Gosty Hill, small mid 80`s layout.

[Tove]

Welcome to my first proper British based layout build in a long time.

Or to be more accurate,since i was about 16 years old!.

 

Why so long you may ask?,well for the past 28 years i`ve been modeling (sort of!) American railroads in HO and O/P48.

And i was quite happy doing this,untill early last year when i got the urge to buy some Britsh stock.

Now i did`nt have a plan of sort`s,and as result i began buying all sort`s of thing`s from a Minerva peckett to a Heljan class40 and a DJH teddy bear (95xx) Needless to say, that this lot along with a lot wagon kit`s was quickly moved on again,and i once again looked at the US stuff.That is untill the Heljan 25 appeared!.

 

And so here i am again,but with a plan this time!,and it`s called Gosty Hill!.

 

So to the layout.

 

It`s based around the Black country area of the west midlands,and set during 1987.

The reason for the specific date is so i can have the last of the 25`s and run loco`s in the Grey Railfreight scheme,plus it`s a time i have fond memories of.

As you can from the attached track plan it`s not the biggest of layouts,nor the most complicated.But it should provide enough enjoyment  to keep me going for a while.

 

 

The above layout size is 12'-6" x 9'-6",but because it`s built on a shallow curve around two walls it`s actulay 14'-6" long with the traverser.

so this gives me a senic area of 10'-6",but if i add a detachable two track sector plate to the canal end,then i can increase the layout size again to about 19' ft long!.This will then enable me to run trains from one end to the other.

Of course i`m not going to be running long trains with this limited size,but as i`m modeling the speedlink era, i can get away with a class 45 and single Bogie ferry wagon + a VVA van,or with just three HEA coal hoppers as in the picture link below;

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/71592768@N08/17147752030/in/album-72157636877739706/

 

I may even add a 2 car DMU or a Sprinter unit at a later date for a bit of variety.

 

Anyhow i already have the baseboard`s built and the backscene mounted;

 

 

This show`s the senic area of the layout,but there is still the wood work for the light`s and valance to be made.

 

 

This is looking from the end with the main 4 track traverser towards what will be the canal end, beyond the steel loading/un-loading area (front) and the factory siding. (back)

 

 

The veiw from the canal end.

 

 

Even though this is the longest train that i can run,(4'ft) it does`nt seem to over power the area considering it`s 7mm!.

 

I have also made a start on track laying also;

 

 

For the majority of the track i will be using C&L flexitrack,but the point`s are being made in situ.These are all B7`s, something that i felt would work and look right with modern stock and loco`s.And whilst the track gauge will remain at 32mm,the frog area of the point`s will be built to O-MF gauge. (31.5)

 

This also bring`s me to my first question;

 

I plan to use semaphore signals,hence the Signal box in the plan.

 

Ok the plan goes as,bi-directinal main with a loop and head shunt/siding off it.(back)This line is also a former running line. (ex-double track layout) And a siding off the main on the front.

 

I have very little knowlage on how this should be signaled, so would someone be so kind as to perhaps draw on the plan below where if any of the signals/ground signals would be sited..... Please...... and also if i need to add extended headstocks to the points for point levers as well.

 

And possibly where would any catch point`s be,because the only place i can see where one would be needed is on the front siding?.

 

 

Oh yes i almost forgot to explain the layout name...Gosty Hill...

 

Well, whilst searching around for suitable pictures of canals, i came across some of a tunnel that is as it turn`s out, is only about 20min`s from where i live.

It also has the added advantage of the Stourbridge - Birmingham line running over the canal as well,the place being Old Hill,and the canal is the Dudley #2 line.

 

http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/138283

 

Now i`m not really a canal buff,but i do find the semi derilict nature of the area very appealing.So i`ll have to see if i can try and incorporate the layby somehow!.

 

Well that`s it for now,so if you`ve made it this far through my rambling`s...well done!.

 

And if you`ve made sense of it all,can you PM me and tell me what i`ve just gone on about........  

 

Thanks for looking.....

 

Brian.

[Jintyman]

Hi Brian,

 

That looks a really nice operational little layout. Plenty of variety with it being Speedlink too.

If you can get 'running rights' off to the left hand side as well, it would increase your potential no end.

 

My those Cargowagons are big aren't they!!!!! 

 

O-MF does improve the transition across the crossing vee, and your trackwork will look great on that sweeping curve.

