Point rodding and signal wires

[Tim V]

1 hour ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

Interesting shot showing not only the barrel joints common on round rodding but also a GWR two-bolt scarf joint on the nearest rod

Ffestiniog was a very interesting place, the box had been closed for some years, all the pointwork had been removed, but everything else was still there.

[LNERGE]

Plenty of playing about with the various parts to get the best results... Hellifield.

[Grovenor]

If somebody gets dropped off that trap there's going to be a lot of signals upset.

[The Stationmaster]

On 31/12/2021 at 22:18, Grovenor said:

If somebody gets dropped off that trap there's going to be a lot of signals upset.

And some point rodding in trouble!

 

I wonder who came up with that piece of non-communication between the Perway design and the S&T folk?

 

But it could be even more embarrassing if something went through or over the stop blocks on the right in this picture

 

 

Edited April 28, 2022 by The Stationmaster

[bordercollie]

Hi

On 29/12/2021 at 21:53, The Stationmaster said:

Rodding runs weren't normally put in the 6foot for safety reasons but clearly there were occasions when that had to be done and they were likely to be boarded over where staff regularly needed to work or walk.

I  placed the rodding runs in the 6' because I felt that, in relation to the point and catch point 19, the angle between drive rod and the rodding run to the turnout would be closer to 90 degrees. I now see that if I passed rodding for 19 under mainline as shown in my diagram and then cranked the rodding to turnout from cess side of mainline this have resulted in a more appropriate angle. I also felt that rodding and wires for 3,21,  22 and 23 would be simpler if laid out as I have shown. I didn't think that the runs for FPL 23 and points 21 and 25 would be run in the cess due to the timbering of point 21. Similarly the timbering of turnout 27 would make it difficult to make rodding runs in cess of loop. Should I run the signal wires for 3,22, 24 and 26 in the cess of the mainline or alternately in that of the loop before running wires under track. One or other of these options seem to be what would have been usual, I think.

 I think I should run the rodding and wires for 24,25 and 26 to platform face as soon as possible after the tongue of point 21. It would be less of a trip hazard that way.

I am quite prepared to learn my assumptions are wrong and it would best to know how before I start laying track etc.

On 31/12/2021 at 21:04, The Stationmaster said:

there are photos which clearly show concrete rodding stools in use in 1927, 28, and newly laid in with concrete beds for mounting a plate carrying a crank in 1929 (all with round rodding, including the 1929 job)

In 1929 on a branch line situation would wood stools would have been the most likely?

 

Best wishes

Graham

[The Stationmaster]

4 hours ago, bordercollie said:

Hi

I  placed the rodding runs in the 6' because I felt that, in relation to the point and catch point 19, the angle between drive rod and the rodding run to the turnout would be closer to 90 degrees. I now see that if I passed rodding for 19 under mainline as shown in my diagram and then cranked the rodding to turnout from cess side of mainline this have resulted in a more appropriate angle. I also felt that rodding and wires for 3,21,  22 and 23 would be simpler if laid out as I have shown.

 

I think that overall that is probably an area where you have little choice - the only real alternative is to run it all in the cess side of the loop but you then have to get past 27 and away from the cess side of the loop and the only place you can go - depending on the disposition of the point ends is into the 19foot where you sketched it anyway.  The signal wires could be more easily routed direct from the 'box to the cess side of the Main  and then cross under the track between 21 and 19 points for those that need to go further - then finishing up along the platform face wall.  One key to it is to consider where shunting staff have to work on the ground so rodding might well need to be boarded over wherever it goes.

 

4 hours ago, bordercollie said:

 

I didn't think that the runs for FPL 23 and points 21 and 25 would be run in the cess due to the timbering of point 21. Similarly the timbering of turnout 27 would make it difficult to make rodding runs in cess of loop. Should I run the signal wires for 3,22, 24 and 26 in the cess of the mainline or alternately in that of the loop before running wires under track. One or other of these options seem to be what would have been usual, I think.

As noted above I would take those signal wires straight across to teh cess of the main line

4 hours ago, bordercollie said:

 I think I should run the rodding and wires for 24,25 and 26 to platform face as soon as possible after the tongue of point 21. It would be less of a trip hazard that way.

Agree - definitely the ideal place

4 hours ago, bordercollie said:

I am quite prepared to learn my assumptions are wrong and it would best to know how before I start laying track etc.

In 1929 on a branch line situation would wood stools would have been the most likely?

4 hours ago, bordercollie said:

 

Best wishes

Graham

Judging by what can be seen in contemporaneous photos on GWR branch and secondary lines concrete would be perfectly acceptable for 1929

 

[The Stationmaster]

Sorry but a complete section of my reply has vanished from the above post!

 

Regarding to your point (sorry) regarding 19 I agree absolutely.  I think you don't have much choice with the rodding  (but think differently for the wire run where it could be taken straight across from the 'box to the cess of the main line and crossbetween 21 and 19 points  (possibly even in metal tubing which was sometimes used in areas inclined to get dirty although the pulleys at each end would be in the open).

