Point rodding and signal wires

[TheSignalEngineer]

2 hours ago, Harlequin said:

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.

Every cross rod is different, and it is difficult to handle single rods of sufficient length to cross under more than one track, so they still have to be joined using either a scarfed or barrel joint. Making them to the correct set and length also requires a certain amount of blacksmithing skill and was quite entertaining when you try to do it trackside on a portable forge in the dark and rain when putting in a complex layout and the end of the possession is nigh. (Yes, I did get the metaphorical T-shirt). The main tools needed to put in channel rodding were a pway bar, shovel and punner for the stools, hacksaw for cutting to length,  punch making bolt holes, and spanners foe the nuts. A hammer is always useful as well. The proper spanner for the channel rod bolts is a Tee handle square head box spanner which is about 32" long. Just right for tightening from a standing position. The square nut should be left square with the channel rodding when tightened so you can easily tell of it is working loose on maintenance visits.

 

This is a joint for channel rod to crank, 3" upset. The length including the fishplate end is 28.5". This one has an insulation which is required on electrified lines for preventing the rodding run and thus the point levers becoming part of the traction return path on electrified lines by accidental contact between the rod and return rail. 

 

(Image linked from Unipart Rail catalogue)

 

It is possible to make rods in many different configurations such as channel connection at each end for upset/downset or sideset and longer rods with barrel adjustment for point drives from the adjusting crank.

[Grovenor]

8 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.  

And it really would have taken very little effort to adapt said low profile roller for channel rodding, so not much of a reason.

[Phil Bullock]

So a question I havent seen on here.

 

Its common practice for a cross over to be controlled by a single lever and rodding run. Is it acceptable practice in this situation to initially run the rodding in the cess but then to connect to the other end of the cross over by utilising the stretcher bar on the first switch to transfer the rodding run from the cess to the six foot way? 
 

Hope that makes sense!

 

Cheers

 

Phil

[5BarVT]

1 hour ago, Phil Bullock said:

Its common practice for a cross over to be controlled by a single lever and rodding run. Is it acceptable practice in this situation to initially run the rodding in the cess but then to connect to the other end of the cross over by utilising the stretcher bar on the first switch to transfer the rodding run from the cess to the six foot way? 

Can’t claim to be an expert on the outside stuff (despite my RMWeb name!) but I’ve never seen that done.  Gut feel is that it would make adjusting the second end foul as it’s affected by any adjustments to the first end.  Maintenance nightmare!  Then also, what do you gain by using that method to get the rod into the six foot?  You’re the wrong side of the crossing rails to where you want the drive.

So on the basis of first principles musing I’m going to say not acceptable!

Paul.

[TheSignalEngineer]

@Phil BullockThe correct way to do it is for the point rod to go over the top of the adjusting crank for the first end with a drop log under the rod to link to that crank. If you try to work a second end off the stretcher of the first end, adjusting that one will put the second out of adjustment. Also how do you get the rod through the timbers in the middle of the crossover? And don't forget that you need a compensator between the two ends of the crossover which puts it in the four-foot of the crossing track.

Edited May 2, 2022 by TheSignalEngineer

[Phil Bullock]

Many thanks @5BarVTand @TheSignalEngineer confirms my suspicions. Will put up a sketch shortly…

[The Stationmaster]

15 hours ago, Grovenor said:

And it really would have taken very little effort to adapt said low profile roller for channel rodding, so not much of a reason.

Too narrow so a totally new design and components would be needed.   It was probably simpler to carry on using a stock item rather than bother developing something new for what is always going to be a far more limited use than 'normal' rodding run rollers.

 

14 hours ago, 5BarVT said:

Can’t claim to be an expert on the outside stuff (despite my RMWeb name!) but I’ve never seen that done.  Gut feel is that it would make adjusting the second end foul as it’s affected by any adjustments to the first end.  Maintenance nightmare!  Then also, what do you gain by using that method to get the rod into the six foot?  You’re the wrong side of the crossing rails to where you want the drive.

So on the basis of first principles musing I’m going to say not acceptable!

Paul.

If you look way back - pre 1914 - in photos you ca occasionally see instances of it but invariably (from what I have seen) not for the running line end of a crossover - it provides the drive.   But it would be the very devil to adjust and to keep in adjustment - as noted above.