All the best, following now and I'll look forward to updates

 

Jinty

[two tone green]

Yes, I agree with Jinty. Looking forward to updates. Very interesting.

[81A Oldoak]

Like the look of this. Tell us more about your sky.

[Tove]

Thanks guy`s,

 

Hopfully i can keep this 'rolling' along at a steady pace!.

 

 

Hi Brian,

 

That looks a really nice operational little layout. Plenty of variety with it being Speedlink too.

If you can get 'running rights' off to the left hand side as well, it would increase your potential no end.

 

My those Cargowagons are big aren't they!!!!! 

 

O-MF does improve the transition across the crossing vee, and your trackwork will look great on that sweeping curve.

All the best, following now and I'll look forward to updates

 

Jinty

Hi Jinty,

 

The 'running rights' are no problem,as the second sector/fiddle yard has been factored into the layout plans.I just need to build it now so that`s it`s detachable.

 

As for the Cargowagon,i just had to have one..well it is only 19 -1/2 inches long...though i am looking at a couple of the Buzz models ferry wagons as well as there slightly shorter!.

 

After seeing the excellent track work being built (including your`s) on here,going down the O-MF route for the point`s seemed a no brainer really.And with the larger point`s they should(?) look quite good.

Like the look of this. Tell us more about your sky.

 

Hi Chris,

 

The sky comes from ID back scenes and is sold through various shops.

This is the largest size they make;ie, 10ft long (in two sheet`s) by 15 inches high.This is the overcast sky set of which there are two made,an a + b which gives a run of 20ft long.

They do do summer sky`s as well,along with various other scene`s.

 

On the whole i`m quite pleased with the way it`s turn out,as the one i`d done on a previous layout  turned into a bit of nightmare, because i`d stuck it up with the wrong spray adhesive.And on trying to put it back up,i marked it quite badly in places.

 

One thing that the photo`s don`t show is that there is a little bit of a mark on two of the seam`s where they`ve been joined together.This was through a little of glue transfering off my fingers.Unfortunatley i can`t get the mark`s out because of the mat finish,but they should`nt be too noticable once the valance goes up.

 

Anyhow this is the company that makes the back scenes;

 

http://www.art-printers.com/index.html

 

Thanks,

 

Brian.

[Astir648]

Nice layout plan - I'm looking forward to following progress on this.

 

David

[Flying Pig]

Looking good and as you say your trains fit the scene well.

 

And possibly where would any catch point`s be,because the only place i can see where one would be needed is on the front siding?.

 

There would have been a trap on the back siding when the loop was a running line, but whether it would remain after singling I don't know. You might want to post your plan on the Signalling and PW section to get the experts' attention.

 

If you'll forgive me, the connection to the front siding looks a bit odd to me for a traditional layout, as when the line was double track it would have been facing (sidings were usually trailing). But perhaps it used to run through a diamond to a trailing point on what's now the loop, and was simplified when the line was singled; or perhaps it was itself a loop that once crossed the canal, but has now been cut short. Hope you don't mind me meddling in your backstory, but it's worth getting straight since it more or less dictates the abandoned and derelict infrastructure so characteristic of the period.

[MarshLane]

Hi Brian,

All sounds good and I'm looking forward to following your progress!  With regards signalling, I'm no expert by any means - JonF is your key to this one!  But attached are my thoughts, which may be OTT!  Love BR blue era 7mm layouts, so nice to see another one on here!

 

I've made a couple of assumptions in this, firstly you said that your idea was this is a former double track route that has been singled (if i've understood correctly), so I'm assuming that some resignalling has taken place to take account of different routes and movements over the lines from what would have originally been planned.  I've also assumed that your not working on a 'one engine in steam principal' as if you were, the reality is that most if not all signalling would probably have been removed! Another assumption is that you wouldn't need to shunt back into the occupied main (top right), as i've not included a shunt signal for that move.

 

I've also included a signal on the Loop at the right hand side, but I think that may be your fiddle yard area?  If thats the case, then you can probably avoid the home and shunt on the Main as well, as they would be the other side of the bridge (i.e. off scene).  If you wanted to include them, you could between the bridge and the point (although realistically it would be very close) but could provide the opportunity for implementing co-acting arms - i.e. two arms one low down and one high up above the road bridge so the driver could see it on approach - but the reality is that unless there was something preventing it, the signal would likely have been the other side of the bridge!

