Point rodding and signal wires

[Phil Bullock]

Have been experimenting with MSE 4mm scale components this evening. Here’s a trial run on the workbench…

 

 

Wills rodding alongside for comparison. Is necessary to remove some metal from the slots in the stools to accommodate 0.4mm ns rodding… the suggested Junior hacksaw blade does the job. Rods are retained in the stools by 0.31mm ns wire in a carefully drilled 0.4mm hole across the stools. Just got to work out the correct height for the plinths and then it will be soldering up cranks … 

 

Am just thankful it isnt a more complex run! 

[bécasse]

Don't forget, especially if the layout may be exhibited in the future or if it lives in, say, a loft, that you will have to allow for thermal expansion (and contraction) on the modelled rodding.

[Phil Bullock]

1 hour ago, bécasse said:

Don't forget, especially if the layout may be exhibited in the future or if it lives in, say, a loft, that you will have to allow for thermal expansion (and contraction) on the modelled rodding.

Yes indeed Will be going to shows and set up in a sunny English garden from time to time but I am not fitting working compensation cranks …. Dummys are bad enough! The rods are not fixed in the stools and I could cop out at the signal box by just fitting a wooden cover over the bed without fixing that end of the rodding down…. 
 

Looking at fitting the dummy compensation cranks where the rodding runs cross a board join to make things robust….

[Phil Bullock]

Went to SVR today and took a keen interest in point rodding …. Most likely drove @Pierre Le Brun potty!

 

Heres the bed from Wrangaton box currently being erected as part of museum at Kidderminster. Position of point rods confirms my suspicion that point levers were generally towards the centre of the frame with signal levers at either end.

 

 

Here are some nice compensation cranks under adjacent rodding runs…

 

And how many rods between sleepers ? 3 looks a good bet….

 

 

Some general observations…. A stool every 4th sleeper …. but given closer spacing on Peco track will stretch that to 5. And level of rodding varied from level with rails to significantly higher. 
 

An interesting day! 

[The Stationmaster]

58 minutes ago, Phil Bullock said:

Went to SVR today and took a keen interest in point rodding …. Most likely drove @Pierre Le Brun potty!

 

Heres the bed from Wrangaton box currently being erected as part of museum at Kidderminster. Position of point rods confirms my suspicion that point levers were generally towards the centre of the frame with signal levers at either end.

 

 

 

Here are some nice compensation cranks under adjacent rodding runs…

 

 

And how many rods between sleepers ? 3 looks a good bet….

 

 

 

Some general observations…. A stool every 4th sleeper …. but given closer spacing on Peco track will stretch that to 5. And level of rodding varied from level with rails to significantly higher. 
 

An interesting day! 

Phil officially at one time the top of the rodding stools was supposed to be level with the top of the sleepers and some of those don't look to be very much different - just a bit low.  The roller assemblies of course would obviously then be above the level of the sleeper tops.

 

It shows up quite well in this view and the arrangement of the pin joints off the channel rodding onto the cranks - which are set on a base bolted onto the top of extended sleepers - helps to explain why that sort of levelling is needed.  Heritage railway so definitely  a case of using what they could get hold of so some of the stools are clearly old bit of sleeper while there is one concrete one  away on the left.

 

 

[Michael Hodgson]

1 hour ago, Phil Bullock said:

 Position of point rods confirms my suspicion that point levers were generally towards the centre of the frame with signal levers at either end.

Usually yes, that's fairly typical.  The running signals are usually at the outer ends (the distants being the end levers), so ues, pointwork is usually near the centre, often interspersed with the shunt signals associated with the points.

An exception to that is that any levers working level crossing equipment tends to be at the end of the box where the signalman can see any activity there.  Gate wickets are worked by rodding too, as are wheel-operated gates.

 

However the preferred layout of a lever frame could depend on the company and era, also ideas as to optimum frame layout could come into fashion and go out again.  Sometimes you might find a frame with the running signals in the centre and the more rarely used points at the ends.

[The Stationmaster]

All sorts of things went on with the layout of lever frames over the years.  Many years ago I used to regularly work  (in my spare time!) one of the 'boxes on my then patch;  an excellent form of relaxation in my view.  Quadruple track with a junction plus yard connections.  The frame had 107 levers and the Down direction running signals were at one end - exactly where you'd normally expect them in a frame - but all the Up direction Running signals were almost in the middle of the frame.  The relevant block instruments were between those two groups of numbers and opposite the desk where the TRB was kept.  The lowest numbered point lever was 18 and many of the point levers were in the 20s, 30s, and 40s while several were in the 90s. The highest numbered point lever was 106 - almost at one end of the frame.

