Inspired by Brent June 1947

[The Stationmaster]

Here is the updated plan.

 

I have left the points for the up loop / down main to branch as mechanical for the moment but will change once the point motor issue is confirmed.  Incidentally would it still be motor driven on the Exeter (east) end of the down main where it joins with the branch (given its much closer proximity to the signal box than the prototype?)

 

The ground disc to take out is the one above (on the drawing) the UP Main by the east end crossover - leave the one in the six foot.

 

Point machines (to use the proper term) were around years before those refuge sidings at Brent were converted to loops - they almost inevitably would have used Westinghouse Style C machines with the GWR's favoured use of hand generators (known as a 'hurdy gurdy to generations of railwaymen) and the oldest reference I can find to them is a Westinghouse maintenance bulletin published in 1929.   By the time of WWII there were probably hundreds of electric point machines in use on Britain's railways with much resignalling taking place from the mid/late 1920s onwards.  However the GWR, among others, was using electric point machines in a number of installations prior to WWI - e.g Birmingham Snow Hill, where two power boxes, using Siemens equipment, were commissioned in 1909.

 

All other points at Brent were worked via rodding as they were well within the maximum permissible distance (350 yards) for manually operated points.  

 

Incidentally a couple of photos I have (but can't show because of copyright) shows all the Down Loop points at the east end of the station connected to a rodding run in the Up Main cess including the slip in the Up Main and the Loop to Branch connection - all in channel rodding so presumably after renewal at some unknown date (perhaps when the frame was renewed?).  There is no doubt in my mind that the rodding runs were altered over the years apart from renewal - for example one Pre-war photo shows a boarded over stretch of rodding run at the east end running where you show a rodding run.  I'll try to sort out from what photos I can find what when where when - not an easy task although oddly adding a new facing connection at the east end is no problem at all!

[The Stationmaster]

Just a quick postscript - I have now confirmed from the locking chart on the SRS site that the only motor worked points at Brent were the two facing ones leading into the remote (from the signalbox) ends of the running loops.  Levers 18 & 49 which are shown in the Locking Table as having a short handle and an NBDR Circuit Controller which is what there should be on a lever in a mechanical frame which operates motor worked points  (the NBDR circuit controller prevents the lever being moved completely across the frame in either direction until the points are detected as having moved to and are locked in the position to which the should be moving).

 

If you are going to model the signalbox interior in detail you will of course also need a hurdy gurdy - I know someone who has a photo and possibly a drawing if required.

[The Fatadder]

Thanks again for looking at it, I will adjust again to put in the motor on the up loop.

 

Definitely welcome any further advice that can be provided on the rodding.

 

Next step will be drawing it all up, not a task I am hugely looking forward to!

[The Fatadder]

I am starting to understand the cause of the problems that I am having, there are at least two different rodding formations that have been used depending on date (and of course I do not have any 1947 photos of Brent station to work from).  It doesn’t explain a couple of the odd  bits (like the run either side of the bay at the Plymouth end which looks like it has 5 rods on each run (yet only a need for half of them).  Unless the photo was taken in the process of the upgrade, and what I am seeing is both the new and the old formation.)

I have also found a photo http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2505540 which shows the rodding leading to the loop point / trap is unusually located within the middle of the bridge.  I assume this would then revert back to the far side of the loop track once it has crossed the bridge (but I have not seen a photo of that area without a loco in the way).  Unless I am completely wrong and the trap is connected in some way to the motor driving the up main point?

 

As I say I have now seen 3 variations of the rodding around the plymouth end of the station.  one late 50s which has rods on all 3 platform faces plus the section in the yard (as per http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1892528),one which I think is pre WW1 which has rodding either side of the bay platform and nothing on the far side of the up main and nothing in the yard, finally a photo from the 1960s which looks similar to the original pre WW1 formation (both sides of down platform, nothing on up and nothing in yard.)   

 

 

As such I have tried drawing up the 50s combination, with the yard rodding linked to the down main rodding, and the up rodding in the middle of the bridge.  I still cant work out what the section running down the bay is for though...