 

So, working from the bottom left.  I think there would be a bracket in there the main arm controlling the direct (ahead) route, with a 'shunt' arm controlling entry to the loop.  The bracket could be on the other side of the bridge, but i've positioned it there for clarity on your plan.  I've said shunt, as that way wagons could be left in the loop. Again, I think with a main 'home' arm, the loop would need to be empty to gain access.  I've given you a shunt on the first siding (marked as Road 2), as the turnout (point) beyond would need to be controlled from the box as it would be interlocked with the aforementioned shunt arm.  I've not put a shunt on Road 1, as Im assuming this would be a hand point controlled by the shunter? 

 

Again with Road 3 accessing the main, i've put a shunt arm, as any movements would need the mainline turnout set by the box - this siding should also have a catch point to prevent run-aways accessing the main.  As Flying Pig has already mentioned, the same trap situation applies to Road 1 if its a carry over from the earlier time, but I'm assuming it either been removed (perhaps an wagon derailed and being no-longer necessary P-way simply plain lined it!) or the siding was added after.  If it is included, then your probably looking more at a ground frame for working the trap and adjacent point, in which case I'm fairly confident they would in reality have been worked from the box, which will then require a ground signal ... i think!

 

Heading in the other direction, trains on the main, going right to left, get the main arm signal for departures/shunts, while the ground would give access to Road 3.  On the Loop, the same proviso applies, with the main arm giving access to the Main, and the ground signal providing access to Road 2.

 

One other thought, is that the inclusion of ground signals, especially on Road 3, might shorten the operational length of the siding a little. Now, as I say, I'm no expert and there are far more knowledgable people on here who will no doubt chip in, but I think thats all reasonable.  Of course, from a signalling point of view, clearing the either of the main arms on the loop/main (going right to left) would in essence give the driver permission to continue to the next signal, so there might be an advance starter, but given the distances, I suspect that would be off scene for you.  I hope that makes sense and is of some use to you!

 

Any queries, shout!

 

From a layout operating perspective, assuming the top right is a two-road fiddle yard, have you thought how your going to run-round trains that need to access any of the sidings if they arrive from the same direction as the '47' in your picture?

 

Rich

[North Eastern]

Hi Brian,

If you are looking for quality semaphore signals, check out Jon Fitness website - http://www.boltonsbits.com

His signals are superb especially when they are controlled with a Mega Points servo, they give a fantastic bounce to the signal arm.

 

Regards

 

Chris

[Tove]

Looking good and as you say your trains fit the scene well.

 

There would have been a trap on the back siding when the loop was a running line, but whether it would remain after singling I don't know. You might want to post your plan on the Signalling and PW section to get the experts' attention.

 

If you'll forgive me, the connection to the front siding looks a bit odd to me for a traditional layout, as when the line was double track it would have been facing (sidings were usually trailing). But perhaps it used to run through a diamond to a trailing point on what's now the loop, and was simplified when the line was singled; or perhaps it was itself a loop that once crossed the canal, but has now been cut short. Hope you don't mind me meddling in your backstory, but it's worth getting straight since it more or less dictates the abandoned and derelict infrastructure so characteristic of the period.

Thanks very much for you idea`s 'flying pig'.

 

I had`nt really give the orientation of the front siding much thought to be honest,other than being able to shunt it from the traverser end.Plus i don`t  have enough room after the canal bridge to fit another point in.

So with that in mind, your theory of a diamond and trailing point being taken out would work in this instance.They could also have been replaced with a facing crossover (beyond the bridge) to now access the siding from the loop.It would also mean that train only occupies the loop,leaving the main open for passing trains?.

 

Taking you idea for the front siding a bit futher than your suggested loop,it could of been a tunicated running line/junction that has been cut back and re purposed as a siding.

This would either allow me to put in a dissused bridge or just build the pier`s of one.There certainly is enough room to do this,and though the plan is`nt based on the real Old Hill station,it does slightly echo it,as it was a junction for two more lines;

 

http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/o/old_hill/index.shtml

 

You`ve certainly given me something to think about.....

 

Cheers,

Brian.

 

PS, please keep on 'meddling' FP the more input the better!.

[Tove]

Hi Brian,

All sounds good and I'm looking forward to following your progress!  With regards signalling, I'm no expert by any means - JonF is your key to this one!  But attached are my thoughts, which may be OTT!  Love BR blue era 7mm layouts, so nice to see another one on here!