 

4 hours ago, Phil Bullock said:

Many thanks @5BarVTand @TheSignalEngineer confirms my suspicions. Will put up a sketch shortly…

Would you like a photo of said arrangement?

[Phil Bullock]

25 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Too narrow so a totally new design and components would be needed.   It was probably simpler to carry on using a stock item rather than bother developing something new for what is always going to be a far more limited use than 'normal' rodding run rollers.

 

If you look way back - pre 1914 - in photos you ca occasionally see instances of it but invariably (from what I have seen) not for the running line end of a crossover - it provides the drive.   But it would be the very devil to adjust and to keep in adjustment - as noted above.

 

Would you like a photo of said arrangement?

Yes please 

[The Stationmaster]

10 minutes ago, Phil Bullock said:

Yes please 

No.1

How a connection is 'dropped from the underside of channel rodding (sorry the drive crank to the switch is obscured by the detector box

 

No.2

 

How compensators are arranged in a rodding run - note the cranks with a 'cap' on the bearing are (G)WR pattern -

 

 

 

No.3

Stepped leading -off cranks  (used from ground frame cross rods in this case)

 

 

No.4

Pin joint in end of channel rod connecting it to an adjustable crank to drive a point switch (among other things!)

 

 

 

Hope they help a bit

[5BarVT]

Nice photos Mike.

1. Regarding GW and BR cranks etc, the BR have grease nipples in the top: am I right in thinking that GWR with the cap were oiled rather than greased?  (It's a long time back to Exeter St. D Techs in 1981!)

2. I would have expected a flat wheel to run the wire round before coming back through the detector - vertical wheels I only expect to see under the box taking the wire off the lever tail.  Is this just 'using what was available'?

Paul.

[Michael Hodgson]

It's worth noting that like the point locks and detectors, all these compensators, cranks etc are secured to metal plates across multiple sleepers, concrete blocks, metal plates/ties as it is important that they remain in place.  You don't want them wandering realtive to the track under the forces required to operated them or with the passage of trains etc.

Edited May 3, 2022 by Michael Hodgson

[Phil Bullock]

3 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

No.1

How a connection is 'dropped from the underside of channel rodding (sorry the drive crank to the switch is obscured by the detector box

 

No.2

 

How compensators are arranged in a rodding run - note the cranks with a 'cap' on the bearing are (G)WR pattern -

 

 

 

No.3

Stepped leading -off cranks  (used from ground frame cross rods in this case)

 

 

No.4

Pin joint in end of channel rod connecting it to an adjustable crank to drive a point switch (among other things!)

 

 

 

Hope they help a bit

Excellent photos many thanks Mike

[The Stationmaster]

3 hours ago, 5BarVT said:

Nice photos Mike.

1. Regarding GW and BR cranks etc, the BR have grease nipples in the top: am I right in thinking that GWR with the cap were oiled rather than greased?  (It's a long time back to Exeter St. D Techs in 1981!)

2. I would have expected a flat wheel to run the wire round before coming back through the detector - vertical wheels I only expect to see under the box taking the wire off the lever tail.  Is this just 'using what was available'?

Paul.

I suspect that Trevor used a leading-off vertical wheel because he had one spare however the GW definitely occasionally used vertical wheels outside if old photos are any guide.

 

GW cranks with the cap were oiled as far as I know - hence the reason for the cap - which had what amounted to a strip of spring steel in an inverted U shape in order to help keep it in position.

 

2 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

It's worth noting that like the point locks and detectors, all these compensators, cranks etc are secured to metal plates across multiple sleepers, concrete blocks, metal plates/ties as it is important that they remain in place.  You don't want them wandering realtive to the track under the forces required to operated them or with the passage of trains etc.

Reading designed various reinforced concrete items - manufactured at Taunton for S&T use.  There were at least two sizes of beds which were used to mount steel plate for cranks and pulleys etc a set of pieces which when assembled provided a base for teh largest size of location cupboards; concrete posts which smaller location cupboards and  other items were attached to keep them well clear of the ground, a concrete stool for the low profile cross rod rollers (and what appears to have been ar one time something similar to mount rollers in some parts of rodding runs, plus the familiar I pattern stools in various sizes for rodding run roller assemblies which were slightly different in certain dimensions from the very similar looking 'standard' version.

