RailWest

I would very much doubt that the trunking contained signal wires, and certainly not the point or FPL rodding, more likely IMHO to be cabling for the track-circuits.

To be more accurate, there is only one configuration ring on a large ETS, which is separate from the other four. The main group of four serve merely to locate the staff in the instrument and operate the lock. The fifth ring controls the configuration by virtue of its location relative to the other four, so that is the one which is made 'loose' and rivetted in position on the staff as required. See here www.trainweb.org/railwest/gen/signal/sl-intro.html#config

To be clear, consider a line A - B - C, where A and C are both block and staff posts, but B is only a block post. If A has the staff then he can send a train to C with a ticket. Once that train has passed B a second train can be sent with a ticket, but it can't pass B until the first train has reached C. Hence the need for signals at B in order to keep the two trains apart (apart from anything else).

...but at Lavant the loop siding was not opposite the platform, unlike Lympstone (or Cranbrook of Lymington Town etc), so does not match my interest - sorry :-)

Indeed :-) Working 2 or even 3 FPLs from one lever was not uncommon. Working the FPLs at both ends of the same crossover from the same lever was probably not so common, but certainly not unknown - I'm surprised that ickdab has forgotten Leigh Bridge and Kentsford :-) You can see an example today (COVID restrictions permitting) at Woody Bay.

I would hazard a guess that it was in the 2000-210 period, tho' I often find that such things were much further back than I thought ! I do recall there being a 'Darenth ' layout once, but the one in which I'm interested was certainly a thru' station IIRC.

Oh yes, should have remembered Lymington Town. I suspect the layout there arose simply 'cos it was originally a terminus and the extension to the pier was probably too short to support a service frequency which would have necessitated a passing-loop at Town. I did think about Plymstock, but put that into the 'junction' category and not just a single single-line :-) As regards having an SB at Lympstone, I suspect that it was a hangover from the days of TS&T working when there was a SB at Woodbury Road (Exton) as well, simply because of the siding points. With the change to ETT working it was probably kept at Lympstone to break up an otherwise longer Topsham - Exmouth section. As an aside, it should be noted that - although in later years Exmouth had a Down Outer Home on both its branches - the one on the Topsham line (No 1) was not far out enough from the Up Advanced Starting (No 62) to allow the signalman to accept a train from Lympstone if shunting was in progress on the single-line which then fouled the Clearing Point between the Outer and Inner Homes. When L was abolished an additional (further out) Outer Home was added (No 10) so that trains could be accepted from Topsham while shunting was underway, otherwise there would have been an impact on the passenger service.

Short answer - no. If the train staff (or a ticket) is not at Daggons Road, then there is no authority to occupy the single line there. In later years of course the GF was locked by the short-section tablet/longe-section miniature staff.

If a station on a single-line is not a block-post, then any train shunting there must - by definition - be in possession of the relevant authority to access the block section in which that station lies. Therefore, as it can be the only train in the block section while shunting takes place, occupying the single-line for that purpose is not a problem.

Yes Horsmonden is a good example, but an even better one turns out to have been Cranbrook further along the line :-)

Quite simply, yes. In the days before it was common to lock a GF with a key on the staff, essentially the points at an intermediate location were often 'free' to be operated at any time. Hence the provision of signals which would be normally 'off', but would have to be put back to 'on' before the points could be worked. That ensured protection for any train which might be approaching while the points were set incorrectly.

We do seem to be digressing, but.... Do not forget please that in the early days of TS&T working it was common to have a 'signal box' and signals at intermediate stations, simply in order to protect the points. AFAIK it was not until the introduction of electric staff/tablet working that it became common to lock/unlock the lever-frame with the staff/tablet, at which time the running signals became superfluous and were abolished. Daggons Road lost its running signals as described above, but for some reason kept the shunt signals. According to the L&SWR WTT Appendices extra tablet instruments were brought into use when Colyton was brought into use as a block post for the summer and then taken out of use again for the winter. Combpyne appears to have been built with the later Up loop simply as a goods line originally, with the points and FPLs at both ends worked by a 4 (?) lever GF at the south end, later replaced by a signal-box (at the same time as Lyme Regis) when the line was upgraded from OES to ETT.

