Question about operations on my layout / signal positions

[Gareth 73]

I've just re read ur original.post and I'd completely missed.the bit about having branch trains come bang road into the station. That changes things abit as theres no bidirectional working in what I've done and as the branch junction is off scene it's a bit too far away for the box to move the points so in real life another box would be the junction and trains would run normal between that 1 and ur station box.

[Walkingthedog]

What the heck does 'bang road' mean?

Could you try not to use 'u' or 'ur' etc. please.

[Gareth 73]

"Bang road" a railway term we use all the time at work. A train going in the wrong direction where signals are not provided to control the movement.
As to "u" and "ur" if it really offends people I'll do my best to not do that but I cant guarantee

[Walkingthedog]

Thanks, I’d never heard of it. Perhaps I’m the only one. What type of work by the way?

We try not to use text speak on here. Nice to write words in full.

[brian1951]

Id say hes a Signalman.

[Walkingthedog]

More than likely. I guess I used terms at work that would confuse everybody on here. Well they confused me.

[Randy]

Thanks so much for all the details Gareth. This helps a lot!

You say trains running bang road will change what you've said. Does it change any of the signals or their positions though?

I've just started constructing the island platform today so I should have a better idea of how well the signals fit soon

[Gareth 73]

Easy answer is no I suppose it wont but it's non prototypical running. As I mentioned the points to allow access to the branch are too far away from the box to be controlled manually so another box would be provided to work the branch junction. Also to run as you suggest would have meant a lot of track circuits would be needed and again the railway company's didnt like that expense. Some boxes never had any track circuits. Some only had the bare minimum eg on approach to home signal if it could not be seen from box. So there would be no wrong direction working. The junction box could be close enough to the station box that the up junction distant would be co-acting with the up station advance starter. In other words distant arm mounted on same post but below as advance starter and slotted with starter signal so that even if all junction up stop signals are showing a green aspect the junction distant will not clear to a green until the station advance starter has been cleared.
Of course rule 1 applies in that its ur layout so u can run it how u want to but I think the right way gives more operational intrest as u have to fit shunting in while maintaining the running of mainlines.

[Brian]

I believe were in BR or possibly later privatisation periods, as DMUs are mentioned. So modernisation of track and signalling may well have occurred and points possible power operated??
Perhaps the OP can give some basic info on period to be modelled.

[Gareth 73]

I believe were in BR or possibly later privatisation periods, as DMUs are mentioned. So modernisation of track and signalling may well have occurred and points possible power operated??
Perhaps the OP can give some basic info on period to be modelled.

Fair point but I took it from 1st post that it was late br steam era.
And while some stuff got modernised at that time I doubt they'd spend a huge amount doing that as it would be unprofitable. Later on in the blue diesel era then there were small projects that involved taking a box out and having small amounts of bi directional running on mainlines eg craven arms for the central Wales line within station limits but longer runs of bidirectional causes operational problems to trains running in the right direction due to time taken. Of course now I've said that someone will come along and say what about such and such.
And as to privatisation era there'd be no box no sidings no plat 3 just 2 bus shelters or maybe not even a station so no problems