Wright writes.....

[Focalplane]

Tony

 

Most interesting and valuable post, thank you.

 

I guess I was lucky in selecting Shipston-on-Stour for my prototype motivated 4mm layout, now in storage. Being a one token branch line there were no signals! Much the same applies to my loco shed layout. But if I ever get to build a real layout I shall refer back to these pages, that is if I can ever find them again!

 

Paul

[coachmann]

On non-prototype layouts, on many occasions the signalling is just plain daft. I know this might seem a bit Draconian, but do some layout builders ever take the time to look at prototypes, and not just with regard to signalling? 

 

It seems not Tony. Surely a model layout builder has to have a damn good knowledge of reality before he can build a credible fiction.

[ScRSG]

Just one point on using wire for the point rodding, Tony, it is possibly very susceptible to expansion over a longish run (ask me how I know!) and gives most un-prototypical bends in the rods. Will be interesting to note how you deal with this possibility!

 

Chas

[APOLLO]

Just one point on using wire for the point rodding, Tony, it is possibly very susceptible to expansion over a longish run (ask me how I know!) and gives most un-prototypical bends in the rods. Will be interesting to note how you deal with this possibility!

 

Chas

 

Gem / Mercontrol used Omega loops

 

[Tony Wright]

Just one point on using wire for the point rodding, Tony, it is possibly very susceptible to expansion over a longish run (ask me how I know!) and gives most un-prototypical bends in the rods. Will be interesting to note how you deal with this possibility!

 

Chas

Chas,

 

Thanks for your comment. 

 

I've thought of the potential for expansion in the point rodding causing problems, though I've not made up any long lengths yet. Apart from one short section of track in one of the fiddle yard roads, I've suffered no expansion problems there, but I made provision for the rails to have space to expand. What I might do is leave small gaps between the rodding on the stools. Or, because each set of stools will be in a recess in the foam and not permanently fixed to the baseboard, the system will be able to expand naturally. 

 

Whatever the outcome, it's got to be worth doing because it's so prominent. 

 

 

The area to the left of the approaching A1 just looks so bare without point rodding. In fairness, this is a shot from at least three years ago. 

 

 

At the south end, because there are fewer points, the rodding appears to be in single pieces as it crosses the tracks. 

 

 

 

Note how the main runs are to the west of the formation. Because of the natural curve, I'll probably get away without any expansion problems. Also note how the stools are arranged - with, what looks like, a few spare rollers. 

 

 

 

As the rodding heads north, it naturally gets less and less. Though the main run is between the Down slow and the Down north lay-by, the final section finishes up to the east. Both the above pictures are by courtesy of John Musselwhite. 

 

Looking at all the above pictures, it seems I'll have to do some modifications to some of the components I'll be using. 

 

 

This is not a criticism of the products. I'll just have to get on with it. 

 

If nothing else, what the postings today have proven even more to me is the merit in modelling an actual prototype. Just what is what and what goes where is all there for the modeller. It really is liberating, and much more interesting to me to model an actual railway place. As long as one has the space. And great modelling mates!

[Tony Wright]

It seems not Tony. Surely a model layout builder has to have a damn good knowledge of reality before he can build a credible fiction.

Thanks Larry,

 

I wonder why more modellers don't look at actual railway pictures (or appear not to take notice of what they look at) before they contemplate building a layout, even if the location is fictitious. 

[Focalplane]

Research is surely the missing link?

[Daniel W]

I suspect that the main reason why so many modellers do not model signals in much detail, is frankly because they may not find them that interesting. I know because I am one of those people, hence why my planned layout will be the type of location with little to no signalling.  Its only natural that we will focus more on the things we enjoy within the hobby, in my case this is building up a stable of prototypical rolling stock, for others it might be building scenery or ultra realistic weathering. I suspect that many of the modellers whose layouts are lacking in the signalling department, are fully aware of the models prototypical deficiencies and are willing to live with the compromise.

[Anglian]

In my first year at art college we had a brilliant life drawing tutor who was a fearsome man who demanded the most frightening levels of concentration and ability. These days his teaching methods wouldn't be permitted since they would almost certainly fall foul of some law against traumatising impressionable students. However, he frequently reminded us that drawing was 10 per cent (or percent if you prefer) making marks and 90 per cent looking. He wasn't wrong. I think the 'making' part of modelling is more time consuming than drawing but I wonder where the ideal ratio lies between looking and doing when working in 3D.