 

Rich

 

Hi Rich,

 

Most excellent! and thanks for taking the time to write all that out.

 

Your assumption`s are right,and my explanation was a bit ropey!.But that is exactly what i meant/and wanted to say.

 

Taking on board your advice and that of 'Flying pig' i have made a few alteration`s to the plan to reflect what has been said.

 

 

As you can see i`ve added the catch point`s and moved the signal arm to the other side of the canal bridge.I also decided to add the catch point too siding #3, because i`m going with the thought that it was already in place before the line was singled,and that the PW dept. could`nt be bothered to alter the layout!.

 

I shall also post this in the Signalling and PW section,(as per 'Flying pig`s' suggestion) to get some more thought`s as well.I will then re-post any reply here for all to see.

 

"From a layout operating perspective, assuming the top right is a two-road fiddle yard, have you thought how your going to run-round trains that need to access any of the sidings if they arrive from the same direction as the '47' in your picture?"

 

There will in fact be four roads on the traverser,and these will act as the cross over`s for runround moves to do with the loop and to access the front siding as well.

It should also provide enough space to allow some run through trains a s well,but for now that`s a way off!.

 

Thanks again Rich for your input.

 

Brian.

[North Eastern]

Hi Brian,

               Looking at the photo's of your baseboards, I presume they will be a permanent fixture, or will they be transportable?

Just wondering as if they are transportable, I have an exhibition invite for you if you'd like?

 

Regards

 

Chris

[Flying Pig]

 

Taking you idea for the front siding a bit futher than your suggested loop,it could of been a tunicated running line/junction that has been cut back and re purposed as a siding.

This would either allow me to put in a dissused bridge or just build the pier`s of one.There certainly is enough room to do this,and though the plan is`nt based on the real Old Hill station,it does slightly echo it,as it was a junction for two more lines;

 

This sounds good and you could try mocking up both bridge alternatives to see which you prefer. A disused bridge in place with empty trackbed has a lot of character IMO, but might crowd the scene.

 

I'm trying to think of a way you could retain the junction signal, with a miniature arm on the left hand doll for the steel siding, but being sensible this would probably have been off scene on the other side of the bridge, for sighting reasons, and would have had to be moved anyway when your offscene facing crossover (which looks right to me) was added. Pity, as repurposed signals with naked dolls were a other feature of the 70s/80s scene: at times it seemed to me that I'd just missed the end of the world, given the amount of dereliction around. Wrong: the end of the world was when they later tidied it all away and redeveloped the land. The feeling I get these days is "where did all the railway go?".

[Tove]

Hi Brian,

               Looking at the photo's of your baseboards, I presume they will be a permanent fixture, or will they be transportable?

Just wondering as if they are transportable, I have an exhibition invite for you if you'd like?

 

Regards

 

Chris

Hi Chris,

 

Wow, i`m  slightly taken a back as to your exhibition invite, (in a really good way!) especially as you`ve not seen any of my modeling yet!.

 

But i`m affraid that the layout is very much a permanent fixture.

 

Thanks,

 

Brian.

[Tove]

This sounds good and you could try mocking up both bridge alternatives to see which you prefer. A disused bridge in place with empty trackbed has a lot of character IMO, but might crowd the scene.

 

 

 

Hi Simon,

 

I did have a quick play around this afternoon with the bridge idea,and as you have pointed out it does "crowd the scene" a bit too much.So i think that the bridge abutment`s will be the way.I can always add a little greenery to the partialy lifted 2nd line on the main bridge though.

 

 

 

 at times it seemed to me that I'd just missed the end of the world, given the amount of dereliction around. Wrong: the end of the world was when they later tidied it all away and redeveloped the land. The feeling I get these days is "where did all the railway go?".

 

I have the same thought`s,in fact i find more interest in rust and rubble than i do with a perfect looking sterile building or a spotless engine!.

 

Brian.

[North Eastern]

Hi Chris,

 

Wow, i`m  slightly taken a back as to you exhibition invite, (in a really good way!) especially as you`ve not seen any of my modeling yet!.

 

But i`m affraid that the layout is very much a permanent fixture.

 

Thanks,

 

Brian.

Hi Brian,

               I've been Exhibition Manager for RAILEX NE for the past 16 years, with that experience you get a feel for layouts, even when they are virtually bare boards.

From what I've seen so far and the level of detail and planning you are doing I just know your modelling will be superb.

 

If you do decide to make it portable, drop me a line.

