I am persuaded that up trains from Westport to platform 1 at Claremorris travelled on the authority of No 6 signal and that this lever originally operated the main up home signal arm from Westport with No 8 operating the subsidiary arm ! Latterly No 6 worked the subsidiary arm with No 8 working the main home, an arrangement which better reflected the physical track layout.
hurrah for consensus !
I don't believe that the subsidiary homes at Claremorris were "call on" signals and most particularly don't accept that the main home signals at Claremorris read to anywhere other than the (designated) main routes.
I suspect they were originally calling -on , but were changed to junction signals by the GSR when claremorris was resignalled in the 40s and the track was modified in 1951. The station diagram in the cabin , rather unusually was never changed by CIE, from the GSR original,that was created when the GSR performed the modifications. Elsewhere CIE typically redid the diagram ( in the more modern angular form ) especially after typical major track re-work , but perhaps because of the extensive track circuiting ( or lazy S&T) claremorris was repeatedly patched with white paper and tippex , and un-patched ( incorrectly I might add ) after the box was closed for the 2012 centenary celebrations . ( where Enda Kenny, then PM was photographed , in a non functional box !!) . Hence the Odea 1960 photograph of the diagram , can be regarded as the " intention " of the S&T for claremorris . I have not seen any signals elsewhere, where such "mini dollies " were originally as installed regarded as junction signals in the standard form. I beleive that the midland , uniquely had a process of using calling on arms that was not to be found on the G&SWR and its successors
Now , for a further debate
At Edgeworthstown (despite the diagram) the up main home read along the straight road as did the down main home. Incidentally it was the up line at Edgeworthstown that was bi-directional, not the down line.
Please provide some documentary proof of this contention
I would contend otherwise based on this reading of the diagram
(a) the down line had no bidirectional starter , hence if as you say the UP home read to the straight ahead , just where was the section ( starter ) signal for the next block !!!.
(b) given the up home is before
the loop point , a driver , given there is no loop signal evident on the diagram, would now be forced to pass the home at red
to enter the loop, thats a a complete no-no
(c) The down line is single direction , hence no up train would access it , hence the up home , reads to the " important " line as per MoT Blue book requirements , that is clearly the loop line.
( the arrangement is similar to the one in Ennis . where the straight road is a bidirectional line and the loop is one direction , here the single arm home signal reads to the straight road as you would expect. with no dolly to allow wrong line running into the loop )
Again , if you read the MoT blue book on signalling requirements for passenger lines, it mentions that the height of semaphores relative to one another in a junction signal , is related to the relative " "importance"
( Mot Term) , and not to any physical layout. CIE followed this book , and I think it applies when reading signals such as EWT up home and as shown in Claremorris
Again by comparison , if you look at the 1960 odea photograph of the North Box at Ennis, ( which had a unidirectional loop ) , you will see that in comparison with the later CIE diagram of the much reduced station layout, that just like what happened in claremorris, the original down junction, main arm , read to the loop with the dolly showing straight ahead, whereas in the later CIE diagram, the opposite was the case, ( as was subsequently done in claremorris) and the dolly " importance" was changed to reflect the straight ahead etc in the conventional manner
SO the conclusion we can arrive at is that pre-90s , CIE had many junction signals that read to the " importance " of the line and nots its physical orientation and that in many ( most ) cases in later revisions , the dolly priority was changed to reflect physical layout rather then " importance " .
It would be interesting to get comment from English practice , since the same MoT blue book applied