 

 

Very interesting re the point motors, though I am in two minds as to what level of detail to model the signal box interior.  On the current layout the box windows will face away from the operating area and hence it will be very difficult to see inside.  However as mentioned previously, in the long term I still have ideas about building Brent mk2 (but actually to scale) when I eventually move to a house with either the land for a dedicated railway room or a double garage to convert.  In this case the aim would be to reuse as much of Inspired by Brent’s buildings.  A suitable compromise might be to make the building accessible so that a detailed interior can be added later.  Either way (and back to the subject at hand) I would be interested in seeing what a Hurdy Gurdy looks like.  Sounds very peculiar  

[The Stationmaster]

The first thing to do with the rodding runs is to try to date them and the simplest way is based on the type of rodding - originally round rodding was used but at some time it was renewed using channel rodding.  The lever frame was renewed in 1937 and a bit of research of infrastructure work elsewhere on the GWR show that it was definitely installing channel rodding by 1933 so i think it's reasonable to conclude that the channel rodding runs at Brent dated from the time of the lever frame renewal.

 

What is fairly clear from photos is that after channel rodding was installed the following runs were readily apparent  -

 

1.  Alongside the Up Main platform in both directions from the signalbox - at the east end the rodding run extended as far as the Down Loop to Down Main point end and was quite a large run in width: the extent at the west end is not readily traceable from photos but looks to have been probably 5, maybe 6 rods at the end of the platform

 

2.  Alongside the Branch platform in both directions from the signalbox - to the east one photo allows a relatively easy count and shows 4 rods; their number towards the west end is more difficult to ascertain but looks to be definitely no more than 3 and might only be 2.

 

3. Alongside the Down Main platform but only towards the west end 3 or 4 rods - which then crossed under the Branch/Spur and went back in the opposite direction towards the point leading to the Goods shed.

 

I'm not entirely convinced about the rodding route over the underbridge in the photo you linked.  At that location there would only have been a single rod and there is an object near the bridge wall that looks a bit like a channel rod while the object in the six foot doesn't look to me much like one.  However it would not necessarily be unusual to route a rod in the six foot in that sort of location as it was quite common to find GWR point rodding in the six foot but particularly where the gauge had been narrowed and a wider six foot was available.  There would of course not have been any rodding to the entrance points and trap for the Up Loop as the entrance point (No.18) was motor worked and the trap was spring operated.

 

There is a photo of a hurdy gurdy at Post No.17 in this thread but it is not easy to gauge the size from that illustration - they were always (in my experience) mounted on substantial stands -

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/84830-moving-the-points-hands-rods-wires-and-machines/

[The Fatadder]

The first thing to do with the rodding runs is to try to date them and the simplest way is based on the type of rodding - originally round rodding was used but at some time it was renewed using channel rodding.  The lever frame was renewed in 1937 and a bit of research of infrastructure work elsewhere on the GWR show that it was definitely installing channel rodding by 1933 so i think it's reasonable to conclude that the channel rodding runs at Brent dated from the time of the lever frame renewal.

Thanks for that confirmation, certainly makes it a little clearer.  Although not helped by most of my photos being relatively low resolution, Going to have another look at what is available to purchase and see if there is anything from the early 50s which has more detail.

 

What is fairly clear from photos is that after channel rodding was installed the following runs were readily apparent  -

 

1.  Alongside the Up Main platform in both directions from the signalbox - at the east end the rodding run extended as far as the Down Loop to Down Main point end and was quite a large run in width: the extent at the west end is not readily traceable from photos but looks to have been probably 5, maybe 6 rods at the end of the platform

 

 

I have been looking at this section today, I think I am right in saying that leaving the signal box the rodding splits in two with one half crossing over and running along the up platform, while the other follows the down platform before crossing over at the Exeter end of the down platform.)   6 rods matches my count (although by my reckoning adding a rod for each facing point lock the Slip, point in up main to slip, and connection between down main and branch I need 7 rods here.)