 

Regards

 

Chris

[shanks522]

Hi Brian

 

 I really like this, the gentle curvature looks excellent, look forward to it progressing. 

 

Graham.

[TheSignalEngineer]

My suggestion for Road 3 is that it was formerly a branch off to an industrial site, colliery or a depot like the Soho Pool branch at Soho Road. There could be the remains of a bridge abutment on each side of the canal, with a rusty semi-abandoned track used for occasional wagon stabling or as a bolt-hole during shunting operations.

 

Regarding signalling, if the line was freight only and the box remained then signalling would have been minimalist to fit in with what moves were required. If you want to use the idea of a re-purposed signal structure then you need to draw the original layout and signal it then see if anything can be re-used. In those days rationalisations like this were my day job, and we never put in more effort than we could get away with as far as track and signalling alterations were concerned even if it did sometimes produce a prototype inglenook siding.

[muddys-blues]

Hi Brian, this looks an interesting layout, great choice of period as well, with regards to passenger traffic, as it is West Midlands area you could also use a Class 122 bubble car in blue grey livery adorned with the WM PTE logo, that would look great trundling back and forth on a local shuttle service.

 

Best regards

Craig

[kes]

Hi - an excellent little layout with a good use of the available space. I have a feeling this is going to be a "good un".

 

Kevin.

[MarshLane]

Hi Rich,

 

Most excellent! and thanks for taking the time to write all that out.

 

Your assumption`s are right,and my explanation was a bit ropey!.But that is exactly what i meant/and wanted to say.

 

Taking on board your advice and that of 'Flying pig' i have made a few alteration`s to the plan to reflect what has been said.

 

post-16721-0-32806700-1475540583.jpg

 

As you can see i`ve added the catch point`s and moved the signal arm to the other side of the canal bridge.I also decided to add the catch point too siding #3, because i`m going with the thought that it was already in place before the line was singled,and that the PW dept. could`nt be bothered to alter the layout!.

 

I shall also post this in the Signalling and PW section,(as per 'Flying pig`s' suggestion) to get some more thought`s as well.I will then re-post any reply here for all to see.

 

"From a layout operating perspective, assuming the top right is a two-road fiddle yard, have you thought how your going to run-round trains that need to access any of the sidings if they arrive from the same direction as the '47' in your picture?"

 

There will in fact be four roads on the traverser,and these will act as the cross over`s for runround moves to do with the loop and to access the front siding as well.

It should also provide enough space to allow some run through trains a s well,but for now that`s a way off!.

 

Thanks again Rich for your input.

 

Brian.

 

 

Hi Brian,

All sounds logical!  With regards moving that bracket signal to the opposite side of the bridge, and 'Signal Engineer' will know far more about this than me, but originally it wouldn't have been a bracket of course, just a single arm 'peg', for the line that is now a siding.  So It could be that you could leave the original signal in place, and then have an extra signal positioned, alongside it at a lower height, with a piece of steel linking the two.  This kind of arrangement, creating a bracket out of two separate signals was done a few times in various places, to avoid a complete renewal - in this case of course, the financial aspects would never have supported new signalling, so would have been make do and adapt.  One instance where this was done was the installation of a new bracket at Barnetby East on the slow lines out of Immingham Docks - that was two separate 'pegs' with a joining bar.  Just something to think about.

 

Much of this depends on where and how you move forward.  In reality of course, having been downgraded, the likelihood is that the signalling would have been removed totally, the points converted to be worked off a ground frame, and the shunter would have become the signalman with the train engine doing the shunt.  So .... do you intend the same with just one engine moving on the layout at anyone time, or is the loop also going to act as a passing loop?

 

If its not a passing loop, but would retain signalling to allow a freight to be recessed while something passes in the main, then actually the function of that bracket changes, and it could be that the original single arm is retained, but instead of adding a shunt bracket (apologies if my terminology is wrong) a further ground level, shunt signal could just give access into the loop?  Obviously from a signalling point of view, that would have been a cheaper and easier solution.  My concern, depending on how much you want to go down the realism like, is that any resignalling of this ilk would have required major alterations to the box interlocking, which in reality would have likely made it too expensive, hence the abandoned everything and move to a ground frame view!

 

Only my thoughts - and its your layout, so you get to choose what would have happened!  There's likely a real life situation for every option somewhere!  Just depends on how realistic you want it to be, to work, and what YOU want to achieve operationally with the layout.

