a given stretch. This was possible due to shorter railroad stretches as compared to those traversing the vast expanses of our continent.

Here are links to a couple of threads dealing with this:

NSWGR Waltham Watches

why railway watches and not token working?

 

[grtnev]

The discussion seems to be morphing a little. There is, at least to me, a significant difference between the questions:

“Have we overestimated the importance of time service?”

and the question

“Have we overestimated the importance of highly jeweled, adj 5-6 pos standard watches vs 15-17j standard watches adj to temperature and perhaps up to 3 positions?”

The answer, at least for me to the 1st question is no.

With the exception of the mention of air brakes, railroad schedules and daily operations previously mentioned in this post are all highly dependent on accurately knowing the time in order to know when to execute the operation or schedule.

.... and the 2nd question has been discussed previously in multiple posts on this forum.

Richard

 

[Kent]

Kent, aren't you answering "yes" to Dewey's question "have we over estimated the importance of the time service" when you say that "The railroaders' complaints were spot on; they were being forced to buy needlessly expensive watches so that the watch inspectors could make money! Standard watches were needed, but not ones that could hold a rate of +/- 5 seconds for months at a time.essential to rail."

I don't think that I'm answering 'yes' to Dewey's question. I believe that time service was very important, What I don't believe is that the watches 'needed' to be more than 15- or 17-jewel, adjusted to more than three positions.

 

[DeweyC]

With the exception of the mention of air brakes, railroad schedules and daily operations previously mentioned in this post are all highly dependent on accurately knowing the time in order to know when to execute the operation or schedule.

Richard

Richard,

Unless we can find the foundation for your statement documented in authoritative sources on 20th Century US RR operations, the statement is circular reasoning.

Or, an article of faith.

I have seen nor found any source on which to support your statement.

In fact, we have been discussing an authoritative source who omits any mention of time as safety or operations factor while going into exquisite detail about dispatchers, block signalling, interlocks and the duties of the various personnel from hoestlers to conductor.

Any and all are encouraged to read the book in the link provided to assess for themselves whether the ommission of time service as a safety factor in 20th century RR operations was an oversight.

I believe Kent has said he never found this part of the 20th Cent. RR operating system covered in any RR history either.

I am surprised the reaction is not "Huh, this is interesting" rather than the one seemingly offered that "Oh, the importance of time was too obvious".

As I said earlier, that logic would preclude any mention of coal, telephone, or telegraph.

Any and all of these can be independently researched by almost all. RR archives and historians abound.

Richard, perhaps you could find something in the professional engineering literature that sheds light on this aspect of Railroad operations in the 20th Century?

 

[musicguy]

I do find it interesting that it's not mentioned(in RR books).

Rob

 

[Kent]

... WE also know that railroaders were not flush with cash ...

II wouldn't be so sure of that. In 1914, Henry Ford astounded the industrialized world by nearly doubling the pay of his assembly-line workers to $5.00 per day, making them the highest paid factory workers in the world. He did it to reduce the turnover of the labor force, but it also had the, perhaps intended, effect of enabling them to afford buying the model T cars they were making.

Yet over twenty years earlier, conductors were making $100/month or more.

... So who else was buying them other than RR workers? ...

Lumberjacks were one market.

 

[Kent]

With the exception of the mention of air brakes, railroad schedules and daily operations previously mentioned in this post are all highly dependent on accurately knowing the time in order to know when to execute the operation or schedule.

Richard,

Unless we can find the foundation for your statement documented in authoritative sources on 20th Century US RR operations, the statement is circular reasoning. ...

Dewey:

I thought that your original premise was that "authoritative sources" such as Hungerford knew about, but ignored, time service.

 

[DeweyC]

Dewey:

I thought that your original premise was that "authoritative sources" such as Hungerford knew about, but ignored, time service.

Kent,

Not sure of your confusion. My point is that the role of time service in 20th century RR operations was not covered in the author's encyclopedia of 20th-century RR operations. I find it discrepant. I made/make no judgment on whether he ignored, was ignorant of it, or whatever. I simply found it at odds with I expected to find.

Others (and you, I believe) have offered that was because it was so obvious merited no discussion.

Which leads to the question of why Hungerford then included detailed instructions on the use of the telegraph and telephone which were just as obvious.

While others think they know he left it out because it was so obvious, I am of the same os Rob when he sez it is very difficult to get into the head of an author (especially when he is dead).

For that reason, I suspend judgment on why he omitted time as an important safety factor until I am able to consult authoritative subject matter specialists.

I hope that clarifies the issue.

 

[DeweyC]

II wouldn't be so sure of that. In 1914, Henry Ford astounded the industrialized world by nearly doubling the pay of his assembly-line workers to $5.00 per day, making them the highest paid factory workers in the world. He did it to reduce the turnover of the labor force, but it also had the, perhaps intended, effect of enabling them to afford buying the model T cars they were making.