 

What will be important in the case of the rogdding is to think carefully about where shunting staff will be walking and working and the rodding in the 10foot between the main and loop might well need to be boarded over as might also be the case in front of the signal box and in the loop cess

[jim.snowdon]

On 01/01/2022 at 12:27, The Stationmaster said:

And some point rodding in trouble!

 

I wonder who came up with that piece of non-communication between the Perway design and the S&T folk?

 

But it could be even more embarrassing if something went through or over the stop blocks on the right in this picture

 

Having signal boxes demolished by errant locomotives used to be something of an occupational hazard.

 

[jim.snowdon]

On 30/12/2021 at 09:23, TheSignalEngineer said:

It certainly appeared in the Tweedie and Lascelles book Modern Railway Signalling which appeared in the 1920s. I think Crewe may even have been 'rolling their own' in LNWR days. 

They were. I believe the LNWR invented the channel section rodding.

 

[jim.snowdon]

On 28/12/2021 at 07:12, bordercollie said:

Hi

I have trying to display my ideas for point rodding and signal wire runs in a way that was not too confusing. My theoretical lever frame layout is as below. First of all, would this be realistic? I have basically worked off the system at Bodmin modified for my design. It seems to me that this would allow the shortest and simplest way of laying out the runs. I have spent many hours trying to come up with a diagram that is understandable, as attached. Most of the runs pass to outside mainline or between mainline and loop.

 

1. Signal Advanced Starter Mainline

2. Signal Advanced Starter Branch 1

3 Signal Platform Starter

4 Signal Starter Mainline

5 Signal Starter Branch 2

6 Spare

7 Spare

8 Point Slip

9 Signal Ground signal for Branch 2

10 Signal Ground signal Loop to Mainline

11 Signal Ground signal for crossover

12 FPL for 13

13 Point Mainline to loop

14 FPL for 15

15 Point to Branch 1

16 Point Mainline to Branch 2

17 FPL for 16

18 Signal Ground Signal Engine Shed

19 Point Engine shed/carriage siding and catch point engine shed

20 Signal Ground Signal Carriage siding

21 Point Mainline to sidings carriage and engine shed and catch point carriage siding

22 Signal Ground Signal for 21

23 FPL for 23

24 Signal Ground signal for 25

25 Points Mainline to loop

26 Signal Ground signal for 25

27 Point entry to goods yard

28 Signal Home Branch 2 to mainline

29 Signal Home Branch 2 to loop

30 Signal Home Mainline to platform

31 Signal Home Mainline to loop

32 Signal Home Branch 1 to mainline

33 Signal Home Branch 1 to loop.

B

I am reasonably sure it makes sense overall but have a few slight niggles as follows:

a) Point rodding for one end of crossover (13) needs to go across the rodding for FPL (12)

 

b) Similarly with rodding run for 19 and 21 needing to cross over each other and 23 crossing over 21

 

c) Is the run for 25 and 26 the most likely or would it have been run a long the platform face?

 

I have included a layout plan from Templot and have tried to make a comprehensible diagram. The RHS of layout is depicted at the top and LHS at the bottom

 

 

Regards

Graham

 

 

What is missing is that signal wires frequently run via apparently odd routes so that they run through point detectors. All part of the ‘outdoor’ interlocking that is there to ensure that what the signaller has called for has actually happened on the ground.

 

[Andy Keane]

On 18/12/2021 at 12:50, The Stationmaster said:

Just a few photos for a start. BUT NOTE - this is on a heritage railway and although all of thos was installed under the direction of a WR S&T dept employee there are some significant differences in the way various materials are used.  However what you can see o is how a rodding run can run round a curve in the track.  In this case the vast majority of the leading off bed is on the opposite side of the line from the signal box but you can see in one image - if you enlarge it - the use of different height leading off cranks - looka th different depth of teh setts in the pinjoints connecting the crank to the channel rodding (it would be round rodding for your period).

 

to adda bit more in respect of various of your questions -

a).  - generally two but three at a squeeze)

b) - ideally no more than a couple because if wire run pulleys are used (fixed to the sleepers) there wouldn't really be room for any bigger than that however undoubtedly in some places  far more had to be squeezed in although the lever spacing would in fact dictate the number more than anything else.

c). - you can certainly get down a bit below 90 degrees with ordinary cranks - plenty of photos around to prove that and i laid out a run on a preservation site which was probably nearer 80 degrees than 90 which works perfectly well.  There was also a special single-ended crank used for some angles but they were not at all common.

d). - no but direction was never changed needlessly.  the important thing in planning and laying outa rodding run was to eqy uakise the amount of push and pull in the run as nearly as possible in order to allow for expansion and contraction and where necessary compensating cranks would be used to reverse the throw in a continuous run.