 

2.  Alongside the Branch platform in both directions from the signalbox - to the east one photo allows a relatively easy count and shows 4 rods; their number towards the west end is more difficult to ascertain but looks to be definitely no more than 3 and might only be 2.

 

 

 

 

Again 2 rods makes sense here, my best guess is controlling the two trap points (fitting with the below)

 

 

3. Alongside the Down Main platform but only towards the west end 3 or 4 rods - which then crossed under the Branch/Spur and went back in the opposite direction towards the point leading to the Goods shed.

 

 

I make this the double slip, left hand spur trap and the runaround loop point. 

 

 

I'm not entirely convinced about the rodding route over the underbridge in the photo you linked.  At that location there would only have been a single rod and there is an object near the bridge wall that looks a bit like a channel rod while the object in the six foot doesn't look to me much like one.  However it would not necessarily be unusual to route a rod in the six foot in that sort of location as it was quite common to find GWR point rodding in the six foot but particularly where the gauge had been narrowed and a wider six foot was available.  There would of course not have been any rodding to the entrance points and trap for the Up Loop as the entrance point (No.18) was motor worked and the trap was spring operated.

 

 

 

I have another photo of a Peak on the bridge from the other angle, which makes it look a little more like a rod to me (well actually it looks like 2 rods and I dont know what the second would be for.)  The only problem is that I cant find the image to link to it!  

I have included a small extract below (apologies for not being able to credit source, used for discussion only and happy to remove if required).

 

This is the one area where my drawing is going to need some refinement, but other than this I think I have it all cracked thanks to all your help.  Still need to sort out the numbering, and draw up the entrance into the signal box.  Not to mention work out the cranks etc, but all of this can be done once the basic rods have been overlaid onto the Templot plan in CAD.

 

Thanks to useless Spanish airport internet I this has just taken about ten times as long to type as necessary (thanks to rebooting every time i wanted to open a new web page.  Hopefully BA will soon finally get an aircraft so I can get home.  Looks like its 2hours late to LGW (midnight) followed by 3 hours in a taxi....

 

At least once I am home I can start putting some of this into action on the baseboard / CAD and get on with some actual building.

 

 

Thanks again to Mike, without who's input I wouldnt have a hope with this!

The revised plan

 

 

 

There is a photo of a hurdy gurdy at Post No.17 in this thread but it is not easy to gauge the size from that illustration - they were always (in my experience) mounted on substantial stands -

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/84830-moving-the-points-hands-rods-wires-and-machines/

 

Thanks,

 

I dont think (after an admittedly short scan of the internet) anyone makes the point motor (or Hurdy Gurdy).  An ideal candidate for a first crack at 3d printing I think...

Again 2 makes sense here, my best guess is controlling the two trap points 

 

[The Fatadder]

More questions im afraid,

 

The traps in the yard, should they all be spring or rod operated?

 

The double slips, do they have 2 rods or 4?  And are any facing point locks required on them

Edited March 9, 2017 by The Fatadder

[St Enodoc]

More questions im afraid,

 

The traps in the yard, should they all be spring or rod operated?

 

The double slips, do they have 2 rods or 4?  And are any facing point locks required on them

Rich -

 

1. Rod.

2. 2.

3. Yes. the one at the Down end only needs an FPL at the exit from the loop platform in the Down direction. The one at the Up end needs FPLs at the exit from the loop platform in the Up direction and at the connection from the branch to the loop platform in the Down direction.

[The Fatadder]

That stuffs up my rod numbers again in that case!

Unless (on the Plymouth slip) you would have the facing point lock on the rodding next to the platform while the movement is controlled by the rodding on the yard side

 

Will have to look again at the slip at the Exeter end as that's a bit more tricky to fit in. Possibly one fpl on the branch side and one from the rodding on the up main side?

Unless Brent is one of the rare places the gw used one rod for the point and the fpl

[The Stationmaster]

That stuffs up my rod numbers again in that case!