Yet over twenty years earlier, conductors were making $100/month or more.

View attachment 590333 View attachment 590334 View attachment 590335




Lumberjacks were one market.

View attachment 590336

Kent,

Section foreman, Fireman, Brakemen, yard workers. Also, how "fat" conductors and engineers were depended on freight vs. passenger, seniority, specific RRs, and financial health of the road and the country.

But beyond even that, RRers were conservative. They did not drink (by fiat) and superintendents looked for fraud by keeping an eye on how conductors and engineers spent their income. Given that a RR watch can give terrific after 100 years, it is doubtful they traded them in every year for new watches.

Given 100s of thousands of RR grade watches were produced annually, and the RRs stabilized and shrank during that period, and that many (most) stayed on the RR their entire working life, just where did all those RR watches go every year?

For instance, lumberjacks are an excellent example of buyers who did not work on the RR.

The putative market was not growing several hundred thousand per year. So where did they go?

 

[Kent]

How silly of me; I've just realized that I've overlooked a whole group of hundreds (if not thousands) of books that directly, and very authoritatively, address the subject - the railroads' rules of their operating departments.

Thanks to the Association of American Railroads and its predecessors who created the guidlines, these rule books are very similar, containing the definition of Standard Time, descriptions of who must carry certified watches and then the numerous rules requiring the railroaders to know the correct time in order to safely operate the trains.

Published by the railroads themselves, these rule books supersede anything that might be written, or not written, by Hungerford or whoever. The railroaders literally lived by these rules. The example shown below, Rule 99, which states in Part; "... when he may return to the first point designated above and remain there until recalled by the whistle of his engine; but if a passenger train is due within five minutes, (emphasis added) he must remain until it arrives." was chosen at random to illustrate the need for the railroaders to know the correct time.

The example was found within moments by searching Google Books for the keywords "railroad operating department rules opposing train" (knowing how to select keywords can save a lot of time).

 

[Kent]

... Section foreman, Fireman, Brakemen, yard workers. Also, how "fat" conductors and engineers were depended on freight vs. passenger, seniority, specific RRs, and financial health of the road and the country. ...

I have no idea of what this means.

... They did not drink (by fiat) ...

I think you mean that "They did not drink ..." on the job, or during the hours leading up to reporting for work. Plenty of them, like many Americans did. There are even old posters showing wives imploring their railroader husbands not to drink.

... and superintendents looked for fraud by keeping an eye on how conductors and engineers spent their income. ...

Do you have anything to support this assertion?

... Given that a RR watch can give terrific after 100 years, it is doubtful they traded them in every year for new watches.

Aye, there's the rub! This is what drove watch companies to increase jeweling, come out with higher grade 16-size watches and improvements such as wind indicators - the need to give railroaders a reason to buy a new watch. Ball undertook a massive campaign to get railroaders to trade-in their 18-size watches for 16-size models,

 

[Ethan Lipsig]

Coming from outside the railroad and railroad watch world, I have an outsider's perspective on Dewey's question whether railroad watch buffs have overestimated the importance of the "time service." At the risk of leading with my chin, if I correctly understand the "time service" to be the rules railroads imposed on their personnel about carrying watches, such as requirements that they be 16-size, lever-set, open-face, etc., I believe that railroad watch buffs have overestimated the importance of those rules to railroad operation.

1. Only in North America did railroads impose rules like that. If most other countries' railroads could operate without time service rules, so could those in North America. Some have said that the longer routes in North America made it critical for trainmen to carry highly precise watches. I am skeptical. If distance matters at all, there were plenty of long distance train routes other countries, e.g., the Trans-Siberian and Cape-to-Cairo routes.
2. The rules themselves demonstrate that they were largely unnecessary by being overly fussy. There was no reason to ban 18-size watches, for example. US Railroads ran fine, as far as I can tell, during the late 19th century while watch requirements were more liberal.
3. US railroads weren't unique, but there was something unique about the US in the late 19th century: It was the world's biggest producer of machine-made quality watches.
4. US watch companies needed to sell what they produced. People in the watch trade marketed those watches.
5. Entrepreneurs, especially Ball, marketed watches to the railroad industry.
6. As Kent noted in post 41, imposing new, fussy time service rules was Ball's marketing strategy.
7. I can only speculate as to why railroads adopted those rules: I am guessing that early adopters got a marketing edge, that they were so sophisticated that their trainmen all had to carry especially precise watches -- their railroads ran on time, like a fine watch. Once some railroads started imposing fussy time service rules, others did so for copy-cat reasons. I would wager that there was a fair degree of variation in the time service rules railroads imposed, and that some remained reasonably flexible.
8. As Kent noted in post #33, time service rules generally required higher quality watches than railroad personnel really needed.
9. As Dewey has pointed out, the market for railroad watches was far bigger than railroad personnel. Why? Again, I can only speculate: Railroad watches were sturdy, dependable, quality blue collar watches. If a farmer, a teamster, a school teacher, or a policeman wanted a good, sturdy affordable watch, what better choice could he make than to buy a railroad watch? It helped sell those watches to nonrailroaders to portray them as essential to the safe and timely operation of a rail system that in those days was a modern marvel.