 

Another aspect to accurate railway modelling, that I considered today, having watched some footage of steam trains taken by a hobby type drone is if this technology will become a typical part of our modelling research. Since we typically view our models from above I'd have thought it would be an ideal way to observe and understand the lie of the land and also to appreciate the awkward and illusive notion of desaturating colour when modelling nature.

Edited March 26, 2017 by Anglian

[Tony Wright]

I suspect that the main reason why so many modellers do not model signals in much detail, is frankly because they may not find them that interesting. I know because I am one of those people, hence why my planned layout will be the type of location with little to no signalling.  Its only natural that we will focus more on the things we enjoy within the hobby, in my case this is building up a stable of prototypical rolling stock, for others it might be building scenery or ultra realistic weathering. I suspect that many of the modellers whose layouts are lacking in the signalling department, are fully aware of the models prototypical deficiencies and are willing to live with the compromise.

Daniel,

 

I'm inclined to agree with you in many ways, but may I please ask a question of you? Are you old enough to, say, remember (first-hand, like me) the wonderful semaphore signals at Chester, Shrewsbury, Black Carr Junction, Trent, Derby, Preston, Reading, Southampton Central, Yeovil Junction, Exeter, Taunton, Newton Abbot, plus loads of other locations? How anyone can find signalling installations like those I've just mentioned (having seen them in action) not that interesting has got me puzzled.The fact that many of these fantastic arrangements lived well into the diesel age allows for those who don't model 'kettles' to have a variety of green and blue diesel-outline locos controlled by them. Seeing  SCAFELL PIKE pass under some incredibly long-lived MR lower quadrant signals at Trent was most interesting - a pity the picture I took was so poor. A much better (and published) picture was captured of a pair of Class 50s in large logo livery heading beneath the great gantry at Taunton's SW end - as late as 1986!

 

I can understand modellers living with the prototypical signalling deficiencies they might have. I've done so in the past. I've made working semaphore signals, but I'm not that proficient at the craft (that's why I horse-trade). But, to me, nothing animates a model railway (other than the locos and stock) more than working semaphore signals. Not only that, other than where BR standard semaphores have replaced the originals, along with the civil engineering and architecture, the type of semaphores on display immediately give a layout a sense of place. The upper-quadrant signals at at the west end of Southampton Central (and by the tunnel) were pure Southern in style, and shouted that out. The somersault signals still active in parts of deepest East Lincs up to the end of the century could never proclaim anything but their origins - Great Northern. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

 

For me, (working) semaphore signals on my model railway are most interesting. But then, I have two of the best exponents at making them as dear friends. 

 

Edited to include the postscript.

Edited March 26, 2017 by Tony Wright

[t-b-g]

There were two fine 7mm layouts at a recent exhibition that had nicely modelled but non working signals. It completely spoiled the operation of the layout for me as watching trains either run past signals at danger or running on a single line when a signal is cleared for the other direction just ruins any illusion of realism for me.

 

It always surprises me when people say that they want to make a realistic model railway but aren't bothered or interested in signals. Good signals can really play a big part in setting the railway scene in a particular period or part of the country and making them work adds a whole extra level of operational and viewing interest to any layout (apart from those that shouldn't have any!).

 

On those two layouts, they had done the hard bit by making some nice signals. Making them work after that is no more difficult than making a point work and they managed that OK.

 

On Buckingham, the signals serve an extra purpose as the track supply is switched through them. So trains are isolated until you set the points, pull the right signals and turn the controller. There are virtually no section switches, apart from a couple that allow a yard to be switched to a second controller for shunting purposes. It makes the layout highly realistic and very satisfying to operate.

[Daniel W]

Daniel,

 

I'm inclined to agree with you in many ways, but may I please ask a question of you? Are you old enough to, say, remember (first-hand, like me) the wonderful semaphore signals at Chester, Shrewsbury, Black Carr Junction, Trent, Derby, Preston, Reading, Southampton Central, Yeovil Junction, Exeter, Taunton, Newton Abbot, plus loads of other locations? How anyone can find signalling installations like those I've just mentioned (having seen them in action) not that interesting has got me puzzled.The fact that many of these fantastic arrangements lived well into the diesel age allows for those who don't model 'kettles' to have a variety of green and blue diesel-outline locos controlled by them. Seeing  SCAFELL PIKE pass under some incredibly long-lived MR lower quadrant signals at Trent was most interesting - a pity the picture I took was so poor. A much better (and published) picture was captured of a pair of Class 50s in large logo livery heading beneath the great gantry at Taunton's SW end - as late as 1986!