 

Run on a curve with a pair of compensating cranks opposite each other/. Look at the number of signal wires

 

 

 

Rodding under track - note the special ri oller used in the four foot

 

 

Curved rodding run in the opposite direction to the first photo and the 'sprt of' leading off bed opposite the signal box where you can see some stepped leading-off cranks

 

 

Mike

could you perhaps reinstate these picture please

thanks

Andy

[The Stationmaster]

54 minutes ago, Andy Keane said:

Mike

could you perhaps reinstate these picture please

thanks

Andy

Sorry Andy but I couldn't get rid of the old ones but I've put all my pics are now back in the correct places for the text.

[Pete the Elaner]

Seeing this thread today is very timely. I was at the club last night, painting the 'moving parts' of points & signal rodding black to simulate grease.

[Stephen Freeman]

5 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

Seeing this thread today is very timely. I was at the club last night, painting the 'moving parts' of points & signal rodding black to simulate grease.

Don't forget the fishplates! At one time C&L usefully used to supply the plastic ones in black but not for some time (I think it was probably only in Brian Lewis's ownership).

[The Stationmaster]

9 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

Seeing this thread today is very timely. I was at the club last night, painting the 'moving parts' of points & signal rodding black to simulate grease.

Grease was not allowed to be used on most types of rodding cranks - it attracted dirt and grit.    aAnd because of the grease the rain could not do its usual job of washing away any such dirt and thus cleaning things.   Normally all that was needed - at the most -was light oiling on the pivot of cranks, pin joints (where the crank connected to rodding) were not lubricated - that too was left to rain to wash the dirt away. 

[Andy Keane]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

Sorry Andy but I couldn't get rid of the old ones but I've put all my pics are now back in the correct places for the text.

Brilliant - these are an amazingly helpful set of pictures as I set to work with a pile of bits from ModelU and 0.3mm wire. I want to get all the runs under the tracks in place before I think about adding ballast etc.

Much appreciate the effort.

Andy

Edited April 28, 2022 by Andy Keane

[The Stationmaster]

18 hours ago, Andy Keane said:

Brilliant - these are an amazingly helpful set of pictures as I set to work with a pile of bits from ModelU and 0.3mm wire. I want to get all the runs under the tracks in place before I think about adding ballast etc.

Much appreciate the effort.

Andy

Don't forget that GW(R) cross rods (going under track) always used round rodding.  That continued even after channel rodding was introduced for the main rodding runs. 

[Michael Hodgson]

I've also seen round rodding used for wheel-operated gates, the underground bits that actually move the gates, when the rest of the rodding has been modern square stuff.

[jim.snowdon]

On 29/04/2022 at 11:27, The Stationmaster said:

Don't forget that GW(R) cross rods (going under track) always used round rodding.  That continued even after channel rodding was introduced for the main rodding runs. 

Dare one say 'how typical of the GW'? There isn't an obvious reason for such a convention.

 

[The Stationmaster]

On 30/04/2022 at 12:31, jim.snowdon said:

Dare one say 'how typical of the GW'? There isn't an obvious reason for such a convention.

 

Oh yes there is!   If you use channel rodding there is no low profile rodding roller so standard rollers have to be used.  Reading produced a low profile roller for use with round rodding which was designed, and obviously used for, cross rods hence round rod was used.   If a normal height roller assembly was used it meant that the roller stools had to be set considerably  lower than their normal height of the top of the stools being level with the top of sleepers (thus ensuring that the rollers would be well clear of any ballast etc).

[Harlequin]

On 30/04/2022 at 12:31, jim.snowdon said:

Dare one say 'how typical of the GW'? There isn't an obvious reason for such a convention.

 

Round rodding could be forged (bent) to whatever profile is needed for cross rods at individual locations. Channel rodding can't. That may also have been a factor.

 

 

[jim.snowdon]

4 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Oh yes there is!   If you use channel rodding there is no low profile rodding roller so standard rollers have to be used.  Reading produced a low profile roller for use with round rodding which was designed, and obviously used for, cross rods hence round rod was used.   If a normal height roller assembly was used it meant that the roller stools had to be set considerably  lower than their normal height of the top of the stools being level with the top of sleepers (thus ensuring that the rollers would be well clear of any ballast etc).

Interesting. It leaves you wondering what other regions did.

 

[Miss Prism]

4 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Channel rodding can't.

 

That's why round 'adaptor' rodding bits are used to attach to the channel rodding.  (Unless I misunderstood your point.)

[Harlequin]

59 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

 

That's why round 'adaptor' rodding bits are used to attach to the channel rodding.  (Unless I misunderstood your point.)

Indeed.

 

And so, for crossing under the track, why would you go to the trouble of using channel rodding (even if the correct rollers existed) with round adaptors at each end and the difficulty of making the round-to-channel connections under the rails and between the sleepers? Much simpler to run a single length of round rodding with appropriate bends formed into it to connect from a crank on one side, down under the track and up again to another crank or whatever connection is needed. That's my thesis.

 

[Miss Prism]

I don't think there is much difference in difficulty of installation one way or the other. Getting the 'length' of the under rail part is probably easier if using adaptors. It's a long time since I thought about this sort of thing, but here's what I did 25 years ago, and I tried to follow a specific company prototype practice:

http://www.clag.org.uk/pics/rodding/run04.jpg