Point Rodding Stalls question

[The Fatadder]

I have been thinking about finally getting on and making a start on the point rodding for Brent.  The layout has been built with the ModelU parts in mind, although rather than using their bespoke blocks upon which to sit the rollers I have prefitted the layout with plasticard blocks of the same dimension to use as a base to later fit the stools.

The rodding for the layout has long been planned out, however I still havent hit the button and purchased the components to actually install it.  The main reason comes back to cost, purchasing the stools alone is going to come in at over £120 (which is allowing for some saving by using the left over 3/4 stools in their respective packs cut down to make 1/2 stools, otherwise given the 25 unit packs to buy the right number of 1 / 2 stools as well would take the price even higher.

 

Reading Tony Wright's article in this month's BRM has got me thinking about the Model Signal Engineering parts as an alternative, by my reckoning cutting the 7/8 stools into my required sizes would need 6 packets (about £25) so I'd be saving almost £100.  Ok they dont look nearly as good, but having something would look a lot better than nothing....  Particularly when you consider that a large portion of it is pretty much obscured by the platforms so you cant even see the improved detail.

 

Anyway onto the question, the one bit that I am not sure on is the size of the MSE parts, in particular I need to determine the height of the part.  Does it include both the stool and the block it sits on, or is it just the stool in the same line as the ModelU part?   If I have to remove all of my prefitted blocks and sink the MSE stool into the ballast I am thinking it is probably not a viable option and things will have to just go on the back burner waiting for budget to free up for the ModelU option, however if the MSE part is suitable I can crack on....

 

[BoD]

Hope these help.

 

 

 

p.s. that's a scale rule and not actual feet by the way. 

Edited November 26, 2021 by BoD

[The Fatadder]

Thanks, looks like that is full depth including the mounting block and thus wont be compatible with the blocks I have already fitted.  However it does get me thinking of an alternative route, digging out the ballast / blocks to use those for the two lines of 4/3 stools through either side of the mainline through the platform, then use the ModelU parts everywhere else where they are visible.  Just need the rain to clear and go out to the layout and recount the number of stools so that I can work out what I would still need to order while ModelU have their black friday discount on...

 

 

[Phil Bullock]

Facing the same dilemma on the new Abbotswood and Norton Junction…. Used the Wills kits last time and not robust enough so interested to see how this evolves. Will certainly be planning the rodding run when laying the track…. It’s not too many rods , only  6 at Abbotswood and 4 at Norton.

 

What do you plan to use for rodding @The Fatadder?

 

Cheers

 

Phil

[BoD]

Sorry for jumping in @Phil Bullock but (depending on your era MSE do 0.4mm square nickel silver wire which in my opinion looks good. Much finer than the wills plastic stuff. 

[Phil Bullock]

No worries! Square is right and I have a quantity of 0.4mm square brass to hand…. Wonder if the Modelu stools are strong enough to hold it?

 

Must remember to install compensation cranks this time too….

[The Fatadder]

18 minutes ago, Phil Bullock said:

Facing the same dilemma on the new Abbotswood and Norton Junction…. Used the Wills kits last time and not robust enough so interested to see how this evolves. Will certainly be planning the rodding run when laying the track…. It’s not too many rods , only  6 at Abbotswood and 4 at Norton.

 

What do you plan to use for rodding @The Fatadder?

 

Cheers

 

Phil

My layout requires the square channel rodding, so I will be using the MSE 0.4mm square NS wire, so far I havent seen any alternatives for this (although there are options available for round rodding such as piano wire).  My plan is to experiment with some 0.4mm square plastic strip for the lengths under the rail to avoid any risk of shorts.

[The Fatadder]

Ive not given much thought to the compensation cranks, something else that needs adding to the to do list...

[Phil Bullock]

7 minutes ago, The Fatadder said:

Ive not given much thought to the compensation cranks, something else that needs adding to the to do list...

Got told off by @The Stationmaster last time for not having them! Then there are right angle cranks, adjustable cranks and facing point locks to consider too. It can be a considerable amount of work …..

[The Fatadder]

Fpls are covered at least, I can’t recall the distance between the expansion bits 60ft maybe?   I won’t bother in the station as it will be a pig to fit and won’t be able to be seen very easily.  However will make sure they are added elsewhere 

 

though one area I am unsure about is the pair of points linking the up and down main.  Would they be off a single leaver and presumably a single rod with some sort of connection to drive both switches, or should it be a pair of leavers/rods which would presumably be interlocked in the signal box?

[bécasse]

11 minutes ago, The Fatadder said:

 

though one area I am unsure about is the pair of points linking the up and down main.  Would they be off a single leaver and presumably a single rod with some sort of connection to drive both switches, or should it be a pair of leavers/rods which would presumably be interlocked in the signal box?

The normal arrangement, at least in later years, was for both points of a crossover to be worked by the same lever although there could be situations where the layout on the ground, the interlocking requirements and/or the modus operandi of traffic working made separate levers desirable. In pregrouping times, working crossovers using two separate levers was more common, even near universal for some companies, the LNWR for example.

[The Fatadder]

That’s great, certainly ties in with my memory from the signalling plan that they were on the same leaver.

 

I just can’t picture how the actual linkage would work when the rod reaches the first switch it would need a 90 degree crank with the rod continuing onwards.  Is this a case of another 90degree joint off the other side of the switch, or some sort of T joint in line with the ‘main’ rod.  
 