 

Rich

[Tove]

My suggestion for Road 3 is that it was formerly a branch off to an industrial site, colliery or a depot like the Soho Pool branch at Soho Road. There could be the remains of a bridge abutment on each side of the canal, with a rusty semi-abandoned track used for occasional wagon stabling or as a bolt-hole during shunting operations.

 

Regarding signalling, if the line was freight only and the box remained then signalling would have been minimalist to fit in with what moves were required. If you want to use the idea of a re-purposed signal structure then you need to draw the original layout and signal it then see if anything can be re-used. In those days rationalisations like this were my day job, and we never put in more effort than we could get away with as far as track and signalling alterations were concerned even if it did sometimes produce a prototype inglenook siding.

Thanks for insight and suggestion`s.

 

A rusty semi-abandoned siding does appeal,but as i`m limited with space i shall go with the re-used siding idea with some bridge abutment`s at the end of the siding.

 

I had also thought of a freight only branch,but the thought of running a DMU by whilst shunting is too good an opportunity to pass on,and if i pretend that there are sidings on the other side of the bridge out of sight,then the signal box remaining might be a bit more of credible reason for keeping it?.

 

Thanks,

 

Brian.

[Tove]

Hi Brian, this looks an interesting layout, great choice of period as well, with regards to passenger traffic, as it is West Midlands area you could also use a Class 122 bubble car in blue grey livery adorned with the WM PTE logo, that would look great trundling back and forth on a local shuttle service.

 

Best regards

Craig

I brought one of those,122 bubble car`s last year from Shawn at Telford......and then sold it again.......!  

 

Oh well,live and learn.

 

But yes, it would look good WMPTE logo Craig....but then, so would a Sprinter!.

 

Brian.

[Jintyman]

....but then, so would a Sprinter!.

 

Brian.

 

 

Peter Clark for one of those.

 

Jinty

[Tove]

Hi Brian,

All sounds logical!  With regards moving that bracket signal to the opposite side of the bridge, and 'Signal Engineer' will know far more about this than me, but originally it wouldn't have been a bracket of course, just a single arm 'peg', for the line that is now a siding.  So It could be that you could leave the original signal in place, and then have an extra signal positioned, alongside it at a lower height, with a piece of steel linking the two.  This kind of arrangement, creating a bracket out of two separate signals was done a few times in various places, to avoid a complete renewal - in this case of course, the financial aspects would never have supported new signalling, so would have been make do and adapt.  One instance where this was done was the installation of a new bracket at Barnetby East on the slow lines out of Immingham Docks - that was two separate 'pegs' with a joining bar.  Just something to think about.

 

Much of this depends on where and how you move forward.  In reality of course, having been downgraded, the likelihood is that the signalling would have been removed totally, the points converted to be worked off a ground frame, and the shunter would have become the signalman with the train engine doing the shunt.  So .... do you intend the same with just one engine moving on the layout at anyone time, or is the loop also going to act as a passing loop?

 

If its not a passing loop, but would retain signalling to allow a freight to be recessed while something passes in the main, then actually the function of that bracket changes, and it could be that the original single arm is retained, but instead of adding a shunt bracket (apologies if my terminology is wrong) a further ground level, shunt signal could just give access into the loop?  Obviously from a signalling point of view, that would have been a cheaper and easier solution.  My concern, depending on how much you want to go down the realism like, is that any resignalling of this ilk would have required major alterations to the box interlocking, which in reality would have likely made it too expensive, hence the abandoned everything and move to a ground frame view!

 

Only my thoughts - and its your layout, so you get to choose what would have happened!  There's likely a real life situation for every option somewhere!  Just depends on how realistic you want it to be, to work, and what YOU want to achieve operationally with the layout.

 

Rich

Hi Rich,

 

Your idea for two seperate signals instead of a bracket, is most excellent!,and something that i`m going too use on the layout.

 

Now i`m not very clued up on the mechanics of signaling, but as the crossover is already controlled from the box,would`nt the extra signal be a fairly simple affair to erect?

 

I`m also going to keep the signal box on the premiss of saftey ground`s,plus the loop is to be used for passing freight`s. (on ocassion).And also in part because of the shunt move across the main,plus there being siding `s out of view beyond the bridge.(traverser end)

Hope that makes sense?.

 

 Whilst it might not be 100% realistic or correct,it should add a bit more visual and operational interest to the layout.

 

Brian.