 

I can understand modellers living with the prototypical signalling deficiencies they might have. I've done so in the past. I've made working semaphore signals, but I'm not that proficient at the craft (that's why I horse-trade). But, to me, nothing animates a model railway (other than the locos and stock) more than working semaphore signals. Not only that, other than where BR standard semaphores have replaced the originals, along with the civil engineering and architecture, the type of semaphores on display immediately give a layout a sense of place. The upper-quadrant signals at at the west end of Southampton Central (and by the tunnel) were pure Southern in style, and shouted that out. The somersault signals still active in parts of deepest East Lincs up to the end of the century could never proclaim anything but their origins - Great Northern. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

 

For me, (working) semaphore signals on my model railway are most interesting. But then, I have two of the best exponents at making them as dear friends. 

 

Edited to include the postscript.

 

Just so you know Tony, I am the same Daniel you met a Preston show, I changed my username to something more suitable. I am far far too young to remember working semaphore signals of any kind, indeed so is my father! Therein lies the difference I suspect, for me the steam era is part of history, something that for the most part I have learnt about from reading books and watching archive footage. For the older generations, it is part of their lives, something that exists within their memory as past experiences. I can well imagine that if I had been alive at the time and experienced the immense network of signals at my local station of Preston, I too would see them as being (almost) as important as locomotives and rolling stock.

 

Regards

 

Daniel

[t-b-g]

Guaranteed no fiddling. It is a private layout with one careful owner and one helper (me!). It was me giving Flying Scotsman its new number, taking the loco new from the box. I could give it a number, read the number and then get the "Central memory full" error message when I tried to enter the number into the stack on a controller.

 

We had the same problem with a GWR King, number 6011. It seems that trying numbers with 6s and 0s and 1s is what upset it as it is happy with anything else. We ended up calling that 0011, despite the fact that the decoder was clearly marked as being set up to accept a 4 digit code.The layout owner knows enough to select and run a loco but wouldn't dream of touching anything else. The double heading problem happened overnight from the layout being switched off with all OK one evening to switching it on again in the morning. Can any DCC system be "fiddled" to allow a loco to suddenly run at full speed for a few moments without touching the controller? If there was the slightest possibility of there being any rational explanation for the problems, I would have investigated and sorted them out. I just don't know where to start investigating faults that people tell me can't happen.

 

The best explanation I have had from a top DCC expert is "It sounds like software glitches". It is a Lenz base unit with updated software and modern Lenz controllers. The decoders are from a variety of manufacturers.

I know it is bad form to quote your own post but I thought that I should just say that our loco numbering problems have been sorted out!

 

I spent a couple of days with the layout in question recently and having failed twice more to put the numbers we wanted onto a couple of new locos, we rang up the manufacturers and asked their advice. Apparently, we needed to reset the memory on the base unit. They couldn't explain why Flying Scotsman could be 4472 but not 0103 but resetting the base unit allowed it and the King, to be given the numbers they should have had from the start, as well as the two new locos.

 

We still have the other problems but that one is sorted and I thought I should mention it in case the information is useful to anybody else.

Edited March 27, 2017 by t-b-g

[Clive Mortimore]

The signals on Tony's layout are great, especially the working ground signals. The other week when I visited LB the only problem was the signalman being too busy staring at the wonderful coaching stock and was very slow at placing them back to danger.

[thegreenhowards]

A couple of weeks ago, I posted a picture of my progress with a C12 kit. I have now almost finished it, and I took it to show Tony last week. He kindly gave it the studio photo treatment.

 

 

I need a couple of details to complete it which are the fittings associated with push pull equipment mounted on the left of the smokebox. These are shown clearly in fig 44. in the RCTS green book part 7. If anyone knows where I can get such parts, then please let me know. Failing that I had a rummage through Tony's white metal spares box, and have some shapes that I think I can bodge to work.