I’ve added a rough sketch below

[Phil Bullock]

Here are some rather nice compensation cranks at Hereford. My understanding is any rodding run should have as much push as pull in its actions and that a single crank should therefore be about mid way along the run.

 

Then here is the current layout at Norton Junction. There are two rods for the box heading to the crossover to the west of the over bridge.

 

 

 

It’s a trailing crossover for B&G trains on the chord round to Abbotswood…. But a facing crossover for down OWW trains coming from Evesham so FPL is required on the OWW up end. 

 

 

One rod is for FPL the other is for both ends of crossover. 

 

 

Sorry bit difficult to get photo of this end of crossover! And can’t get the one photo the right way up either grrrrr! Please turn device through 180 to view it

Edited November 26, 2021 by Phil Bullock

[Phil Bullock]

13 minutes ago, The Fatadder said:

That’s great, certainly ties in with my memory from the signalling plan that they were on the same leaver.

 

I just can’t picture how the actual linkage would work when the rod reaches the first switch it would need a 90 degree crank with the rod continuing onwards.  Is this a case of another 90degree joint off the other side of the switch, or some sort of T joint in line with the ‘main’ rod.  
 

I’ve added a rough sketch below

It’s a 90 degree crank attached at one end to the continuing rod

[Captain Kernow]

Rich - for your era, the crossover at Brent would almost certainly have been operated by a single (black) lever, assuming it was a trailing crossover.

 

In model terms, I have only ever had to build round rodding (for S&D or Midland practice), so I have used 0.4mm straight brass wire from Eileens. I have used MSE and Brassmasters cranks, depending on what was required and what I had available. I also use the MSE cast stools, where I open up the rodding hole to the required diameter with a 5-sided broach. I also cut the whitemetal castings to the required size and then drill a 0.5mm hole in the base and glue a bit of brass rod in there, with epoxy. That is then glued into a similar hole in the base block, which has already been glued to the baseboard (the hole in the base block goes right into the baseboard). Model point rodding is very delicate and in this way, I can at least ensure that the stools are pretty firmly anchored.

 

[Siberian Snooper]

Just poking my nose in here, was Brent track circuited in your era, or did it have detection bars on the FPL's? Track circuits would have diamonds on the appropriate signal post(s).

 

 

[Nick Gough]

14 hours ago, The Fatadder said:

Fpls are covered at least, I can’t recall the distance between the expansion bits 60ft maybe?   I won’t bother in the station as it will be a pig to fit and won’t be able to be seen very easily.  However will make sure they are added elsewhere 

 

though one area I am unsure about is the pair of points linking the up and down main.  Would they be off a single leaver and presumably a single rod with some sort of connection to drive both switches, or should it be a pair of leavers/rods which would presumably be interlocked in the signal box?

According to the 1937 Brent diagram, in the recent GWSG signalling book, both ends of the trailing crossover, at the down end, were operated by lever 23.

 

Likewise both ends of the up crossover (using the slip connection to the branch platform) were operated by lever 43.

[The Fatadder]

Thanks for that I think I need to change my plan for leaver 43

 

will keep looking for photos, as I am still struggling to visualise quite how these linkages go together to connect two switches to a single rod

[Phil Bullock]

Difficult to find a photo but take a look at the drawings on this document from Ambis Here … really is just a crank off the rod run.

 

Hope that helps 

[The Fatadder]

I assume I am right in thinking that this http://www.norgrove.me.uk/resources/roddingimages/bridgnorth190907_022.jpg is what the linkage to the first point would look like (which the second point would just be a normal crank on the end of the rod.

[Siberian Snooper]

Looks good to me, you may need to put a compensating crank halfway between the 1st  crank and the final one, depending on the distance. I would recommend that you get hold of a copy of the 2mm society, point rodding book, lots of prototype photos and information. Sorry I can't provide a link, I got my copy at Scaleforum some years ago.

 

 

[Phil Bullock]

3 hours ago, The Fatadder said:

I assume I am right in thinking that this http://www.norgrove.me.uk/resources/roddingimages/bridgnorth190907_022.jpg is what the linkage to the first point would look like (which the second point would just be a normal crank on the end of the rod.

My understanding is that As it links straight to the blades it has to be an adjustable crank.  Looks like exit crossover from MPD , with on the ground interlocking to signals on far side. Suspect crank at far end to other switch would also be an adjustable. 
 

This end of cross over needs a push on the rod to reverse it …. The other end will need a pull which can either be achieved by reversing the crank position at the other end or inserting @Siberian Snoopers compensation crank . 
 

Point rodding installation requires careful planning! 

[The Fatadder]

6 minutes ago, Phil Bullock said:

Point rodding installation requires careful planning! 

That it certainly does, the next time I build a layout I am planning to export my Templot file straight into Autocad and draw up all of the point rodding and printing as a single template for both track and rods.  For Brent I want to get something which is looks the part, though I am accepting that there will be something bits that are wrong (mostly compensators), I want to at least try and get the key bits in the link from the rod to the respective points right.

 

I think for the future I will definitely try and get a copy of the 2mm assoc book if I ever see them at a show.

 

[Phil Bullock]

The same ethos here on the new Abbotswood. Not a Templot user but will post a free hand sketch on here .

 

Adds to realism for me ! 

[Captain Kernow]

1 hour ago, Phil Bullock said:

Point rodding installation requires careful planning! 

And is definitely best done before ballasting or scenic work, especially the former!