In short, it seems reasonably clear that US railroads had no special need for time service rules. Those rules were adopted and modified over time principally as a result of marketing efforts to sell the quality watches that US watch companies were capable of mass producing.

 

[fbicknel]

Did you mean importance or impotence?

It also seems you're asking have we underestimated the importance?

 

[fbicknel]

Ball undertook a massive campaign to get railroaders to trade-in their 18-size watches for 16-size models

Ya know, I go out of my way to avoid ads and commercials, but I enjoyed reading those!

 

[musicguy]

There was no reason to ban 18-size watches, for example.

US watch companies needed to sell what they produced.

entrepreneurs, especially Ball, marketed watches to the railroad industry.

As Kent noted in post 41, imposing new, fussy time service rules was Ball's marketing strategy.

As Kent noted in post #33, time service rules generally required higher quality watches than railroad personnel really needed.

These are all true but have nothing to do with Kent's argument about why is was important
for the RR men to carry a watch to and to keep a timetable. In regular life we all need to be
in certain places at certain times and we use watches or clocks or cell phones to make sure
we get there on time. On the RR a conductor needed to follow a time table and couldn't sit at
a particular station for 10 minutes and another one for 15 and not care when they got from place to place.

Why, because capitalism is about money. Time is money. Efficiency is money.
So there was profit to be made if the RR ran efficiently(as well as safely for public perception). These big RR owners made more money if their RR's were on time
and delivered product or passengers efficiently. Not only did this system make the Watch companies
money, the RR inspectors money, it also created a very efficient RR system which made
the owners money.

Whatever the motivation was (including the Union's motivations) the Time
service did exist, we do have Standard watches that were used on the RR's
and have quite a bit of documentation about them. The motivations behind
many of the factors can be argued but the fact that it existed makes it real.




Rob

 

[DeweyC]

This is fascinating.

How silly of me; I've just realized that I've overlooked a whole group of hundreds (if not thousands) of books that directly, and very authoritatively, address the subject - the railroads' rules of their operating departments.

Thanks to the Association of American Railroads and its predecessors who created the guidlines, these rule books are very similar, containing the definition of Standard Time, descriptions of who must carry certified watches and then the numerous rules requiring the railroaders to know the correct time in order to safely operate the trains.

Published by the railroads themselves, these rule books supersede anything that might be written, or not written, by Hungerford or whoever. The railroaders literally lived by these rules. The example shown below, Rule 99, which states in Part; "... when he may return to the first point designated above and remain there until recalled by the whistle of his engine; but if a passenger train is due within five minutes, (emphasis added) he must remain until it arrives." was chosen at random to illustrate the need for the railroaders to know the correct time.

The example was found within moments by searching Google Books for the keywords "railroad operating department rules opposing train" (knowing how to select keywords can save a lot of time).

View attachment 590424

Kent,

Do you really mean to use the very existence of the time service as proof that it was an important safety factor to the operation of 20th century railroads? It is the VALUE of its existence that is under question. Not its existence.

I have no idea the value/purpose to this issue in reproducing ads by those whose very business depended on watch sales.

If you want to answer the question for me, I gave two very good suggestions. One is to find an authoritative source that makes the case that the time service was an important factor in 20th century American RR operations.

The other was for a retired consulting engineer to search the professional engineering literature for reports on the time service in 20th cent. RR operations. If the time service was an important factor in the safe operation of a system as complicated as a RR, then it would likely have been used as examples in the literature on systems engineering and operations engineering.

From what I can determine, the documents you provided seem to support Ethan's view. That it may be that because watch collectors have worked from within a bubble and echo chamber (my summary), we have assumed an importance for RR time service that is not supported by the historical record.

Why the impatience to wait until authoritative subject matter specialists are consulted and the appropriate scholarly references cited?

Oh. Yes, if you will recall I provided a complete copy of the ATSF Time rules book, have in my possession the 6 month log of watch inspections for the Chicago Division of the B&O in 1959 and a number of other ephemera related to the operation of the time service.

 

[Les harland]

Trains running on time was a big selling point
It also meant the railroad could run more trains over a line in a day

 

[DeweyC]

Coming from outside the railroad and railroad watch world, I have an outsider's perspective on Dewey's question whether railroad watch buffs have overestimated the importance of the "time service." At the risk of leading with my chin, if I correctly understand the "time service" to be the rules railroads imposed on their personnel about carrying watches, such as requirements that they be 16-size, lever-set, open-face, etc., I believe that railroad watch buffs have overestimated the importance of those rules to railroad operation.