Unless (on the Plymouth slip) you would have the facing point lock on the rodding next to the platform while the movement is controlled by the rodding on the yard side

 

Will have to look again at the slip at the Exeter end as that's a bit more tricky to fit in. Possibly one fpl on the branch side and one from the rodding on the up main side?

Unless Brent is one of the rare places the gw used one rod for the point and the fpl

 

The east end Up side run is the easiest to answer so I'll jump in on that one - there will be one rod each for the following working backwards from the east end in westerly direction -

A. FPL in Down Main line for facing connection to the Branch

B. Down Main Line to Branch facing crossover - same rod drives both ends.

C. FPL on the Branch end of the facing crossover from the Down Main.

D. Main Lines trailing crossover (the Down Main end of which lies in a single slip).

E. Slip connection from Main Lines trailing crossover trailing in from the double slip in the Branch

 

At which point I'll slip the comment that the only pictures I can find of that rodding run are no further west than items D & E in that list.  We'll return to it in a moment

 

Now we come to a slight problem because the rodding run along the side of the branch platform appears to drop down to a single rod (or possibly two ) but that can't be the case because I have found a picture which definitely shows 4 rods to the west (signalbox side) of the trap points and they would only account for 2 rods on the 1955 diagram (and the earlier one it seems as they were two different rods in 1896).  So it seems reasonably clear from one photo that one rod worked the points in the yard (where the sdgs divided) plus the associated trap, another rod almost certainly worked the other trap which suggests to me that it probably also worked the end of the double slip that made a crossover with that trap; two roads accounted for, two to go.  One of these must almost inevitably worked the FPL on the double slip at the end of the Branch platform (no.38 in the 1955 frame) leaving one which my best guess (sorry) suggests that in order to avoid a divided rodding run - which would be a pig to adjust - it probably worked the connection in the east end double slip from the yard towards the Up Main (No.39

 

If my surmise is correct then going back to the Up side rodding run the following would apply -

 

G. FPL in the Branch double slip (facing for trains coming off the branch)

 

Note that at each end of the double slip the two sets of switches are worked independently so there are two rods driving each end.  I've also looked at the 1896 diagram which makes considerable sense against the old rodding arrangement because at that time the slip connection in the Main Lines trailing crossover which fed in from the Branch/yard was worked by a different lever from the end in the double slip - so all the double slip rodding was along the Branch side of the platform, that all changed with the 1937 frame and George Pryer shows the two ends being worked off the same lever in the 1955 frame and that is also the case in the SRS diagram dated 1963 and the 1937 locking table.

 

Now a correction and apology - I have found that the Up Loop exit point had an FPL so your picture showing two rods is correct - apologies for misleading you.

 

Now to try to suss out the west end!

 

Watch out for a PM

[The Fatadder]

Thanks again, its all coming together rather nicely.  

[The Great Bear]

 

As a slight aside, I have been thinking some more about the construction method.  With a plan starting to form in my head using the much more accurate (and much more expensive) ModelU product for the section in the yard where it will be very visible to the opperator, and then using the cheaper MSE stuff further back where it will be less visible.  Some experimentation is called for...

 

Not sure if you've seen it, but I've used a combination of the ModelU rollers and Brassmasters bits on my layout http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/26456-marlingford-begbrooke-point-rodding-finished-at-last/?p=2202883 and posts thereafter

 

Alan at ModelU is helpful and may be able to supply a few rollers as a trial to see how you like.

 

Good luck with it.

 

Jon

Edited March 10, 2017 by The Great Bear

[The Fatadder]

Not sure if you've seen it, but I've used a combination of the ModelU rollers and Brassmasters bits on my layout http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/26456-marlingford-begbrooke-point-rodding-finished-at-last/?p=2202883 and posts thereafter

 

Alan at ModelU is helpful and may be able to supply a few rollers as a trial to see how you like.

 

Good luck with it.