 

That frame post dated the WR's development and use of work study techniques for lever frame planning but had also taken into account what the Signalmen had asked for when the frame numbering was being planned - which particularly affected the position of the Up direction running signal levers.

 

But generally point levers tended to be congregated towards the middle of a frame or organised in various groups which made it simpler to lay out the locking.  And locking, especially the number of bars available in the locking trays, was an important factor is designing a frame.  In Reading designed frames the 5 bar vertical tappet version gave much greater freedom in positioning levers than the previous 3 bar design.  This was because the latter had effectively limited the number of opportunities for long bars depending on the amount of locking needed in the central part of the frame where point levers might be concentrated with signals either side of them.

[Tim V]

Here is the lead off from the box at Williton in 1991. Round rodding. I believe this has all been removed as the points are power worked now.

[RailWest]

Not quite correct - points 14 (into the goods yard) are still mechanical.

 

IIRC points 14 are the channel rodding. AIUI this exists 'cos in BR days the sidings were taken OOU and then BR removed the rodding, only to decide later that they needed the sidings for Eng Dept usage, so had to re-install rodding hence the use of channel.

 

Edited May 22, 2022 by RailWest

[Tim V]

3 hours ago, RailWest said:

Not quite correct - points 14 (into the goods yard) are still mechanical.

 

IIRC points 14 are the channel rodding. AIUI this exists 'cos in BR the sidings were taken OOU and then BR removed the rodding, only to decide later that they needed the sidings for Eng Dept usage, so had to re-install rodding hence the use of channel.

 

Still, a great loss that all that round rodding was removed. Last time I looked, Blue Anchor had some round rodding to the the down loop facing point. And Arley (SVR) had some.

But it has more or less ceased. Sights like this at Tywyn in 1973 are gone. Pity I didn't have a better camera at the time.

By the time I did, the lie by had been removed and square rodding took the place.

 

[Phil Bullock]

Having had some good advice on this thread rodding is progressing nicely …. Box is on board 7, foundations and lead off in place 

 

 

Rodding continues on to board 8…

 

[5BarVT]

Worcester here we come!  Signal wires next . . . 
 

I’ll leave quietly.

Paul.

[Phil Bullock]

7 hours ago, 5BarVT said:

Worcester here we come!  Signal wires next . . . 
 

I’ll leave quietly.

Paul.

Well at least I am thinking about modelling them! It’s another thing that’s just so much part of the scene for me…

[ikcdab]

Here is something I have not seen mentioned anywhere else. These are vertical point cranks, designed to raise the rodding up. I took this picture at Tiverton Junction in July 1983.

Ian

[Phil Bullock]

38 minutes ago, ikcdab said:

Here is something I have not seen mentioned anywhere else. These are vertical point cranks, designed to raise the rodding up. I took this picture at Tiverton Junction in July 1983.

Ian

Very nice! And unusual I think, don’t recall seeing them before

[5BarVT]

And all the more interesting as it’s round rodding not channel.

 

I think the bits are standards parts, just used in an unusual configuration.  The vertical stands would normally be (un)seen under the box with wheels or right angle cranks to transfer the motion from the levers (wheels for signal wires, cranks for rodding) and the in-line ‘crank’ I think might just be an old fashioned compensator (from the days before in-line comps).

 

Paul.

[Michael Hodgson]

Yes, that sounds likely.  If this were a common requirement, there would need to be several versions available to suit different step heights.  In practice, if you need a bigger height, you could use a pair of ordinary vertical cranks, one at the top the other at the bottom.

 

Where the rods pass under rails like this, their exact height will vary according to the position of the lever/angle of the crank.  Is there a risk that in some circumstances the rods might rise so that they are in contact with both rails, thus causing a track circuit to fail?

[Phil Bullock]

33 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Yes, that sounds likely.  If this were a common requirement, there would need to be several versions available to suit different step heights.  In practice, if you need a bigger height, you could use a pair of ordinary vertical cranks, one at the top the other at the bottom.

 

Where the rods pass under rails like this, their exact height will vary according to the position of the lever/angle of the crank.  Is there a risk that in some circumstances the rods might rise so that they are in contact with both rails, thus causing a track circuit to fail?