...unfortunately I can't find a diagram for that box other than as just a plain single line :-(

A bit of a challenge.... Some years ago a model layout appeared in the Railway Modeller. It may or may not have been the 'Railway of the Month' for that issue. IIRC it was 4mm scale, based on an imaginary Southern Railway prototype (possibly ex-SE&SCR). The main scenic part consisted of a station with a single platform with station building facing the front of the layout, the main single-line track, a siding opposite the platform that was connected into the main line at both ends, and a level-crossing at the RH end of the platform. There may have been another siding or two at the LH end, not sure about that. Does this 'ring a bell' with anyone and if so do they know the RM Issue please ???

But that was an ordinary passing-loop with two platforms :-)

I think there has been a misunderstanding here...the siding points were clipped OOU in BR days (probably not long before the SB was abolished), but previous to that had been worked from the frame and provided with shunt discs at the exits. The station was not a passing loop for the simple reason (probably) that the Clearing Points for Up and Down trains would have overlapped. The electrical interlocking prevented tablets being drawn at Topsham and Exmouth at the same time (much as occurred also at Barnstaple Town). >>>I'm not sure why 2 signal has two arms with the loop secured out of use - maybe co-acting arms because of a bridge.... Yes :-)

As an example to illustrate my query, I’ve attached a diagram for Lympstone (albeit of a late date after the siding had been taken out-of-use and the shunt discs removed). Basically it was one platform, the main running line, and a siding connected at both ends. Crucially it was a tablet block post, but not a passing-loop. Now, although the GWR seemed quite happy to have some very simple non-passing loop locations that were also staff/token posts (eg Lodge Hill, Wookey, Washford etc) , such things appear to have been very rare on the L&SWR. The only other examples which come to mind were Barnstaple Town and Calstock, otherwise they tended just to have GFs (as at Daggons Road). I’m interested in finding any other single-line staff/tablet/token block posts on the Southern which were similar to Lympstone, in order to see how they were signalled, most of which probably will be in former LB&SCR or SE&CR areas. But before I start looking for actual signal-box diagrams, first I need to actually identify such places if they existed! Can anyone suggest any appropriate SR locations please?

The key word there is 'generally' :-) There were cases where signals controlled moves over points which were worked by hand-levers, but usually in a trailing direction. It was not unknown to have them even as sprung points in main lines - the GWR sometimes did that at the exit from goods loops and the L&SWR had an example in the main line at Honiton Incline.

There was certainly one compensator in the rod nearer to the Up loop visible in photos, roughly in line with the water-column on the Up platform. My guess would be therefore that was the rod for the facing point nearer to the SB, meaning that the other rod was for the point in the sidings - which seems to be what you have already. The 'dog leg' in the rodding by the crossover may have served to compensate that latter rod. However there might have been another one somewhere in the rod connecting the two ends of the crossover.

Yes, it's an elusive location in photographs :-( Might I suggest...'flip' the crank in the Down cess so that it points towards Chelfham rather than Lynton, if you see what I mean, and then I think you could take the rod from the arm nearest the track straight across to the point in the sidings without any need for any other intervening cranks. It may not be what the prototype actually did, but at least IMHO it would look right. Mind you, I don't see any compensators in the runs anywhere....

Looks nice, you must have had a steady had to get it that straight! I'm a little puzzled though by the purpose of the crank in the '6 foot' at the RH end, which - even with rodding attached at the siding end - would seem to serve no purpose?

As this trap would be normally 'open' and worked in conjunction with the facing point on the main line, why not just use an ordinary point?

I have sent a PM.

By coincidence, I had a message from his daughter last year telling me that they were looking for a new home for the layout, so glad to hear they were successful. It will indeed be good to 'see' it again, even if not in the real world :-)

A good point! Somehow rubber posts would not look the same :-) Although, as an aside, one railway company (and it may well have been the L&SWR or possibly the GWR) had some early semaphore ground signals with rubber arms just in case a passing shunter tripped over them...