 

Jon

I was reading your thread (and your corresponding design thread while sat at the airport on Thursday evening.  Really like the drawings, Im in the process of doing similar in CAD although mine are currently somewhat more basic (knowing as I do that for straight track I did not follow the sleepers on my templot drawing which in turn makes any planed rodding crossing under the track less accurate.

 

My intention is to use the drawing to first cost out the number of stalls needed (and their respective sizes), next to then calculate approx. push / pull lengths and then approximately locate them on the plan.  Finally draw it all out on the baseboard and start assembling

 

So this is the status so far.  I think there are likely to be a few sleepers which need to be removed and relocated.  Lesson learnt, next time design the rodding first and print the plan from CAD not Templot.

 

[The Fatadder]

The price estimation is complete.

 

My initial calculation shows that the price differential comes out with the MSE parts about a third of the price.  The key question is whether they are a third of the quality.

 

I am now looking at alternate options, primarily using MSE parts at the back of the layout (and certainly down the near side of the platform).  This means the run by both double slips will be the Model U parts (and made using small rollers) while all the 4/5/6 roller parts towards the back of the layout will be less detailed and can be made with the cast metal parts. 

 

One thing that Is quickly coming to mind is just how expensive doing the rodding properly is, even before I add in the wire and cranks I am already looking at a bill between 50 and 100£ (and I suspect even compromising and using round wire there is another 50 or 60£ to add to this.  

 

Of course given the impact it adds it is money well spent, but even so it still hurts the pocket!

[Siberian Snooper]

It's the small details that rack up the costs, but also add more to the overall realism of the model.

[The Fatadder]

It's the small details that rack up the costs, but also add more to the overall realism of the model.

Completely agree,

 

When you think about it in terms of cost per hour of modelling (i.e. Cost per hour of enjoyment) I think it actually comes out very favourable. The question is the balance, espically where a similar result can be delivered through a couple of different ways.

[The Fatadder]

Another question that I might need to ask in its own thread,  What options are available for the 0.45mm square rodding?

Ive seen the MSE product in 12inch lengths, but Ideally I am looking for something longer (at least yard lengths) as I have no intention of modelling all of the cranks between sections (just the ones on the outside faces that are more visible)  I would like to use as long a length as possible as I am not sure how I will connect the short 12inch lengths without a crank.

[The Fatadder]

In a change from the past few days some actual modelling...

 

Starting with the Exeter end, I have added the missing trap points onto the loop point. Again removing a couple of chairs and then soldering a small rail in place.

With that done the tie bars were added from copper clad, this time using 2mm thickness rather than 1mm which seems a lot stronger.

 

I then switched to the other end of the layout, wing rails and switch rails to two more points, along with the tie bars.

 

That leaves just one more yard point to finish (hopefully tonight) and then it's onto the other double slip. Once my new soldering iron arrives I can get on and fix the Exeter double slip. (The bit on my garage soldering iron is too big, so today's attempt at fixing the dodgy end of the slip failed once again.)

Edited March 12, 2017 by The Fatadder

[gwrrob]

These might be of use Rich.

 

 

Edited March 13, 2017 by gwrrob

[The Fatadder]

After a short distraction working on 4292, it was back to work on track. The current trend achieving the completion of one point per night has continued, filing and then fitting the switch blades of the remaining yard point. This was followed by the installation of the wing rails, and fitting of a copper clad tie bar. With this now complete attention will now shift to the branch (with the branch to mainline point half finished) before getting on with the installation of point motors and wiring of the loops and sidings.

 

 

 

I have finally got round to testing the non-working TC50 soldering iron, which has proved that there is certainly voltage getting to the iron (so the fault must be in the heating element not in the base unit.) As such I have now placed an order for a replacement TC50, and will soon be able to get on with some more precise soldering. This means that I have a better chance of fixing the Exeter double slip (and can get on with finishing off the Large Window first and the chassis for my County.)