 

Willie Whizz asked me to describe the choice and fitting of the RTR chassis for this. I think the four key issues are:

 

1. Wheel diameter

2, Wheelbase

3. Number of spokes

4. Will the chassis fit!

 

The first is critical. In this case the C12 had 5'8" drivers, while the L&YR tank had 5'73/4" drivers. That 1/4 inch difference is completely irrelevant at 4mm scale, so it was a good match. Conveniently the leading and trailing wheels were an exact match as well, both being 3'8", so I used the Bachmann axles for the pony truck on the C12 and only had to buy one axle from Markits. This is not essential, but saves some money,

 

The second is also pretty critical, especially if the loco has splashers which make any difference quite evident. In this case, the C12 should have an 8'3" wheelbase while the Bachmann L&YR tank scales out at 34mm - i.e 8'6". This 1mm difference is a compromise that I'm happy with, although I appreciate, it's not for everyone. The wheelbase for the leading and trailing axles didn't work out, so those parts were scrapped with just the wheels retained.

 

The number of spokes is a nice to have. In this case, it should be 18, and the Bachmann tank has 19. Again not ideal, but I can live with it. The leading and trailing axles were spot on with 10 spokes on both locos.

 

Generally I find that if the first two points are OK, then the chassis will fit. But this is a bit of a leap of faith when one starts sawing into a RTR chassis! In this case, I had to cut out the driving wheels and find a way of fixing this 0-4-0 unit into the C12 body. This was achieved with a brass bar glued to the Bachmann chassis and screwed into the C12 body. The pony truck was supplied with the C12 kit, but I modified it to pivot of a hole directly above rather than swinging on a long arm as the kit intended - I prefer this so the pony steers the loco round corners, but it only works on relatively generous radii. The pony is attached with an 8BA bolt and is sprung. The rear axle chassis is soldered to the base of the C12 body and sprung with some phosphor bronze pick up strip acting on some 2mm brass tube which holds the axle. I hope the picture below shows the fitting. I can supply more detail if anyone's interested.

 

Overall this was a very cost effective chassis. I paid around £60 for the L&YR tank, and sold the body on Ebay for almost £30, so I effectively acquired a sweet running motor and gearbox plus four sets of wheel/axles for just over £30. Exceptional value!

 

Andy

 

 

 

[richard i]

A couple of weeks ago, I posted a picture of my progress with a C12 kit. I have now almost finished it, and I took it to show Tony last week. He kindly gave it the studio photo treatment.

 

C12.jpg

 

I need a couple of details to complete it which are the fittings associated with push pull equipment mounted on the left of the smokebox. These are shown clearly in fig 44. in the RCTS green book part 7. If anyone knows where I can get such parts, then please let me know. Failing that I had a rummage through Tony's white metal spares box, and have some shapes that I think I can bodge to work.

 

Willie Whizz asked me to describe the choice and fitting of the RTR chassis for this. I think the four key issues are:

 

1. Wheel diameter

2, Wheelbase

3. Number of spokes

4. Will the chassis fit!

 

The first is critical. In this case the C12 had 5'8" drivers, while the L&YR tank had 5'73/4" drivers. That 1/4 inch difference is completely irrelevant at 4mm scale, so it was a good match. Conveniently the leading and trailing wheels were an exact match as well, both being 3'8", so I used the Bachmann axles for the pony truck on the C12 and only had to buy one axle from Markits. This is not essential, but saves some money,

 

The second is also pretty critical, especially if the loco has splashers which make any difference quite evident. In this case, the C12 should have an 8'3" wheelbase while the Bachmann L&YR tank scales out at 34mm - i.e 8'6". This 1mm difference is a compromise that I'm happy with, although I appreciate, it's not for everyone. The wheelbase for the leading and trailing axles didn't work out, so those parts were scrapped with just the wheels retained.

 

The number of spokes is a nice to have. In this case, it should be 18, and the Bachmann tank has 19. Again not ideal, but I can live with it. The leading and trailing axles were spot on with 10 spokes on both locos.

 

Generally I find that if the first two points are OK, then the chassis will fit. But this is a bit of a leap of faith when one starts sawing into a RTR chassis! In this case, I had to cut out the driving wheels and find a way of fixing this 0-4-0 unit into the C12 body. This was achieved with a brass bar glued to the Bachmann chassis and screwed into the C12 body. The pony truck was supplied with the C12 kit, but I modified it to pivot of a hole directly above rather than swinging on a long arm as the kit intended - I prefer this so the pony steers the loco round corners, but it only works on relatively generous radii. The pony is attached with an 8BA bolt and is sprung. The rear axle chassis is soldered to the base of the C12 body and sprung with some phosphor bronze pick up strip acting on some 2mm brass tube which holds the axle. I hope the picture below shows the fitting. I can supply more detail if anyone's interested.