1. Only in North America did railroads impose rules like that. If most other countries' railroads could operate without time service rules, so could those in North America. Some have said that the longer routes in North America made it critical for trainmen to carry highly precise watches. I am skeptical. If distance matters at all, there were plenty of long distance train routes other countries, e.g., the Trans-Siberian and Cape-to-Cairo routes.
2. The rules themselves demonstrate that they were largely unnecessary by being overly fussy. There was no reason to ban 18-size watches, for example. US Railroads ran fine, as far as I can tell, during the late 19th century while watch requirements were more liberal.
3. US railroads weren't unique, but there was something unique about the US in the late 19th century: It was the world's biggest producer of machine-made quality watches.
4. US watch companies needed to sell what they produced. People in the watch trade marketed those watches.
5. Entrepreneurs, especially Ball, marketed watches to the railroad industry.
6. As Kent noted in post 41, imposing new, fussy time service rules was Ball's marketing strategy.
7. I can only speculate as to why railroads adopted those rules: I am guessing that early adopters got a marketing edge, that they were so sophisticated that their trainmen all had to carry especially precise watches -- their railroads ran on time, like a fine watch. Once some railroads started imposing fussy time service rules, others did so for copy-cat reasons. I would wager that there was a fair degree of variation in the time service rules railroads imposed, and that some remained reasonably flexible.
8. As Kent noted in post #33, time service rules generally required higher quality watches than railroad personnel really needed.
9. As Dewey has pointed out, the market for railroad watches was far bigger than railroad personnel. Why? Again, I can only speculate: Railroad watches were sturdy, dependable, quality blue collar watches. If a farmer, a teamster, a school teacher, or a policeman wanted a good, sturdy affordable watch, what better choice could he make than to buy a railroad watch? It helped sell those watches to nonrailroaders to portray them as essential to the safe and timely operation of a rail system that in those days was a modern marvel.

In short, it seems reasonably clear that US railroads had no special need for time service rules. Those rules were adopted and modified over time principally as a result of marketing efforts to sell the quality watches that US watch companies were capable of mass producing.

Ethan,

You make a case that the ICC time service rules may have simply continued on the books past their utility.

This must be the first and only time that ever happened!

In thinking this through, there was little cost to the RRs to bother asking for relief. In fact, by this time a watch was high in the public perception of RR operations and it would be a public relations nightmare regardless of the data supporting relief. So a case can be easily made why the RRs "lived with it".

The makers and merchants had every reason to not support an effort to revise the regs. And for them, the value of "RR precision" supported their ability to sell watches.

Just saying.

 

[musicguy]

You make a case that the ICC time service rules may have simply continued on the books past their utility.

Eventually it had to happen based on technological advances.


Rob

 

[Ethan Lipsig]

I knew my earlier post concluding that railroad watch buffs have overestimated the importance to railroad operation of fussy time service rules would be controversial. I do not presently intend to respond except as to two points.

One is that I never said that trainmen did not need reasonably accurate watches. All I said is that the time service rules that evolved over time seem to have been the product of watch industry marketing, not railroad operational needs.

The other relates to a response Dewey made:

Ethan, you make a case that the ICC time service rules may have simply continued on the books past their utility. This must be the first and only time that ever happened!

I said nothing about any such regulations. Until I read Dewey's response, I was unaware that the Interstate Commerce Commission had issued time service regulations, nor have I been able to find them or any information about them. I hope Dewey will reply with a link to regulations.

 

[DeweyC]

Ethan,

To be clear, I did not say you said anything, I said your arguments make a case. This distinction may have been unclear and if so I will take responsibility.

As for your request for a source, I took 5 minutes and found the link below. Two paragraphs below the heading "The Early Years".

The ICC set safety standards. Flashback: The story behind the once-mighty Interstate Commerce Commission - FreightWaves

But that is actually a tangential issue (albeit of value). The question reamins of why, if the Time Service was a critical safety factor in 20th Century Amercian RR Operations, why is it not discussed in the scholarly RR literature?

What I am asking for is termed "external validity". While working for a living we guarded very carefully against "group hypnosis" where we convinced ourselves we knew the answer.

 

[Ethan Lipsig]

Dewey, I was referring to comments like those MusicGuy made to the effect that running on time was important to railroads. I never said it wasn't. I viewed the question you raised, not as questioning railroads need to be timely or railmen needing to have watches, but rather whether the time service rules themselves were important to safe and sound railroad operation, which I have concluded that they likely were not.

There isn't any reference to ICC time service regulations in the article to which you gave a link or on the website on which that article was published. If there were no such regulations, that would further support my view that time service rules were the product of watch industry marketing. If there were such regulations, I'd like to see what they said before speculating whether they too were the result of watch industry marketing.