Midland Railway - Crank connection to stretcher bars

[Lecorbusier]

Does anybody have any drawings or images which might describe the connection for circular bar rodding to an intemediary crank within the rod length when two sets of points have to work together ... ie for a crossover on running lines. I am trying to work out how the connection from the bar would have been worked (easy to find examples of channel rodding but not circular).

Thanks

[Gordon A]

Just substitute the channel rodding with bar. The mechanics would be the same.

It might be worth checking the spacing of the rollers. I am not sure that they were the same.

 

Gordon A

[Lecorbusier]

Just substitute the channel rodding with bar. The mechanics would be the same.

It might be worth checking the spacing of the rollers. I am not sure that they were the same.

 

Gordon A

Thanks Gordon,

 

I think I have a reasonable handle on all the various aspects of the bar rodding except how the intermediary connection to a crank would have been achieved. With channel there appears to be a simple  lug connection to the underside of the channel as here...

 

But I can't find an equivalent photo or drawing for a bar set up.

 

I am thinking of the situation at position B in this schematic.

[davefrk]

Post deleted as I was talking rubbish.....

 

Dave Franks.

Edited October 30, 2017 by davefrk

[micknich2003]

Is this any use? I have more.

[micknich2003]

Is this any use? I have more.

JOINT .jpg

 Here's another one.

[Lecorbusier]

Is this any use? I have more.

JOINT .jpg

Nick,

 

That is fascinating. This seems to illustrate the rodding connection to the switch, the stretcher bar connection and at the bottom a lug connection which may well be what I am looking for.

 

Do you have a date for the drawings? Are they generic or does it relate practice to given companies.

 

If you can be bothered I would love to see any more illustrations of bar rodding details you might have (assuming it doesn't run to pages and pages).

 

Thanks.

 

Tim

[micknich2003]

Tim, what exactly are you looking for? In small scales, the bits will all look very much the same, irrespective of company or contractor. If I can help further just ask.

[Lecorbusier]

Tim, what exactly are you looking for? In small scales, the bits will all look very much the same, irrespective of company or contractor. If I can help further just ask.

On the face of it, I'd say what you have uploaded there ... complete with your last observation is pretty much what I was after ... Thanks - much appreciated.

 

Tim

[micknich2003]

Tim, I have had another look and there is nothing else of any real use relating to your question. If you think of something else, please feel free to ask.

[Grovenor]

Mick's page is from a manufacturers (Saxby) catalogue so trys to show items suitable for any company.

Items 540 and 542, Swan neck and Goose neck would be used where the drive rod is taken direct to one of the switches, eg three throws which would use one of each, and some designs of normal switch. Either would be used depending on which side the rods came from, usual practice would be to connect to the normally closed switch blade.

Item 543, the drop lug would be welded into the rodding run for an intermediate connection or in the centre of a stretcher where the drive rod was taken to the stretcher.

Regards

[Lecorbusier]

Mick's page is from a manufacturers (Saxby) catalogue so trys to show items suitable for any company.

Items 540 and 542, Swan neck and Goose neck would be used where the drive rod is taken direct to one of the switches, eg three throws which would use one of each, and some designs of normal switch. Either would be used depending on which side the rods came from, usual practice would be to connect to the normally closed switch blade.

Item 543, the drop lug would be welded into the rodding run for an intermediate connection or in the centre of a stretcher where the drive rod was taken to the stretcher.

Regards

Kieth,

 

Thanks for the clarification .. much appreciated.

 

Tim

[Lecorbusier]

Could I ask if anyone knows what I am looking at here. I can see the pair of rods running parallel to the track and the rodding running across to the single slip. What I would like to understand is what I assume is the link between the two - I assume it is the mechanism which connects the rodding to the crank on the timber base. Does any one have a sketch or diagram which would explain what I am looking at here. The outer of the two rodding runs appears to swoop down and connect into something? There appears to be a bar coming from the rodding just prior to the mechanism ... which might be the connection to the crank - in which case might it be some sort of compensator?

 

Edited November 26, 2017 by Lecorbusier

[Grovenor]

Given that the angle of the photo and the wire post contrive to make the essential bits indecipherable I think the jury is out on this one unless someone finds a better pic of the same thing. It doesn't look like anything I've seen, or even seen drawings of.

Regards

[Lecorbusier]

Given that the angle of the photo and the wire post contrive to make the essential bits indecipherable I think the jury is out on this one unless someone finds a better pic of the same thing. It doesn't look like anything I've seen, or even seen drawings of.

Regards

Thanks for the thoughts Kieth,

 

I attach an annotated copy of the detail to explain what I am seeing. I also attach a larger image to show the context and the signalling diagram to explain operation. Hopefully somebody will know what the casting is that the main rodding run attaches to.

 

Tim

 

 

 

Edited November 28, 2017 by Lecorbusier

[Grovenor]

Tim,

You are right in that there has to be a crank in there somewhere, and the two bolts holding down thcrank base can be seen. But the objects 'assumed' to be connections to the rods don't line up with the rods, the only place a drop lug can come from the rodding is on the inner rod in the platform direction, there is a white mark under the rod that could be a lug but if so the link rod should be visible. The casting gadget looks to be in an possible place for a compensator but I have never seen a diagram of any compensator that looks like that.

Couid be something the Midland tried out, as could the linkage to the slip drive rod. Unless someone appears with more detailed knowledge it is likely to remain a mystery.

