The Great Bear Posted February 14, 2016 Author Share Posted February 14, 2016 (edited) As mentioned above I have been looking at alternative ideas for the point rodding rollers. I received some samples of 3d printed ones from Alan at Modelu. And here's them in a test on the layout You can see the supports for the rodding are bits of card, glued on top of the ballast - this seemed an easy way of doing it and the card more or less looks like concrete! Having done this and got the spacing fixed quite simple to fix the rodding and the rollers to these with a small dollop of superglue. Cranks, same construction idea as previous post, the runs across the track to follow I'm pleasantly surprised at how this gone. The cruel close up of the photos reveal a bit more care is needed, I got a bit carried away with the ease of progress - some stools and rollers a bit adrift, more care and consistency in cutting the rollers and the card - the worst ones not shown in these photos. But, a good start and I am going to order some more bits to give this more of a go. Thanks for the interest shown Jon Edited February 14, 2016 by The Great Bear 13 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leftwinguk Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 Hi Jon, Your experimentation with the 3D printed rollers gives good results, and elevates your model further. I did like the photo of your mixed rake of coaches too. (even with the hanging basket liner!!) Best regards... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Izzy Posted February 15, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 15, 2016 Just been making up some point rodding from the old Colin Waite bits that I still have. Dont' know whether it would be of any interest but the instructions state that the stools should be 6' apart for round rodding, and 9' for square channel stuff. I have read that these etches were based on GWR equipment but wouldn't know whether general practice was similar elsewhere. I hope so as I've used these for exMR and exGE layouts. Izzy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Great Bear Posted February 15, 2016 Author Share Posted February 15, 2016 Just been making up some point rodding from the old Colin Waite bits that I still have. Dont' know whether it would be of any interest but the instructions state that the stools should be 6' apart for round rodding, and 9' for square channel stuff. I have read that these etches were based on GWR equipment but wouldn't know whether general practice was similar elsewhere. I hope so as I've used these for exMR and exGE layouts. Izzy Thank you, I think I set them at 24mm (ish - I used the spacing of the sleepers in the C+L track), which equates to 6' - got that from a previous thread on here, Callow Lane I think - so matches your findings: good! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Great Bear Posted February 21, 2016 Author Share Posted February 21, 2016 In another thread I've been learning about facing point locks and the associated lock bars that prevent the points being unlocked and moved with a train on them. Since these affect the point rodding runs, the rod to the FPL going to the far end of the lock bar I'm having a go at modelling this. Here's some work in progress This is the far end of the lock bar with the rod back to the signal box linking to it. The rodding in the 6' needs to be changed to accommodate this. Oops, but it was a test. Would the adjuster crank go over there? I was also unsure what colour to paint the lock bar, but photos don't show it being shiny like the rail so some more Sleeper Grime is in order. The FPL cover need a bit of work, this was mock up to size up. I had thought the lock bar looked like a check rail but looking at photos the Stationmaster took at Bourne End, the difference looks subtle, just the level it is set at. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/58228-the-stationmaster-looks-at-bourne-end-the-one-on-the-wycombe-branch/ The arrangement of rodding to drive the point is made more complex by the accommodation bridge pier being in the way - that's the hole in the ballast. At the point tie bar, as I have retained the Peco one albeit cut I don't think there's anything more I can do than stop at the crank? Thanks for looking Jon 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Great Bear Posted February 21, 2016 Author Share Posted February 21, 2016 I'm also assuming I will need a roller or two in the 10' between the down main and the branch. Not something I've seen photos of, the rod would need to bend down under the rails? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
28XX Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Yes. The rods should be "set" down to clear the rails - a common cause of right-side track-circuit failures. The ballast will be sparse in that bed and stools and rollers are fitted wherever they can. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
28XX Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 If you are going to all this trouble don't forget the blade (and sometimes lock bolt) detection for signals reading over the points. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Great Bear Posted February 21, 2016 Author Share Posted February 21, 2016 If you are going to all this trouble don't forget the blade (and sometimes lock bolt) detection for signals reading over the points. Thanks, I'm assuming you mean something like what is explained around 1/3 of the way down here http://www.roscalen.com/signals/Shrewsbury/CreweJunction.htm If so, I suspect that's too fiddly. I don't know if there are etches for such gubbins, though something impressionistic I guess could be done with a few strips of styrene... Trouble is, modelling that will then lead to me thinking about the signal wires and questions (eg does the wire from the detector go to the box or to the signal). It's a slippery slope... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