Or with metal rodding a short circuit on the model… have fitted ptfe tubing sleeves on mine to prevent that.

[The Stationmaster]

56 minutes ago, 5BarVT said:

And all the more interesting as it’s round rodding not channel.

 

I think the bits are standards parts, just used in an unusual configuration.  The vertical stands would normally be (un)seen under the box with wheels or right angle cranks to transfer the motion from the levers (wheels for signal wires, cranks for rodding) and the in-line ‘crank’ I think might just be an old fashioned compensator (from the days before in-line comps).

 

Paul.

The use of such cranks outdoors is unusual but I have occasionally seen them.  Being Western, and being the rodding from the leading off bed passing under track it would inevitably be round rodding as the Western didn't use channel rodding under track. There might be odd examples very much from the final years but Reading never produced - as far as I have been able to trace- from photos and what I saw - a low profile roller assembly for channel rodding while low profile rollers for round rodding were a stock item.

 

It was also easier to use round rodding as it required no separate pin joints although it normally need someone with blacksmithing skills, and a portable forge etc, on site - these were a standard part of the installation gangs on the WR for many years  although latterly a gas torch was used to heat up rodding instead of the portable kit.

 

This installation was probably quite old by the date of the photo as I see ths cwr is laid usi g 'Scully clips' (as they were known on the WR) and I think the Western changed over to Pandrol clips for new cwr sometime in the 1970s.

[Phil Bullock]

3 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

 

 

This installation was probably quite old by the date of the photo as I see ths cwr is laid usi g 'Scully clips' (as they were known on the WR) and I think the Western changed over to Pandrol clips for new cwr sometime in the 1970s.

And nice to see rodding going under CWR on concos as per my installation….

Edited February 23, 2023 by Phil Bullock

[Compound2632]

I'm working myself up to installing point rodding on a club layout - it's Peco 00 code 75 track and Wills rodding, so nothing hyper-realistic! But I'd like to check my understanding. The layout is a single track passenger line with a goods loop off it, so a crossover at each end with FPLs for the points in the running line. The signal box is at one end of the loop, on the loop side of the running line, but the rodding will run along the opposite side of the line. The layout is supposedly set in the mid 1950s in WR territory. 

 

If I have understood correctly, each crossover would be worked by a single rodding run, with a crank coming off it to work the first point reached. There would be a compensator mid-way between the box and this first point, and a second compensator mid-way between the crank for the first point and that for the second point. There would be a second rod for the FPL.

 

Any corrections very welcome!

[Izzy]

14 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

. There would be a second rod for the FPL.

Did the GWR/WR use economical FPL’s at all? The LNER and others did, MR etc. and it saves a rodding run which can be useful.

 

Bob

[Michael Hodgson]

Economical FPLs were widespread on the MR, others much less so.

If it is an Economical Facing Point Lock, only one rod from the box, otherwise a second rod is needed

 

Maximum lenth of rodding run from the box 350 yards, although at some earlier dates the limit was lower.

Edited April 5, 2023 by Michael Hodgson

[Compound2632]

18 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Economical FPLs were widespread on the MR, others much less so.

 

As stated, (G)WR practice here.

 

19 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Maximum lenth of rodding run from the box 350 yards, although at some earlier dates the limit was lower.

 

No danger there. The further end of the loop is about 8 ft from the box, say 200 yd.

[Nick C]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

I'm working myself up to installing point rodding on a club layout - it's Peco 00 code 75 track and Wills rodding, so nothing hyper-realistic! But I'd like to check my understanding. The layout is a single track passenger line with a goods loop off it, so a crossover at each end with FPLs for the points in the running line. The signal box is at one end of the loop, on the loop side of the running line, but the rodding will run along the opposite side of the line. The layout is supposedly set in the mid 1950s in WR territory. 

 

If I have understood correctly, each crossover would be worked by a single rodding run, with a crank coming off it to work the first point reached. There would be a compensator mid-way between the box and this first point, and a second compensator mid-way between the crank for the first point and that for the second point. There would be a second rod for the FPL.

 

Any corrections very welcome!

That's pretty much it - the compensators should be placed so that there is roughly equal amounts of 'push' and 'pull' over the whole length of run - so where you have cranks to change direction, check whether they also change push to pull. 

 

There would probably alos be locking bars on the FPLs, so, as I understand it, the FPL rods would go to the far end of the locking bar, and the near end would be linked to the FPL itself.