 

There were - and I think might still be - two domestic gardens in the Reading area where rockeries and soil banks have been  built up against a sort of wall made of the concrete beds placed on top of each other.  Quite what the householder might think if someone turned up at the front of his garden with a tape measure I sometimes wonder.  But signs of any domestic use of point rodding were very unusual indeed.  I know that when Reading S&T HQ stores had their big sell-off when they closed their Woodley base after leaving Caversham Road there were no decent bits of channel rodding left after I'd purchased usable piece they had - well over a ton of the stuff, plus a good pile of pin joints, rodding fishplates and so on - for a preservation site

[Chrisbr]

10 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

If you look way back - pre 1914 - in photos you ca occasionally see instances of it but invariably (from what I have seen) not for the running line end of a crossover - it provides the drive.   But it would be the very devil to adjust and to keep in adjustment - as noted above.

This photo from Warwickshire railways site of Stretton on Fosse seems to show that arrangement, but only to drive the catch point in the siding...

https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrsf542.htm

 

[Michael Hodgson]

9 minutes ago, Chrisbr said:

This photo from Warwickshire railways site of Stretton on Fosse seems to show that arrangement, but only to drive the catch point in the siding...

https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrsf542.htm

 

According to the caption below that photo one lever works the point, the other the catch point, which isn't the arrangement under discussion.  If that caption is correct.

 

However, I think the first lever does indeed work both points as you suggest and the second lever is a facing point lock.  A compensator is visible half way along the rodding correct the two points.  The cap of a second crank is just visible under the planks at the lever frame and the rod from that only goes as far as the metal cover in the foreground. 

 

As the far point is only a trap from a siding, the diffficutly of adjustment mentioned in earlier posts won't be a big deal as traps don't have to be set as precisely as a conventional crossover - in the normal position the blade only has to be open far enough to ensure derailment of a rogue movement.

 

What I can't see is any lock or signal detection to prevent the points being left reversed, diverting a train from the running line towards the siding. I assume there's something we can't see on this side of the frame.

 

 

 

[TheSignalEngineer]

11 hours ago, Chrisbr said:

This photo from Warwickshire railways site of Stretton on Fosse seems to show that arrangement, but only to drive the catch point in the siding...

https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrsf542.htm

 

Had another look, post deleted as I think it was a trick of the camera angle.

Edited May 4, 2022 by TheSignalEngineer

[5BarVT]

10 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

As the far point is only a trap from a siding, the diffficutly of adjustment mentioned in earlier posts won't be a big deal as traps don't have to be set as precisely as a conventional crossover - in the normal position the blade only has to be open far enough to ensure derailment of a rogue movement.

Agreed.  Although I didn’t say anything earlier, this is the arrangement that I think is easiest to manage with a ‘through’ drive.

 

10 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

What I can't see is any lock or signal detection to prevent the points being left reversed, diverting a train from the running line towards the siding. I assume there's something we can't see on this side of the frame.

Haven’t got access to my SRS CDs at present (and the box/G F may not be in there) so this is just musing.

If it is a mid-section GF there wouldn’t be a signal so it may be interlocked in the same way even if there is a box in the vicinity.  I think I can see a Key or Token Release to the left of the levers and GF locked normal would be deemed sufficient.

Certainly, for the facing end, the distance from lever to point is so short that there won’t be any untoward heat related movement.

Paul.

[TheSignalEngineer]

10 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

 

What I can't see is any lock or signal detection to prevent the points being left reversed, diverting a train from the running line towards the siding. I assume there's something we can't see on this side of the frame.

There doesn't appear to be a signal to the siding as it is only a ground frame connection. Reversing the points would need the token to be put into a lock on the frame and couldn't be removed unless the FPL lever was normal. The FPL  could not be locked with the points reverse. 

[The Stationmaster]

Having enlarged the photo considerably there is what looks like a normal Annett's Key/token  lock immediately in front of the left hand, FPL, lever.  So it is indeed a standard Western GF arrangement which would have no need for any sort of fixed signals.  Regrettably the FPL cover hides the centre of the two, round, stretcher bars  but it appears the drive for the siding trap comes off one of them and not off the front (FPL) stretcher ba.