28XX Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 (edited) Yes that's the thing. Note there are 4 rods leading to the detector from the point. The far right one in this pic connects the stock rail to the base of the detector frame which can slide in its mounting. This keeps the system accurate if the track moves slightly. The wire leads from the box lever to the detector then onwards to the signal permitting a facing move. So if a bit of ballast gets stuck in the blades and the signalman still manages to pull the fpl lever, releasing the signal in the locking, the signal lever will pull, but the signal won't clear and invite a train to split the points. Edited February 22, 2016 by 28XX 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted February 22, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 22, 2016 I'm also assuming I will need a roller or two in the 10' between the down main and the branch. Not something I've seen photos of, the rod would need to bend down under the rails? The rods were mounted lower using a different, much lower profile, pattern of roller assembly from those used in the rodding runs running parallel with track. This type of roller can be seen in the two pictures below and remained in use late on in WR practice as the Region, like the company, always used round rodding for crossing under track for as long as it had a stock of its own components. If necessary there would be a set in the rod at the pinjoint off the crank but usually the practice seems to have been to set the bed and crank low enough to allow the set to be avoided as can be seen in the larger of the two pictures. Also in the larger picture, at extreme left, there is a roller assembly standing taller than the others which is unusual in my experience as in its case there is room for the rod to lift whereas in the more usual type the pin at the top holds the rod down. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted February 22, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 22, 2016 (edited) Thanks, I'm assuming you mean something like what is explained around 1/3 of the way down here http://www.roscalen.com/signals/Shrewsbury/CreweJunction.htm If so, I suspect that's too fiddly. I don't know if there are etches for such gubbins, though something impressionistic I guess could be done with a few strips of styrene... Trouble is, modelling that will then lead to me thinking about the signal wires and questions (eg does the wire from the detector go to the box or to the signal). It's a slippery slope... No - that's an LMR pattern installation using channel rodding, totally different from Western practice which used round rodding exclusively although the principle is basically the same of course. The Western mounted detectors on steel plates on concrete beds which kept them in position with no problem at all, far more secure than some examples seen around the LMR over the years! The pic below shows a Western style arranegment (albeit in preservation but a WR trained man did the job) although in this case the detector is held to gauge by being bolted to a point timber - the hand lever is a temporary arrangement pending commssioning of a ground frame - The next two photos show the Western method of holding a floating detector to gauge - in this case it detects only a single tongue trap but the securing rod can also be seen while the bottom photo shows how that road is attached to the rail Incidentally the view above also shows the problem when using channel rod to cross under a track as there has to be a set in the pinjoint at the crank because of teh way teh channel rod roller had to be set low down in the four foot. Edited February 22, 2016 by The Stationmaster Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanbuttler Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 The rods were mounted lower using a different, much lower profile, pattern of roller assembly from those used in the rodding runs running parallel with track. This type of roller can be seen in the two pictures below and remained in use late on in WR practice as the Region, like the company, always used round rodding for crossing under track for as long as it had a stock of its own components. I'd be up for giving these lower profile roller assembly's a try, I've just finished the artwork for the BR pattern frame and these look quite straight forward. There won't be much to them though so might need some elements scaling for them to be robust enough. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Great Bear Posted February 22, 2016 Author Share Posted February 22, 2016 The rods were mounted lower using a different, much lower profile, pattern of roller assembly from those used in the rodding runs running parallel with track. This type of roller can be seen in the two pictures below and remained in use late on in WR practice as the Region, like the company, always used round rodding for crossing under track for as long as it had a stock of its own components. If necessary there would be a set in the rod at the pinjoint off the crank but usually the practice seems to have been to set the bed and crank low enough to allow the set to be avoided as can be seen in the larger of the two pictures. Also in the larger picture, at extreme left, there is a roller assembly standing taller than the others which is unusual in my experience as in its case there is room for the rod to lift whereas in the more usual type the pin at the top holds the rod down. IMGP6983 cr.jpg IMGP6982cr.jpg Thank you, Mike, those photos are very clear. (I've belatedly realised I've seen that picture before of course, just hadn't spotted the smaller rollers. I'd be up for giving these lower profile roller assembly's a try, I've just finished the artwork for the BR pattern frame and these look quite straight forward. There won't be much to them though so might need some elements scaling for them to be robust enough. Thanks, Alan, let me have a think. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Great Bear Posted February 22, 2016 Author Share Posted February 22, 2016 (edited) No - that's an LMR pattern installation using channel rodding, totally different from Western practice which used round rodding exclusively although the principle is basically the same of course. The Western mounted detectors on steel plates on concrete beds which kept them in position with no problem at all, far more secure than some examples seen around the LMR over the years! The pic below shows a Western style arranegment (albeit in preservation but a WR trained man did the job) although in this case the detector is held to gauge by being bolted to a point timber - the hand lever is a temporary arrangement pending commssioning of a ground frame - IMGP6889.jpg The next two photos show the Western method of holding a floating detector to gauge - in this case it detects only a single tongue trap but the securing rod can also be seen while the bottom photo shows how that road is attached to the rail IMGP7046.jpg Incidentally the view above also shows the problem when using channel rod to cross under a track as there has to be a set in the pinjoint at the crank because of teh way teh channel rod roller had to be set low down in the four foot. IMGP7047.jpg Thank you, very clear, again. As for modelling these...hmm. One more question, if I may, is there anything wrong with the adjuster crank for the runs across from the main run in the 6' being in the 6'. The diagram below might explain better. (On the model the green lock bar I think can be on the top rail, not as shown, there's a bit more distance between the two points.) Edited February 22, 2016 by The Great Bear 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted February 22, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 22, 2016 I think the usual arrangement would be to use a plain crank with a bottle adjuster at the drive position. It's bad enough trying to adjust a crank when it's right next to what it's driving - when it's half a railway away it would get very awkward and language (bad) making). But it would need a crank able to increase the throw. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanbuttler Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 Thank you, very clear, again. As for modelling these...hmm. One more question, if I may, is there anything wrong with the adjuster crank for the runs across from the main run in the 6' being in the 6'. The diagram below might explain better. (On the model the green lock bar I think can be on the top rail, not as shown, there's a bit more distance between the two points.) Really liking your CAD drawings, do you mind me asking what you are using? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Great Bear Posted February 22, 2016 Author Share Posted February 22, 2016 Really liking your CAD drawings, do you mind me asking what you are using? Sure, no worries - the track plan was done in XTrackCAD, not the easiest program to learn but pretty powerful when one gets the hang of it. One function I liked was being able to set up items for your stock - which was useful for planning the staging tracks - and actually run them around the layout if you so wished. XtrackCAD can export a DXF file (which is a standard drawing interchange file lots of software can deal with) which I then brought into and added to in AutoCAD (which I have access to via work). Standard components like the cranks are created as "blocks" which I can insert as I like. I'd expect other lower cost or free draughting packages can do the same. When I laid the track I didn't say as others do with handbuilt track (like Gordon S on Eastwood Town) print lots of full size templates, I just took lots of dimensions of key points from the walls. Hence why the construction doesn't quite match the plan but good enough for me. 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanbuttler Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 Great idea exporting into AutoCAD. Using tools such as offset I'd imagine to get those nice parallel runs of the rodding. Now for a plugin to be designed which tells you how many/where cranks and compensators need to be! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted February 22, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 22, 2016 Great idea exporting into AutoCAD. Using tools such as offset I'd imagine to get those nice parallel runs of the rodding. Now for a plugin to be designed which tells you how many/where cranks and compensators need to be! I did that by hand for the last time I advised someone on their rodding run. There are text books with suitable tables and graphs for the siting of comps but somehow I have a fair idea that the blokes who actually installed the stuff didn't bother with 'all that sort of nonsense'. Someone I know did a very impressive set of scale drawings for installing a rodding run on a preservation site for which I had done the signalling plan and he couldn't understand why some of it didn't work very well - until a long served WR Signal Linesman came along and put him right with comments like that about the drawing and producing a tape measure which led to a few things being moved (to where I'd said in the first place they ought to be sited). The impression I've always had with rodding runs is that some people in drawing offices could get a bit too clever and the blokes who'd been putting them in for years had a sort of sixth sense about what would and wouldn't work. 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Great Bear Posted March 6, 2016 Author Share Posted March 6, 2016 A bit more progress with the point rodding. Firstly, a more or less completed bit: The rollers for the runs under the track are cast MSE ones, pushed into the foam. So, far so good. The plain runs are relatively simple with the rollers threaded onto the wire. What I am struggling with is the connections to the cranks and the compensators, accurately cutting and bending the wire down to meet the cranks and also joining up wires. Trying to get two ends of quite a long bit of wire cut accurately and bent in the right direction consistently is proving a problem. In the photo above the longitudinal wires aren't connected to the cranks. Here I tried cutting the wire on the left and then adding short bit with the bend, not great and damaged the roller. I also haven't tried to fix the wire into the hole in the crank, sometimes a blob of glue or just leave it. It's a cruel close up so with a dab of paint might not look so bad. I suppose the overall effect is the main thing, which the first photo does show. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leftwinguk Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 I think the overall effect you show in the first photograph is great. From normal viewing distances I don't think you need to worry too much what about what you can see in a close-up which as you say is quite cruel. It depends on how much you value your sanity as to whether you try and go that extra mile.... Regards 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Great Bear Posted March 8, 2016 Author Share Posted March 8, 2016 I think the overall effect you show in the first photograph is great. From normal viewing distances I don't think you need to worry too much what about what you can see in a close-up which as you say is quite cruel. It depends on how much you value your sanity as to whether you try and go that extra mile.... Regards Thanks, easy to become obsessed with details. Having a train running helps take the eye away from these niggles: 10 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Neal Ball Posted March 9, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 9, 2016 Looks great Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold 57xx Posted March 26, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 26, 2016 That rodding looks brilliant, really sets the scene off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now