 

Overall this was a very cost effective chassis. I paid around £60 for the L&YR tank, and sold the body on Ebay for almost £30, so I effectively acquired a sweet running motor and gearbox plus four sets of wheel/axles for just over £30. Exceptional value!

 

Andy

 

C12 showing fitting of RTR chassis.JPG

And why wouldn't you when the cost of wheels motor and gear box from other sources is much more expensive, especially when money for a modeling budget is tight.

Richard

[St Enodoc]

Just one point on using wire for the point rodding, Tony, it is possibly very susceptible to expansion over a longish run (ask me how I know!) and gives most un-prototypical bends in the rods. Will be interesting to note how you deal with this possibility!

 

Chas

That's what the compensators are for!!!!!

[jollysmart]

Just so you know Tony, I am the same Daniel you met a Preston show, I changed my username to something more suitable. I am far far too young to remember working semaphore signals of any kind, indeed so is my father! Therein lies the difference I suspect, for me the steam era is part of history, something that for the most part I have learnt about from reading books and watching archive footage. For the older generations, it is part of their lives, something that exists within their memory as past experiences. I can well imagine that if I had been alive at the time and experienced the immense network of signals at my local station of Preston, I too would see them as being (almost) as important as locomotives and rolling stock.

 

Regards

 

Daniel

 

Semaphore signals have existed in very busy locations until very recently, the nearest railway to me only had them replaced with colour lights late 2015 so they are not quite the distant memory that you seem to think. They featured in many of the magazines devoted to contemporary railways so they were widely known about as did other sections of the railway which were updated in the last few years.

[Barry Ten]

Semaphore signals have existed in very busy locations until very recently, the nearest railway to me only had them replaced with colour lights late 2015 so they are not quite the distant memory that you seem to think. They featured in many of the magazines devoted to contemporary railways so they were widely known about as did other sections of the railway which were updated in the last few years.

 

They still have them in Abergavenny on the Newport to Hereford line, although I imagine not for much longer. I took the train up to Manchester on Thursday so can confirm they were still there as of four days ago.

 

Alastair

Edited March 27, 2017 by Barry Ten

[Tony Teague]

My inexperience means that until Tony mentioned them, I had never heard of signal-rodding components referred to as "stools" - I had always assumed when hearing this term, that they had been deposited on the track due to the absence of 'retaining tanks' on older stock....!

You learn something every day.

Tony

[gr.king]

Given the pace at which this thread moves on, this is a rather late addition to the topic under discussion a week ago, but this link to some better pictures of those "entirely useless" Hornby Margate / Railroad "Gresley" coaches came my way this morning, thanks to somebody giving an even older contribution of mine a "rating". Thanks are due to "Dorchester Castle".

 

http://www.rmweb.co....ites/?p=1285478

Edited March 27, 2017 by gr.king

[Tony Wright]

A couple of weeks ago, I posted a picture of my progress with a C12 kit. I have now almost finished it, and I took it to show Tony last week. He kindly gave it the studio photo treatment.

 

C12.jpg

 

I need a couple of details to complete it which are the fittings associated with push pull equipment mounted on the left of the smokebox. These are shown clearly in fig 44. in the RCTS green book part 7. If anyone knows where I can get such parts, then please let me know. Failing that I had a rummage through Tony's white metal spares box, and have some shapes that I think I can bodge to work.

 

Willie Whizz asked me to describe the choice and fitting of the RTR chassis for this. I think the four key issues are:

 

1. Wheel diameter

2, Wheelbase

3. Number of spokes

4. Will the chassis fit!

 

The first is critical. In this case the C12 had 5'8" drivers, while the L&YR tank had 5'73/4" drivers. That 1/4 inch difference is completely irrelevant at 4mm scale, so it was a good match. Conveniently the leading and trailing wheels were an exact match as well, both being 3'8", so I used the Bachmann axles for the pony truck on the C12 and only had to buy one axle from Markits. This is not essential, but saves some money,

 

The second is also pretty critical, especially if the loco has splashers which make any difference quite evident. In this case, the C12 should have an 8'3" wheelbase while the Bachmann L&YR tank scales out at 34mm - i.e 8'6". This 1mm difference is a compromise that I'm happy with, although I appreciate, it's not for everyone. The wheelbase for the leading and trailing axles didn't work out, so those parts were scrapped with just the wheels retained.

