RailWest

IMHO no need for the LoPTW sign either - that's something of a 'modern' thing and in any case the fact that 15 has a ring indicates that the line is goods-only.

3 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

 

The April 1939 Appendix to the No. 6 Section Service Time Table sjhows both Liskeard - Coombe Jcn and Coombe Jcn - Liskeard as worked by Electric Token

I think you meant Looe :-)

I would have expected everything in the warehouse area to be simply hand points, rather like (say) Wendfordbridge. After all, it's really only a goods yard at the end of a long(ish) siding  - just like Moorswater.

If you assume that the LH end of the Halt platform is the limit of passenger working, then there would be no need for a trap-point at the exit from the Coal Siding (you've not shown one anyway). Point 5 would not need a FPL, being on a goods-only line.

If you have the normal position of point 5 being set for the siding, then that could act as the trap to protect the Halt from goods traffic coming from the wharehouses, so you could omit trap 2 and move signal 1 to replace disc 4, leaving just disc 3 to read into the siding.

Signals 7 + 8 need to be on the Halt side of the level-crossing in order to protect that.

12 minutes ago, Halton Boy said:

>>>> The idea is to place the signals correctly and produce a signal box diagram that is correct....

 

 

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

10 minutes ago, Halton Boy said:

Hello everyone

I have re drawn the plan:

On the layout the crossing gates are made of brass, but I think they are left open for the railway. Lever 22 should be brown.

I have put in the lever frame.

It looks like the numbering is wrong.

There is a big gap between 4 and 14.

 

Do I need to add a lever for each trap point?

I like the idea of gluing bent rail to the sleepers to model a trap point.

 

I think I am getting confused as I used Coombe Junction to work out where to put the signals.

As far as I know this not Coombe Junction. The layout does not have a name.

It looks a bit like it.

I should number everything as per the plan and forget about Coombe Junction.

Thank you for help. 

Ken

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...:-)

26 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

.....

Looe & Liskeard lines both worked by electric train staff, later change to Electric Key Token until 1964....

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.

1 hour ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

I don't think it is. ....

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 :-(

3 hours ago, 5BarVT said:

I have also seen the term “underbolting” applied to distants (seems to be an LMS/LMR terminology, hence why I don’t know precisely what it means).  Is that related to using another boxes distant cos yours isn’t far enough out?

Paul.

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?

1 hour ago, Combe Martin said:

......The last photo showing the Creamery loop/loading bank siding, well it looks like there's maybe a point at the far  end leading to a 'catch siding, if I can call it that, or is there just a catch point leading to some sort of buffing 'lump'.....

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 :-)

IMHO this one looks like just a pair of rails sunk into the wall, as opposed to the usual alternative of a sleeper or similar.

As regards the Up SIding, do not forget that this appears to have been lengthened at the south end when the signal-box by the junction was abolished, so it could have been either the original one relocated or a new one provided at the time.

† - well, you learn something every day here - thanks!

RCH code P was in fact Passengers and Parcels. P* was Passengers but no parcels. P with a 'dagger' suffix (sorry, don't have that symbol!) was Parcels, but no passengers.

AIUI you are now looking at Blaenavon (Low Level) GWR again then?

The locking table tells us that the backing signal 22 required points 9 reverse. Similarly No 23 also required 9 reverse.

I don't know what the gradient is there, but if it's downhill going to the left then I would suggest that the 'balanced points' were to protect the single-line from any runaways for the 'mineral line' platform road, as there would be no wrong-road signalled movement - unless, of course, a train coming in on the mineral line platform  from the RH end over-ran and SPADed signal 22.

I doubt that they would have provided a double-slip unless the traffic really demanded it  - complicated to install and maintain and it would need a FPL for LH-bound trains. Maybe a single-slip at best, to allow LEs to run back between the shed and the passenger platform, but the other part of a double-slip - go between the lower line and the upper line - would have no use at all.

AIUI 'balanced points' is simply another term for points which are not worked from a signal-box or ground, but essentially are sprung-loaded or otherwise biased to normally lie in one direction, but could be pushed over when trailed. In the location indicated, almost certainly a set of spring-loaded trailing catch points that can be trailed shut by a train running from L to R, but otherwise lie 'open' to prevent wrong-direction movements from the upper platfrom line back onto the LH single line.

I wonder if the OP has been influenced by the GWR Blaenavon, where the upper platform line appears to have been goods-only and passenger traffic used the lower platform only?