 

I have wondered if the point might have had an economical FPL but the GWR wasn't very keen on them.  Those at Reading Main Line West only appear to have lasted a few years before separate FPL levers were provided.  But, rather amusingly, a design error during Reading MAS scheme in 1965 meant that a Prince's Lock economical PFPL had to be provided on a point worked by the new High Level Ground Frame because somebody had missed that a particular would be used in the facing direction by passenger trains.

[Phil Bullock]

On 03/05/2022 at 06:38, Phil Bullock said:

Many thanks @5BarVTand @TheSignalEngineer confirms my suspicions. Will put up a sketch shortly…

 

And thanks Mr SM...

 

Heres a rough sketch of rod runs on the new Abbotswood Junction

 

 

Hope that makes sense

 

The box isnt aligned correctly on this .... should I set it back so that the runs to the 3 cross overs have a straight run off the bed?

 

The rods for the up main junction point, its FPL and down main point can come straight off the bed - is that prototypical?

 

Biggest issue I see with this is that the rodding run is along the walking route from the up goods loop to the box - would this be OK?

Cheers

 

Phil

 

 

[TheSignalEngineer]

8 hours ago, Phil Bullock said:

The rods for the up main junction point, its FPL and down main point can come straight off the bed - is that prototypical?

You will need an adjusting crank in the rod to the points so they wouldn't come straight out from under the box to the points - normally. Having said that I once did one during some power box stage works where we put a crank coupled directly to the pedestal crank below the lever, ran a rod along the bed timber of the frame to an adjusting crank opposite the point stretcher. 

 

There isn't a problem in having to two ends of a crossover on either side of the box. I can think of at least three ways of running a rod both ways from the lead off. Best is probably using two joints from the crank, one with standard jaws then a second with wide jaws fitting over the first joint. I don't know if in the real world you can still get the wide jaw joints but they were certainly around in my days on mechanical signalling 

 

8 hours ago, Phil Bullock said:

Biggest issue I see with this is that the rodding run is along the walking route from the up goods loop to the box - would this be OK?

Not a problem if you have space. The walking route at Saltley Junction was between the sleeper ends and the rodding, with boarded ramps over the cross rods.

https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/lms/mrsalt618.htm

 

Try to avoid having cross rods beyond a trap point or stop block as at best you will spend a lot of time replacing the rods after a derailment, and more importantly distorting the rodding may lead to the points opening under a train on another track, especially nasty if you have a Midland Economical FPL.

[The Stationmaster]

Depending on where the Walking Route goes (if it actually is a Walking Route rather than just a cess path) then rodding would be boarded over if it presented a hazard.  An absolute pain for the Linesman trying to do any maintenance but a bit safer than dancing around on point rodding as you walked - normally on the Western the ridding run seems to be on the running rail side of the Walking route and the same with heavily used cess paths.

 

The real danger with rodding comes where shunting is taking place regularly and there it needs to be kept out of the way of the Shunters' working area/.  It's one thing trying to time exactly when to cut wagons off, quite another to at the same time be watching what you're tripping over as you do it.

 

[TheSignalEngineer]

Another good tip is not to put a signal box behind a stop block. Two instances spring to mind, firstly when my Dad was in the Fire Brigade he got called to Monument Lane shed one morning to find top top of Sheepcote Lane box perched on a loco tender.

About 12 years later c1970 I was travelling to Worcester on the first train out of Birmingham and we were talked by Kidderminster Station's Home signal into the platform. When we got there a coal wagon was buried in the end wall of the box nearest to the Goods shed.

[Michael Hodgson]

13 minutes ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

Another good tip is not to put a signal box behind a stop block. Two instances spring to mind, firstly when my Dad was in the Fire Brigade he got called to Monument Lane shed one morning to find top top of Sheepcote Lane box perched on a loco tender.

About 12 years later c1970 I was travelling to Worcester on the first train out of Birmingham and we were talked by Kidderminster Station's Home signal into the platform. When we got there a coal wagon was buried in the end wall of the box nearest to the Goods shed.

Such problems have happened quite a few times.  Coton Hill 1965 comes to mind.  Box was at the end of the goods road and a driver lost control on the incline, demolishing box and killing the signalman.

[5BarVT]

And since, the brick built location at the Up end of Ruscombe Goods loop succumbed in a similar way in the early 70s.

Paul.