I love my modern movement 57 trinity Seamaster,(pictured) but I have been giving the Railmaster more attention following some of the threads here (example thread link below). It is a fine looking watch IMHO From a recent review I read, it looks like the vintage Railmaster was also fitted with the obsolete Naiad crown water sealing system. The 57 re-issue Railmaster still has the 'Mercedes' symbol on the scanned modern homage (not to be confused with the new Naiad case back system now fitted on some Omega watches). This has left me with a few questions - any info gratefully received:- >What was the advertised water resistance for an original 1957 vintage Railmaster? >Was the Railmaster always part of the Seamaster family? I know the vintage Seamaster CK2913 also had the Naiad crown and was specified for 200m despite being branded Seamaster 300. I have also read Omega felt the watch was good for 300m but that they could not test it? The modern trinity Seamaster version has a screw in crown and is officially good for 300m with the modern Railmaster listed as 60m. They are both 8806 movements so it looks like the screw in crown is the major design difference for the enhanced water resistance? > I am also interested in what the modern design features are on the watches for water resistance compared to their vintage counterparts. https://omegaforums.net/threads/why-isn’t-the-railmaster-getting-more-love.92907/
https://www.omegawatches.com/vintage-watches 60 m ... yes... (although the prototype was a military based 2777) like the trilogy re-edition
This is a very interesting article: https://www.timepiecechronicle.com/features/2017/3/23/a-brief-history-of-the-omega-railmaster
The caseback/crystal are also major factors and IMO other than marketing are the main reason why the Trilogy SM is rated deeper than the SM. The back on the RM seems thinner with a different profile. Crystals and casebacks crush under extreme water pressure if not sufficiently strong. The sapphire crystal is also a different possibly weaker curved profile on the RM. The crown screw down factor really only prevents the pulling out the crown under water on clothes etc, it doesn’t add water resistance in its own right. They are different crowns though so there may be other sealing differences. Both watches maintain (some, all?) water resistance if the crown is pulled out under water.
@omegaman & @zoohannover - Thanks for the article links, I need to digest those. Also cheers everyone for the other replies - very helpful
Ref the negative filter on polished watches I sometimes use it to remove any distraction and show the dial / bezel details up in a different light (so to speak).
Thanks again for the replies and the links. I have had time to read the articles now and found them very informative. Showing my ignorance of the Railmaster I had not realised it was based on the 30T2 manual movement or that ‘versions’ had also been used by different Air forces. I am still very pleased with my Seamaster choice from the modern trinity but in some respects the Railmaster would have been a nice fit to my current collection and flows well from the 6B/159 - 30T2 and CK2495 / 265. The re-issue RM is a lovely watch in its own right but part of me now wishes it was also a manual wind. Knowing how important the 30mm movement was in the evolution on the brand reading this information has left me seeing the original Trinity in a new light and feeling even more love and respect (if a bit belatedly) for the Railmaster.