Regards

[TheSignalEngineer]

The second photo puts it into context. It is taken from the signal box window. The crank under the rodding would be worked by a joint connected to a drop lug on the right hand rod. The device in the left hand rod looks like a vertical compensator crank to equalise the expansion and contraction. We still had a few like that around the Birmingham area in the mid 1960s.

[martin_wynne]

If it is a compensator, it will be roughly half-way between the signal box and the points (assuming no compensation is being done by cross-rods and cranks). The total rodding length in pull should match the total length in push.

 

Martin.

[Lecorbusier]

Tim,

You are right in that there has to be a crank in there somewhere, and the two bolts holding down thcrank base can be seen. But the objects 'assumed' to be connections to the rods don't line up with the rods, the only place a drop lug can come from the rodding is on the inner rod in the platform direction, there is a white mark under the rod that could be a lug but if so the link rod should be visible. The casting gadget looks to be in an possible place for a compensator but I have never seen a diagram of any compensator that looks like that.

Couid be something the Midland tried out, as could the linkage to the slip drive rod. Unless someone appears with more detailed knowledge it is likely to remain a mystery.

Regards

 

 

The second photo puts it into context. It is taken from the signal box window. The crank under the rodding would be worked by a joint connected to a drop lug on the right hand rod. The device in the left hand rod looks like a vertical compensator crank to equalise the expansion and contraction. We still had a few like that around the Birmingham area in the mid 1960s.

I wonder if it might be one of these (suggested by Martin Wynne) it certainly looks as if it might be a near match?

 

[TheSignalEngineer]

That's the beast. They sometimes had a cover on top across the two crank spindles.

[Grovenor]

That iscertainly what it should be but none of the details match! There is no sign of the crank on the visible spindle and the rod connection looks nothing like a pin joint to a crank arm. Also the top looks to be solid leaving nowhere for the cranks to swing. So to me it remains something

I've not seen before. And given Tim's extensive searches I doubt there are any better pics from Monsal Dale so unless one can be found elsewhere?

Regards

[Lecorbusier]

That iscertainly what it should be but none of the details match! There is no sign of the crank on the visible spindle and the rod connection looks nothing like a pin joint to a crank arm. Also the top looks to be solid leaving nowhere for the cranks to swing. So to me it remains something

I've not seen before. And given Tim's extensive searches I doubt there are any better pics from Monsal Dale so unless one can be found elsewhere?

Regards

I have some of the same concerns ... but as you say unless I can turn something up via the Midland Railway Study Centre I will probably go with this ... what is certain is that its not the simple compensator seen so ubiquitously along the line at this period.

 

[Echo]

Have you ever browsed the Warwickshire railways site? This has some fine photos in Midland days, including this one http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/lms/mrwo1045.htm

 

It would take a fair bit of patience to go through all the pages and images, but you might find some useful track details there.

[Echo]

Out of curiosity I meddled with your crank photo to bring out more of the detail. I would gently question a few of your assumptions in the light of this.

 

 

The enhancement suggests that some of the detail is in fact disguised/confused by strong shadows.

 

Firstly, the "end of the sleeper" is more likely a bracket coming from the "compensator" or whatever it is. It seems to form a loop surrounding the point operating rod.

 

Secondly, the "crank" is more likely a piece of iron helping to hold the underlying timbers together.

 

Thirdly, the assumed connection of the main rod run to the crank is probably not. It doesn't have any obvious link to anything in the photo. It is possibly raised above the base, as there is a suggestion of shadow below it.

 

I am only guessing, but I hope it helps.

Edited November 29, 2017 by Echo

[Lecorbusier]

Thanks Echo,

 

The problem is the photo just doesn't give enough detail. I have gone round the same thoughts.

 

In the end I started with what I would expect to see ... namely a crank which would be logical given the position of the slip switch rod and what appears to be the extension of the sleeper nearest to us in the enlargement. I have therefore assumed that the conglomeration of bolts and plates represents the baseplate from which the crank is pivoted. I have assumed that the crank itself is hidden by the signal wire post. If this reading is correct then the rod would need to connect to the crank. Now in most of the pictures of cranks I have studied the pin joint into the crank is above the level of the switch rod which is running below rail level.  Looking at the picture I thought on balance that what I have called the connection of the transverse rod was the jointing section of the rod which had been swan necked up. What you describe as the 'loop' I have read as the squared off portion of the connecting section..

 

Now, conversely the connection from the main rodding would need to have some method of transferring the linear movement through the offset to the crank and would also need to bridge the change in level from the rodding down to the crank. I therefore reasoned that such a transference would require a rigid section such as a rectangular bar and the photo seemed to suggest such a bar. The white section just below and at the end of the bar in your enhancement I was reading as the end of the crank such that the bar sits on top of the crank.

 

All conjecture, but I thought the observation that what I am calling the compensator  is in about the right position for a compensator on the 7/7 switches on the signal diagram which would imply that a further compensator for 6/6 would be found further on on the up line aprox. where the second transverse rodding occurs (hidden by the platform) backed up my reading. I think in the 1911 photo looking the other way these two compensators can just be made out (might be wrong though).

 

Of course the alternative interpretation would be that they are not compensators but rather some mechanism for switching the points ... but I am not aware of any such mechanism on the Midland for this period and would question why at Monsaldale they chose to vary there typical practice. However I am still learning all the time!

Edited November 29, 2017 by Lecorbusier