Is it a good design for single-headed station?

[wvlad]

The station is for single train only. All signals inside are chain signals. Since another train may decide to loop through the station anyway and may wait at the entrance I added a way beside the station.


The downside is that if several trains decide to loop there they need to still wait at the entrance and it may be a throughput issue. What if I place another unused station on the bypass way? It should make them avoid it.

Update:
Added "dummy" station, another example:

[Engimage]

I can only think this post is a troll

No train will ever loop through terminus (even looped) station. So there is no need for that gorgeous bypass you have created there.
Also chain signalls are dependent on forecoming normal signal which your station lacks. You do not need ANY chain signals in your station. The only chain signal you might want is one on intersection entrance from the station. Its counterpart (one leading from intersection to your station) should be normal.

[wvlad]

No train will ever loop through terminus (even looped) station.

Unfortunately it will. viewtopic.php?f=6&t=57563

Even when there are no normal signals at the station I had it happening to me when one train was waiting at the join entrance until the station is free to loop through.

Also chain signals are dependent on forecoming normal signal which your station lacks.

The forecoming normal signal is after the join to the main way 1>2. Other chain signals are required to have a train at the station and looping train using different rail blocks so 2 trains can actually exist there. Though some signals are redundant it's hard to tell exactly.

[Loewchen]

A train would realistically only path through a station if there is no alternative for it to reach its destination, providing a normal path instead of building a bypass in every station that the train would take otherwise would be the real solution.
If you have more than one train in the schedule of this station here, building chain signals like you do is bad since a second train now stops on, and blocks the main track until it can enter your station. If you only have one train for that station you can spare all but the entry and exit signal anyway.

[wvlad]

Yes, this is a single-train station and the signals inside are necessary only for the loop and can be removed if no loop needed.

For this screenshot there were enough alternatives (though not very close and they could be busy with other trains) but the station was used anyway. Moreover, almost all of my stations have 2 enters and 2 exits so no looping was required at all.

[Loewchen]

For this screenshot there were enough alternatives (though not very close and they could be busy with other trains) but the station was used anyway. Moreover, almost all of my stations have 2 enters and 2 exits so no looping was required at all.

The screenshots show the path to the east is a dead end, so there are no alternatives than going through a station.

[wvlad]

Ok, let's see my map



What train would need to loop there?

[wvlad]

Oops, you are right. All 3 trains were sent to the same station by LTN ignoring that it has limit of 1.

[Jap2.0]

Personally, I never use 2-way tracks, even to my station. With that in combination with proper signaling it's impossible for stuff like that to happen, even if trains decide to path through your stations.

[wvlad]

Right, but for mining outpost I need only one train so building full (2 rails) way looks a bit too much for space taken and I'm lazy too

[Engimage]

In this build your single-headed trains seam to be randomly changing their end target due to LTN and trains have no place to make U-turn and go for the station for this purpose. Just provide loops for them outside stations and they will stop doing such stuff.