 

 

 

The big next step for the layout is the fiddle-yard, I think there is no longer any way I can put off clearing the baseboards ready to make a start. The two 5ft by 2ft baseboards for Blackcombe Torre and a pair of 4ft by 2ft boards for my next exhibition layout both need to be shifted into the rafters. After which the track plan needs gluing down. This needs some complicated modification at one end, where I had made a mistake on the Templot file (and rather than correcting I fixed the alignment by eye.) I also still need to make the 2ft square lift out baseboard in the entrance…

[The Fatadder]

No photos, but more progress...

 

 

Another 3 track sections are now wired up and the first Tortoise has been fitted to the yard points.

 

This means a decision is really needed as to how the points are going to be operated. I am almost out of wire and will need to buy a lot more If I carry on with the switches (along with another batch of switches)

 

The temptation to go dcc keeps growing, particularly as I've saved a fair bit of the budget by using 2nd hand Tortoise motors

[sjrixon]

Having wired my points with dcc, I'd never go back. Just the simple fact of not having to wire all the way to a switch, you keep everything contained around the motor.

[checkrail]

I agree with Scott.   The wiring is greatly simplified.  And add to that the facility to set up routes, so you can make half a dozen points changeover with one or two presses of the handheld keypad.

 

But if going down this route (no pun intended!) it's best to have the power supply to the point motors coming from a separate accessory bus.  At first I had mine wired directly to the layout bus, but found that on occasion when I activated a point in the yard a train running round one of the main circuits would stall or pause momentarily.  (Why this is so when both buses - track & accessories - are powered from the same base unit is beyond me.)

 

John C. 

[St Enodoc]

No photos, but more progress...

 

 

Another 3 track sections are now wired up and the first Tortoise has been fitted to the yard points.

 

This means a decision is really needed as to how the points are going to be operated. I am almost out of wire and will need to buy a lot more If I carry on with the switches (along with another batch of switches)

 

The temptation to go dcc keeps growing, particularly as I've saved a fair bit of the budget by using 2nd hand Tortoise motors

This is a timely discussion point for me. As Rich and other readers of my own Mid-Cornwall Lines layout topic know, I will be using Modratec lever frames to operate the points and signals at my stations. I too plan to use slow-action motors for the points, driven from the DCC accessory bus, but I haven't worked out yet which decoders to use given that the Modratec switches are not momentary contact types. The DCC Specialties Hare/Wabbit/Jack Wabbit family look as though they will do the job (in Dispatcher mode) but at a considerable price. There would be no problem powering the motors with a separate DC power supply, but I would prefer to avoid the need for separate wires from the frame to each point motor. Any thoughts on this?

[Stephen Freeman]

This is a timely discussion point for me. As Rich and other readers of my own Mid-Cornwall Lines layout topic know, I will be using Modratec lever frames to operate the points and signals at my stations. I too plan to use slow-action motors for the points, driven from the DCC accessory bus, but I haven't worked out yet which decoders to use given that the Modratec switches are not momentary contact types. The DCC Specialties Hare/Wabbit/Jack Wabbit family look as though they will do the job (in Dispatcher mode) but at a considerable price. There would be no problem powering the motors with a separate DC power supply, but I would prefer to avoid the need for separate wires from the frame to each point motor. Any thoughts on this?

Personally I prefer switches unless using Panelpro on a computer, though it probably depends on the handset you are using as to how convenient it is. If you really want to control your turnouts and signals with DCC and are looking for a cost effective decoder for your Tortoise motors (or Cobalts come to that) and aren't too worried about feedback to your control panel about positioning.

 

Then I would suggest using the MERG kit, costs about £10.00 plus membership, controls 4 slow motion turnout motors. I have a couple built-up  for controlling relays, the relays then switched the Servo board inputs for servo operation. I think from memory I'd have to put some extra components in (they weren't required for relay operation but I still have them) if anybody is interested (at cost). I was going to use them on a layout but client decided on switches instead.

 

I would add that a separate power supply for the decoders is necessary and programming them may need the use of a Sprog as the Handset may not be up to doing multiple instances of the decoder.