 

The number of spokes is a nice to have. In this case, it should be 18, and the Bachmann tank has 19. Again not ideal, but I can live with it. The leading and trailing axles were spot on with 10 spokes on both locos.

 

Generally I find that if the first two points are OK, then the chassis will fit. But this is a bit of a leap of faith when one starts sawing into a RTR chassis! In this case, I had to cut out the driving wheels and find a way of fixing this 0-4-0 unit into the C12 body. This was achieved with a brass bar glued to the Bachmann chassis and screwed into the C12 body. The pony truck was supplied with the C12 kit, but I modified it to pivot of a hole directly above rather than swinging on a long arm as the kit intended - I prefer this so the pony steers the loco round corners, but it only works on relatively generous radii. The pony is attached with an 8BA bolt and is sprung. The rear axle chassis is soldered to the base of the C12 body and sprung with some phosphor bronze pick up strip acting on some 2mm brass tube which holds the axle. I hope the picture below shows the fitting. I can supply more detail if anyone's interested.

 

Overall this was a very cost effective chassis. I paid around £60 for the L&YR tank, and sold the body on Ebay for almost £30, so I effectively acquired a sweet running motor and gearbox plus four sets of wheel/axles for just over £30. Exceptional value!

 

Andy

 

C12 showing fitting of RTR chassis.JPG

On a purely practical note, I can confirm that Andy's little loco ran absolutely-beautifully on LB last week. It struggled (most prototypically) on 40 wagons, but on a train more suitable (three carriages) it was perfect. 

 

Then a grinding noise was heard. We took the body off and found, of all things, a steel axle attached by magnetism to the motor, catching on the armature. It wasn't one of mine, but where it came from we have no idea. 

 

I commented that it was good we found it. Why? I recall years ago, trying to find a short circuit on a layout. I investigated all the wiring, switches, relays and what have you. Then I tested any locos and stock on the track, but it was still there! I eventually found a piece of wire lying across a gapped PCB sleeper. It had come off a visiting loco and had represented a sandpipe. The moral? Always check visiting locos. Though that odd axle was securely fixed on by magnetism, you never know. 

 

Splendid work, by the way, Andy. The product of a real modeller. 

[New Haven Neil]

TBG, it may be the layout in question needs a 'snubber' on the DCC bus, the waveform may be getting corrupted causing the other issues.

[The Stationmaster]

Thanks Larry,

 

I wonder why more modellers don't look at actual railway pictures (or appear not to take notice of what they look at) before they contemplate building a layout, even if the location is fictitious. 

 

And a quick look at those pictures of the 12":1' scale LB reveals a very interesting thing.  The rodding run looks relatively new with channel rodding with rodding run rollers appearing to be set on concrete stools BUT the rods running at right angles to the track for both rods crossing from side to side and for rods driving points ends etc appear to be round rodding.

 

So it appears from those photos that LNER Southern Area/ER practice was similar in that respect to (G)WR practice.

[The Stationmaster]

My inexperience means that until Tony mentioned them, I had never heard of signal-rodding components referred to as "stools" - I had always assumed when hearing this term, that they had been deposited on the track due to the absence of 'retaining tanks' on older stock....!

You learn something every day.

Tony

 

The terminology does need to be sorted (fortunately ModelU have got it right with their 3d print).

 

The rodding runs in 'rodding run roller's (various similar names are also used for them and often abbreviated to rodding rollers).  The rollers sit on stools - in the case of most railways in Britain stools tended to be manufactured in precast concrete but earlier types included a cast metal version and timber has been widely used by those of LMS heritage.   If you want to get very pedantic cranks etc are mounted on beds - again either timber or precast concrete and with a metal plate or straps fitted on top to which the cranks are attached.

 

So wearing my occasional pedants hat I tend to a fatherly quaking and biting of the tongue every time somebody mentions 'point rodding stools' when they actually mean '(point) rodding rollers'; troubles is that 'stools' is one word and quicker to type.