RailWest

Just make sure then that all the signal arms point to the left :-)

1. Lever 22 would only have become brown in BR(WR) days. In the GWR period it would have been blue. 2. The original layout at Coombe Junction was even more complex with an extra crossover and signals, When these were abolished at any early date that left quite a number of spaces in the frame, hence the gap to which you refer. You might think of renumbering the layout to eliminate those spares perhaps? 3. The trap-point on the line to the warehouses will need its own lever. 4. Whether the trap-point adjacent to disc 20 will need its own lever, or be worked as a pair with 17, depends on which way you assume points 17 lie when 'normal'. Also, given the lack of any serious gradient, will you work 16 and 17 separately, and put both of them on one lever? Ah, the perils of trying to take a signalling installation designed for one location and mapping it onto something diffferent...:-)

When the line to Looe was opened in 1901 the Liskeard Branch-Coombe Jcn-Looe sections were worked by Electric Train Tablet (as mentioned in the BoT Inspection Report and later operating instructions). Whether it was changed to ETS before eventually becoming EKT is unknown, but I've not come across any mention of it.

Yes, you're right there :-) What confused me, when looking at the Wikepedia diagram, is that the two signals on the Moorswater line had no rings, which was certainly the case with the later frame but not the earlier layout (as photographs will show).

That diagram of course is for the BR period replacement frame. Maybe the earlier GWR-period installation might be more appropriate?

I would agree that, if you are using the Coombe Junction - Moorswater section as a basis for the 'top' part of the layout, then there should be a trap-point between 1 and 21 facing to train coming OUT from the goods area in order to protect the passenger line. IMHO you do need 21, in order to limit passengers moves coming into the platfrom from the RH end, as unlike Combe Jcn the platform is on a through line rather than a dead end.

This might prove of interest also.....

The attached photo apparently shows a MR 'improved' underbolt, tho' I've no idea either how it worked or what the 'improvement' was :-(

AIUI it was a mechanical bolt on the distant lever in the box on rear, preventing the chap in rear clearing his distant without prior release from the box in advance. I am guessing that the term underbolt arose because it was fixed to the lever tail below (under) the operating floor?

>>>>I'm guessing I'd need a "limit of shunt" board on the platform starter signal post too?... No :-) The signal is your limit of shunt. LoS boards are for wrong-direction movements in locations where otherwise there would be no signal.

Make a 'comestic' trap point. Model the switch blades as if they were in closed position. IMHO that's better than nothing.

The trap would be on the same lever as the entry point. The FPL would need a lever. It is arguable whether or not the FPL lever could act as the release, or that would require its own lever. Given that the GF would be worked by a guard or shunter 'on the spot' in a position where he could give hand signals, then I would questions whether any shunt signals would be necessary. Depends in part perhaps on the imagined date of installation.

Well, the minimum that you would need is a basic trap-point, but nothing more - no spur. Looking at the photo there appears to be a switch blade on the RH side, so as there would needed to have been one on the LH side at least then it would appear to have been a 2-blade trap.

A quick sketch would help a lot to have a better understanding :-) Why do you think it would be on a GF rather than worked from the SB?

Trap, not catch, as it was facing for exit traffic :-) The signal-diagram merely shows it as a simple trap-point, tho' such things are not always truely representative of what was actually 'on the ground'. However the attached image - a rather crudely-enlarged snip from what IIRC was a photo from the SWC's Eyres collection - does suggest to me nothing more than a plain trap. You may wish to form your own opinion :-)